Suchergebnisse

Internationale Institutionen sind allgegenwärtig im täglichen Leben in vielen Weltregionen. Dies trifft für Europa noch in noch größerem Maße zu. Allgemeine Zustimmung besteht darüber, dass internationale Institutionen von Bedeutung sind. Weniger Übereinstimmung besteht bezüglich deren konkreten Auswirkungen. Die sozialisierende Rolle europäischer Institutionen in Europa wird untersucht. Es werden die Mechanismen der Sozialisierung und deren Bedingungen analysiert, die zur Internationalisierung neuer Rollenewahrnehmungen und Interessen führen. Unter Annahme einer ausdifferenzierten menschlichen Rationalität werden drei allgemeine Sozialisierungsmechanismen festgestellt: Strategisches Kalkül, Rollenspiel, normative Überzeugung und deren Fähigkeit, sozialisierend auf internationale Institutionen einzuwirken. Der verfolgte Disaggregationsansatz unterstützt nicht nur Sozialisierungsforschungsprogramme der Theorie internationaler Beziehungen und von EU-Forschung, sondern hebt den Zusammenhang und mögliche Synergien zwischen Rationalismus und Sozialkonstruktivismus hervor. (SWP-Bmt)

Social constructivism has come of age in contemporary international relations (IR) theory. Indeed, more and more submissions to presses and journals in both Europe and America characterise themselves as constructivist or situate their arguments vis à vis those of constructivists. In substantive terms and as the three books under review attest, constructivists also now offer detailed empirical studies that amplify and enrich their earlier conceptual and meta-theoretical critiques of mainstream approaches. Yet, as with any maturing research programme, there are gaps to be filled and challenges to be met. These include a better appreciation and theorisation of domestic politics; more explicit attention to research methods; further work on the linguistic turn so central to much of constructivism; and, finally, a rethink of attempts to build bridges.

This article advances hypotheses linking specific European institutions to changes in agent preferences, with the objective to explore the pathways and mechanisms through which such shifts occur. Drawing on work in social psychology and communications research, the author develops a micro-, process-, and agency-based argument on the nature of social interaction within institutions. Empirically, he examines committees of the Council of Europe, the main European rights institution, asking whether the preferences/interests of social agents changed as they discussed and debated issues. Put differently, did they "go native" in Strasbourg? Theoretically, a series of scope conditions for when argumentative persuasion will be effective in "changing minds" is advanced. By thus defining clear domains of application, the article contributes to a central goal of this special issue: building bridges to other-rationalist, in this case-views on social interaction.

John Sislin and Frederic Pearson have written a fine book that addresses a complex and understudied issue: the role of arms in ethnic conflict. While it is abundantly clear that arms and ethnic conflict are closely intertwined, we have little systematic knowledge on the nature of the relation. What kinds of weapons—tanks versus small arms, say—play the greatest role? Whatever the weapon, how does its influence vary at different stages in the process of ethnic conflict? As unpleasant as the thought might be, are there conditions under which armaments play a positive role in such conflicts—for example, by promoting a situation of stalemate or bringing about outside humanitarian intervention? The signal contribution of this compact volume is to shed much-needed light on these and many other questions.

Warum und unter welchen Umständen identifizieren Staatsbürger sich mit den Normen und Werten ihrer Nation oder internationaler Organisationen? Welche Rolle spielen dabei völkerrechtliche Normen? Wissenschaftler der rationalistischen sowie der konstruktivistischen Schulen suchen Antworten auf diese Fragen. Während die einen eher materielle Werte betonen, beziehen sich die anderen in erster Linie auf soziale Faktoren. Der Artikel versucht, eine Brücke zwischen diesen beiden Denkschulen zu bilden und untersucht anhand der Ukraine, Deutschlands und des Europarates, inwieweit diese dem Problem der jeweiligen nationalen bzw. institutionellen Identifizierung gegenübertreten (SWP-Fnk)

Why do agents comply with the norms embedded in regimes and international institutions? Scholars have proposed two competing answers to this compliance puzzle, one rationalist, the other constructivist. Rationalists emphasize coercion, cost/benefit calculations, and material incentives; constructivists stress social learning, socialization, and social norms. Both schools, however, explain important aspects of compliance. To build a bridge between them, I examine the role of argumentative persuasion and social learning. This makes explicit the theory of social choice and interaction implicit in many constructivist compliance studies, and it broadens rationalist arguments about the instrumental and noninstrumental processes through which actors comply. I argue that domestic politics—in particular, institutional and historical contexts—delimit the causal role of persuasion/social learning, thus helping both rationalists and constructivists to refine the scope of their compliance claims. To assess the plausibility of these arguments, I examine why states comply with new citizenship/membership norms promoted by European regional organizations.