Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article introduces the Special Section Evaluation, International Organizations, and Global Policy. It provides a synopsis of the overarching challenges and opportunities for evaluation in the field of global public policy through international organizations. In the article four issue areas are addressed. First, is the central role of peacekeeping, development, and environment in global public policy and how evaluations enhance the governance capacity of international organizations in these areas. Second, the contribution that evaluation can make toward legitimizing the activities of international organizations through accountability mechanisms of communication, assessment, and optimization of outcomes. Third, how evaluation at the international level is especially suited to facilitate solutions to increasingly complex and globally interdependent problems. Fourth, it concludes with, how evaluation contributes to producing constructive policy at the global level. This includes, especially in terms of policy implications, the need to evaluate evaluation itself on a regular basis, in order to ensure its constant progress as a discipline and practice, and the need to embed evaluation in good policies, at the global level among others.

AbstractCompeting interests among big powers played a role in the making of World War II. But, and not separated from this, another element had a serious impact: the sense of psychological insecurity experienced, each in its own way, by Germany and Japan in the context of their quest for recognition by other major powers – Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States – and the implications this had internationally. In connection with their material conditions (internal and international) compared to other great powers, this pushed Germany and Japan to embrace policies that were ultimately self-defeating. It led them to see and assess themselves, others, and the international environment in conflicting terms and, faced with the unwillingness of other big powers to accommodate them to the extent they wanted, to overplay their hand, with lethal outcomes as a result.This article follows two previous articles published in this journal.1It is a case study that focuses on Germany and Japan, and the making of World War II. In the first section, it begins with highlighting the overall relevance of this case study in the context of the analysis of emotions and passions in international politics. In the second section, it shows that both for Germany and Japan a sense of psychological insecurity regarding their international status and their urge to catch up and compensate, put them on a collision course with the great powers of the period. In the third part, the article explains how, in time, this contributed to the fact that Germany and Japan embraced negative and exclusionary political emotions and passions that translated into belligerent policies. In the fourth section, as a way to conclude, the article touches upon how a better understanding of the nature and role of emotions and passions in international affairs can encourage a psychology of peace, and international peace altogether.

AbstractThis article focuses on the relationship between emotions and passions, on the one hand, and values, needs and rights, on the other. This relationship is indeed central to the social dimension of international politics. In this perspective, the article examines how emotions and passions can be at the same time effects and causes of the extent to which actors feel that their needs and rights are fulfilled or not. In the process, the article also explores the negative and positive features of emotions and passions, and their impact on the nature and dynamics of change in international affairs. Beyond this general approach to emotions and passions in connection with the social dimension of international politics and the questions of values, needs, and rights of actors and change, it concludes with the idea that there is also a contextual dimension to the generic argument developed in the article. This will have to be factored in for future research on case studies.

AbstractThe article focuses on how emotions and passions – two related but somewhat different notions – are addressed in the field of international relations. As such it makes three main points. First, the article argues that, although presupposed in mainstream international relations, because of the influence of positivism emotions and passions have tended to be overlooked. Second, it makes the point that in recent years scholars with constructivist leanings have been increasingly interested in taking emotions and passions seriously as an academic area of research. Third, and finally, the article concludes that despite the progress made in the 2000s on the understanding of emotions and passions in international relations, more work remains to be done. As such it outlines future directions of research.

AbstractJean-Marc Coicaud's article begins by stressing the contemporary importance and the current trend of political apology. Recent political apologies offered in Australia and Canada to their indigenous populations form a significant part of this story. He then analyzes a number of intriguing paradoxes at the core of the dynamics of apology. These paradoxes give meaning to apology but also make the very idea of apology extremely challenging. They have to do with the relationships of apology with time, law and the unforgivable. The most intriguing of these paradoxes concerns apology and the unforgivable. Indeed, the greater the wrong, the more valuable the apology. But, then, the more difficult it becomes to issue and to accept an apology. This latter paradox is namely examined in the context of mass crimes, taken from Europe, Africa and Asia. As a whole these paradoxes are all the more intriguing considering what apology in a political context aims to accomplish, for the actor who issues the apology, for the one who receives it, for their relationship, and for the social environment in which this takes place. Jean-Marc Coicaud concludes his article by outlining what the rise of apology means for contemporary political culture.

The role of international organizations grows with the acceleration of globalization and the increasing importance of global governance. However, thus far, only limited and rather narrow research has been generated on the subject. It is a state of affairs that reflects on international studies, as well as on the power realities of the world. By assessing international organizations through the career prospects that they offer to skilled professionals, this paper is an attempt to remedy this situation. As such it unveils some of the internal dynamics of international organizations and explores their external consequences in terms of the relations between international organizations, the people employed by these, and the power play (economic, social, political and even cultural) at the national and international level.

It may appear questionable at first sight to connect international legitimacy and international organisations. However a strong link exists between them. International organisations are the expression, defence, promotion, and projection of a socialised vision of international relations that is key to the claims and gradual implementation of a sense of international legitimacy. As a result, one way to reflect upon global governance — its present situation and what its future is likely to be — is to analyse how international organisations express and contribute to the making of international legitimacy. The paper touches upon three main points. First, it assesses the current legitimacy of international organisations. Second, the paper will examine the contribution of international organisations to international socialisation, which is another word for international or global governance. Thirdly, it attempts to foresee and map some of the key issues around which the future of the international system, international organisations and global governance and the future of their legitimacy will probably revolve.

It may appear questionable at first sight to connect international legitimacy & international organizations. However, a strong link exists between them. International organizations are the expression, defense, promotion, & projection of a socialized vision of international relations that is key to the claims & gradual implementation of a sense of international legitimacy. As a result, one way to reflect upon global governance -- its present situation & what its future is likely to be -- is to analyze how international organizations express & contribute to the making of international legitimacy. The paper touches upon three main points. First, it assesses the current legitimacy of international organizations. Second, the paper will examine the contribution of international organizations to international socialization, which is another word for international or global governance. Thirdly, it attempts to foresee & map some of the key issues around which the future of the international system, international organizations & global governance, & the future of their legitimacy will probably revolve. 1 Picture. Adapted from the source document.