Suchergebnisse

Der Beitrag untersucht am Beispiel der Nachbarschaftspolitik der EU die externen Aspekte der Security Governance der EU. Die Autoren fragen, inwieweit sich hier neue Formen des sicherheitspolitischen Regierens herausgebildet haben und wie sich dies auch analytisch adäquat erfassen lässt. Zunächst wird festhalten, dass der wissenschaftlichen Debatte über externe Governance ein einheitlicher konzeptioneller Ansatz fehlt. Sie untersuchen daher, wie die EU die Beziehungen zu ihrer Nachbarschaft gestaltet, um die von ihr formulierten Sicherheitsimperative und sicherheitsrelevanten Ziele umzusetzen. Neben dem Kernelement von Governance, der Regelsetzung bei Abwesenheit einer übergeordneten Instanz, weist die Nachbarschaftspolitik zudem wesentliche governancetypische Struktur- und Prozessmerkmale auf. Insgesamt zeigen die Ausführungen, dass die Nachbarschaftspolitik der EU als Instrument zur Erweiterung ihrer politischen Steuerungs- und Problemlösungsfähigkeit dient und ein Mittel darstellt, ihr Umfeld so zu formen, dass es zur Sicherheit des europäischen Integrationsraums beiträgt. Sie ist bemüht, die von ihr als sicherheitsrelevant wahrgenommenen Probleme durch Einbindung oder "Indienstnahme" von Drittstaaten zu bearbeiten und zu lösen. (ICA2)

"In their comment, Regina Heller and Cornelia Manger-Nestler compare and assess the three quite different examples for alternative modes of governance. In Boing so, they ask what can be learned from such alternative approaches. And, more importantly, to what extent can the findings of each contribution be generalised to be used in other situations? On the one hand, Heller and MangerNestler come to the conclusion that the presented alternative modes have the advantage of being more flexible in the solution of the problems. On the other hand, the commentators also see the Limits of such approaches. In particular, they point to the respective interests of the actors involved in problem-solving efforts and whether or not they want to make use of new modes of governance. Interdisciplinary research is thus useful and illuminating in discussing these kinds of questions." (extract)

The question of how effective political tools actually are is among the most hotly debated in contemporary IR theory. There is no unanimity how to even measure the effectiveness and impact different political measures produce. This book comprehensively introduces social science students and scholars to the various fields of effectiveness and impact research in the study of international relations.

The question of how effective political tools actually are is among the most hotly debated in contemporary IR theory. There is no unanimity how to even measure the effectiveness and impact different political measures produce. This book comprehensively introduces social science students and scholars to the various fields of effectiveness and impact research in the study of international relations.

Abstract
In this introduction to the Special Issue, we suggest a decolonised and entangled perspective in norms research that transcends the Western legacies of global norms by taking into account the complex constellations and interactions within and between norms. We seek to move beyond the dichotomy of 'good' Western versus 'bad' non-Western norms without simply reversing it. We instead propose to integrate three dimensions into norms research: 1) revealing the ambivalences and ambiguities inherent to norms; 2) investigating plural actors as vectors of normative change; and 3) broadening the disciplinary realm of norms research. Our aim is to further develop the empirical and conceptual discussion of norms that moves beyond a Western bias without simply giving up on normative assessments of norms.

The importance of status concerns on Russia's foreign policy agenda has been increasingly observed. This preoccupation with status is particularly visible in Russia's relations with the West. Although strong claims about status in Russian foreign policy are frequently made in public and private by researchers, journalists, politicians, diplomats and other commentators, such claims often lack any closer theoretical or empirical justification. The aim of this introductory article is, therefore, to outline the basic components that form the research agenda on status. Status, if properly examined, helps us understand not only Russian foreign policy, put also present-day international politics and its transformation in a broader sense.
In a first part, we identify the theoretical voids concerning the study of international status. In a second part we outline the drivers and logic of status concerns, considering in particular identity theories, psychological approaches and existing research regarding emotions. The presented research agenda on status, derived from International Relations and related theories, provides a well-structured tool-box for investigating the link between status, identity and emotions in Russian foreign policy vis-à-vis the West. In a third part we present the key questions rose by the contributors to this Special Issue and summarize their main findings.

The importance of status concerns on Russia's foreign policy agenda has been increasingly observed. This preoccupation with status is particularly visible in Russia's relations with the West. Although strong claims about status in Russian foreign policy are frequently made in public and private by researchers, journalists, politicians, diplomats and other commentators, such claims often lack any closer theoretical or empirical justification. The aim of this introductory article is, therefore, to outline the basic components that form the research agenda on status. Status, if properly examined, helps us understand not only Russian foreign policy, put also present-day international politics and its transformation in a broader sense. In a first part, we identify the theoretical voids concerning the study of international status. In a second part we outline the drivers and logic of status concerns, considering in particular identity theories, psychological approaches and existing research regarding emotions. The presented research agenda on status, derived from International Relations and related theories, provides a well-structured tool-box for investigating the link between status, identity and emotions in Russian foreign policy vis-a-vis the West. In a third part we present the key questions rose by the contributors to this Special Issue and summarize their main findings. [Copyright The Regents of the University of California; published by Elsevier Ltd.]