Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article will attempt to 'provincialise' (Chakrabarty, 2000) the 'secular cosmology' of International Relations (IR) through an examination of the relational cosmology of dharma. We argue that IR is grounded in 'secularised' Judaeo-Christian assumptions concerning time, relations between self and other, order, and the sovereign state that set the epistemic limits of the discipline. These assumptions will be 'provincialised' through an engagement with dharma based on a reading of The Mahābharāta, one of the oldest recorded texts in the world. We argue that the concept of dharma offers a mode of understanding the multidimensionality of human existence without negating any of its varied, contradictory expressions. By deconstructing notions of self and other, dharma illustrates how all beings are related to one another in a moral, social, and cosmic order premised on human agency, which flows from 'inside-out' rather than 'outside-in' and that is governed by a heterogenous understanding of time. This order places limits on the state's exercise of power in a given territory by making the state responsible for creating social conditions that would enable all beings to realise their potential, thus qualifying the principle of state sovereignty that remains the foundation of the 'secular cosmology of IR'.

Long considered a subfield of international relations and political science, Peace Studies has solidified its place as an interdisciplinary field in its own right with a canon, degree programs, journals, conferences, and courses taught on the subject. Internationally renowned centers offering programs on Peace and Conflict Studies can be found on every continent. Almost all of the scholars working in the field, however, are united by an aspiration: attaining Peace, whether "positive" or "negative." The telos of peace, however, itself remains undefined and elusive, notwithstanding the violence committed in its name. This edited volume critically interrogates the field of peace studies, considering its assumptions, teleologies, canons, influence, enmeshments with power structures, biases, and normative ends. We highlight four interrelated tendencies in peace studies: hypostasis (strong essentializing tendencies), teleology (its imagined "end"), normativity (the set of often utopian and Eurocentric discourses that guide it), and enterprise (the attempt to undertake large projects, often ones of social engineering to attain this end). The chapters in this volume reveal these tendencies while offering new paths to escape them.

Written by leading authorities from Asia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America, this groundbreaking volume offers the first truly global and critical perspective on human security in the post 9/11 world. The collection offers unique interpretations on mainstream discourses on human security

Both relationality and separateness are aspects of our everyday lives. How we engage these phenomena hinges on the particular existential assumptions that we take for granted. Within the discipline of International Relations (IR), both relationality and separateness have informed how global politics is studied and practiced. How states and their relations are conceived has, for instance, varied by the distinct degrees of privilege given to separation and interconnection: from notions of completely autonomous units like billiard balls to always emergent phenomena co-constituted through relations. The plurality of trajectories that inform this Special Issue illustrate how much broader the spectrum of relational engagement can be when we are cognisant of the impact of these existential assumptions on forms of life, knowing, and knowledge production in International Relations. By highlighting a spectrum of relational engagement, we raise important questions about the way the various knowledge frames in IR are acknowledged, legitimised, limited, and reproduced.

Shani, G. ; Chandler, D.: Introduction. - S. 196-197 Debrix, F.: We other IR Foucaultians. - S. 197-199 Richmond, O. P.: Foucault and the paradox of peace-as-governance versus everyday agency. - S. 199-202 Joseph, J.: What can governmentality do for IR? - S. 202-204 Chandler, D.: Forget Foucault, forget Foucault, forget Foucault ... - S. 205-207 Calkivik, A.: Why not to choose a secure "We" in a security-obsessed world. - S. 207-209 Shani, G.: De-colonizing Foucault. - S. 210-213 Pasha, M. K.: Disciplining Foucault. - S. 213-215

The study of religion and international religions has witnessed an exponential growth in recent decades. Courses and programs exploring the complex entanglements between faith and global politics have likewise mushroomed around the world. Despite this ferment, reflections on teaching religion and international relations have so far lagged behind. This forum seeks to remedy this general silence. It brings together a diverse range of scholars from a multiplicity of national, religious, methodological, and theoretical backgrounds who teach across a variety of different geographical settings including North America, Europe, and East Asia. Contributors reflect on three broad themes. First, how do we engage with the contested character of religion as a category of analysis and practice, and with the multidisciplinary nature of its study? Second, how does the context within which we operate—be it geographical, cultural, institutional, or historical—influence and shape who, what, and how we teach? Third, how do we address the important and, at times, contentious personal and ethical challenges that our research and teaching on religion and politics inevitably raises in the classroom?

Tickner, J. A. ; Tsygankov, A. P.: Responsible scholarship in Inter national Relations: a symposium: introduction. - S. 661-666 Cozette, M.: Whal lies ahead: classical realism on the future of International Relations. - S. 667-679 Ish-Shalom, P.:Theorization, harm, and the democratic imperative: lessons from the politicization of the democratic peace thesis. - S. 680-692 Ackerly, B. ; True, J.: Reflexivity in practice: power and ethics in feminist research on International Relations. - S. 693-707 Lynch, C.: Reflexivity in research on civil society: constructivist perspectives. - S. 708-721 Shani, G.: Toward a post-Western IR: the Umma, Khalsa Panth, and critical International Relations theory. - S. 722-734 Tickner, A. B.: Latin American IR and thre primacy of lo práctico. - S. 735-748 Callahan, W. A.: Chinese visions of world order: post-hegemonic or a new hegemony? - S. 749-761 Tsygankov, A. P.: Self and Other in International Relations theory: learning from Russian civilizational debates. - S. 762-775

Difference, a central concern to the study of international relations (IR), has not had its ontological foundations adequately disrupted. This forum explores how existential assumptions rooted in relational logics provide a significantly distinct set of tools that drive us to re-orient how we perceive, interpret, and engage both similarity and difference. Taking their cues from cosmological commitments originating in the Andes, South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East, the six contributions explore how our existential assumptions affect the ways in which we deal with difference as theorists, researchers, and teachers. This initial conversation pinpoints key content and foci of future relational work in IR.

AbstractDifference, a central concern to the study of international relations (IR), has not had its ontological foundations adequately disrupted. This forum explores how existential assumptions rooted in relational logics provide a significantly distinct set of tools that drive us to re-orient how we perceive, interpret, and engage both similarity and difference. Taking their cues from cosmological commitments originating in the Andes, South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East, the six contributions explore how our existential assumptions affect the ways in which we deal with difference as theorists, researchers, and teachers. This initial conversation pinpoints key content and foci of future relational work in IR.