Suchergebnisse

The moral and military aspects of the International Brigades' record in Spain (1936—8) remain subjects of scholarly investigation and wider debate. Popular fascination was exemplified by the selection of Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls as a favourite novel by both main candidates during the US presidential elections of 2008. Postwar Francoist propaganda vilified Brigaders as criminals and cowards, but a counter-legend of the left venerated them as idealists and heroes. Whilst the one campaign has long since passed into oblivion, the other still marches on in the ceaseless commemorative work of veterans' associations. Although few now question the ubiquitous role of the Comintern in the Brigades' foundation, organization and command, the practical effects of this control on the environmental conditions and daily lives of the 'volunteers for liberty' — despite a plethora of published testimony by those involved — has tended to be overlooked. This article attempts to survey and assess the relevant experiences of the Brigades' main English-speaking units, based on a wide range of archival and other sources.

This article reviews the state of the discipline of international relations. It starts from statements made by the editors in their editorial published in the first issue of this journal. The editors noted that there seemed to have been less adherence to positivism in international relations than in other areas of political science & that there was both more opposition to positivism & more methodological & epistemological openness in international relations than in political science generally. The article outlines the current state of the field, focusing on the rationalist mainstream & then on the reflectivist alternatives, before looking at social constructivism, seeing it as the likely acceptable alternative to rationalism in the mainstream literature of the next decade. It then turns to examine whether international relations is still an American social science, before looking at the situation in the UK. It concludes that the editors' comments were indeed accurate, but that the fact that there is both more opposition to positivism in international relations & more openness in the UK academic community does not mean that the mainstream US literature is anything like as open or pluralist. The UK community is indeed more able to develop theory relevant to the globalized world at the new millennium, but the US academic community still dominates the discipline. 48 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article reviews the state of the discipline of international relations. It starts from statements made by the editors in their editorial published in the first issue of this journal. The editors noted that there seemed to have been less adherence to positivism in international relations than in other areas of political science and that there was both more opposition to positivism and more methodological and epistemological openness in international relations than in political science generally. The article outlines the current state of the field, focusing on the rationalist mainstream and then on the reflectivist alternatives, before looking at social constructivism, seeing it as the likely acceptable alternative to rationalism in the mainstream literature of the next decade. It then turns to examine whether international relations is still an American social science, before looking at the situation in the United Kingdom. It concludes that the editors' comments were indeed accurate, but that the fact that there is both more opposition to positivism in international relations and more openness in the UK academic community does not mean that the mainstream US literature is anything like as open or pluralist. The UK community is indeed more able to develop theory relevant to the globalised world at the new millennium, but the US academic community still dominates the discipline.

In this article, we argue that the lack of attention paid to the scopic regimes of modernity in the 'visual turn' literature misses a key aspect of how visuality produces and shapes the international as both a site — and sight — of politics. In making the case that systemised ways of seeing are central to world politics, we contend that the scopic regimes of modernity help us to understand how it becomes possible for particular representational practices and outputs to resonate within broader discourses as authoritative, truthful, and/or emotively powerful. To do so, we draw from ongoing controversies over targeted killing via drones. We argue that disagreements over the legality and governance of drone warfare are more than disputes over legal statutes and legitimate techniques for the application of kinetic force; they also encompass disagreements over how we see, who we see, what we see, and what counts as being seen. Thus, by demonstrating the importance of scopic regimes, we provide evidence of the value of engaging with how the visual produces the political in International Relations. Moreover, we argue for International Relations to engage with scopic regimes from beyond Western traditions in order to decolonise the 'visual turn'.