Search results

Argues that health security advocates have approached debates about international security in the wrong way. Instead of relying on the creation of a new security paradigm, health security proponents should engage existing theories to address the relationship between national security & health in light of current pandemics. The origins & evolution of the health security paradigm are traced. The impact of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in sub-Saharan Africa states is examined to illustrate how infectious disease control can be integrated into three theories of American international relations: neorealism, neoliberalism, & constructivism. An exploration of how each theory explains AIDS-related changes in the international system in regard to the military, the economy, identities, & perceptions indicates that AIDS leads to the same sort of changes the three schools of thought claim will alter the international system. It is concluded that health security advocates have the best opportunity to gain entry into the debate & devise strategies to combat the spread of AIDS by showing how infectious disease can work within these older paradigms. J. Lindroth

"Autonomy in Foreign Policy: A Latin American Contribution to International Relations Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

John M. Hobson's (1998) model of Weberian historical sociology is critiqued for simply reaffirming Weberian & neorealist interpretations of international relations. It is demonstrated that other scholars have previously accepted all aspects of Hobson's framework (eg, the necessity of history for comprehending change & the multiplicity of sources/forms of power). An analysis of Hobson's three case studies -- the UK's failure to shift to protectionism in the late 19th century; the connection between state capacity, war, & revolution in early-20th-century Russia; & Russia's transition from feudalism to industrialization -- reveals that state interests are privileged over social processes in his model. 36 References. J. W. Parker

"It is often pointed out that International Relations (IR) as a discipline is "too Western centric", and that IR tends to marginalise knowledge claims outside the West. In this respect, many IR scholars have called for "broadening" the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over "broadening" the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent has IR actually become pluralistic? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the "non-Western" IR theory-building enterprise, namely fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical 'self'-reflection and 'collective' empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential."--Provided by publisher.