Suchergebnisse

Dieser einleitende Beitrag zum Sammelband "Was die EU im Innersten zusammenhält" spricht den Zusammenhang der in diesem Reader dokumentierten Beiträge mit aktuellen und zentralen Theoriedebatten in den "Internationalen Beziehungen" zur Thematik Effektivität und Legitimität einerseits sowie spezifischeren disziplinären Debatten zu Legitimität und Effektivität in der EU andererseits an. Dabei sind vor allem zwei konzeptionelle Perspektiven von Bedeutung: Zum einen die Relevanz (und Probleme) von Deliberation, zum anderen die Relevanz (und Probleme) von Hierarchie. In einem zweiten Teil stellen die Verfasser die Einzelbeiträge des Sammelbandes, die sämtlich bereits in der "Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen" veröffentlicht wurden, inhaltlich vor. (ICE2)

AbstractThis article begins from the observation that while communication is a widely used catch-phrase in current IR theorising, the very concept of 'communication' is still mainly treated in terms of simple sender-receiver models which do not sufficiently elaborate how the insights of the 'communicative turn' can be made fruitful for IR theorising. The argument is developed in three steps. First – particularly drawing on the work of Karl W. Deutsch – we identify those pockets in IR theory, namely conflict studies and theories of 'communicative action', in which 'communication' plays a considerable theoretical role. Second, it is claimed that placing 'communication' at the centre of any theory of IR requires taking full account of the theoretical consequences of the 'linguistic turn'. To develop this argument requires an examination of the often implicit notion of 'communication' in contemporary uses of speech act theory and symbolic interactionism in current IR theory. Such a move necessarily leads to the diagnosis that all social systems and orders of exchange, including international relations, are communicatively constituted. Finally, such a view enables a reconfiguration of the central problems of 'order' and 'conflict' in IR theory in an innovative fashion: while the problem of order can be restated not as the problem of establishing regularities and patterns but as a problem of disconnecting communications, the problem of conflict can be restated not as a problem of a disruption of communication but as a problem of continuing conflict communication.

This article begins from the observation that while communication is a widely used catch-phrase in current IR theorising, the very concept of 'communication' is still mainly treated in terms of simple sender-receiver models which do not sufficiently elaborate how the insights of the 'communicative turn' can be made fruitful for IR theorising. The argument is developed in three steps. First - particularly drawing on the work of Karl W. Deutsch - we identify those pockets in IR theory, namely conflict studies and theories of 'communicative action', in which 'communication' plays a considerable theoretical role. Second, it is claimed that placing 'communication' at the centre of any theory of IR requires taking full account of the theoretical consequences of the 'linguistic turn'. To develop this argument requires an examination of the often implicit notion of 'communication' in contemporary uses of speech act theory and symbolic interactionism in current IR theory. Such a move necessarily leads to the diagnosis that all social systems and orders of exchange, including international relations, are communicatively constituted. Finally, such a view enables a reconfiguration of the central problems of 'order' and 'conflict' in IR theory in an innovative fashion: while the problem of order can be restated not as the problem of establishing regularities and patterns but as a problem of disconnecting communications, the problem of conflict can be restated not as a problem of a disruption of communication but as a problem of continuing conflict communication. Adapted from the source document.