Suchergebnisse

"Climate Change Politics in Latin America and the Caribbean" published on by Oxford University Press.

This article argues that the normative promise of recognition theory in International Relations has become increasingly inadequate to the cross-cutting and intersecting issues characteristic of a globalised and fragmented world. Engaging in critical readings of cosmopolitan forms of recognition theory, the critique of sovereignty and Markell's influential critique of recognition theory, I suggest that the increasing ontological specificity of recognition theory in IR has come at the expense of its ability to develop links between different areas of international politics. The result is a failure to deal with recognition's simultaneity, or the co-existence of analytically distinct and internally coherent recognition orders that is characteristic of the international. Building on this insight, I argue that a more historically-sensitive and materialist approach to recognition can be grounded in the concept of multiplicity. By opening recognition up to processes of interaction, and not merely reproduction, multiplicity frames the international more clearly as a historical presupposition, rather than a limit, of recognition. Furthermore, placing recognition struggles within the state, international institutions or transnational movements in relation to each other ensures that IR can contribute to the further development of recognition theory by situating recognition struggles at the intersection of different moral geographies.

This book identifies and addresses subtle but important questions and issues associated with the configuration of International Relations as a discipline. Starting with a much-needed discussion of manifold implications and issues associated with pluralism, the book raises important questions, such as where does the field of IR stand in terms of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological diversity. The book also carries out a comparative analysis of the present status of post-positivist IR scholarship in the United States and China. Eun discusses these questions through a close reading of the key texts in the field and by undertaking a critical survey of publishing and teaching practices in IR communities. IR scholars will gravitate to this text that fills many gaps in international political theory. Yong-Soo Eun is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Hanyang University and the Editor-in-Chief of the Routledge series,IR Theory and Practice in Asia. His work has been published in journals including Review of International Studies; PS: Political Science and Politics;International Studies Perspectives; and International Political Science Review. He has also written and edited books, including Regionalizing Global Crises. Yong-Soo is broadly interested in IR theory, philosophy of social science, Foreign Policy Analysis, and the international politics of the Asia-Pacific region

A theoretical gap in the audience cost theory is the missing analysis of its central feature: the audience. This article defines the audience as a group composed of individuals and societal actors that can punish a government and pay attention to the issue being negotiated. Thus, the audience can vary depending on the issue salience. When the issue salience is low, the audience comprises just interest groups and the attentive public. Yet, the higher the issue salience, the more voters of the general public also become part of the audience. The audience's composition in turn determines the level of the audience costs. Because the general public tends to evaluate national honor more highly, be less informed and have less well-defined preferences than interest groups and the attentive public, the audience costs should be higher when the issue salience is high. Furthermore, the audience can take actions that prevent the effect of audience costs or generate exogenous audience costs.

AbstractA surge in academic interest in the interaction of international law with international politics has recently raised the profile of the rule of law in global politics. The idea of an 'international rule of law' is central to many accounts of international order, and to both political science and legal scholarship. Despite its popularity, the concept is rarely defined or examined. This article considers the theory and practice of the international rule of law. It shows first that the international rule of law cannot be deduced from the conventional Anglo-American version of the rule of law in domestic legal theory, as sketched by Joseph Raz and others. It then considers two competing versions of a distinctly international concept of the rule of law, one based on a positivist theory of compliance and the other on a structurationist theory of practice. The former is more common in legal and political scholarship but the latter accounts better for the political power of international law in relation to states.

AbstractFrom Trump's America to Putin's Russia, from climate change denial to corona denial, so-called post-truth politics are experiencing a global rise. How can we understand and explain this phenomenon? In the attempt to answer this question, this article advances two core claims. First, it suggests that post-truth politics is (despite its name) marked not only by the denial of claims to objective truth, but also by the naturalization of one specific truth claim: namely, the cynical belief that self-interests are behind all public discourse. Second, it locates the social sources of this dogmatic cynicism in the global expansion of neoliberal competition.

This book analyzes the transformation of Turkeys international and domestic politics in the past two decades through a comprehensive domestic- international nexus. It examines the domestic system and the main historical challenges without neglecting their international drivers and looks into main foreign policy areas and issues by accounting for the domestic developments that affected them. Looking inside Turkeys transformation on the basis of an interplay of external and internal factors, through the prism of critical scholars who all agree on the interdependency of national and international politics, it is designed to provide a thoughtful look into the future of Turkey through themes and regions. Harun Arikan is Professor of International Relations at ukurova University, Turkey. He was a research fellow at Oxford University in the UK, and a visiting scholar at the University of Southern Maine in the USA. Zeynep Alemdar is Professor of Political Science at Istanbul Okan University, Turkey, where she currently acts as Dean of the Business and Administration Faculty and directs the Gender Studies Research Center.

"This exciting book is the first systematic study of how international environmental agreements are transformed into political action in Russia. Using three illuminating case studies on the implementation process in the fields of fisheries management, nuclear safety and air pollution control, this book fills an important gap in existing literature. While the focus in current social science debate on international environmental regimes is accumulating knowledge on 'implementing activities' at both national and international level, this book goes one step further and examines implementation at national and regional level. This topic is of great theoretical relevance to the study of environmental politics since some of the main sources of environmental degradation in Europe are to be found in the Russian Federation. It is also of relevance to the more general debate on contemporary Russian politics and offers valuable new material on regional politics in Russia. With its emphasis on the politics of environmental and resource management, it continues the description and discussion of political processes where most accounts of Russian politics tend to stop. This book will be invaluable for undergraduates, postgraduates and academics studying environmental politics and Russian politics at regional and national level"--Publisher's description

AbstractThis commentary focuses on Kratochwil's observation about the gap between the pervasiveness of human rights language and its susceptibility to perverse effects and abuse. After demonstrating that Kratochwil shares much of the contemporary skepticism about the alleged foundations and legitimacy of human rights, the comment elaborates on his claims that human rights were and are particularistic and that 'rights talk' produces unintended consequences for the individuals whose autonomy was meant to flourish. He questions but ultimately does not answer whether the broader anthropocentric ethos that underpins Western societies, and legal systems, may one day be superseded by 'non-rightist' approaches.