Suchergebnisse

The "International Relations" ("IR") discipline is going through a double-disciplinary crisis. Once again, there is a general feeling of increasingly fragmenting common ground within the discipline (the first crisis) and the acknowledgment that the "IR" only imports concepts and methods from other disciplines but does not export any (the second crisis). Both crises share the same origin. The subject matter – "international" – has not been rooted in any social ontology. The discipline is now searching for the social ontology of "international." The most discussed candidate for such a role is "societal multiplicity", a product of "uneven and combined development". The article offers an alternative variant of the social ontology for "international," which is based on Niklas Luhmann's system theory and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's social theory. It argues that "international" is rooted in the segmentary systemic differentiation between inside and outside and in the struggle for recognition of these segments. The semantic marker for this ontology is "sovereignty." In this way, "sovereignty" turns into a systemic program (in Luhmann's terms) of international politics (as a subsystem of the world society political system), designating the common ground for the discipline and marking social processes and phenomena, which can be studied within the "IR". This will allow the "International Relations" to export some of its concepts and methods to other social science disciplines. The article critically engages with the Theory of World Politics by Mathias Albert, reconstructing it to meet the challenge of the double-disciplinary crisis. The "balance of power" is criticized with the help of Michel Foucault, who showed: that among European powers in 19th-century Europe, the balance of power, responsible for producing international order, was linked with the police inside states, responsible for producing domestic order. Nevertheless, to keep the balance of power and to secure the domestic order, states and police used the same technique of observation – statistics, making the "balance of power" a non-autopoietic system program incapable of producing an autopoietic system of international relations. "Sovereignty" also spans both realms of the inside/outside divide but is observed mainly through external recognition and is rooted in the social ontology of "international." The article argues that "sovereignty" is better suited for the system program of international politics than the "balance of power".

Abstract.Questions concerning how Rawls's theory of justice accords with international criminal justice are largely ignored in favour of extensive debates on questions of distributive justice and how they relate to his theory and its international application. This lack of attention to international criminal law is significant since Rawls claims that his theory of justice is developed to correspond with recent dramatic shifts in international law. This paper argues that it is impossible for Rawls's account, state-centric as it is, to accord with advancements in international law that have increasingly asserted recognition of individuals in the global context.Résumé.Les questions concernant comment la théorie de justice de Rawls est en accord avec la justice criminelle internationale sont en grande partie ignorée, même pendant qu'en même temps sa théorie et son application internationale sont profondement discutée par rapport à la justice distributive. Ce manque d'attention à la loi criminelle internationale est important, puisque Rawls prétende que sa théorie de justice est développée en correspondance avec les récents changements dramatiques au niveau de la loi internationale. Cette exposé argumente qu'il est impossible que l'explication de Rawls, état-centré comme elle l'est, s'accorde avec les avancements en la loi internationale qui affirment de plus en plus la reconnaissance des individus dans le contexte global.

AbstractResearch Question/IssueThis study aims to investigate the role of foreign institutional investors (FIIs) on corporate risk‐taking in an international context. We conjecture that FIIs play a role in encouraging firms to take risks and can substitute country‐level corporate governance in determining corporate risk‐taking.Research Findings/InsightsEmploying a large sample of 17,698 firms across 42 economies, we show that foreign institutional ownership positively influences corporate risk‐taking. This positive relation is achieved through the monitoring channel and the insurance channel. Furthermore, we show that FIIs substitute country‐level corporate governance in determining corporate risk‐taking, indicating that FIIs play a significant role in promoting risk‐taking in economies with weaker governance. In addition, debtholders view FIIs' risk‐promoting role negatively and use more restrictive covenants to protect themselves.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis study provides empirical support for the role of FIIs on corporate investment decisions, thus complementing the existing literature. In addition, our paper documents that country‐level corporate governance and FIIs are substitutes in determining corporate risk‐taking, thus shedding additional light not only on the role of country‐level corporate governance but also on its controversial joint role with FIIs.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsFIIs from economies with stronger corporate governance are particularly effective at promoting corporate risk‐taking in economies with weaker corporate governance, providing a new channel through which foreign investments can influence economic growth in developing economies. Therefore, policymakers should carefully consider and trade off the costs and benefits of foreign investment when proposing relevant policies.

Demands for apology are a prominent rhetorical means for pointing out transgressions in contemporary world politics. They transform 'seen but unnoticed' conduct into 'seen and noticed' transgression and attach a price tag to the restoration of damaged relations. Nevertheless, compared to the widely discussed practice of apologising, demands for apologies have received scant scholarly attention. In this article we adopt an actor-oriented perspective in order to situate the speech act of demanding an apology within the delicate management of interstate relations. In-depth content analysis of 57 cases of demands made by various state actors in a variety of diplomatic contexts between 1999 and 2019 let us delineate the discursive construction of transgressions, the normative scripts that inform acts of demands, the types of sought-after remedies, and their discursive consequences. We conclude by discussing the normative diplomatic scripts that guide demands for apology and how these speech acts reconfigure power relations in international politics.