Suchergebnisse

Expands the critical literature in international relations (IR) through an ecological approach by exploring various arguments in the philosophy of ecology, discarding the ecoauthoritarian literature as inimical to the emancipatory project of a critical theory, & building instead a radical approach from two important strands of ecological thought: deep ecology & social ecology. These two ecological schools, when probed for their similarities, yield a radical framework with a coherent ontology, epistemology, & ethical/political program. This framework is then applied to a review of realist & liberal theory in IR. This ecological approach underscores realism's spurious conception of security, & the failure of liberalism's attempt at emancipation. Discussed in conclusion is the distinct contribution of ecology to critical IR theory, stressing its broad conception of emancipation & its role in balancing essentialist & antifoundational discourses. Adapted from the source document.

This article looks at prospects for a mechanism-based research strategy in the study of International Relations. Over the past three decades, the notions of mechanism and microfoundation have taken a central place in discussions of explanation and 'micro-macro' problems in social science. The upshot of much of this discussion has been a call for mechanism-based explanations -- explanations of macro-level phenomena in terms of micro-level mechanisms. Some work of this kind can already be found in IR theory, including in systemic research. However, a number of IR theorists, including Kenneth Waltz and Alexander Wendt, have argued that micro-oriented strategies like this will not work, pointing to incongruities between system- and unit-level phenomena. This article argues that these pose less hindrance to a fully-developed model of mechanism-based explanation, and that the field has much to gain from further exploration of this strategy. In particular, mechanism-based explanations could help bring structure back to the centre of discussion in IR theory, and might even give us a way out of the field's own micro-macro problems. Adapted from the source document.

The fifth edition of this innovative textbook introduces students to the main theories in International Relations. It explains and analyzes each theory, allowing students to understand and critically engage with the myths and assumptions behind them. Each theory is illustrated using the example of a popular film. Key features of this textbook include: Discussion of all the main theories: realism and neorealism, idealism and neoidealism, liberalism, constructivism, postmodernism, gender, globalization, neo-Marxism, modernization and development theory, environmentalism, anarchism, and queer theory. A new chapter focused on global LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans) theory and queer theory, Hillary Clinton's policy myth that "gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights," and the film Love is Strange. Innovative use of narrative from films that students will be familiar with: Lord of the Flies, Independence Day, Wag the Dog, Fatal Attraction, The Truman Show, East Is East, Memento, WALL-E, The Hunger Games, and Love is Strange. An accessible and exciting writing style, boxed key concepts, and guides for further reading. A comprehensive Companion Website featuring a complete set of lectures for every major theory and film covered in the textbook, additional workshop and seminar exercises, slides to accompany each lecture, and an extensive bank of multiple-choice, short-answer, and essay questions and answers for every chapter.

This paper develops three basic arguments in the context of this forum: that IR theory is genuinely pluralistic though those who see only apparent pluralism have a point. That discussions of pluralism in IR often run together the claims that pluralism is intrinsically valuable and that it is instrumentally valuable, and that these two claims need to be kept separate and examined more critically than they often are. And that pluralism is not Relativism and should not be assumed to be. Finally the paper suggests that IR theory might need to take on a still further aspect of pluralism if it wishes to properly understand the implications of plurality. Adapted from the source document.

THE END OF THE COLD WAR HAS PROMPTED A GOOD DEAL OF SOUL-SEARCHING IN THE ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (IR). THE IR COMMUNITY HAS REASON TO BE PLEASED WITH THE METATHEORETICAL AND THE SUBSTANTIAL DEBATE TRIGGERED BY THE END OF THE COLD WAR. THE METATHEORETICAL TOOLS HAVE BEEN SHARPENED; THERE IS MUCH MORE CLARITY ABOUT THE ONTOLOGICAL AND THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASES FOR THE VARIOUS THEORETICAL APPROACHES. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE CORES ISSUES OF THE DISCIPLINE: PEACE AND WAR; WEALTH AND POVERTY; CONFLICT AND COOPERATION, INVOLVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STATISM, I.E. FOCUS ON SOVEREIGN STATES.

In recent years, constructivist thinking about global politics has brought a breath of fresh auto international relations. By exploring questions of identity and interest, constructivist scholars have articulated an important corrective to the methodological individualism and materialism that have come to dominate much of IR. As the books under review indicate, constructivism has also succeeded in demonstrating its empirical value—documenting a new and important causal role for norms and social structure in global politics. Theoretically, however, the approach remains underspecified. In particular, constructivists typically fail to explain the origins of such structures, how they change over time, how their effects vary cross nationally, or the mechanisms through which they constitute states and individuals. Missing is the substantive theory and attention to agency that will provide answers to such puzzles, as well as ensure the development of a productive research program.

The explicit effort to theorize about the process of European integration began within the field of international relations (IR), where neofunctionalism & intergovernmentalism long remained the dominant schools of thought. With the relaunching of the integration process in the 1980s & 1990s, however, IR scholars have begun to approach the study of the European Union using more general, & generalizable, theoretical approaches. This article examines the recent debate among realists, liberals, rational-choice institutionalists, & constructivists regarding the nature of the integration process & the EU as an international organization. Although originally posed as competing theories, I argue, realist, liberal, & institutionalist approaches show signs of convergence around a single rationalist model, with constructivism remaining as the primary rival, but less developed, approach to the study of European integration. 114 References. Adapted from the source document.