Suchergebnisse

THIS PAPER EXAMINES THE CURRENT STATE, AND PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, OF REFLEXIVE THEORIZING. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY'S "THIRD DEBATE" IS RE-EXAMINED FOR EVIDENCE OF A BREAK WITH POSITIVIST FORMS OF THEORIZING AND IN TERMS OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TO A REFLEXIVE DISPOSITION IN THE DISCIPLINE. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT: (1) CONTRARY TO PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS, THE THIRD DEBATE OFFERS LITTLE EVIDENCE OF A SHIFT TO POST-POSITIVIST, REFLEXIVE THEORIZING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND (2) TO THE EXTENT THAT EVIDENCE OF REFLEXIVITY IS TO BE FOUND, IT IS LOCATED NOT IN THE MAINSTREAM BUT AT THE MARGINS OF THE DISCIPLINE.

Risk is a concept that has recently filtered through into International Relations (IR). However, the literature on risk, risk management and IR is still comparatively small and there is still significant scope for the theorisation of these concepts in an IR context. Thus far, the literature on risk and IR has been largely characterised by the debate between critical realist, constructivist and post-structuralist approaches to risk. At the core of these debates is the ontological question of whether risks are 'real' or not. However, this article will suggest that these ontological debates have grown stale and are unhelpful to furthering the research agenda on risk and IR. As this article will demonstrate, we need to systematically develop ways for both explaining risk identification, assessment and management –what might be termed 'riskisation' – and why particular forms of risk management emerge in particular situations and not others.

Address before the Royal institute of international affairs, London, June 28, 1955.

THIS ARTICLE IS AN EXERCISE IN "INTERNATIONALIST ETHICS," THAT IS AN INQUIRY INTO THE ETHICAL BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. MORE SPECIFICALLY, IT CONCERNS THE IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF ACCEPTING THE THESIS THAT THERE ARE HUMAN RIGHTS. THE AUTHOR DEFINES WHAT A HUMAN RIGHT IS, AND HOW TALK OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRESUPPOSES A UNIVERSALIST/COSMOPOLITAN MORAL THEORY. HE LOOKS AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE MORAL RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES AND CONCLUDES THAT A UNIVERSALIST/COSMOPOLITAN THEORY IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ONE.