Suchergebnisse

This book of ten original essays provides a showcase of currently diverse theoretical agendas in the field of international relations. Contributors address the theoretical analysis that their perspective brings to the issue of change in global politics. Written for readers with a general interest in and knowledge of world affairs, New Thinking in International Relations Theory can also be assigned in international relations theory courses.The volume begins with an essay on the classical tradition at the end of the Cold War. Essays explore work outside the mainstream, such as Jean Bethke Elshtain on feminist theory and James Der Derian on postmodern theory as well as those developing theoretical advances within traditional realms from James DeNardo's formal modeling to the more descriptive analyses of Miles Kahler and Steve Weber. Other essays include Matthew Evangelista on domestics structure, Daniel Deudney on naturalist and geopolitical theory, and Joseph Grieco on international structuralist theory. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1241/thumbnail.jpg

Yüksek Lisans Tezi ; Postkolonyal Uluslararası İlişkiler teorisi kolonyalizmi siyasi, askeri ekonomik, kültürel, kimliksel ve zihinsel bir baskı süreci olarak kabul eder. Postkolonyal Uluslararası İlişkiler teorisi her ne kadar 1980'li yıllarda ortaya çıkmış ve 1990'lı yıllarda gelişmeye başlamış gibi görünse de kökenleri 15. yy sömürge tarihine kadar uzanır. Bu teori dünya tarihini ve Üçüncü Dünya ülkelerinin durumunu ana akım Uluslararası İlişkiler teorilerine eleştirel yaklaşarak ve melezlik gibi farklı kavramları da kullanarak açıklar. Postkolonyal teoriye göre melezlik; bir zamanlar kolonize edilmiş yerli halkın kültürünün Batı kültürünün yanında halen belirsiz bir şekilde var olduğunu gösterir. Melezlik kavramı günümüze dek çok farklı anlamlarda kullanılmıştır. 18. yy. başlarında, kolonyal dönemlerde, melezlik kavramı biyolojik bir anlam içeriyordu ve beyaz ırkın ırkçılık üstünlüğü tavrını haklı çıkarmak ve ırklar arası üremeyi önlemek için "ırkların karışması" ve "kültür birleşimi" anlamı taşıyordu. 19 yy. başlarından sonra, dekolonizasyon dönemiyle birlikte, melezlik kavramı özellikle ABD'de İspanyol asıllı kişiler arasında, yerli ile İspanyol asıllıları birbirinden ayırmak için kullanılarak yeni bir anlam kazandı. Daha sonra ise; 20. yüzyılda, Post-kolonyal ve globalleşme dönemlerinde, melezlik kavramı çoğunluk içerisinde yer alan madun azınlığın uğradığı sosyal ayrımcılığı kastetti. Bu çalışma, Postkolonyal Uluslararası İlişkiler teorisinin günümüze dek tarihsel sürecini ve melezlik kavramının zaman içindeki yeni anlamlarını ele alarak kolonici ve kolonize ülkelerin uluslararası ilişkiler, siyasi, askeri, ekonomik, kültürel, zihinsel ve kimliksel durumunu anlamlandırmayı amaçlar. ; According to the Postcolonial International Relations theory; colonialism is a political, military, economical, cultural, identity and mental period of domination. Although Postcolonial International Relations theory was born in 1980s and started to develop in the 1990s, it's roots go back to the 15th century of ...

Berbagai diskusi politik dewasa ini telah membangkitkan kembali sebuah konsep "klasik" dalam teori Hubungan Internasional (HI), yaitu "kepentingan nasional". Konsep ini menjadi kata kunci paling penting bagi penganut pendekatan realisme yang memang sangat percaya pada "kedaulatan negara" sebagai satu-satunya aktor/entitas dalam HI. Secara lebih luas, istilah "kepentingan nasional" juga terutama muncul dalam dokumen-dokumen kebijakan di berbagai kementrian, terutama Kementrian Luar Negeri dan Kementrian Pertahanan, serta menjadi salah satu doktrin yang memandu pelaksanaan politik luar negeri di banyak negara.Namun, secara konseptual istilah ini juga menyisakan pertanyaan penting: apa yang dimaksud dengan "kepentingan nasional" ini? Kendati sering sekali didiskusikan dalam teori HI kontemporer, pada dasarnya istilah ini masih dengan serius diperdebatkan.

This article examines the BRICS phenomenon through the prism of several International Relations theories. Particularly, power transition theory, soft power and peaceful coexistence concepts, the theory of "global regionalism" and status theories are reviewed. Each of them suggests its own theoretical interpretation of the BRICS phenomenon, as well as its own vision of this group's role in world politics and economy. It is safe to assume that despite limitations of these theories each of them has some explanatory power. Being used together they can be helpful for studying - in an interdisciplinary way - a complex phenomenon, such as the BRICS. A number of modern theories hold that, along with the pursuit of purely material and pragmatic interests, the BRICS countries actively use this integration association to strengthen their positions in the world arena and elevate their international status. It should be noted that the BRICS was rather successful in presenting itself as a new model of world order which is a serious alternative to the existing one dominated by the West. It is based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect and balance of interests, rather than dictate, discrimination, hierarchy and balance of power. It is too early to ascertain that a principally new type of an international institution was born within the BRICS format. However, there is no doubt that some positive experience has already been accumulated by this forum, and that this grouping has some good prospects for the future. For this reason, it will remain of considerable interest for International Relations theory. Keywords: BRICS, International Relations Theory, alternative world order

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the considerable influence that Michel Foucault has had on International Relations theory. To do this, I will present a selection of important contributions to the discipline that have been inspired by his work. Firstly, I will show that the critique of rationalist and scientific paradigms in International Relations was in great part led by commentators who displayed strong foucaultian inspirations. Second, I will introduce a series of scholars who have made cogent uses of discourse analysis, which Foucault developed in philosophical and genealogical works. Lastly, I discuss the uses and interpretations of governmentality, biopolitics and sovereign power in the analysis of emerging networks of power at the international level. In this article, my central argument is that the application of Foucault's thought to International Relations has given way to a rich and ever-evolving research program and has had considerable impact on the opening and redefinition of the discipline.

A headline of the Venezuelean daily El Nacionalista, published June 16, 2008, read: 'Venezuela se negó a seguir de rodillas ante las pretensiones del gobierno norteamericano'. A few weeks before, on May 8, president Hugo Chávez himself had said that Venezuela 'would not watch crossed-armed' ('Venezuela no se quedará de brazos cruzados') while Bolivia was driven into territorial desintegration by imperialist forces. The image of Venezuela with her arms crossed is one of slovenliness and negligence, whilst the image of it on its knees is humiliating. They both generate outrage and the need to set things 'right'. This is only an example of the often unnoticed practical and theoretical consequences of the anthropomorphic language we all use when referring to states in terms of (for example) 'weak' and 'strong' actors who 'suffer', are 'honored', are 'humiliated', have 'pride' and aspire to 'glory'. This language obscures the fact that, oftentimes, when a weak state challenges a strong one at a great cost to itself, we are not witnessing an epic of courage (as might be the case when a weak individual challenges a strong one), but rather the sacrifice of the interests, welfare and sometimes even the lives of multitudes of poor people, to the vanity of their elite. The very fact that this is being obscured biases the value structure of international relations theory, which is not only not value-free, but often has totalitarian values unintendedly built into it.

What are the general costs associated with a U.S. shift toward unilateralism? According to the overwhelming majority of international relations (IR) scholars, the costs are very high. We evaluate the key arguments that underlie this assessment, namely that increased U.S. unilateralism will: (1) spur the formation of a coalition to check U.S. power; (2) reduce efficiency gains through lost opportunities for institutionalized cooperation; and (3) undermine the legitimacy of the American-led international order. We conclude that the theoretical arguments that IR scholars advance do not show that a shift toward unilateralism necessarily has high costs. Our analysis reveals the need to, first, distinguish clearly between criticisms of unilateral policies based on procedure and those based on substance and, second, to recognize the weakness of current procedural arguments.

This paper addresses the constitutional entrenchment of foreign policy preferences, or "world views", from the vantage point of International Relations theory. Empirically, norms that sketch out certain visions of global governance have become a popular feature of constitutional design. The paper expounds both their potential, as well as pitfalls to avoid, with a particular focus on Constructivist scholarship. In terms of their merits, they can serve as evidence of a "normative basis" for foreign policy and as parameters for legitimacy. Furthermore, they represent both evidence of, and fuel for, processes of socialization in foreign policy. However, Constructivists tempted to draw on such constitutional worldviews should heed three main caveats. Firstly, while the constitution is supreme in the legal realm, it is only one of many possible expressions of normative preferences from a political science perspective. Secondly, they should avoid confusion between domestic constitutional standards and universal ones. Thirdly, they should be aware of the problematic of the "dead hand of the past", i.e., while constitutional entrenchment may lend norms particular gravitas, it also makes them prone to become out-dated. By staying clear of these pitfalls, Constructivist theorists can embrace contemporary constitutions in their quest to elucidate which principles and ideas shape the international order and its maturing legal framework.

Why has constructivism emerged as an important force in the field of international relations and politics in the end of the 20th century? Why constructivism and not any other theoretical approach? The constructivist perspective of international relations appeared as a counterbalance to rationalism that was entrenched in US Political Science throughout the last decades. Analyzing the contemporary state of world affairs through the prism of social constructivism provides us with a unique understanding of how intersubjective perceptions lead to unique epistemic interpretations of reality, which form the ideological framework within which social constructs are being generated. Constructivism succeeds not only in identifying the motives behind the behavior of international actors, but also in unfolding the mechanism through which those motives are being envisaged and accepted through the process of social construction here lies the greatest value of the constructivist approach in IR theory. Culture formation, nation building, imagined communities, security complexes the constructivist approach remains an invaluable tool in the arsenal of political analysts, seeking to understand how culture, history, social order, religion, and language project their influence on the international arena and ultimately: why international players behave the way they do?

Nine years ago, Kenneth Abbott published an article exhorting international lawyers to read and master regime theory, arguing that it had multiple uses for the study of international law.1 He went as far as to call for a 'joint discipline" that would bridge the gap between international relations theory (IR) and international law (IL). Several years later, one of us followed suit with an article mapping the history of the two fields and setting forth an agenda for joint research. 2 Since then, political scientists and international lawyers have been reading and drawing on one another's work with increasing frequency and for a wide range of purposes.3 Explicitly interdisciplinary articles have won the Francis Deak Prize, awarded for the best work by a younger scholar in this Journal, for the past two years running;4 the publication of an interdisciplinary analysis of treaty law in the Harvard International Law journal prompted a lively exchange on the need to pay attention to legal as well as political details;5 and the Hague Academy of International Law has scheduled a short course on international law and international relations for its millennial lectures in the year 2000. Further, the American Society of International Law and the Academic Council on the United Nations System sponsor joint summer workshops explicitly designed to bring young IR and IL scholars together to explore the overlap between their disciplines.

This dissertation explores how different understandings of power in IR theory lead to different understandings of world order. In particular, I examine how notions of power have informed recent 'debate about empire' and what the term empire might usefully mean in the context of contemporary international relations. I start by investigating how power is understood in relation to the role of shared understandings. Mainstream or "Rationalist" scholars of IR have argued that shared norms and principles are epiphenomenal, existing only to the extent that sovereign states find utility in them. 'Reflectivist' scholars, on the other hand, have suggested that we attribute a much greater degree of autonomy to what they call "constitutive knowledge". That is, the intersubjective and historically contingent truths about world politics that inform the values and norms of state behavior. What is noteworthy about the recent debates about "empire" is that, for better or for worse, Rationalist scholars have tended to explain America's recent unilateralism in terms of a return to the logic of political realism which gives primacy to state power. However, following the Reflectivist argument, I argue that it is a mistake to limit the analytic scope of unilateralism to the egoistic agency of any one state. Instead, it may be more precise to situate American unilateralism in the context of an emerging regime or formation of shared understandings which is more global in scope. To explore this possibility, I turn to Foucault's theory of power which explores how liberal governments both direct their populations and rationalize the use of certain forms of violence. I turn also to Hardt and Negri who, taking their lead from Foucault, offer a novel definition of the term empire as a quality or condition of the practice of global governance particular to late modernity. Hardt and Negri define empire as a new form of global sovereignty that has emerged along with the global market and global circuits of production. My research explores how this definition can be used to refine such key concepts and categories of IR theory research as sovereignty, political economy and security. Through the reinterpretation of these key categories, I show how theories based on constitutive knowledge are capable of recognizing that there is in fact a great deal more going on in contemporary global power relations than American unilateralism. ; Ph. D.

There's always been two histories to tell about International Relations. One that explains structures and processes and another that understands individual and collective actions. But the first one has always been predominant in our discipline, forgetting what International Relations truly means for the states and for global political actors. ; Siempre habrá dos historias que contar de las relaciones internacionales. Una que explique estructuras y procesos, y otra que comprenda las acciones de los individuos y de los agregados sociales. Pero siempre ha sido la primera de estas historias la que ha dominado la disciplina, olvidando los significados que las relaciones internacionales tienen para los Estados y para otros actores de la política mundial.

Mathew Davies, �From Arrow to Path: International Relations Theory and the Humanitarian Space�, in Michele Acuto, ed., Negotiating Relief: The Politics of Humanitarian Space, London: Hurst, 2014, pp. 211-20. The relationship between international relations theorising and humanitarianism is not an arrow that points in one direction. Instead, it is a path that can be travelled in either direction. International relations theorising benefits from studying humanitarianism, but by appreciating the arguments about the motives and interests of actors so that humanitarians can benefit from theory.

This paper will discuss the bonds and boundaries a researcher must take into consideration when attempting to show links between intellectual history (or history of theory) and real historical events. Specifically, it will focus on the methodological considerations of a research project that is attempting to establish connections between academic International Relations theory, political ideology, and world history in the 20th century. The two main difficulties obvious from the outset in attempting to create such links are that the subject area is a) almost impossibly vast and b) deals largely in the abstract realm of contending ideological worldviews. As such, a rigorous, astute and highly selective methodological approach must be carefully applied if the resulting argument is to be of real academic value. This paper, therefore, explores how to navigate specific boundaries and limitations such as a) the limited ability to make direct assessments of causality, b) the boundaries between different epistemological or ontological worldviews in their interpretations of the 'same' historical events, and c) the difficulties of situating a given worldview within its own historical context. Without a disciplined focus on the issues above it would be easy, given the ethereal nature of the subject area, to falter into generalisations or ideological partisanship that would render the argument practically meaningless. It concludes by discussing why an explicitly historical approach is the most suited to dealing with the project at hand.

Siempre habrá dos historias que contar de las relaciones internacionales. Una que explique estructuras y procesos, y otra que comprenda las acciones de los individuos y de los agregados sociales. Pero siempre ha sido la primera de estas historias la que ha dominado la disciplina, olvidando los significados que las relaciones internacionales tienen para los Estados y para otros actores de la política mundial ; There's always been two histories to tell about International Relations. One that explains structures and processes and another that understands individual and collective actions. But the first one has always been predominant in our discipline, forgetting what International Relations truly means for the states and for global political actors