Suchergebnisse

What does realism tell us about peaceful change? Although recognized by E.H. Carr as a fundamental problem of international politics, realists have rarely sought to tackle the issue of peaceful change directly. This chapter explores how the logic(s) of realism may contribute to our understanding of peaceful change - even if there is no escape from power politics. ; This chapter discusses how to understand peaceful change from the perspective of classical realism, structural realism and neoclassical realism.

The immense increase in the costs and risks of using military force to pursue political aims has once again focussed attention on the available ways of effecting changes in the international status quo by non-violent means. This is the subject of "peaceful change," which has for some years troubled the minds of those concerned to reduce the resort to violence in international affairs.The international status quo is embodied in several thousand treaties and understandings that mark out the current distribution of values and resources among nations. But this distribution is subject to constant pressure for revision as the needs and ambitions of nations change.

Hugh Miall draws upon conflict theory, case studies of averted conflict and a survey of the preventors of war since 1945 to explore how some conflict can be avoided at times of great social or political change. He also looks ahead to discuss the prevention of emerging global conflicts, focusing on climate change

As the so-called liberal international order has come under duress, the problem of "peaceful change" has reappeared on the agenda of International Relations, mainly in a realist guise drawing upon E.H. Carr and Robert Gilpin's renditions of the problem. Making a conceptual archaeological intervention, this paper recovers long-neglected multidisciplinary debates on "peaceful change" taking place in the tumultuous interwar period. It concurs that peaceful change is an International Relations problem par excellence, central to academic debates in the burgeoning interwar discipline, but also a more complex conceptual figure than posterity portrays it. The paper explores the debates between negative and positive conceptions of peaceful change, between political, legal-institutional and communitarian mechanisms of peaceful change, and different policies of peaceful change, particularly its troubled relationship to appeasement. The paper concludes that the interwar debate on peaceful change, while highly embedded in its context, does offer IR an alternative and more aspirational perspective on the problem of power and order transitions