Suchergebnisse

The abstract for the International Studies Association panel that gave rise to this special section of Ethics & International Affairs referred to the "triumph" of just war theory. However, I think we ought rather to speak of just war discourse as occupying a particular niche. This is especially so with respect to discussions about policy: when and where governments should make use of military force, what type, and so on. In that context, appeals to the criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello complement (or sometimes compete with) thinking that draws on international law, various strategic doctrines (for example, counterinsurgency warfare, or COIN), notions of reciprocity between states, and a host of other considerations. The notion of "triumph" claims too much. At the same time, for advocates of the just war framework, the kind of recognition indicated by presidential and other official mentions of the idea is worthy of note. Some of these are due to constituency politics—that is, to the idea that "institutional" advocates of just war (say, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) may influence blocs of voters. Other invocations are better interpreted as a recognition that the vocabulary of just war can serve (along with other ways of speaking) in the attempt to craft wise policy.

AbstractWithin the scope of the debate surrounding globalization, ever increasing attention is being directed to the growth of border‐crossing social relations and the emergence of transnational social spaces on the micro‐level. In particular, the question of how these border‐crossing interrelations influence the attitudes and values of the people involved causes some controversy. Some assume that the increasing trans‐nationalization of social relations will foster the development of cosmopolitan attitudes, while others warn that renationalization may also be a result. On the empirical level, the relationship between transnationalization and cosmopolitanism has so far only been addressed with regard to certain groups or specific circumstances. However, we assume that on the general level there is a positive relation between the two syndromes and address this question empirically on the level of the entire German population. On the basis of a representative survey of German citizens carried out in 2006, we find that people with border‐crossing experiences and transnational social relations are more likely to adopt cosmopolitan attitudes with respect to foreigners and global governance. The analysis shows that this general interrelation remains stable even when controlling for relevant socio‐economic variables.

Abstract:InPractice Theory and International Relations, Silviya Lechner and Mervyn Frost make a useful distinction between 'praxis' and 'practices' and correctly insist on the importance of describing the identity of distinct practices. They also make the important point that practices have ethical value for their participants. There is much to like about Lechner and Frost's argument, including its solid philosophical grounding. However, from the perspective of a social scientist, there are some points of concern as well. First, while they champion 'description', they settle for 'naming' practices. Proper description requires more attention to detail than what the authors offer in the book. Second, the authors appear to discriminate between social practices in spatial terms rather than in functional terms. As a consequence, they end up with a description of the practices of international relations, where the different practices are all animated by the same value of freedom. As such, Lechner and Frost offer a reductionist interpretation of the ethical significance of international practices. Third, the authors push their anti-foundationalism too far. When one interprets the (ethical) significance of social practices, it is useful to bring on board philosophical–anthropological models, even if only because it opens up one's interpretive horizons.

Topics of controversy leading to the formation of the International Sociological Assoc's Research Committee on Innovative Processes in Social Change are identified. The innovative processes framework -- developed to accommodate mass-communication theory, the theory & practice of technological implementation, & modernization effects in general -- was criticized by some social scientists for its Western bias; especially in developing countries, the "diffusion-of-innovation" approach in practice led to neocolonialism, increased class differentiation, a competitive ethic, & the decline of native cultural values & practices. Opponents of this approach were not against innovation per se, but rather against its specific Western form of implementation; they recommended that innovation take the form of an awakened social consciousness among peoples of underdeveloped countries. Such thinkers are adherents of a discourse-oriented action research methodology. The form of this method, & its strengths & weaknesses, are indicated. 2 Figures. D. Dunseath.