Suchergebnisse

*This series is the result of an adaptation of a paper presented as part of a seminar on "Theories and Research in International Relations" at Hebrew University, July 2012. Commentaries are welcome to daniel.wajner@mail.huji.ac.il Controversial discussions about the nature of Power have characterized the study of Social Sciences, in general, and International Relations (IR) in particular. This seems logic - if we consider politics as a "game", their "participants" tend to develop a range of "skills", which allow them to assume different "roles", influencing thus in the "results". Thus, understanding the mechanisms by which this whole process ("the game") operates is intrinsic to the analysis of the outcomes, what explains why the revision of the concept of power has always been especially popular, including in recent times.Throughout this series we will review some academic approaches to the concept of power and its implementation in international politics. We will present in this first article the debates on the ontology of power (generally referred as "the faces of power"), and the ways in which this influenced the theoretical divisions in IR.In a second article we will introduce epistemological approaches, leading to controversies on the mechanisms involved in the activation of power and its dimensions (such as today's mantra "hard vs. soft power"). Finally, we will deal in a third article with some methodological schemes for Power Analysis in IR, while indicating areas for possible innovation using cases of the "Arab Spring" as illustrations.Power, Powerful, Powerless: The Ontological DebateThe first ontological debate around the concept of power could be placed in the dispute between those who address it as an interaction and those who understand it as a resource.To this end, Weber constitutes our first station. He identifies power in a relationship as the ability to control the behavior of others, even against its will. Weber is focused on the context of that relationship (one's position vis-à-vis others), which determines the capacity of empowerment.1That led him to approach the topic of legitimacy by dividing between power (Macht) and authority (herrschaft, i.e. legitimate power), issue that will be reminded in next articles.Against Weber's integral approach came out Dahl with his renowned definition: "A has power over B, if A gets B do something that B would not otherwise do", which installed "officially" the controversy in political sciences on how power is operated. According to Dahl, that "something" must be based in a change of behavior produced by an observable act - possible to analyze and be measured. His attention was centered on the characteristics of the material resources (their Base, Means, Amount and Scope) and how they are utilized to get certain effects; however, power is still conceptualized as a relationship, since what needs to be clearly discernible is the conflict, the interaction. Non-observable acts, according to Dahl, should be included in a different concept, such as Influence.2The Realist tradition in IR, as well as many scholars in the Liberal tradition, adopted Dahl's definition as a starting point for their analysis on Power Relationships, and even went one step forward. They saw the context as secondary, since certain power bases are so critical that do not really depend on circumstances or specific nature of interaction. Consequently, for classical realists as Carr, Morgenthau and Aron, the military force is "that" observable act which represents the power of the actors (albeit in most of the cases the economic resources were a prerequisite, as explain Berenskoetter and Williams).3Against that mainstream idea, some scholars battled in the sixties and seventies by presenting two approaches which became popularly known as The Second Face of Power and The Third Face of Power. It is important to note that both approaches emerge from this ontological debate on "what is power?", but their main implications would be on the epistemological discussion on "how do we study power relations?", which helped to the development of Critical and Constructivist research programs, as we will see in the next article.In the first approach, Bachrach and Baratz argue that not always a concrete change in behavior needs to be detected to confirm the existence of a conflict in Power Relationships; it could be expressed through the "mobilization of bias", an "unmeasurable element".4 In the second approach, Lukes went beyond that idea and expressed that the mere existence of conflict is not a condition; in other words, the absence of conflict do not necessarily indicate the absence of Power Relationships.5 Lukes, as a neo-marxist building on Gramsci, introduced the structural sphere of the concept of Power. Powerful and powerless agents are characterized in function of their ability to shape the system through culture and education, which will determine the interests of the actors. Foucalt and Bourdieu, with their vision of Knowledge-as-Power6 and Symbolic Power7 , respectively, went in the same direction.More recently, a similar ontological debate could be found in terms of Power Over-Power To, presented by Barnett and Duvall. In the first one, they define power as "the capacity of the actor to determine his own actions", so the perspective is based on the actor itself; by contrast, in the second one a Power Relationship is needed.8 In that sense, the famous article of Nye about Soft Power, which would be broadly approached in the following articles, builds also on this issue - power could be understood as "the ability to get the outcomes one wants" (in the form of Power-To), but also as "the ability to influence the behaviors of others to get the outcomes one wants." (in the form of Power-Over)9.1 Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. (California: University of Berkeley, 1978. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich).2Robert A. Dahl, "The concept of Power", Behavioral Science 2(3), July 1957, 201-2153Felix Berenskoetter and Michael .J. Williams. Power in World Politics. (NYC: Routledge, 2007), p.64Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz. "Two Faces of Power". The American Political Science Review 56 No4 (December 1962), 947-9525Stephen Lukes, "Power and the Battle for Hearts and Minds", Millennium, 33, No3 (2005), 477-4936Michael Foucalt, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-77 (Brighton: Havester, 1980)7Pierre Bourdieu, Language & Symbolic Power (NYC : Polity Press, 2001)8Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, "Power in International Politics," International Organization 59, No1, (Winter 2005), p. 469Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power- The Means to Success in World Politics (NYC: PublicAffairs, 2004), p.2 Fabian Daniel Wajner is a Research and Teaching Assistant at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Department of International Relations) and a Fellow of the Liweranth Center for Latin America Studies.

Review of: Steven C. Roach, (2020). Handbook of Critical International Relations. Edward Elgar, 384 pp. ; Reseña de: Steven C. Roach, (2020). Handbook of Critical International Relations. Edward Elgar, 384 pp.

*This series is the result of an adaptation of a paper presented as part of a seminar on "Theories and Research in International Relations" at Hebrew University, July 2012. Commentaries are welcome to daniel.wajner@mail.huji.ac.il In the first article of this series we have introduced the debates on the ontology of power and the ways in which these debates have influenced the theoretical divisions in International Relations (IR). In this second article we will present the main epistemological approaches of the different paradigms, leading to controversies on the mechanisms involved in the activation of power and its dimensions.Mechanisms of Power: different theoretical approachesOur first step is to address the questions "how power is activated" and "how power proceeds once it is activated". Scholars of diverse backgrounds proposed different approaches to answer those questions, leading us to the possibility of dealing with the controversies around the epistemology of power.According to the realist tradition, as explained previously, the regular way by which actors operate to assert control over the others and the system is coercion. Through the manipulation of material resources (either via sanctions or inducements), an actor could generate changes in the other's actor conduct even in contrary of their interests. As main representatives of the neo-realist paradigm, Waltz and Mearsheimer went one step forward when they affirmed that the distribution of military capabilities constitutes the best measurable expression of power1; and consequently, that the display of alterations in capabilities is what explains the main changes in decision-making.However, most of the neo-realists tend to accept another way to activate power that is based on the concept of socialization. Although renowned for being "mentioned" by Waltz himself, the concept is in fact developed by other scholars, among them Ikenberry and Kupchan, who move large away from Waltz. They explain the mechanisms and conditions of socialization using the neorealist scheme but, unlike Waltz, Ikenberry and Kupchan incorporate the "normative" element as "a different aspect of power" which guides the state's behavior.2 Moreover, they assume a pseudo-liberal perspective on the role of specific agents (elites) in providing systemic change, undermining the unitary actor assumption and thus abandoning the structuralist approach that neo-realists have usually adopted.Ikenberry and Kupchan seek to describe how hegemonic powers have a tendency to activate processes of socialization, through which secondary countries internalize the norms of the hegemon. According to them, socialization occurs primarily when countries suffer the fragmentation of internal coalitions (especially after wars and political crisis), stimulating certain elites to embrace the norms that the hegemon is articulating. If the receptivity and realignment of the elites is linked with coercive power, norms could be consolidated as well as the policies in line with them (albeit this order may vary depending on whether the socialization is carried through normative persuasion, external inducement or internal reconstruction).3 It is important to note that this is a "one-player" argument; the authors say little about "real" cases - where there are many candidates to hegemony and the socialization processes are "in competition". This appears as a very interesting research agenda for the future.The eighties and nineties developed other interesting realist approaches who explore ideational elements in power analysis. One of them is the Krasner's approach on institutional power, which consists of a "metapower" that has indirect control over outcomes by changing the setting of the confrontation.4 Baldwin went also in that direction by embedding what he called the paradox of unrealized power, in which the will of using the power is a resource by itself.5 Likewise, Walt´s theory about the balance of threat adds aggressive intentions as a main variable, what makes power not a function of material resources but of inter-subjective factors.6 The three went clearly beyond neorealist assumptions.Of course the incorporation of normative elements to analyze power relationships did not only emerge in the realist tradition, but also in the liberal one, the natural candidate. The most famous liberal twist came recently from Nye's soft power concept.7 Accepting coercion" and inducement as two relevant forms of displaying power, Nye suggests co-opting as "a third dimension of power" which affects behavior without being commanded through threats or payments, but through attracting with indirect resources (such as values, culture and policies). This "soft" version of power, argues the prestigious scholar, becomes crucial in a global information era in which "winning hearts and minds" matters more and more; an era in which hard sower and soft power are required to be connected (in what he calls smart power) in order to enable the legitimate use of power, as the war in Irak showed to the United States.Is not casual that Nye writes from a (North)American perspective in a period of time in which their legitimacy was so questioned; anyhow, his concept was rapidly attributed to other situations. Despite the popularity of Nye's scheme, the theoretical contribution is still weak. As Guzzini argued years before, it is clear that "power alone is not what we are looking for"8- what is lacking is an approach that could address the causal mechanisms of the different types of power and could identify their devices once they are activated.Guzzini himself will provide an answer to that challenge, by recommending the separation of the two types of power structural power and interactionist power in two different concepts: governance and power.9 Citing economical-rationalist terms, this new dyadic conceptualization examines the interactions between systemic rules (market constraints) and the decisions of the agents (strategic behaviors), in a power analysis. As a constructivist, Guzzini sustains that in this (inter-subjective) relationship of power, the actors change interests and identities, stressing the value of legitimate power (authority) in enabling "a widing realm of possible (in political action)".10 Despite Guzzini paved the way to other constructivist approaches11, he still leaves us with the confusion between the two different stages of the argumentative chain: the first one based on the agent-structure distinction, and the second one on the material-ideal division.Barnett and Duvall would release us from that confusion by presenting their taxonomy of four dimensions of power.12 It combines the two variables presented above with different names; on one side, the expression of the power (actor's interactions vs. structural constitution), and on the other side the specificity of the power relations (direct connection vs. diffuse relation).13 The analytic combination leads us to four types in which power operates: compulsory, institutional, structural and productive. Therefore, while in a simultaneous power analysis, one side would explain what is "possible" (closer to the Compulsory corner), the other one would explain what is "legitimate-desirable" (closer to the Productive corner).14Once this has been approached, the next challenge consists of transferring these theoretical understanding to a methodological scheme for power analysis in IR. This will be addressed on the next and last part of the series.1 John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great power Politics (NYC: Norton, 2001); Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics. (NYC: McGraw-Hill, 1979)2 John G. Ikenberry and Charles A. Kupchan, "Socialization and hegemonic power", International Organization 44, No3 (Summer 1990), p. 284.3 Ibid., p. 290-2914Stephen D. Krasner, "Regimes and the Limits of Realism: Regimes as Autonomous Variables", International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), 497-5105 David A. Baldwin, Paradoxes of Power (NYC: Basil Blackwell, 1989).6 Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987)7 Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power- The Means to Success in World Politics.8 Stefano Guzzini, "Structural power: the limits of neorealist power analysis", International Organization 47, No3 (Summer 1993), p.478.9 Ibid.,, p.471.10 Stefano Guzzini, "Structural power: the limits of neorealist power analysis", p.477.11 In that sense, Hurd presents a similar conclusion to pose legitimacy as an ordering principle at IR, building also on Weber´s approach at the beginning. Another concept that might be reminded in constructivist literature is Risse´s "normative power", that although lacks the "material side", it contributed to highlight the devices of the "logic of truth-seeking arguing" (considered as "the power of the better argument").12 Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, "Power in International Politics", 48-57.13 Although is true that Barnett-Duvall do not present this as hard power vs. soft power, with the examples given it is possible to infer that applies a similar logic.14 Ibid., p.44. Fabian Daniel Wajner is a Research and Teaching Assistant at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Department of International Relations) and a Fellow of the Liweranth Center for Latin America Studies.

The paper examines Raymond Aron's International relations as a process of development along three decades, where politics, war and technology are analyzed and reinterpreted in three different manners. The first depends on Spengler`s thought, while the second and third are based in a deep and original interpretation of Clausewitz. ; En el presente trabajo se examina la obra International relations de Raymond Aron como un proceso de desarrollo a lo largo de tres decenios, en que política, guerra y tecnología se analizan y reinterpretan de tres diferentes maneras. La primera depende del pensamiento de Spengler, mientras que la segunda y la tercera se basan en una interpretación detenida y original de Clausewitz.

For some time, the theoretical debate in international relations has occupied an ambiguous place in the discipline. For some, the remarkable diversity of theoretical production expresses the dynamism of a field that has grown thanks to its capacity for dialogue with a wide range of disciplines from the humanities and social sciences, and even the exact sciences. Others, however, see this process as a symptom of the decline of the discipline, reflected in its fragmentation and inability to produce a more or less coherent (or consensual) set of research problems. We could also mention a current of opinion that sees the supposed exhaustion of International Relations as a process that we should not regret, since the evolution of the field would be irremediably associated with a colonial power project that produced unequal and discriminatory world orders. For the latter, the theories of International Relations offer few possibilities for the construction of a critique of world politics and, therefore, would not deserve significant intellectual investment. This view echoes the controversial debate about the 'end of IR theory' waged in the pages of the European Journal of International Relations in 2013 (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013). This declaration of death seems premature, yet the current state of the debate may suggest a fund of truth for pessimistic assessments. Had the 'critical turn' project fallen victim to its own success? Has the drive towards greater theoretical pluralism produced a fragmentation that impedes the evolution of the discipline? Has the critique of the limits of international studies - in particular its supposed universality - compromised our ability to think of the international as a planetary political space? This diffuse dissatisfaction with international theoretical work has a very broad scope, reaching both Anglo-American and continental European academic cultures and the many other continents where research in International Relations is conducted today, testifying to the increasingly ...

The Latin American decolonial feminism was born with a strong influence of the Latin American autonomous feminism that from 1980-1990 began a process of development of thought and political practices of resistance to make visible the inequality of race, ethnicity, class, sex and gender in which a good part of the women of Latin America live. It is proposed to dismantle the categorical ascription of the West both in the academic and in the political, for that reason it has vital importance in and for the International Relations discipline. One of the challenges of decolonial thinking has been to understand the global dimension and its connection with the local to rethink the possible political alternatives to neoliberal globalization and coloniality and in that sense it acquires geopolitical character. Interested in: 1) Explain decolonial feminism in Latin America and differentiate it from other forms of feminism, especially postcolonial feminism. 2) Determine the sources from which it is nourished and the ontological, epistemological, aesthetic and ethical conceptions that characterize it. 3) Determine the collective political practices that precede it and its proposals for socio-political transformation and finally 4) review its usefulness in the field of international relations. It is concluded that it is a highly strategic thought because it considers the value of other epistemologies, ontologies, ethics and aesthetics to think the world outside the discourses of right and left. ; El feminismo descolonial latinoamericano nace con una fuerte influencia del feminismo autónomo latinoamericano que, a partir de 1980-1990, comenzó un proceso de desarrollo de pensamiento y prácticas políticas de resistencia para visibilizar la desigualdad de raza, etnia, clase, sexo y género en que viven buena parte de las mujeres de América Latina. Se propone desmontar la adscripción categorial de occidente tanto en lo académico como en lo político, por ello tiene vital importancia en y para las relaciones internacionales. Uno de los retos del pensamiento descolonial ha sido comprender la dimensión global y su conexión con lo local para repensar las posibles alternativas políticas a la globalización neoliberal y a la colonialidad, y en ese sentido adquiere carácter geopolítico. Interesa: 1) Explicar el feminismo descolonial en América Latina y diferenciarlo de otras formas de feminismo, especialmente, del feminismo postcolonial. 2) Determinar las fuentes de la cuales se nutre y las concepciones ontológicas, epistemológicas, estéticas y éticas que le caracterizan. 3) Determinar las prácticas políticas colectivas que le preceden y sus propuestas de transformación sociopolíticas y, finalmente, 4) revisar su utilidad en el ámbito de las Relaciones Internacionales. Se concluye que es un pensamiento altamente estratégico porque considera el valor de otras epistemologías, ontologías, éticas y estéticas para pensar el mundo fuera de los discursos de derecha e izquierda.

El artículo presenta un análisis acerca de las relaciones internacionales norteamericanas. Los cambios producidos al final de la década de los años ochenta motivaron la discusión de nuevos enfoques teóricos. Como se verá en las siguientes páginas, son el realismo y el neorrealismo los que quedan en el centro del debate. Posteriormente, se presentan distintas perspectivas respecto a la redistribución del poder mundial y al rol que le tocará asumir en adelante a los Estados Unidos, evaluando su política exterior dentro de/nuevo contexto mundial. También se analizan aspectos como el nuevo rol de los organismos internacionales, el poder militar y el poder económico, y la democracia y los derechos humanos. ; This article looks at US foreign relations. The changes that occurred at the end of the 1980s brought new perspectives on theory into discussion, with realism and neorealism at the heart of the debate. The author goes on to dissect different outlooks on the redistribution of world power and the role that will fall to the US in the future, stemming from an analysis of its foreign policy in the new international environment. The author also turns his attention to the new role of international organizations, military and economic power, as well as democracy and human rights.

This article analyzes the context of international relations since the end of the eighteenth century and the effect on the nature of independence movements in America, especially in the Portuguese and Spanish area. International conflicts were essential to understanding the independence and the decisive role they played in the political emancipation. ; En este artículo se analiza el contexto de las relaciones internacionales desde finales del siglo XVIII y la influencia que tuvieron con los procesos independentistas en América, especialmente en el ámbito portugués y español. Los conflictos internacionales fueron esenciales para comprender las independencias y jugaron un papel decisivo en los procesos de emancipación a nivel político.

Review-Essay of: YOUNG, Oran (ed.) Global Governance. Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997. CONCA, Ken, Governing Water. Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006. ; Review-Essay de: YOUNG, Oran (ed.) Global Governance. Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997. CONCA, Ken, Governing Water. Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006.

There is a very general tendency to approach the study of International Relations as an autonomous discipline. This is explained by the increasingly clear awareness that researchers have of the existence of a set of specific phenomena, which deserve to be the object of a particular study. This set of phenomena is fairly easy to categorize. Everything that refers to the relations of a state with another state, or of several states among themselves in the political, economic, social, demographic, cultural or psychological level, can be placed there; and even more generally, everything that deals with the relationships between different groups on both sides of national borders can be seen from this discipline. If it is about the relations between states, we can call it "foreign policy". On the other hand, if what is at issue is relations between groups, we can speak of "international life". All of these phenomena constitute the "International Relations". Scientifically studying the set of phenomena that make up International Relations is, a priori, possible. The only criterion for the value of such a study is the achievement of appreciable results. After admitting the existence of this set of special phenomena that constitute "International Relations", the purpose of this article is to examine what they consist of and through which method they should be addressed. ; Existe una tendencia muy general a abordar el estudio de las Relaciones Internacionales como una disciplina autónoma. Esto se explica por la conciencia cada vez más clara que tienen los investigadores de la existencia de un conjunto de fenómenos específicos, que merecen ser objeto de un estudio particular. Este conjunto de fenómenos es bastante fácil de categorizar. Todo lo que se refiere a las relaciones de un estado con otro estado, o de varios estados entre sí en el plano político, económico, social, demográfico, cultural o psicológico, puede ser situado allí; y aún más general, todo aquello que aborde las relaciones entre diferentes grupos a ambos lados de las fronteras nacionales puede ser contemplado a partir de esta disciplina. Si de lo que se trata es de las relaciones entre estados, podemos llamarle "política exterior". En cambio, si de lo que se trata es de relaciones entre grupos, podemos hablar de "vida internacional". Todos estos fenómenos constituyen las "Relaciones Internacionales". Estudiar científicamente el conjunto de fenómenos que constituyen las Relaciones Internacionales es, a priori, posible. El único criterio del valor de tal estudio es el logro de resultados apreciables. Tras admitir la existencia de este conjunto de fenómenos especiales que constituyen las "Relaciones Internacionales", el propósito de este artículo es examinar en qué consisten y a través de qué método deben ser abordadas.

El feminismo descolonial latinoamericano nace con una fuerte influencia del feminismo autónomo latinoamericano que, a partir de 1980-1990, comenzó un proceso de desarrollo de pensamiento y prácticas políticas de resistencia para visibilizar la desigualdad de raza, etnia, clase, sexo y género en que viven buena parte de las mujeres de América Latina. Se propone desmontar la adscripción categorial de occidente tanto en lo académico como en lo político, por ello tiene vital importancia en y para las relaciones internacionales. Uno de los retos del pensamiento descolonial ha sido comprender la dimensión global y su conexión con lo local para repensar las posibles alternativas políticas a la globalización neoliberal y a la colonialidad, y en ese sentido adquiere carácter geopolítico. Interesa: 1) Explicar el feminismo descolonial en América Latina y diferenciarlo de otras formas de feminismo, especialmente, del feminismo postcolonial. 2) Determinar las fuentes de la cuales se nutre y las concepciones ontológicas, epistemológicas, estéticas y éticas que le caracterizan. 3) Determinar las prácticas políticas colectivas que le preceden y sus propuestas de transformación sociopolíticas y, finalmente, 4) revisar su utilidad en el ámbito de las Relaciones Internacionales. Se concluye que es un pensamiento altamente estratégico porque considera el valor de otras epistemologías, ontologías, éticas y estéticas para pensar el mundo fuera de los discursos de derecha e izquierda. ; The Latin American decolonial feminism was born with a strong influence of the Latin American autonomous feminism that from 1980-1990 began a process of development of thought and political practices of resistance to make visible the inequality of race, ethnicity, class, sex and gender in which a good part of the women of Latin America live. It is proposed to dismantle the categorical ascription of the West both in the academic and in the political, for that reason it has vital importance in and for the International Relations discipline. One of the challenges of decolonial thinking has been to understand the global dimension and its connection with the local to rethink the possible political alternatives to neoliberal globalization and coloniality and in that sense it acquires geopolitical character. Interested in: 1) Explain decolonial feminism in Latin America and differentiate it from other forms of feminism, especially postcolonial feminism. 2) Determine the sources from which it is nourished and the ontological, epistemological, aesthetic and ethical conceptions that characterize it. 3) Determine the collective political practices that precede it and its proposals for socio-political transformation and finally 4) review its usefulness in the field of international relations. It is concluded that it is a highly strategic thought because it considers the value of other epistemologies, ontologies, ethics and aesthetics to think the world outside the discourses of right and left

This article looks at US foreign relations. The changes that occurred at the end of the 1980s brought new perspectives on theory into discussion, with realism and neorealism at the heart of the debate. The author goes on to dissect different outlooks on the redistribution of world power and the role that will fall to the US in the future, stemming from an analysis of its foreign policy in the new international environment. The author also turns his attention to the new role of international organizations, military and economic power, as well as democracy and human rights. ; El artículo presenta un análisis acerca de las relaciones internacionales norteamericanas. Los cambios producidos al final de la década de los años ochenta motivaron la discusión de nuevos enfoques teóricos. Como se verá en las siguientes páginas, son el realismo y el neorrealismo los que quedan en el centro del debate. Posteriormente, se presentan distintas perspectivas respecto a la redistribución del poder mundial y al rol que le tocará asumir en adelante a los Estados Unidos, evaluando su política exterior dentro de/nuevo contexto mundial. También se analizan aspectos como el nuevo rol de los organismos internacionales, el poder militar y el poder económico, y la democracia y los derechos humanos.