Suchergebnisse

In examining patterns in international crises, the authors offer one path to a cocerted attack on a central phenomenon in world politics. After surveying the releva literature, including competing definitions, they set forth a conceptual map of int national crisis variables: actor attributes (age, territory, regime, capability, values system characteristics (size, geography, structure, alliance configuration, stability); a the crisis dimensions they wish to explain (trigger, actor behavior, superpower activity, and the role of international organizations—that is, crisis management, of come, and consequences). From this taxonomy they have developed a research frar work on international crisis, and, as an illustration of more narrow explanatory devie a crisis management-outcome model. Three clusters of hypotheses on the substar and form of crisis outcomes, and the duration of crises, are then tested against I evidence from 185 cases for the period from 1945 to 1962. The ultimate aim is illuminate international crises over a 50-year period, 1930–1980, across all continer cultures, and political and economic systems in the contemporary era.

World politics has never been a democratic realm. Now, with interdependence and globalization prompting demands for global governance, the lack of global democracy has become an important public issue. Yet the domestic analogy is unhelpful since the conditions for electoral democracy, much less participatory democracy, do not exist on a global level. Rather than abandoning democratic principles, we should rethink our ambitions. First, we should emphasize, in our normative as well as our positive work, the role played by information in facilitating international cooperation and democratic discourse. Second, we should define feasible objectives such as limiting potential abuses of power, rather than aspiring to participatory democracy and then despairing of its impossibility. Third, we should focus as much on the powerful entities that are the core of the problem, including multinational firms and states, as on multilateral organizations, which often are the focus of criticism. Finally, we need to think about how to design a pluralistic accountability system for world politics that relies on a variety of types of accountability: supervisory, fiscal, legal, market, peer and reputational. A challenge for contemporary political science is to design such a system, which could promote both democratic values and effective international cooperation.

As everyone who has taught a course on international politics can readily attest, there are few events which evoke as strong a reaction from students as does a major surprise. Surprise leaves a deep imprint upon the student, generating two simultaneous reactions which push the student in opposite directions. On the one hand, the student is impressed by the range of what can be accomplished by a skillfully undertaken course of action. At least for the moment, world politics no longer appears to him or her as an arena beset by problems totally without solutions. The strongly held desire of most students to believe that insight and vision can solve problems is reaffirmed.Surprise also produced a second reaction. Depending upon whether the event is perceived favorably or not, student reaction ranges from moral outrage, to puzzlement, to disbelief or exhilaration.

Loyalty is part of the glue that holds relationships together in times of difficulty. Surprisingly, however, hardly any literature exists on the role of loyalty in International Relations. The concept is routinely invoked – not least the notion of the 'loyal ally' – but typically only in passing and often based on questionable assumptions about the nature and effect of loyalty. Building on literature in moral philosophy on the ethics of loyalty, this paper presents loyalty as persistently partial behaviour driven by affective attachments. Such attachments are, in turn, driven mainly by a sense of shared social identity but also the interaction between subjects and objects of loyalty. I show how this understanding of loyalty differs from how most political scientists use the concept and illustrate why it matters for the study of world politics.

Racism reflects how we think and act as much as what. It manifests in terms of biology, geography, and culture but reflects an episteme that normalises Self and Other into a bordered binary. Here, a trialectical epistemology can help. It dissolves racialised realities by showing how opposites exist in each other, thereby constituting a three-ness – e.g. self-in-other and other-in-self – that links Self and Other despite mutual antagonisms. From such trialectics, epistemic compassion can arise. It enables learning from the Other through what Buddhists call 'interbeing' or the recognition that 'you are in me, and I in you'. Reciprocity thus becomes key. The Self cannot violate the Other without also violating itself; likewise, loving the Other effectively loves the Self. Flat, monochromatic binaries like 'black' versus 'white' cannot continue and colour revivifies world politics, both literally and figuratively. I apply trialectics to the 'border problem' between India and China as an analogy.