Suchergebnisse

As we face new challenges from climate change and the rise of populism in Western politics and beyond, there is little doubt that we are entering a new configuration of world politics. Driven by nostalgia for past certainties or fear of what is coming next, references to normalcy have been creeping into political discourse, with people either vying for a return to a past normalcy or coping with the new normal. This book traces main discourses and practices associated with normalcy in world politics. Visoka and Lemay-Hébert mostly focus on how dominant states and international organizations try to manage global affairs through imposing normalcy over fragile states, restoring normalcy over disaster-affected states, and accepting normalcy over suppressive states. They show how discourses and practices come together in constituting normalization interventions and how in turn they play in shaping the dynamics of continuity and change in world politics.

The concept of power derives its meanings and theoretical roles from the theories in which it is embedded. There is hence no one concept of power, no single understanding of power, even if these understandings stand in relation to each other. Besides the usual theoretical traditions common to International Relations and the social sciences, from rationalist to constructivist and post-structuralist approaches, there is, however, also a specificity of power being a concept used in both political theory and political practice. A critical survey of these approaches needs to cast its net wide to see both the differences, but also links across these theoretical divides. Realist understandings of power are heavily impressed by political theory, especially when defining the particular ontology of 'the political'. They are also characterized by their attempt, so far not successful, to translate practical maxims of power into a scientific theory. Liberal and structural power approaches use power as a central factor for understanding outcomes and hierarchies, while generally neglecting any reference to political theory and often overloading the mere concept of power as if it were already a full-fledged theory. Finally, power has also been understood in the constitutive but often tacit processes of social recognition and identity formation, of technologies of government, and of the performativity of power categories when the latter interact with the social world, that is, the power politics that characterize the processes in which we 'make' the social world. Relating back to political practice and theory, these approaches risk repeating a realist fallacy. Whereas it is arguably correct to see power always connected to politics, not all politics is always connected or reducible to power. Seeing power not only as coercive but also productive should neither invite us to reduce all politics to it, nor to turn power into the meta-physical prime-mover of all things political.

Culture division influences our lives differently in how we identify and evaluate who we are as individuals. We respond to life situations in how we interpret ourselves. How we function in society as a whole signifies invaluable differences in how we base our demeanor. Freedom of speech is a given right in American society. It is the social norm to be able to voice your opinion on diverse issues faced in our global environment. The Ontology of World Politics is a form of mediating issues of concern.

"Most of the chapters of this book were originally published as separate articles in the North American Review, the Atlantic Monthly, the Century Magazine, the American Review of Reviews, the Forum, the New York Evening Post, and Pearson's Magazine." -- Pref. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"Most of the chapters of this book were originally published as separate articles in the North American review, the Atlantic monthly, the Century magazine, the American review of reviews, the Forum, the New York evening post, and Pearson's magazine."--Pref. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article explores the burgeoning literature on status in world politics. Toward that end, it reviews three recently published books. The three books are representative of the different theoretical perspectives that have come to dominate status research in international relations. Renshon's Fighting for Status offers a rationalist-instrumental approach; Larson and Shevchenko's Quest for Status draws on insights from social identity theory; and Murray's The Struggle for Recognition is informed by constructivist theory. The article contrasts and compares the three works. Moreover, it identifies shortcomings and limitations in each book and, based on this discussion, suggests areas for further research. In particular, it is argued that scholars should devote more attention to competitive theory testing through process tracing; incorporate domestic politics more systematically into approaches of status seeking; develop case-specific explanations that fuse insights from the various perspectives; and examine how the interplay of material and ideational factors shapes states' status aspirations.

Complexity is the new global ontology for world politics. This article summarizes the characteristics of complexity and its implications for informed US state policy making. We conclude with some suggestions about administrative reforms to improve US policy making to address global complexity.

As exposed in the introduction, the purpose of this module is to be a companion for students in their first approximation to the international politics of East Asia. The first part offered an introduction to the region. It reviewed its different geopolitical delimitations and definitions, presented a brief overview of its recent history, and examined the main patterns of continuity and change in post-Cold War East Asia. The first part concluded with a discussion of the degree of cohesiveness of this contested region. The second part focused on analyzing the role that the three main powers of the region play in shaping it : the US, China, and Japan. Next, the third part examined regionalism in East Asia and the region's security architecture. Finally, the fourth part has presented the main contending visions that prevail in academia regarding the future of the region. We have attempted to offer the most comprehensive view of the region possible within its limited scope. Unavoidably, we have not been able to go into full depth in the analysis and discussion of each of these aspects. Here below there is a list of resources that students may find useful to continue deepening their knowledge of this relevant and complex region.

Pahlawan Perang Dunia II Winston Churchill suatu ketika pernah berkata, "Sejarah dibuat oleh para pemenang". Jika kita membaca dan mencermati sejarah dunia dari masa ke masa, kata-kata tersebut barangkali ada benarnya. Para penakluk Spanyol (conquistadores) mulai dari Christopher Columbus, Fransisco Pizzaro, sampai Hernan Cortez mengarang cerita bahwa orang-orang Indian Amerika adalah masyarakat barbar (uncivilized) sehingga menjustifikasi penaklukan oleh masyarakat Eropa yang 'tercerahkan' (civilized). Pasca Perang Dunia II Sekutu sebagai pihak yang menang punya otoritas penuh untuk mereka-ulang rancang-bangun tatanan internasional. Dalam konteks ini, pendukung setia hegemoni Amerika John Ikenberry mengatakan dalam bukunya berjudul 'After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars' bahwa munculnya institusi-institusi global semacam GATT yang kemudian berubah menjadi WTO, IMF, Bank Dunia, bahkan PBB tak luput dari upaya Amerika Serikat untuk merekonstruksi dunia menurut sudut pandangnya.Jika benar dunia dibentuk oleh kekuatan besar, lantas bagaimana peran negara-negara lain, lebih khusus negara-negara berkembang? Kita semua mahfum bahwa negara-negara berkembang dulunya adalah negara terjajah. Negara-negara ini rata-rata baru lahir dalam kurun waktu pasca Perang Dunia II sampai dengan dekade 1960-an. Dari segi geografis, negara-negara ini menempati tiga kawasan besar dunia yakni Asia, Afrika, dan Amerika Latin. Ketiga kawasan itu secara ekonomi dulunya dianggap sebagai kawasan marjinal, atau periphery menurut istilah penganut teori dependensia klasik. Kombinasi antara faktor politik sebagai negara terjajah dan faktor ekonomi sebagai negara 'kelas dua' membuat negara-negara berkembang tidak memiliki andil besar dalam arsitektur tatanan internasional.Tetapi apakah benar demikian?

Academic and policy debates on migration and refugee 'crises' across the world have yet to fully engage with the importance of cross-border population mobility for states' diplomatic strategies. This article sets forth the concept of 'migration diplomacy' as an object of analysis for academics and practitioners alike, distinguishing it from other forms of migration-related policies and practices. It draws on realist approaches in International Relations to identify how the interests and power of state actors are affected by their position in migration systems, namely the extent to which they are migration-sending, migration-receiving, or transit states. The article then discusses how migration issues connect with other areas of state interest and diplomacy, including security interests, economic interests and issues of identity, soft power and public diplomacy. Finally, the article suggests the utility of applying a rationalist framework based on states' interests in absolute vs. relative gains as a means of examining the bargaining strategies used by states in instances of migration diplomacy.

Academic and policy debates on migration and refugee "crises" across the world have yet to engage fully with the importance of cross border population mobility for states' diplomatic strategies. This article sets forth the concept of "migration diplomacy" as an object of analysis for academics and practitioners alike, distinguishing it from other forms of migration-related policies and practices. It draws on realist approaches in international relations to identify how the interests and power of state actors are affected by their position in migration systems, namely the extent to which they are migration-sending, migration-receiving, or transit states. The article then discusses how migration issues connect with other areas of state interest and diplomacy, including security interests, economic interests and issues of identity, soft power, and public diplomacy. Finally, the article suggests the utility of applying a rationalist framework based on states' interests in absolute versus relative gains as a means of examining the bargaining strategies used by states in instances of migration diplomacy.

In Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics Catherine Lu endorses the idea that those who contribute to the reproduction of structural injustice have responsibilities to address that injustice (Lu, 2017). However, in the book, Lu does not explore the grounds and justification for recognising such a responsibility. In order to address this deficit, this paper proposes that those likely to contribute to the reproduction of structural injustice, in the future, have precautionary duties, in the present, that require them to take action aimed at preventing their future contribution. It is proposed that these 'collectivization duties' (Collins, 2013) require them to act responsively with a view to forming a collective that can end the structural injustice in question. This account recommends a collective-action solution alongside recognising that each socially connected agent is obliged to act. However, it does not entail that amorphous groups bear responsibilities and is appropriate in its attribution of blame, thus avoiding both Nussbaum's (2011) critique of perpetually forward-looking accounts and the 'agency objection' (Wringe, 2010).

In Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics Catherine Lu endorses the idea that those who contribute to the reproduction of structural injustice have responsibilities to address that injustice (Lu, 2017). However, in the book, Lu does not explore the grounds and justification for recognising such a responsibility. In order to address this deficit, this paper proposes that those likely to contribute to the reproduction of structural injustice, in the future, have precautionary duties, in the present, that require them to take action aimed at preventing their future contribution. It is proposed that these 'collectivization duties' (Collins, 2013) require them to act responsively with a view to forming a collective that can end the structural injustice in question. This account recommends a collective-action solution alongside recognising that each socially connected agent is obliged to act. However, it does not entail that amorphous groups bear responsibilities and is appropriate in its attribution of blame, thus avoiding both Nussbaum's (2011) critique of perpetually forward-looking accounts and the 'agency objection' (Wringe, 2010).

The contributions to this Forum on Ritual and Authority in World Politics examine the role that ritual performances play in the constitution of positions of authority and the maintenance of relations of authority in historical and contemporary international relations. The Forum takes as its point of departure three related observations: (i) that recent years have witnessed a remarkable upsurge of interest in ritual as a recurring feature of international practice, but (ii) that this recent interest in ritual has not extended, thus far, to the study of international authority, (iii) in spite of political anthropologists' long-standing claim that the performance of ritual is absolutely crucial to the production of authority. The performance of ritual grounds, makes tangible and enhances various forms of authority, including forms of international authority, historical and contemporary. The contributions to this Forum demonstrate the veracity of that claim in five different empirical contexts—Byzantine diplomacy, early modern cross-cultural encounters, British imperialism in India, military lawyering in America's armed forces, and the casting of ballots in Crimea and the US—and attempt also to explain precisely how it is that ritual served to undergird and stabilise authority in these various instances.

World politics has conventionally been a realm of ideas, instead of things. While ideas matter, the paucity of research into the artefacts of world politics and particularly the everyday artefacts of world politics represents a gap in how we know the world. By developing a form of artefact analysis specifically designed to study the things of world politics, I examine what three types of everyday artefacts – graphic novels, textiles and internet memes – can tell us about world politics. Graphic novels, for example, show how conflict and the everyday co-exist in a curious mash-up of banality and violence; they also complicate narratives of world politics with which we may be more familiar, highlight the fundamental importance that everyday makers play in the lived experience of world politics, and they have significant parallels with the research processes involved in producing scholarship. Textiles are a vehicle for everyday makers to explore and express their ethnic and national identities and can function as a form of documentation. Some everyday makers of these artefacts have also explored innovative ways of physically incorporating the everyday into their work, while others have used the medium to subvert dominant representations of weapons. Finally, internet memes have been used as tools for grassroots political lobbying as well as to challenge representations of a variety of actors in world politics. They also, however, reproduce some of the problematic logics that can be found in more conventional sources of world politics and the humour that drives internet memes may have significant ethical implications. Taking these everyday artefacts seriously as sources of world politics, I argue, allows us to better know the world that we study, the people that inhabit it, and the lived experience of world politics.