Utopia and the Anthropocene
In: Global environmental politics, Band 20, Heft 1, S. 122-126
ISSN: 1536-0091
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Global environmental politics, Band 20, Heft 1, S. 122-126
ISSN: 1536-0091
In: Global environmental politics, Band 17, Heft 3, S. 141-146
ISSN: 1536-0091
Many scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, have entangled constructivisms and critical theories in problematic ways, either by assigning a critical-theoretical politics to constructivisms or by assuming the appropriateness of constructivist epistemology and methods for critical theorizing. IR's Last Synthesis? makes the argument that these connections mirror IR's grand theoretical syntheses of the 1980s and 1990s and have similar constraining effects on the possibilities of IR theory. They have been made without adequate reflection, in contradiction to the base assumptions of each theoretical perspective, and to the detriment of both knowledge accumulation about global politics and theoretical rigor in disciplinary IR. By rejecting its over-simple syntheses, this book hews a road toward reviving IR theorizing.
In: Alternatives: global, local, political, Band 45, Heft 4, S. 167-183
ISSN: 2163-3150
What is missing from the debate about the "end of IR theory" or the rejection of the now infamous "isms"? Queer theory. Those who declare that IR theory is over and those who see it as making a comeback; those who reject the "isms" and those who champion them seem like they are on opposite sides of a very wide spectrum. This article argues, however, that all is not as it seems. Instead, the various "sides" of the debates about the futures of IR all take for granted a common set of understandings of what research is, what research success is, that research success is valuable, and how those things predict the futures of IR. Their only significant disagreement is about how they see the story unfolding. We disagree on the result as well, but the root of our disagreement is in the terms of the debates. We see IR as failing in two ways: failing to find a self-satisfactory grand narrative and failing to achieve its necessarily impossible goals. The current state-of-the-field literature fights the failing of IR theory—even those who see it as over memorialize its successes. We argue that failure is not to be fought but to be celebrated and actively participated in. Analyzing IR's failures using queer methodology and queer analysis, we argue that recognizing IR's failure can revive IR as an enterprise.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 111, Heft 2, S. 376-394
ISSN: 2161-7953
AbstractThe concept of public goods is often operationalized in the literature as anything that demands some form of international cooperation. While this may be politically useful in generating international cooperation, it is analytically problematic for designing international law with the purpose of enhancing international cooperation. Many of the issues characterized as public goods are in fact common pool resources, which pose distinct issues for international cooperation and demand different legal architectures than public goods for effective international cooperation.
Realism and constructivism are often viewed as competing paradigms for understanding international relations, though scholars are increasingly arguing that the two are compatible. Edited by one of the leading proponents of realist constructivism, this volume shows what realist constructivism looks like in practice by innovatively combining exposition and critiques of the realist constructivist approach with a series of international case studies. Each chapter addresses a key empirical question in international relations and provides important guidance for how to combine both approaches effectively in research. Addressing future directions and possibilities for realist constructivism in international relations, this book makes a significant contribution to the theorizing of global politics