Suchergebnisse

This paper explores the Estonian vision of Baltic identity. Estonia's authorities have repeatedly articulated their scepticism towards the concept of a stand-alone 'Baltic region' and the inclusion of Estonia in it, preferring to position their state as a Nordic country. Yet, in numerous cases, they have clearly labelled Estonia as a Baltic State. To identify the contexts and meanings labelling the country as a Baltic State, this contribution provides a content analysis of official speeches given by Estonia's political leadership. It is concluded that, despite the visibility of socioeconomic issues in the discourse, the most comprehensive image of Estonian 'Balticness' is constructed by interconnected narratives built around the Soviet past and the 'security threats' associated with Russia. The theoretical framework of regionalism, which allows one to consider the Baltics as a social construct rather than a set of material factors, provides an additional explanatory model.

The article is devoted to the analysis of historical retrospective and modern dynamics of region-building in the Baltic region. The cultural and historical foundation of regionalization processes in this area was laid over the centuries, although the framework was finally shaped in the 20th century: the Hanseatic League, the first attempts to create regional unions during the interwar period, the "northern cooperation" and the signing of the Helsinki Convention during the Cold War. In the post-bipolar period, the Baltic region continues to maintain its political and socio economic heterogeneity. Today, the key institution of multilateral cooperation uniting all countries of the region is the Council of the Baltic Sea States, whereas, from the EU perspective, the main self-sufficient instrument of regionalization is the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. At the same time, both formats rely in specific projects implementation on "horizontal actions" and network cooperation on the grass-roots level, which makes regional interaction practical to the greatest possible extent, largely depoliticized and stable in the long run.

We revisit and empirically evaluate crucial yet under-examined arguments articulated in "God Gave Physics the Easy Problems" (2000), the authors of which emphasized that, in International Relations (IR) predictions, predominant nomothetic approaches should be supplemented with concrete scenario thinking. We test whether the IR predictive toolkit is in fact dominated by nomothetic generalizations and, more broadly, map the methodological profile of this subfield. We build on the TRIP database, supplementing it with extensive original coding to operationalize the nuances of predictive research. In particular, we differentiate between nomoscopic predictions (predictive generalizations) and idioscopic predictions (predictions for concrete situations), showing that this distinction is not reducible to other methodological cleavages. We find that even though in contemporary IR an increasing number of articles seek to provide predictions, they consistently avoid predictions about concrete situations. The proportion of idioscopic predictions is stably small, with an even smaller proportion of predictions that develop concrete narratives or specify any determinate time period. Furthermore, those idioscopic studies are mostly limited to a niche with specialized themes and aims. Thus, our research shows that the critical claims from 20 years ago are still relevant for contemporary IR, as the "difficult problem" of developing predictive scenarios is still consistently overlooked in favor of other objectives. Ultimately, the types of predictions that IR scholars develop depend on their specific aims and constraints, but the discipline-wide result is a situation in which international studies' ambition to provide predictions grows, but they tend to reproduce the same limitations as they did in 2000.

We revisit and empirically evaluate crucial yet under-examined arguments articulated in "God Gave Physics the Easy Problems" (2000), the authors of which emphasized that, in International Relations (IR) predictions, predominant nomothetic approaches should be supplemented with concrete scenario thinking. We test whether the IR predictive toolkit is in fact dominated by nomothetic generalizations and, more broadly, map the methodological profile of this subfield. We build on the TRIP database, supplementing it with extensive original coding to operationalize the nuances of predictive research. In particular, we differentiate between nomoscopic predictions (predictive generalizations) and idioscopic predictions (predictions for concrete situations), showing that this distinction is not reducible to other methodological cleavages. We find that even though in contemporary IR an increasing number of articles seek to provide predictions, they consistently avoid predictions about concrete situations. The proportion of idioscopic predictions is stably small, with an even smaller proportion of predictions that develop concrete narratives or specify any determinate time period. Furthermore, those idioscopic studies are mostly limited to a niche with specialized themes and aims. Thus, our research shows that the critical claims from 20 years ago are still relevant for contemporary IR, as the "difficult problem" of developing predictive scenarios is still consistently overlooked in favor of other objectives. Ultimately, the types of predictions that IR scholars develop depend on their specific aims and constraints, but the discipline-wide result is a situation in which international studies' ambition to provide predictions grows, but they tend to reproduce the same limitations as they did in 2000.