The purpose of intervention: changing beliefs about the use of force
In: Cornell studies in security affairs
13 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Cornell studies in security affairs
In: Review of international studies: RIS, Band 27, Heft 3
ISSN: 1469-9044
In: International organization, Band 50, Heft 2, S. 325-347
ISSN: 1531-5088
In: International organization, Band 47, Heft 4, S. 565-597
ISSN: 1531-5088
Most explanations for the creation of new state institutions locate the cause of change in the conditions or characteristics of the states themselves. Some aspect of a state's economic, social, political, or military situation is said to create a functional need for the new bureaucracy which then is taken up by one or more domestic groups who succeed in changing the state apparatus. However, changes in state structure may be prompted not only by changing conditions of individual states but also by socialization and conformance with international norms. In the case of one organizational innovation recently adopted by states across the international system, namely, science policy bureaucracies, indicators of state conditions and functional need for these entities are not correlated with the pattern for their adoption. Instead, adoption was prompted by the activities of an international organization which "taught" states the value of science policy organizations and established the coordination of science as an appropriate, and even a necessary, role for states. This finding lends support to constructivist or reflective theories that treat states as social entities shaped by international social action, as opposed to more conventional treatments of states as autonomous international agents.
In: International Journal, Band 59, Heft 2, S. 460
In: Annual review of political science, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 391-416
ISSN: 1545-1577
▪ Abstract Constructivism is an approach to social analysis that deals with the role of human consciousness in social life. It asserts that human interaction is shaped primarily by ideational factors, not simply material ones; that the most important ideational factors are widely shared or "intersubjective" beliefs, which are not reducible to individuals; and that these shared beliefs construct the interests of purposive actors. In international relations, research in a constructivist mode has exploded over the past decade, creating new and potentially fruitful connections with long-standing interest in these issues in comparative politics. In this essay, we evaluate the empirical research program of constructivism in these two fields. We first lay out the basic tenets of constructivism and examine their implications for research methodology, concluding that constructivism's distinctiveness lies in its theoretical arguments, not in its empirical research strategies. The bulk of the essay explores specific constructivist literatures and debates in international relations and comparative politics.
In: International organization, Band 52, Heft 4, S. 887-917
ISSN: 1531-5088
Norms have never been absent from the study of international politics, but the sweeping "ideational turn" in the 1980s and 1990s brought them back as a central theoretical concern in the field. Much theorizing about norms has focused on how they create social structure, standards of appropriateness, and stability in international politics. Recent empirical research on norms, in contrast, has examined their role in creating political change, but change processes have been less well-theorized. We induce from this research a variety of theoretical arguments and testable hypotheses about the role of norms in political change. We argue that norms evolve in a three-stage "life cycle" of emergence, "norm cascades," and internalization, and that each stage is governed by different motives, mechanisms, and behavioral logics. We also highlight the rational and strategic nature of many social construction processes and argue that theoretical progress will only be made by placing attention on the connections between norms and rationality rather than by opposing the two.
Rules for the World -- Contents -- Preface -- 1. Bureaucratizing World Politics -- 2. International Organizations as Bureaucracies -- 3. Expertise and Power at the International Monetary Fund -- 4. Defining Refugees and Voluntary Repatriation at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees -- 5. Genocide and the Peace keeping Culture at the United Nations -- 6. The Legitimacy of an Expanding Global Bureaucracy -- List of Abbreviations -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index.
In: Foreign affairs: an American quarterly review, Band 83, Heft 1, S. 166
ISSN: 2327-7793
In: International organization, Band 55, Heft 3, S. 743-758
ISSN: 1531-5088
The authors of "Legalization and World Politics" (International Organization, 54, 3, summer 2000) define "legalization" as the degree of obligation, precision, and delegation that international institutions possess. We argue that this definition is unnecessarily narrow. Law is a broad social phenomenon that is deeply embedded in the practices, beliefs, and traditions of societies. Understanding its role in politics requires attention to the legitimacy of law, to custom and law's congruence with social practice, to the role of legal rationality, and to adherence to legal processes, including participation in law's construction. We examine three applications of "legalization" offered in the volume and show how a fuller consideration of law's role in politics can produce concepts that are more robust intellectually and more helpful to empirical research.
In: International organization, Band 53, Heft 4, S. 699-732
ISSN: 1531-5088
International Relations scholars have vigorous theories to explain why international organizations (IOs) are created, but they have paid little attention to IO behavior and whether IOs actually do what their creators intend. This blind spot flows logically from the economic theories of organization that have dominated the study of international institutions and regimes. To recover the agency and autonomy of IOs, we offer a constructivist approach. Building on Max Weber's well-known analysis of bureaucracy, we argue that IOs are much more powerful than even neoliberals have argued, and that the same characteristics of bureaucracy that make IOs powerful can also make them prone to dysfunctional behavior. IOs are powerful because, like all bureaucracies, they make rules, and, in so doing, they create social knowledge. IOs deploy this knowledge in ways that define shared international tasks, create new categories of actors, form new interests for actors, and transfer new models of political organization around the world. However, the same normative valuation on impersonal rules that defines bureaucracies and makes them powerful in modern life can also make them unresponsive to their environments, obsessed with their own rules at the expense of primary missions, and ultimately produce inefficient and self-defeating behavior. Sociological and constructivist approaches thus allow us to expand the research agenda beyond IO creation and to ask important questions about the consequences of global bureaucratization and the effects of IOs in world politics.
In: Foreign affairs: an American quarterly review, Band 83, Heft 6, S. 144
ISSN: 2327-7793
In: Mershon International Studies Review, Band 41, Heft 2, S. 275