Suchergebnisse

This article examines the role of ideations in the de-problematization process of the governance of "migration crises". Ideations, for example, in the form of frames often simplify social reality and do not allow us to understand the nature of a problem policy-makers are dealing with. To show this, I use the example of the "European Migrant Crisis," to illustrate that it is, in fact, a wicked problem. The "wicked problem" concept describes a complex and contingent problem and, in essence, a set of "un-owned" processes. It further dissolves local and global distinctions and forces to connect micro and macro processes at all times. In this article, I show that this "migration crisis" (and also many others) consists of much more than just a humanitarian or security crisis but is also constituted by geopolitical crises and crises of political institutions. A relational approach seems most pertinent to be able to grasp all these aspects and helps us to stop de-problematizing it and instead problematize it adequately. It also advocates for the circumvention of ideations as they are a main source for the de-problematization of wicked problems.

In this article the alleged demise of the United States of America (USA) and the ability of its challengers will be discussed and analyzed. Based on George Modelski's concept of Long-Cycles in Global Politics we can anticipate a disruption in the hegemonic position – currently held by the USA. Considering, the possibility of this scenario, the author executed a pragmatic comparative study and sketches out the chances for the two main competitors – China and India – which struggle mightily with domestic issues and on the other side presents four arguments, why the decline of the USA is not as apparent and looming as partly presumed. The arguments are: (i) the independence supply of natural resources; (ii) its supremacy over the world seas; (iii) reinstated activity in the Rimland and (iiii) control over the Global Commons.

What relations matter? This question sits at the heart of this article and addresses in a more thoroughgoing way the methodological and ethico-political problems that some relational thinkers have debated. We are interested in deep relationalism and the methodological problem of delineating which relations matter in a reality defined by an ever-unfolding web of relations. By acknowledging the relationality of critical international relations (IR) theories, this methodological puzzle is explored by recognizing the situatedness of relations that are being analyzed. Moreover, this helps us to start a conversation on the ethical and political dimensions of deeply relational approaches. By placing the ontological work of deep relationalism in dialogue with the epistemological and ethico-political aspects of critical theory, we are putting forth an account of critical relationalism. Furthermore, we are not only arguing for a critical approach to relationalism but also adding to one of the main methodological debates in relationalism that asks us to carefully consider which relations matter (for our analysis) and how we should access them? Finally, this piece advocates for more plural grounds for relationalism in IR to critically reflect on which relations our theoretical approaches can take us to and why this matters.

AbstractWhat relations matter? This question sits at the heart of this article and addresses in a more thoroughgoing way the methodological and ethico-political problems that some relational thinkers have debated. We are interested in deep relationalism and the methodological problem of delineating which relations matter in a reality defined by an ever-unfolding web of relations. By acknowledging the relationality of critical international relations (IR) theories, this methodological puzzle is explored by recognizing the situatedness of relations that are being analyzed. Moreover, this helps us to start a conversation on the ethical and political dimensions of deeply relational approaches. By placing the ontological work of deep relationalism in dialogue with the epistemological and ethico-political aspects of critical theory, we are putting forth an account of critical relationalism. Furthermore, we are not only arguing for a critical approach to relationalism but also adding to one of the main methodological debates in relationalism that asks us to carefully consider which relations matter (for our analysis) and how we should access them? Finally, this piece advocates for more plural grounds for relationalism in IR to critically reflect on which relations our theoretical approaches can take us to and why this matters.

The endeavour to explain and predict international affairs is getting harder since it is ever more widely accepted that heterogeneous and fluid actors are making international politics. Positivists of various types have dominated the discussion on knowledge creation in the discipline of International Relations (IR), but the increasing acceptance of the dynamic character of international politics has led to the support and use of constructivist, post-Western or feminist approaches. There has also been an uptick in methodological discussions on these critical, non-positivist approaches. This article contributes to these debates by offering the first steps towards a cognitive frames–based methodology for IR. With a pragmatist ontology as its foundation, the approach re-sets the focus of analysis to the rationality of the international actors. The article, offers an initial description, by relying on illustrative examples, of the creation, the reach, durability and the organisational structure of cognitive frames in the global arena.

The European Union (EU)–Turkey deal consolidated a shift in the EU's migration policy. The deal is the culmination of the dominance of the security frame and depicts the continuous externalization of the EU's responsibility of asylum protection and burden sharing. The strengthening of the security frame has weakened the humanitarian norms that previously dictated EU's behaviour. This has led to the EU losing some of its comparative advantages in negotiations. Simultaneously, the instrumentalization of the value of asylum, paired with an increased number of asylum seekers, has given negotiation leverage to the neighbouring countries turned service providers. These changes in perception and norms have created a power shift, at the disadvantage of the EU, creating a more leveled playing field for negotiations between the parties. This article tracks the historical shifts in the global refugee regime to explain how today's situation was created. Hereby, the existence of two competing cognitive frames—humanitarian and security—is assumed, tracked and analysed. While looking at the EU–Turkey deal, the article shows that the EU has started treating refugees as a security problem rather than a humanitarian issue, breaking the normative fabric of the refugee regime in the process. The article also displays how Turkey was able to capitalise on this new reality and engage with negotiations of other neighbouring countries of EU that point towards a change of dynamics in the global refugee regime.

1. Introduction: A Relational Approach to Governing Wicked Problems -- Part I A Relational Definition of Wicked Problems -- 2. Aren't All Problems Wicked? Addressing the Constructive and Destructive Critiques of the Concept of Wicked Problems -- 3. From Categorical Distinctions of Policy Problems to a Relational Approach to Wicked Problems -- 4. From Governance Failure to Failure Governance: A Relational Approach to Governing Wicked Problems -- Part II The History of the Present of the Theories of the Policy Process: From Self-Action to Trans-Action -- 5. A Genealogy of Self-Active Governance in Policy Theories -- 6. Problematizing Theoretical Understandings of Problems: From Self-actionalist to Inter-actionalist Approaches in Policy Sciences -- 7. The (Re)turn to the Political: Deepening the Grasp of Contingency in the Theories of the Policy Process -- 8. Speaking Truth to Power? The (Political) Constitution of Knowledge and Rationality in Policy-Making and Governance -- 9. From De-Problematized Expert Knowledge to Politics of Critical Dialogue: Towards Process-Relational Policy Theories -- Part III Theory and Practice of Failure Governance and Governance Failure -- 10. A Theory of Governance as Problematization and De-problematization -- 11. The Whole-of-Nation-Failure-Governance: Taiwan's Politics of Problematization of COVID-19 -- 12. Making America Do Their "Own Research" Again? Trump's Politics of De-problematization of COVID-19 -- 13. Germany's Road from Failure Governance to Governance Failure -- Part IV Concluding Remarks -- 14. In Place of Conclusions: Failing Better or Waiting for Godot in a Clumsy World of Wicked Problems?.