Suchergebnisse

Kratochwil argues that a social-scientific study of the behavior of regimes, and how they exercise power, is a useful method to challenge the exaggerated view of international relations as a "normless anarchy." By showing how "expectations" dictate action in international affairs, his method asserts the existence of a universal force among nations.

The author explores the changing functions of boundaries in territorially and nonterritorially based social organizations. By focusing on the exchanges that boundaries mediate, a fuller account can be given of the systems characteristics in which the units interact than is afforded by traditional systems theory. Two case studies demonstrate that imperial boundaries differ significantly from those in the state system. Boundaries are shown to be the major means for conflict management in the international system. The author also investigates shifts in the location of the boundary, characteristics of balance-of-power systems, and the restriction and expansion of the exchanges that boundaries allow through the bundling or unbundling of territorial rights. Most of the latter devices that gave rise to spheres of influence, buffer states, suzerainties, and so forth have been overtaken by events, but functional regimes and spheres of influence based upon tacit rather than explicit rules remain important.

Ausgehend von Almonds und Powells Modell der vergleichenden politischen Entwicklung wird in dem Beitrag der Prozeß untersucht, der auf die Errichtung von Nationalstaaten abzielt. Dieser Prozeß wird neben einer methodologischen Kritik an Almonds und Powells im Lichte Max Webers erläutert. Zunächst werden der Begriff der Entwicklung und die damit verbundenen Probleme betrachtet. Das Problem der Analyseebene wird angesprochen. Die Diskussion über das Primat von Gersellschaft oder Politik wird nachgezeichnet. Die normative Dimension politischer Entwicklung wird aufgezeigt. Almonds und Powells Modell der Typologie sozialen und politischen Wandels und des Vergleichs politischer Systeme wird skizziert und beispielhaft an zwei Punkten einer Kritik unterworfen: (1) Kritisiert wird die Fähigkeit des Modells, zur Analyse politischer Tatbestände anzuleiten; (2) die inhärenten Widersprüche des Modells werden aufgezeigt. Zwei Probleme beim Umgang mit dem Begriff der Entwicklung werden erörtert: (1) die Schwierigkeiten eines soziologischen Ausgangpunkts für die Analyse politischer Tatbestände; (2) die normativen Obertöne des Begriffs selbst. Die Analyse macht deutlich, daß für die Untersuchung so komplexer Sachverhalte wie die politischen Systeme der Entwicklungsländer ein Modell der Analyse allein nicht ausreicht. (RW)

Bei der Beantwortung der Frage, inwieweit Normen Entscheidungen im sozialen Leben beeinflussen, greift der Autor auf Werke von Hobbes, Hume und Durkheim und die von ihnen entwickelten Kategorien zurück. (AuD-Fsk)

How do norms influence choices in social life? Conceptual distinctions among types of norms and suggestions in the work of Hobbes, Hume, and Durkheim help us investigate in greater detail the "woolly" concept of regimes in international relations. When we disaggregate the "set of explicit and implicit norms, rules, and decisionmaking procedures" in a given issue area and focus on the conceptual links between rules, principles (norms), and actions, we gain an understanding of the role of norms in social life that is more comprehensive than the understanding provided by traditional accounts. Furthermore, placing the present regime discussion within wider philosophical traditions enables us to develop a more critical approach to the building of theory in the social sciences, since the use of norms as explanatory devices challenges the predominant positivist outlook in several important respects.

Since the notion of the "national interest" plays a pivotal role in the discourse of state action, its clarification as a normative term is historically as well as systematically important. Differing from the conventional approach, which defines the national interest according to genus and taxa, I shall argue that due to its function as a normative term the national interest cannot be understood in taxonomic categories; it necessitates an investigation of the logic of its use according to specified criteria. In this context the notion of the "public interest" is, for historical as well as systematic reasons, illuminating. As historical investigation shows, the term national interest is neither self-justificatory nor arbitrary within the conventions of the European state system until the late nineteenth century. Important changes in the international system can be traced by following the fundamentally changed usage of the term after 1870. A short comparison with and critique of Waltz's "systemic theory" of international relations concludes the article.

Three stories to ponder and one Gedankenexperiment -- (Alternative) facts, historical narratives, and the issue of "objectivity" in the social sciences : a conceptual exploration -- Much ado about what? : some reflections on a theory of practice, identity and social (re)-production -- The view to nowhere and the problem of social ordering.

Praxis investigates both the existing practices of international politics and relations during and after the Cold War, and the issue of whether problems of praxis (individual and collective choices) can be subjected to a 'theoretical treatment'. The book comes in two parts: the first deals with the constitution of international relations and the role of theoretical norms in guiding decisions, in areas such as sanctions, the punishment of international crimes, governance and 'constitutional' concern, the second is devoted to 'theory building'. While a 'theorization' of praxis has often been attempted, Kratochwil argues that such endeavours do not attend to certain important elements characteristic of practical choices. Praxis presents a shift from the accepted international relations standard of theorizing, by arguing for the analysis of policy decisions made in non-ideal conditions within a broader framework of practical choices, emphasizing both historicity and contingency.