Suchergebnisse

West is a concept widely used in international relations, but we rarely reflect on what we mean by the term. Conceptions of and what the West is vary widely. This book examines conceptions of the West drawn from writers from diverse historical and intellectual contexts, revealing both interesting parallels and points of divergence. It also reflects on implications of these different perceptions of how we understand the role of the West, and its interactions with other civilizational identities

AbstractThere are growing calls to address the Eurocentrism of classical English School (ES) scholarship and to adopt more holistic frameworks of analysis, which include alternative, non-Western forms of international order and interactions with the European international systems. This article investigates Adam Watson's contribution to 'decentring' the ES. Two dimensions of Watson's work speak to this objective. The first is his development of a more inclusive comparative historical sociological analysis of states-systems. The second is his development of a more generic concept of systems as complex, variegated and shifting relationships of authority, highlighting the prevalence of hierarchy and hegemony in states-systems. However, Watson's work remains inflected with Eurocentrism in several important respects. These include his narrative of the evolution of the contemporary states-system, which largely remains one of the autonomous development and expansion of Europe, and the limited ways in which his narrative includes the agency, voices and experiences of non-European peoples.

The concept of civilization is intrinsic to the English School's understanding of international society. At the same time, engagement with discourses of civilization has been an important site of contestation within the English School, with quite different narratives of the evolution, structures and dynamics of international society being articulated. I argue that deeper analysis of how different waves of English School scholars engage with discourses of civilization provides a valuable pathway for mapping the evolution of English School thought and its understanding of the structure and dynamics of international society. Discourse analysis, a method firmly embedded in interpretivist approaches, can provide us with a valuable approach to unravel the complexities of English School thinking about civilization. Applying discourse analysis to these bodies of work allows us to explore nodal points within English School debates, the layering of particular texts, and how scholars engage with strategies of juxtapositioning and counternarrative in order to reveal how subjects are positioned in hierarchies of authority and reveal previously subjugated voices in their interpretations of the constitution and evolution of international society.

In the ' Disunity of Mankind', Martin Wight addresses a recurrent dilemma in Western thought: how do we reconcile conceptions of human community with those of human diversity? The ways in which diversity is understood and the meanings attached to difference has significant implications for political orders and human interaction. The deployment of difference can generate both sites of contest, and the permissive conditions for particular forms of political action. Wight's dilemma remains highly salient today. We continue to struggle intellectually, ethically and politically to reconcile claims of a universal human community with the plurality of human societies. Whilst we ostensibly value diversity, we still persistently constitute difference through producing dichotomies that generate both moral and political hierarchies and boundaries, which in turn form significant features in the landscape of contemporary world politics.

The Responsibility to Protect has been hailed as one of the most significant normative developments in world politics since 1945, a �normative breakthrough that lays the foundation for a new international politics of mass atrocities�. Its endorsement at the 2005 United Nations World Summit provided an unprecedented acknowledgement by the global community that such responsibilities exist. This endorsement of R2P represents a quintessential cosmopolitan moment in world politics � it demonstrated recognition that there is an obligation to respond to harms visited upon others, and that this obligation is not confined by the political boundaries of the state. At the same time, eddying around R2P since its inception has been the question of whether it represents a genuine universal consensus on how to respond to mass atrocity crimes. R2P remains dogged by accusations that it does not in fact represent a universal doctrine; rather it is but another iteration of the interests of the powerful over the weak cloaked in the language of universals, a means for the projection of the values and interests of the West. The backlash generated by NATO's action in Libya and the subsequent inability of the international community to reach a consensus to implement an R2P mandate in Syria added grist to the mill of such critiques. These differing interpretations of the purposes of R2P speak to a critical question that is central to any theoretical analysis of R2P: is it an innately Western idea? This question can be addressed at an empirical level: who formulated, promoted and has supported R2P? To what extent has the development of R2P been driven by the West? However, the question can also be posed at a deeper level: can we say that the ethical premises that lie at the heart of R2P reflect the moral and political values of a particular society, that of the West? These questions bring to the fore the issue of the cultural politics of R2P. Despite the copious materials produced in recent years on R2P, this is an aspect of R2P which had been somewhat neglected; and yet the evolution of R2P is deeply embedded in the cultural politics of the international system. An important aspect of this is the degree to which the modern system was shaped by the expansion of the West and resistance to it.

Debates about liberal internationalism in general and 'purposes beyond ourselves' in particular have focused largely on the role of states. Such a focus risks limiting our potential to achieve solidarist goals by tying us to the ontological and ethical concerns of the state. This article argues that a more expansive conception of agency, which includes non-state actors (NSAs), reflects more accurately the complexity of agency and interests within liberal internationalism. Using the example of humanitarianism, it argues that humanitarian NSAs demonstrate that important additional avenues exist for the pursuit of solidarism within the liberal international order. At the same time, these actors do not totally evade the dilemmas of solidarism faced by states, nor the tensions that permeate liberal internationalism and constrain the pursuit of purposes beyond ourselves. Humanitarian NSAs are embedded in complex relationships with states and are implicated in structures of power and interest within the liberal international order. These present them with their own dilemmas of solidarism and, despite their best intentions, can compromise their pursuit of 'purposes beyond ourselves'.

This paper engages with that by William Tow. By discussing the contentious aspects of the interpretive traditions used in Tow's article and further interrogating the distinction between hard power and soft power, it draws attention to the contested nature of international relations theory in general, as well as to the need for a diversity of approaches to the terrorism question in particular. It questions the continuing integrity of nation-states and the ideas of rational action and proportional response. It elaborates some of the methodological problems concerning the respective priority of interpretation or prediction. Its conclusion is less sanguine than Tow's because it indicates that the causes of violence and resentment remain unaddressed; nonetheless endorsing the need for cooperative political processes.

This paper engages with that by William Tow. By discussing the contentious aspects of the interpretive traditions used in Tow's article and further interrogating the distinction between hard power and soft power, it draws attention to the contested nature of international relations theory in general, as well as to the need for a diversity of approaches to the terrorism question in particular. It questions the continuing integrity of nation-states and the ideas of rational action and proportional response. It elaborates some of the methodological problems concerning the respective priority of interpretation or prediction. Its conclusion is less sanguine than Tow's because it indicates that the causes of violence and resentment remain unaddressed; nonetheless endorsing the need for cooperative political processes.

Media has always been a critical dimension of politics and of political violence. Information about violence and conflict is disseminated through the media. Media is also a mechanism through which the politics of violence is monitored, represented and interpreted. While the historical relationship between old media and political violence has long been the subject of research and debate, how this relationship is affected by the emergence of digital new media technology warrants further consideration. This development raises several important issues and questions for students of international relations, in particular with respect to how the reconfiguration of the role of media in conflict impacts more broadly on configurations of world politics. This article identifies four critical dimensions of world politics through which to explore this impact: the constitution of power, the configuration of agency, the nature and politics of representation, and the constitution of legitimacy. It argues that the concepts of power, agency, representation and legitimacy provide critical interfaces between media, conflict and world politics. In so doing, the article elucidates the conceptual framework that animates this special issue. Finally, it reflects on how these concepts are engaged in the articles to follow.

Media has always been a critical dimension of politics and of political violence. Information about violence and conflict is disseminated through the media. Media is also a mechanism through which the politics of violence is monitored, represented and interpreted. While the historical relationship between old media and political violence has long been the subject of research and debate, how this relationship is affected by the emergence of digital new media technology warrants further consideration. This development raises several important issues and questions for students of international relations, in particular with respect to how the reconfiguration of the role of media in conflict impacts more broadly on configurations of world politics. This article identifies four critical dimensions of world politics through which to explore this impact: the constitution of power, the configuration of agency, the nature and politics of representation, and the constitution of legitimacy. It argues that the concepts of power, agency, representation and legitimacy provide critical interfaces between media, conflict and world politics. In so doing, the article elucidates the conceptual framework that animates this special issue. Finally, it reflects on how these concepts are engaged in the articles to follow.