Suchergebnisse

A reply is offered to criticism by Margareta Sollenberg & Peter Wallensteen of the author's "Towards a More Peaceful World? A Critical View" (both, 2008). The author defends his assertion that arguments noting a declining worldwide trend in violent conflict are based on insufficient & somewhat misleading evidence. He suggests that Sollenberg & Wallensteen, determined to promote their own data program, partially distort his arguments in their theoretical & methodological critique. References. K. Hyatt Stewart

Contemporary scholars do not agree on whether there is a declining prospect of war and armed conflict. A substantial number of authors of quantitative studies have concluded that the current worldwide trend is towards peace. I argue that this conclusion builds on insufficient evidence and possibly on misleading categorisations. The complacent view on the contemporary international system is based on inadequate awareness of the changing patterns of violence. The so-called new wars are not played out on the traditional battlefield. Valid conclusions about present trends would require a reconsideration of definitions, empirical evidence, and coding rules. Moreover, the current wave of democratisation and the increasing number of international interventions probably do not make the world more peaceful. Therefore, the conclusions in some of the most extensive recent analyses of war and peace, that the world is becoming more peaceful, are flawed. Adapted from the source document.

The Norwegian tradition in comparative political research, from Stein Rokkan onwards, has impressed a profiled picture of national peculiarities on the international scholarly community the corporatist mode of government, the strength of the rural districts & the periphery, the egalitarianism & the deep structure of social democratic norms across the political spectrum. The established picture is now increasingly an outdated stereotype, & we explain here why & how Norwegian governance is being rapidly transformed. Still, traditional features have an impact on the direction & pace of transformation. Neo-liberal reforms are of a peculiar type in Norway, & globalisation & Europeanisation do not wipe out all prior characteristics. Even if the Nordic model of politics fades in the rear-view mirror, there are lessons to be learnt also elsewhere, on the conditions of statehood & representative government. On the basis of the recent Norwegian Power & Democracy Study (1998 2003), new analyses are presented in order to generalise the Norwegian case within a comparative & international framework. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract not available. 16 References.

A rejoinder to Steve Smith's & Heikki Patomaki's (both, 1997 [see abstracts 9806264 & 9806255, respectively]) replies to Osterud's (1996 [see abstract 9712328]) critique of postmodernist discourse focuses on three central themes: (1) Smith misread the initial text, inaccurately characterizing the original arguments against postmodern utility in social science. (2) The linguistic style of postmodern constructivism fails to specify analytical methods & standards necessary for postpositivist scholarship; Smith's & Patomaki's arguments do not adequately clarify epistemological value & scholarly criteria from a postmodernist vantage. (3) When discussed in an explicit manner, postmodernist claims offer little of relevance beyond existing contributions from the social sciences. J. Goldshmidt

Postmodernists have begun to question established knowledge in the field of international relations. Superficially, this shift can be detected in trendy new terminology, eg, the politics of "discourse," the world as "text," description as "narrative," narrative as "construction of meaning," & meaning as "construction of reality." More substantively, the shift can be seen in the new postmodern consciousness that has pervaded international relations theory, methodology, & research strategies. The underlying problem is that this postmodern consciousness allows scholars to neglect the basic norms of science & professional scholarship, particularly in relation to conceptual preciseness, systematic search for evidence, methodological explicitness, careful argumentation, & criteria for intersubjectivity. 18 References. M. Maguire