Suchergebnisse

Since Russian president Vladimir Putin's 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference, followed by his country's invasion of neighbouring Georgia the ensuing year, Russia has been one of the most powerful and visible challengers of a West-centric conception of international order. This has led to assertions that Russia is a revisionist state. However, such assertions largely gloss over the "intermediate" stages that Russia has occupied between the two extremes of status quo and revisionist power throughout the post–Cold War era. They also reveal an understanding of international order that is mostly uniform. Employing an English School framework, this paper shows how Russia only became a fully revisionist state in the lead-up to its invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. And using a theoretical model which outlines the impact of contestation on international society, it outlines the consequences of Russia's recent descent into revisionism for the so-called rules-based international order.

According to some perspectives, it is difficult to imagine the collective West developing further relations with Russia beyond the regulatory and systemic – rather than the social – so long as their political systems remain divergent. At the same time, continued elements of Russian "Europeanness" raise fundamental questions about the future role and pre-eminence of liberal states – including Canada – in the contemporary international order, seeing as the Western-led liberal order appears to have failed to become synonymous with global order itself. As such, Russia remains a good case study for probing the extent to which a future world order must root itself in a monist frame in today's pluralistic world. This paper will seek to explore this question from a perspective rooted in the English School of international relations, with the aim ofderiving conclusions regarding the liberal international order's ability to maintain its hegemonic position in global international society.

AbstractRecent years have seen Moscow and Beijing driven closer together as their respective relations with Washington have deteriorated. While a normative convergence between Russia and China appears to be underway, there remains a legacy of historical mistrust in addition to potential irritants that could plague their bilateral relationship. Nonetheless, if Western sanctions against Russia and pressure on China continue unabated, they may have little option but to continue their rapprochement. Against this backdrop, this article will explore whether the two countries currently display a 'thin' or 'thick' bilateral relationship, making use of an English School theoretical framework. It will do so by exploring established English School concepts such as pluralism and solidarism and discussing notable literature within the School on contestation in order to derive conclusions regarding the potential future shape of international order in Eurasia.

Intro -- Praise for Rebooting Global International Society -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- List of Figures -- 1 Introduction: Rebooting Global International Society -- Connecting Order with Change, Contestation and Resilience -- From International System to International Society to Global International Society -- The Fundamental Institutions of (Global) International Society -- Structure and Content of the Volume -- Bibliography -- Part I Theory and Concepts -- 2 Theorizing Change in the English School -- Thinking About Change in IR -- Theorizing Change in the English School -- Towards Theorizing Change in the English School -- Theorizing Change Through a Framework of Ideal Types -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- 3 Contestation in Global International Society -- Theorizing Contestation in the English School -- Culture, Contestation and International Society -- Contestation of the Liberal International Order -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- 4 Resilience in Global International Society -- Resilience as a Way of Thinking in a Changing and Contested World -- Connecting Change and Contestation to Resilience -- The Salience of the 'Human Community' in Making GIS Resilient -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- 5 The Relationship Between Primary and Secondary Institutions: Theorizing Institutional Change -- The Fundamental Institutionalism of the English School -- Enter Holsti and Buzan: Institutional Levels and Markers of Change -- The Added Value: Narrow and Broad Conceptions of Institutional Change -- Enter Early Constructivism: Agency and Mutual Constitution -- The Added Value: An International Society Theory of Institutional Change -- Enter Political Science: New Institutionalism on Change in International Society -- Contestation, Resilience and Complexity in Institutional Change.

This book asks if it is time to "reboot" the fundamental institutions of global international society. The volume revisits Hedley Bull's seminal contribution The Anarchical Society by exploring the interconnected nature of change, contestation and resilience for maintaining order in today's uncertain and complex environment. The volume adds to Bull's theorizing by recognizing that order demands change, that contestation should be welcomed, and that resilience is anchored in local and agent-led forms of ordering. The contributors to Part One of the book focus on theoretical and conceptual issues related to order in the global international society, whilst the contributors to Part Two of the book focus on the primary institutions as listed by Hedley Bull with the addition of a chapter on the market adding a distinctive commentary on new and important dynamics of change, contestation and resilience of the existing institutions.

AbstractThis article introduces the special issue by going beyond the traditional debates about geopolitics and great power rivalry. Instead, it examines the emergent and highly complex world of Central Eurasia, in its transformative effort to reorder itself in response to both global and local change. In particular, the paper (and the volume) focuses on two interrelated themes: one of a changing Russia, that is anxiously trying to adapt to the uncertain dynamics within and beyond the wider Eurasian space; and the other—of an emerging complexity of new order-making regional (integration) initiatives that are poised to reshape the future of international and global order. The overarching intention of this paper and the volume is to advance the need to focus on 'the local', to gain a more holistic understanding of the present-day challenges and the kind of global response needed to stay attuned to the increasingly complex world.

This article introduces the special issue by going beyond the traditional debates about geopolitics and great power rivalry. Instead, it examines the emergent and highly complex world of Central Eurasia, in its transformative effort to reorder itself in response to both global and local change. In particular, the paper (and the volume) focuses on two interrelated themes: one of a changing Russia, that is anxiously trying to adapt to the uncertain dynamics within and beyond the wider Eurasian space; and the other – of an emerging complexity of new order-making regional (integration) initiatives that are poised to reshape the future of international and global order. The overarching intention of this paper and the volume is to advance the need to focus on 'the local', to gain a more holistic understanding of the present-day challenges and the kind of global response needed to stay attuned to the increasingly complex world.

Five years after Maidan, is Moscow's commitment to the Greater Eurasia paradigm a sign of global power's continued eastward shift, or rather an indication of Russia's weakness and reliance on other rising powers to maintain a global profile? How committed is Russia to integrating politically and economically with the rest of Eurasia? And following Volodymyr Zelenskiy's election and the peaceful transfer of power in Ukraine, will Russia again look west, with the European model once more proving attractive to a critical mass of Russians? This report, building on a workshop held at LSE IDEAS in December 2018 and supported by the Horizon 2020 UPTAKE and Global Challenges Research Fund COMPASS projects, brings together some of the UK's foremost scholars on Russia, the EU and the post-Soviet space to evaluate the challenges and opportunities facing Russia's 'Greater Eurasia' foreign policy concept.

Growing multipolar competition affects the ability of the EU and its member states to formulate and implement common action on crises and conflicts. The effort by the "international community" to ensure global security and peace is weakening due to a divergence in the approaches to crises and conflicts by the major powers, which are often at odds with the EU's integrated and normative approaches. The increasing involvement of a multitude of major powers and regional players directly affects the EU's efforts to influence developments in specific regional settings. EU political leverage and/or normative appeal with local actors is eroding and the EU increasingly encounters (state-sponsored) contesters of its policies. At the same time, multipolar competition in crises and conflicts varies considerably across regions and the different major powers play very different roles. Future research should focus on how the EU can engage with different actors across crises and conflicts to mitigate the effects of multipolar competition.