Suchergebnisse

Alexander Reichwein stellt in diesem Buch die realistische Theorie Hans J. Morgenthaus in den Kontext der deutschen Geschichte. Dabei vertritt er die These eines sinnstiftenden Zusammenhangs zwischen der Sozialisation und dem Denken des in Frankfurt promovierten Völkerrechtlers und späteren Politikwissenschaftlers. Reichwein argumentiert, dass erst das Wissen um Morgenthaus soziales und intellektuelles Umfeld, seinen persönlichen und akademischen Werdegang und die politischen Ereignisse in Europa in den Zwischenkriegsjahren den Schlüssel zum Verständnis seines Weltbildes bieten, das sich nicht auf ein affirmatives Verständnis von Macht reduzieren lässt. Morgenthaus Denken offenbart liberale Grundüberzeugungen, einen normativen Kern und Lehren aus der Vergangenheit, die in seiner Kritik an der US-Außenpolitik sowie in seinen Arbeiten zur Demokratie in Amerika zum Ausdruck kommen. Und die sich wie eine Warnung vor einer kriegerischen Außenpolitik, Nationalismus und einem zweiten Weimar lesen lassen.

After a lapse in interest and popularity, realist approaches to International Relations (IR) have begun to spark interest again, even in Europe. This paper elaborates the origin of Hans J. Morgenthau's realist thinking. Given his various power-oriented, legal and moral arguments against Wilson's doctrine of democracy promotion and democratic interventionism, the Vietnam War, and in favour of an Israeli state (3.), my thesis is that there is a primal and entrenched critical and normative dimension in Morgenthau's thought from the beginning. His particular understanding of international law and morality as limitations of power extends beyond a rationalist and conservative 'Cold War' theory about power politics (as Realism is presented in prevalent readings). The core argument of the paper is that the complex relation between power, law and morality inherent in Morgenthau's thinking, and the contradictions coming along with this (2.), are characteristic of his complete works (Gesamtwerk). In order to deal with his 'paradoxical' thinking, we should rethink young international lawyer Morgenthau in his German Context (Erfahrungshintergrund). Surprisingly, less work has been done on the evolution of Realism in the inter-war period (which E.H. Carr calls the "Twenty Years' Crisis") in general, and Morgenthau's life and work in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s in particular which is also neglected in the literature about Realism and the history of IR so far. But, Morgenthau's Weltbild can only be truly understood if and when the German years in which he was socialized intellectually and politically are considered as the roots (or the constitutive moment) of his realist theory (4.). Moreover, an understanding of Morgenthau's brand of Realism is necessary to understand both the history of Realism as a 20th-century school of thought as well as the development of our discipline IR.

The paper aims at presenting research about Neo-Conservatism, in particular about the origin(s), history of development, ideas, and foreign policy goals. The core argument of the paper is that the discipline of International Relations (IR), in particular the North American Research and the Peace and Conflict Research, should take the Neoconservatives seriously. Three arguments can be made for this: First of all, Neoconservatives such as Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, and Normen Podhoretz are participating in the debates about US foreign policy, and they introduce their ideas (e.g. "democracy promotion", "unipolar moment", and "benevolent empire") into the discourse. The foreign policy of the Reagan administration as well as the foreign policy of George W. Bush was highly influenced by neoconservative ideas. To sum up, Neo-Conservatism is the fourth influential school of US foreign policy beside Isolationism, Liberal Internationalism, and Realism. Secondly, Neoconservatives are proponents of a war-prone-US foreign policy, and advocates of the "war on terror" and the Iraq War. And finally, Neoconservatives are characterized by ideas, in particular the idea of democracy promotion, as the purpose of American politics and historic mission. Along with this, a neoconservative misunderstanding of IR theories becomes apparent. The "Democrat Realist" Krauthammer and the "Wilsonianist" Podhoretz both refer to "Realism", "Liberalism" and Wilson's doctrine "to make the world safe for democracy" in a way which is not only misleading, but deceptive. Neoconservatives suggest that Realism is a sole power politics-theory without normative bias, and that the scholars of the liberal peace theory as well as Wilson and his successors claim for a policy of democracy promotion by using force and waging war. Against this background, a critical examination with Neoconservatism is presented in the paper. To reveal the neoconservative misunderstanding of IR discipline and its two important school of thoughts, the few similarities but numerous differences between Neo-Conservatism on the one hand and realist and liberal approaches in IR on the other hand are worked out.

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Responsibility to Protect – challenged or confirmed? (Mischa Hansel) -- Part I. R2P – Institutions, Contestation, Discourse Spaces -- Chapter 2. The international implementation of R2P: norm contestation and its consequences (Gregor Hofmann),- Chapter 3. Forums Do Matter: Examining the Norm Dynamics of the Responsibility to Protect (Anne Peltner) -- Chapter 4. R2P: Opening Discursive Spaces for Politics of Protection (Sassan Gholiagha) -- Chapter 5. Protection of Basic Human Rights by Exercising Graded Responsibilities ‒ Linking the Responsibility to Protect with the Attribution of Extraterritorial Duties (Daniel Peters) -- Part II. R2P in Practice -- Chapter 6. R2P and Norm Localization: China's Influence on the Development of R2P (Johanna Polle) -- Chapter 7. Punishing or preventing? The responsibility to protect and the wars in South Sudan (Ole Frahm) -- Chapter 8. Rethinking Turkey's Approach to R2P: Turkish Foreign Policy towards the Syrian Civil War 2011-2017 (Volkan Şeyşane) -- Part III. R2P – Promises and Pitfalls -- Chapter 9. The Waning of post-Cold War Western Preponderance in International Norm Politics. Its Impact on the International Protection of People from Domestic Violence (Lothar Brock) -- Chapter 10. A dangerous responsibility. Towards a new Authoritarian Interventionism? (Mischa Hansel).

Die Beiträge in diesem Band bieten unterschiedliche Perspektiven auf die Internationale Schutzverantwortung. Die R2P erweist sich offensichtlich als eine robuste und dynamischeNorm. Eine Norm, die sich trotz permanenter Diskussionen, Anfechtungen und Streitfragen und trotz des Missbrauchs für interessengeleitete Machtpolitik doch stetig weiterentwickelt. Und die ein Referenzpunkt für Staaten, Institutionen und nichtstaatliche Akteure bei deren Begründungen von als 'humanitär' ausgewiesenen Interventionen bleibt. Es wird aber auch klar, dass diese Normunternehmer von sehr unterschiedlichen Motiven geleitet werden, sehr unterschiedliche Interessen verfolgen und die R2P auch sehr unterschiedlich interpretieren.

"Das Konzept Global Governance erweitert die bisherige Perspektive der Internationalen Politik um transnationale Akteure und ermöglicht die Einbeziehung der Mehrebenenstruktur politischer Entscheidungsprozesse. Als kategorialer Rahmen lassen sich mit dem Konzept Global Governance auf der Akteurs-, Struktur- und Prozessebene Formen politischer Koordination jenseits intergouvernementaler Beziehungen erfassen. Während nach dem liberalen Institutionalismus der Staat seinen exklusiven Status in Prozessen der Normbildung und -implementation verliert, bleiben gemäß neorealistischer Vorstellungen die Staaten nach wie vor die zentralen Akteure internationaler Politik, da nur sie über die notwendigen Machtressourcen verfügen, die internationalen Beziehungen zu gestalten. Für die neogramscianische Theorie sind die bestehenden Koordinationsformen von Global Governance Ausdruck eines neoliberalen Konsenses, der sich bereits in den 1970er Jahren zwischen staatlichen und wirtschaftlichen Akteuren der entwickelten kapitalistischen Industriesaaten unter Einbeziehung gesellschaftlicher Gruppen formierte und mittels Institutionen wie des IWF, der Weltbank und der WTO in den 1989er Jahren stabilisiert wurde." (Autorenreferat)

Abstract
In this introduction to the Special Issue, we suggest a decolonised and entangled perspective in norms research that transcends the Western legacies of global norms by taking into account the complex constellations and interactions within and between norms. We seek to move beyond the dichotomy of 'good' Western versus 'bad' non-Western norms without simply reversing it. We instead propose to integrate three dimensions into norms research: 1) revealing the ambivalences and ambiguities inherent to norms; 2) investigating plural actors as vectors of normative change; and 3) broadening the disciplinary realm of norms research. Our aim is to further develop the empirical and conceptual discussion of norms that moves beyond a Western bias without simply giving up on normative assessments of norms.