Suchergebnisse

This article intends to contribute to the theorising of institutional change. Specifically, it asks how dynamics in the 'deep structure' of international society correspond to changes in more specific institutions as embodied by regimes and international organisations. It does so by taking up the distinction of primary and secondary institutions in international society advocated by scholars of the English School. It argues that, while the differentiation offers analytical potential, the School has largely failed to study secondary institutions such as international organisations and regimes as autonomous objects of analysis, seeing them as mere materialisations of primary institutions. Engaging with the concepts of structuration and path dependence will allow scholars working in an English School framework to explore more deeply the relation between the two kinds of institutions, and as a consequence devise more elaborate theories of institutional change. Based on this argument, the article develops a theoretical model that sees primary and secondary institutions entangled in distinctive processes of constitution and institutionalisation. This model helps to establish international organisations and regimes as a crucial part of the English School agenda, and to enlighten the political mechanisms that lead to continuity and change in international institutions more broadly. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis article intends to contribute to the theorising of institutional change. Specifically, it asks how dynamics in the 'deep structure' of international society correspond to changes in more specific institutions as embodied by regimes and international organisations. It does so by taking up the distinction of primary and secondary institutions in international society advocated by scholars of the English School. It argues that, while the differentiation offers analytical potential, the School has largely failed to study secondary institutions such as international organisations and regimes as autonomous objects of analysis, seeing them as mere materialisations of primary institutions. Engaging with the concepts of structuration and path dependence will allow scholars working in an English School framework to explore more deeply the relation between the two kinds of institutions, and as a consequence devise more elaborate theories of institutional change. Based on this argument, the article develops a theoretical model that sees primary and secondary institutions entangled in distinctive processes of constitution and institutionalisation. This model helps to establish international organisations and regimes as a crucial part of the English School agenda, and to enlighten the political mechanisms that lead to continuity and change in international institutions more broadly.

AbstractThis article compares the European Union's (EU) actorness in foreign financial policy to that of the US and ASEAN. It thus contributes to the dialogue between EU studies and the New Regionalism by putting it into practice through comparative research. It argues that a process‐oriented interpretation of the actorness concept can be used to compare the EU to both nation‐states and international organizations at the same time. This makes it possible to examine the 'nature of the beast' in specific foreign policy contexts on empirical grounds. The case study analyses EU, US and ASEAN actorness in the IMF reform negotiations within the G20 framework. The findings suggest that a 'two‐way comparison' of the EU is not only possible but also provides valuable empirical insights into the role of informal politics in the EU and other regions.

"'Im Jahr 2014 scheint unsere Welt aus den Fugen geraten', resümierte Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (2014) jüngst die globalen Konflikte und Krisen, mit denen sich die Weltgemeinschaft konfrontiert sieht. Angesichts der sich wandelnden Herausforderungen, so argumentieren derzeit viele Spitzenpolitikerinnen, müsse die deutsche Außenpolitik ihre Rolle in der Welt überdenken. Spätestens seit der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz Anfang 2014 ist das Thema aus der öffentlichen Debatte nicht mehr wegzudenken. Die Bundesregierung scheint dabei mit der Tradition brechen zu wollen, Außenpolitik als Elitenprojekt zu begreifen: Zu Beginn des Jahres stieß das Auswärtige Amt die Initiative 'Review 2014 - Außenpolitik Weiter Denken' an. Hier sollen deutsche und internationale Vertreter aus Diplomatie, Wissenschaft und Zivilgesellschaft zu Wort kommen, um ihre Visionen für Ziele und Mittel der deutschen Außenpolitik zu diskutieren und in den Willensbildungsprozess einzubringen. Der nachfolgende Beitrag basiert auf einer kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit den Forderungen nach einer neuen deutschen Rolle, die im Rahmen dieses Projektes veröffentlicht wurde (Spandler/Pfeifer 2014)." (Autorenreferat)