Suchergebnisse

According to Fred Halliday's 'Vigilantism in International Relations: Kubálková, Cruickshank and Marxist theory' (Review of International Studies, Volume 13, Number 3, July 1987) our article entitled 'The 'New Cold War' in 'critical International Relations studies'' (Review of International Studies, Volume 12, Number 3, July 1986) along with the rest of our work suffer from serious defects. It appears according to Halliday that we 'do not understand', we 'wouldn't understand', 'couldn't understand', nor could our readers 'divine from our work'. We are, according to Halliday, 'simplistic' and 'given to overstate'. We are 'ideological' and 'tendentious', our work is 'inapposite' and 'misleading'. It 'misrepresents' and it 'ignores', it is 'disputable' and 'contentious', 'historically and theoretically inaccurate', 'dense and meandering', 'spurious' and 'ill-intentioned'. We 'obscure issues with polemic', our 'simplifications are underpinned by other simplifications', we 'erect on a flimsy base'. 'More attentive reading', Halliday feels, would 'tell us a thing or two'. We are guilty of 'elisions of argument', 'dubious imputation of motive', and 'foreshortening of logic'. Others have a 'historical and theoretical erudition' that we, Halliday feels, 'as yet' cannot 'muster'. There is more: Halliday finds it necessary to make comparison of our credentials and writing with those of others whose writing he finds less difficult to follow. The credentials of some gain recognition as (somewhat obscurely) 'second to none', and the works of some others are judged 'fine', 'able', and 'most competent'. He extends his approbation to yet other authors who unlike Kubálková and Cruickshank manage to talk about their subject (Marxism and International Relations) 'appreciatively', 'calmly', and 'positively'. In an ad hominem turn Halliday expresses his misgivings as to Kubálková's scholarship for he again feels she 'transposes' ('with ease') 'totalitarian method' and the 'conformist disciplining' of debate 'from the eastern bloc' on to Western academia.

Professor Frankel in his reply to our article 'A Double Omission', not only denies the existence of any such omission (let alone double) as we there described, but argues that the perception of such a (non-existent) omission lays the authors open to the charge of being guilty of an omission more glaring than that which we attributed to the more myopic side of Western international theory. Professor Frankel in his rebuttal considers that neither Marx nor the Soviet Marxist-Leninists have anything of import to contribute to Western thinking on international relations and that our article, in other words, had no substance whatsoever. He makes the claim that Marx's writings not only 'require specialized skills' in order to be studied but that even when these are brought to bear the intellectual profits are 'likely to be scanty'. But, in any case, argues Frankel, these (writings) were 'given full due … in writings on such special areas of international relations as revolution, conflict or imperialism', — not, that is to say, on international relations in the more general sense.

The title of the article is intended to focus the attention of Western writers on international relations theory upon two aspects of this rapidly growing research area. Rather than meeting with an incomprehensible neglect it is our argument that the aspects referred to might well be accorded one of the key places. Failure to do so, it our contention, when transferred from considerations of theoretical efficiency into the no less precarious realm of practical policy, might well have proportionately hazardous implications. We would beg forbearance, however, if within the necessarily limited scope of this article only a very perfunctory and sketchy outline of the meaning and implications of the omissions can be given. The sole purpose of this article is to provoke interest in these particular areas rather than to supply the deficiencies – a task which clearly could only be undertaken in the expanded context of a major work.

…we are prepared to normalize relations with China on the basis of principles of peaceful coexistence. Furthermore it is possible to declare with confidence: if in Peking they will return to politics genuinely based on Marxism‐Leninism, if they abandon the hostile course vis‐ä‐vis the socialist countries, [if they] place themselves on the path of co‐operation and solidarity with the socialist world, then an appropriate response will be forthcoming from our side and the possibility will present itself for the development of good relations between the USSR and PRC to correspond with the principles of socialist internationalism.

Explores the application of constructivist theory to international relations. The text examines the relevance of constructivism for empirical research, focusing on some of the key issues of contemporary international politics: ethnic and national identity; gender; and political economy.