Suchergebnisse

International relations can be considered as a set of interactions between the actors of international system. As a result of these interactions some actors gain a reputation of reliable and stable while the others perform as irrational and unpredictable. The main goal of these masters' theses was to identify when and how should the seemingly "irrational" behavior of the international actor be considered as a rational strategy aiming at some certain objectives. The subject of this research is the interactions between two states in which the structural and comparative power of the one state is lower than the one of the other. Under these circumstances the state which possesses lower power seeks to raise it in relation to the stronger state. The author of this research hypothesizes that the aim of the behavior which seems irrational to the other players of the international system may be the creation of the conditions of uncertainty. The later can be used as a means of rising structural power of the actor who necessitated it. The Author approaches the logic of the theory of rational choice as well as examines the prospects of using the particular models of game theory as a tool of analyzing the abovementioned interactions of two states the structural and comparative power of which is notably unequal. After analyzing the impact of imperfect information as well as the mistrust in the rationality of the partners of the game, the Author comes to conclusion that the abovementioned factors may be intentionally encouraged to bind the rationality of the adversary.

International relations can be considered as a set of interactions between the actors of international system. As a result of these interactions some actors gain a reputation of reliable and stable while the others perform as irrational and unpredictable. The main goal of these masters' theses was to identify when and how should the seemingly "irrational" behavior of the international actor be considered as a rational strategy aiming at some certain objectives. The subject of this research is the interactions between two states in which the structural and comparative power of the one state is lower than the one of the other. Under these circumstances the state which possesses lower power seeks to raise it in relation to the stronger state. The author of this research hypothesizes that the aim of the behavior which seems irrational to the other players of the international system may be the creation of the conditions of uncertainty. The later can be used as a means of rising structural power of the actor who necessitated it. The Author approaches the logic of the theory of rational choice as well as examines the prospects of using the particular models of game theory as a tool of analyzing the abovementioned interactions of two states the structural and comparative power of which is notably unequal. After analyzing the impact of imperfect information as well as the mistrust in the rationality of the partners of the game, the Author comes to conclusion that the abovementioned factors may be intentionally encouraged to bind the rationality of the adversary.

Independence and liberty of cyberspace enabled inception of new kind mass media. Internet based news organization no longer needed to obey national laws and acknowledge states' superiority in international political communication. News organizations, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikileaks, etc., have emerged as mighty actors in the international communicative activities. They are being driven by self-interests, which not necessary conform sovereign states' interests. The development of new kind mass media are not being determined by national laws or other offline rules. This study determined the role of self-ruling mass media in the international political communication. Also, this work showed that emergence of new kind mass media have caused substantial decline of sovereign states' power in international political communication.

Independence and liberty of cyberspace enabled inception of new kind mass media. Internet based news organization no longer needed to obey national laws and acknowledge states' superiority in international political communication. News organizations, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikileaks, etc., have emerged as mighty actors in the international communicative activities. They are being driven by self-interests, which not necessary conform sovereign states' interests. The development of new kind mass media are not being determined by national laws or other offline rules. This study determined the role of self-ruling mass media in the international political communication. Also, this work showed that emergence of new kind mass media have caused substantial decline of sovereign states' power in international political communication.

Independence and liberty of cyberspace enabled inception of new kind mass media. Internet based news organization no longer needed to obey national laws and acknowledge states' superiority in international political communication. News organizations, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikileaks, etc., have emerged as mighty actors in the international communicative activities. They are being driven by self-interests, which not necessary conform sovereign states' interests. The development of new kind mass media are not being determined by national laws or other offline rules. This study determined the role of self-ruling mass media in the international political communication. Also, this work showed that emergence of new kind mass media have caused substantial decline of sovereign states' power in international political communication.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

Secondly, through three fundamental statements of metatheoretical constructivism (on intersubjective construction of meanings, relationship of ideas and materiality, and mutual constitutive relation of structure and agency) it is demonstrated how they are transformed and applied in more particular theoretical and empirical works of international relation discipline. The analysis of social construction of meaning is presented through the research on the representations of US national interests during the Cold war. The securitization theory demonstrates how the analysis of the formulation of the security problems allows combining the ideal and the material factors of the state agency into one theoretical model. The mutuality of structure and agency is demonstrated through the international norm research. In the end several recommendation are provided on the main principles of constructivist research in international relations. It is recommended, first, not to be afraid of methodological and theoretical experiments, second, to realize that the constructivist methodological positions is best defined as methodological pluralism, third, to remember that the constructivist research design is inseparable from the researched problem and the understanding of the social world.

Secondly, through three fundamental statements of metatheoretical constructivism (on intersubjective construction of meanings, relationship of ideas and materiality, and mutual constitutive relation of structure and agency) it is demonstrated how they are transformed and applied in more particular theoretical and empirical works of international relation discipline. The analysis of social construction of meaning is presented through the research on the representations of US national interests during the Cold war. The securitization theory demonstrates how the analysis of the formulation of the security problems allows combining the ideal and the material factors of the state agency into one theoretical model. The mutuality of structure and agency is demonstrated through the international norm research. In the end several recommendation are provided on the main principles of constructivist research in international relations. It is recommended, first, not to be afraid of methodological and theoretical experiments, second, to realize that the constructivist methodological positions is best defined as methodological pluralism, third, to remember that the constructivist research design is inseparable from the researched problem and the understanding of the social world.

Secondly, through three fundamental statements of metatheoretical constructivism (on intersubjective construction of meanings, relationship of ideas and materiality, and mutual constitutive relation of structure and agency) it is demonstrated how they are transformed and applied in more particular theoretical and empirical works of international relation discipline. The analysis of social construction of meaning is presented through the research on the representations of US national interests during the Cold war. The securitization theory demonstrates how the analysis of the formulation of the security problems allows combining the ideal and the material factors of the state agency into one theoretical model. The mutuality of structure and agency is demonstrated through the international norm research. In the end several recommendation are provided on the main principles of constructivist research in international relations. It is recommended, first, not to be afraid of methodological and theoretical experiments, second, to realize that the constructivist methodological positions is best defined as methodological pluralism, third, to remember that the constructivist research design is inseparable from the researched problem and the understanding of the social world.

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].