This article deals with the issue of the environment in international politics & makes a case that the environment as a subject matter is fundamentally different from other political issues. To this effect, the concept of eco-holistic analysis is put forward whereby environmental issues are incorporated into the analysis rather than the structural & systemic forces & constraints within which actors operate. The concept of eco-holistic analysis is based on three pillars (the historical dimension of environment-society relations, the concept of consumption, & equity) which offer new dimensions of analysis highlighting why traditional institutionalist approaches to the study of international environmental politics are lacking in offering suggestions for effective environmental improvement. 41 References. Adapted from the source document.
Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.
Regime theory is an approach within international relations theory, a sub-discipline of political science, which seeks to explain the occurrence of co-operation among States by focusing on the role that regimes play in mitigating international anarchy and overcoming various collective action problems among States (International Relations, Principal Theories; State; see also Co-operation, International Law of). Different schools of thought within international relations have emerged, and various analytical approaches exist within the regime theory itself (see Sec. F.3 below). However, typically regime theory is associated with neoliberal institutionalism that builds on a premise that regimes are central in facilitating international co-operation and constraining the behaviour of States. Thus, in international relations literature, regime theory is often used interchangeably with the terms 'institutionalism' or 'neoliberal institutionalism'.
The author explores some fundamental aspects of international cooperation, its functional incentives & structural limitations, by describing the discussion between two most influential approaches in international relations theory: neorealism & neoliberalism, or to be more precise, between defensive neorealism & neoliberal institutionalism. During the discussion on possibilities & limitations of international co-operation neorealism & neoliberalism showed their differences, but also similarities of views that resulted in their approach, which is called the neo-neo synthesis in international relations theory. The discussion, that has been going on for three decades in USA also reflects on the practical foreign policy decision-making in this country. The discussion contains the ideas that can serve as means to explain some foreign policy approaches in our country as well. References. Adapted from the source document.
Empire is best understood not as a singular territorial or economic entity or an arrangement of flows & accumulation of stocks but, rather, as a type of rule. That is, it is the relationships between ruler & ruled, & the mechanisms of rule, that are important in contemporary discussions of "empire." In today's American Empire, we see the mixing of two forms of rule: what is often called "neoliberal institutionalism" with "new sovereignty." In this commentary, I discuss the implications of such rule for global environmental politics. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.
Textual analysis is used to eke out the complex, & often conflicting, ideologies that underlie discussions of globalization among "intellectual innovators" & to describe how these are implicated in the exercise of power. The core ideas embedded in the dynamics of neoliberal globalization are outlined, & four distinct ideological positions are identified: (1) the centrist neoliberal school; (2) internal criticisms of this school (reformist neoliberal institutionalism); (3) historical-materialist transformism; & (4) development transformism; key writings representing each position are noted. The conceptualization of globalization as an ideology of freedom vs one of domination reveals the intersubjective dimensions of the notion & its varied interpretations by different stakeholders according to their political & material interests. K. Hyatt Stewart
Even though the number of summits of heads of state & government has steadily increased since World War II, political science has so far mainly ignored them. Based on the American-Soviet superpower summits, the world economic summits, & the world conferences under the auspices of the United Nations, this article shows that the three mainstream theories of international relations -- neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism & constructivism offer adequate explanations for those summits which fall into their historical context of emergence. The cooperation of states at the highest level & the theories about them are thus "children of their time". 3 Tables, 40 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author explores some fundamental aspects of international cooperation its functional incentives and structural limitations, by describing the discussion between two most influential approaches in international relations theory: neorealism and neoliberalism, or to be more precise between defensive neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. During the discussion on possibilities and limitations of international co-operation neorealism and neoliberalism showed their differences, but also similarities of views that resulted in their approach, which is called the neo-neo synthesis in international relations theory. The discussion, that has been going on for three decades in USA also reflects on the practical foreign policy decision making in this country. The discussion contains the ideas that can serve as means to explain some foreign policy approaches in our country as well.
The years 2002-2004 showed that political integration in the European Union for the foreseeable future has gone as far as it can go. The Iraqi war demonstrated that, while able to agree on low politics, the member states are clearly divided about the finalite politique of the EU, the strategic culture they should adopt, & their attitude to the US. Kagan was partly right on the philosophical divide between the Americans & some in Europe, but that division also stretches among the European Union of twenty-five. They are faced with having to resolve whether to go down the Franco-German European integrationist route or the more intergovernmental & Atlantic road of the British. 2002-2004 also showed that on issues of high politics, member states rely on their perception of their national interest rather than on neorealism or neoliberal institutionalism. Adapted from the source document.
A response to Mark Sheetz's (1999) examination of the US's contemporary strategy for ensuring European security. Although Sheetz is congratulated for demonstrating that bipolarity was not solely responsible for creating European stability & establishing regional institutions, it is contended that Sheetz has failed to provide a theoretical explanation for these developments. Consequently, a theoretical explanation for US foreign policy toward Western Europe is presented. Sheetz's contention that the European Defense Community provides an excellent empirical test of neoliberal institutionalism is questioned; specifically, it is claimed that neoliberal institutional theory is incapable of offering accounts of the origins of institutions. In addition, Sheetz is charged with misinterpreting the role that US military forces play in present-day Europe. It is stated that the US military is currently present in Europe to maintain US political influences rather than guarantee regional security. International relations scholars are urged to dedicate more attention to analyzing institutional impact instead of exploring the necessity of institutions. J. W. Parker