Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis is a complement to Anne Haila's critique of institutionalism in Chinese urbanism. This is understood as an extension of Ronald Coase's transaction cost economics in urban space. The focus is well‐defined property rights which, extended to both urban land and intellectual property, allow monopoly competition and internalise public goods — whether social or environmental — into the logic of the neoliberal commoditized transaction. This ('Washington‐Consensus') notion of rights is contrasted to the blurred ('Beijing‐Consensus') property rights arrangements of today's China. Here property is a 'bundle of rights', in which different legal persons have rights in the same unit of urban space. In this property is not well defined but instead a 'boundary object'. I draw on Francois Jullien to describe such relational property, which is coloured, less by individualism, than by Taoist‐like relations. These comprise a long‐time horizon, an ongoing never completed, never actualized character of transacting or exchange. They comprise rights‐sharing, obligation‐sharing and risk‐sharing. Parallels are drawn with, not Roman and Continental a priorist, but with English a posteriorist notions of property.Résumé À l'appui de la critique d'Anne Haila sur l'institutionnalisme dans l'urbanisme chinois, ce texte l'appréhende comme une extension, à l'espace urbain, de l'économie des coûts de transaction selon Ronald Coase. Le propos s'attache aux droits de propriété bien définis qui, étendus aux terrains urbains et à la propriété intellectuelle, permettent une concurrence monopolistique et une internalisation des biens publics, qu'ils soient sociaux ou environnementaux, dans la logique de la transaction néolibérale banalisée. Cette notion des droits (dans l'axe du Consensus de Washington) est opposée aux dispositifs flous (au sens d'un 'Consensus de Beijing') propres aux droits de propriété dans la Chine d'aujourd'hui. La propriété y est constituée d'un 'lot de droits', par lequel plusieurs personnes morales ont des droits dans la même unité d'espace urbain; la propriété n'y est pas définie avec précision, constituant plutôt un 'objet‐frontière'. François Jullien éclaire la description de cette propriétérelationnelle, moins empreinte d'individualisme que de rapports d'inspiration taoïste; ceux‐ci correspondent à un type de transaction ou d'échange suivi, à longue échéance, jamais terminé, jamais actualisé– tout en englobant le partage des droits, des obligations et des risques. Par comparaison, cette conception de la propriété se rapproche, non pas des a priori de la notion romaine ou continentale, mais de l'a posteriori de la notion anglaise.

As an emerging geopolitical hotspot, will the future of the Arctic be dominated by conflict or cooperation among states? With the potential for vast natural resources and the promise of transpolar shipping, the opening Arctic may be the new frontier for global competition. This thesis uses two theories of international relations, neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, to evaluate the geopolitical landscape of an opening Arctic. This thesis argues that the characterization of the Arctic as a zone of either competition or cooperation is overly simplistic. While structural neorealist theory can accurately account for some of the Arctic countries' behavior, it is unable to explain forms of cooperation existing and emerging among them. In addition to laying out the overall state of cooperation and conflict among the Arctic countries, this thesis also examines two cases in detail: conflicts between Russia and Norway over the Barents Sea, and the United States and Canada over the Northwest Passage. Neorealism fails to account fully for the emergence of cooperation in the form of an equitable treaty on the maritime delimitation line between Russian and Norway. The international regimes were enablers of inter-state cooperation in the U.S.-Canadian case, and were a contributing factor in dispute settlement. ; http://archive.org/details/arcticsovereignt1094510589 ; US Navy (USN) author

"International Political Economy: Overview and Conceptualization" published on by Oxford University Press.

"Nuclear Proliferation and Non-Proliferation" published on by Oxford University Press.

AbstractThis article looks at the issue of the dramatic rise of street homelessness in London among Polish migrants from the perspective of social anthropology looking at the relationship between structural constraints faced by Polish migrants and their own perception of the social world, their meaning‐making practices, norms and values, behavioral patterns. As I will show, focusing just on structural and economic determinants not only offers a simplistic and one‐dimensional picture but it also fails to give an explanation and predict what happens if these constraints and exclusionary policies are removed and homeless migrants gain the same set of social rights as the rest of British and EU citizens (which in theory will happen in May 2011). An anthropological approach to the functions, roles and cultural meanings of homelessness, group bonds, masculinities, alcohol consumption, perception of the state and dominant society as voiced by homeless migrants I 'hanged around' with, reveals that structurally rejected people with particular backgrounds reconstruct communities and form strong ties despite (or because of) a hostile, exclusionary and hegemonic social environment of the neoliberal order. Two conclusions are drawn from this analysis, empirical and theoretical: first, taking both structural and cultural factors into account, the levels of homeless among that group is going to rise, at least in London; second, the set of cultural forms of behavior and social practices described in academic literature as the homo sovieticus syndrome (Wedel 1986, Sztompka 2000, Morawska 1998) proves not only valuable and resourceful in highly individualized, neoliberal and capitalistic society but may in fact be reinforced in new conditions being a productive – socially and culturally ‐ counter‐reaction to the neoliberal order of social life in the global city.

Is the world running out of water? The problem of the adequacy of this natural resource is one of the new paradigms of security. Can war over hydro-resources be avoided through interstate cooperation? In such cases, what instruments would best alleviate conflict? Provisions to preserve future relations between states that share international waterways are discussed. This article considers whether the securitization of hydro-resources must challenge international rights, applying international relations theory to the analysis. On the one hand, neoliberal institutionalism provides a motive for countries to cooperate using instruments of international rights. On the other hand, cooperative water policies might also be achieved through the application of a realist theory of common need. This notion is based on historical analysis of other cases of this nature. Adapted from the source document.

According to neoliberal institutionalism, states create international institutions to limit information asymmetries, monitor compliance, and ensure the credibility of commitments to agreed-upon policies-in short, to minimize transaction costs. Although this view can help explain the delegation of powers to supranational bodies such as the European Commission, it cannot account for the signature of the Élysée Treaty between France and Germany in January 1963, which reversed the logic of supranational delegation. Understanding the causes and the consequences of this apparently anomalous event is therefore a major challenge facing scholars of international organizations, European integration, and German foreign policy alike. To start addressing the issue, this article develops an explanation based on incomplete contracts theory. In a nutshell, I argue that the Élysée Treaty aimed at securing the equal treatment of French and German interests in the process of European integration, thereby allowing the deepening of European integration.

Neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist explanations for the state and future of the Arctic region dominate the Arctic debate in international relations. While both schools focus on different aspects concerning the current and future state of Arctic affairs – neorealism evokes a confrontational rush for the Arctic's resources, whereas neoliberal institutionalism propagates the necessary reform of the institutional system governing Arctic issues – both share the underlying assumption of significant and rising stakes towards Arctic commodities. However, this article argues that this debate has hitherto failed to substantiate the actual stakes of the main actors involved. Consequently, many studies make grandiloquent statements about prospects of cooperation and conflict and the appropriate institutional framework for the Arctic region, based on only limited empirical support. This article aims to fill this gap by analysing the Arctic oil and gas interests of the five Arctic littoral states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark/Greenland). The analysis shows greatly different levels of interests towards the High North among the Arctic states. The findings make it possible to make more credible statements about the likelihood of confrontation over Arctic resources and necessary institutional adjustments. The evidence shows that the often-evoked issue of geopolitical rush for Arctic resources is unlikely to eventuate. Nonetheless, there remain institutional challenges for the protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem.

The insights of social psychology are not thoroughly integrated into international relations theory, yet social psychology has much to offer. Social psychology provides a conceptualization of a number of varieties of trust – moralistic, strategic, and generalized – and their opposites that implicitly drive the logic of major works of international relations. It also reveals the empirical presence of a number of different types of trusters who make different assumptions about the trustworthiness of others and consequently show markedly different propensities towards cooperation. The rough correspondence between these different 'social orientations' and the logics of the three approaches of structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism suggest that individuals carry a crude paradigm in their minds. Metatheoretically, the implication for international relations theory is that scholars capture a part but not the totality of world politics, the behavior of those who trust (or do not trust) in a particular way that matches the logic of their paradigms. Theoretically it suggests a research agenda at multiple levels of analysis, utilizing all of the types of trust and trusters. I review the work of others that offers some preliminary evidence for its plausibility, suggest some hypotheses of my own, and address potential theoretical objections.

Since the end of the Cold War and in the context of the recent spread of economic globalization, Southeast Asian regionalism has steadily deepened and expanded, centering on ASEAN. The concept of the ASEAN Community is one of the most important aspects of this regionalism, and there have been hopes that this will be realized by 2015. The mainstream theories such as neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and social constructivism have offered competing explanations of this transformation. However, recently, a new phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by these state-centric theories has arisen—the movement toward constructing a regional order from below by transnational civil society actors. By adopting the analytical viewpoint of the New Regionalism Approach, which has maintained a keen interest in civil society in the process of regionalization, this study attempts to empirically analyze still largely unexplored activities undertaken by transnational civil society actors, in particular who has promoted the "alternative regionalism" against the "neoliberal regionalism" in the course of the formation of the ASEAN Community. It also seeks to examine the embryonic change toward the establishment of a new regional order in Southeast Asia from the bottom-up perspective. In conclusion, the article proves that by engaging with transnational civil society actors, ASEAN is gradually moving from an "elite club" to a "people-centered" organization. However, given the predominance of neoliberal discourse, "alternative regionalism" has not had enough influence for this to be fully realized. Nevertheless, the growing number of transnational civil society actors is resulting in improved potential to transform the persistent sovereign state system.

The insights of social psychology are not thoroughly integrated into international relations theory, yet social psychology has much to offer. Social psychology provides a conceptualization of a number of varieties of trust moralistic, strategic, and generalized and their opposites that implicitly drive the logic of major works of international relations. It also reveals the empirical presence of a number of different types of trusters who make different assumptions about the trustworthiness of others and consequently show markedly different propensities towards cooperation. The rough correspondence between these different 'social orientations' and the logics of the three approaches of structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism suggest that individuals carry a crude paradigm in their minds. Metatheoretically, the implication for international relations theory is that scholars capture a part but not the totality of world politics, the behavior of those who trust (or do not trust) in a particular way that matches the logic of their paradigms. Theoretically it suggests a research agenda at multiple levels of analysis, utilizing all of the types of trust and trusters. I review the work of others that offers some preliminary evidence for its plausibility, suggest some hypotheses of my own, and address potential theoretical objections. Adapted from the source document.

Why do regional institutions emerge, what accounts for their variation in design, and what are their effects? Several conceptual and epistemological perspectives-neorealism, neoliberal-institutionalism, constructivism, and domestic politics-provide competing and complementary answers to these questions. I focus on regional organizations as productive arenas for developing contingent propositions on institutions more generally. The purpose is to advance cross-paradigmatic dialogue in two ways: through sensitivity to scope conditions and to institutional genesis, forms, and effects, in an effort to transcend axiomatic debates that often conflate different dependent variables. The empirical analysis includes the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Arab League. The main findings from these cases suggest that understanding the nature of dominant domestic coalitions is often crucial for explaining incentives to create, design, and fine-tune the effects of institutions. However, this is mainly the case when the consequences of creating or designing institutions for power distribution, transaction costs, and norms are negligible or hard to estimate. In many cases these consequences are sizeable, reducing the explanatory influence of domestic coalitions. The latter often provide no more than permissive conditions for the emergence, design, and effect of institutions. Their influence is most decisive in explaining institutional genesis but is often underdetermining in explaining their design. © 2008 International Studies Association.

El concepto de legalización fue desarrollado recientemente por el neoliberalismo institucional como una forma especial de institucionalización de las relaciones internacionales. Los autores neoliberales caracterizan la legalización a partir de las categorías utilizadas por H. L. A. Hart para distinguir el derecho de otros mecanismos de control social, como el poder y la moral. En Hart, estas categorías responden a una finalidad normativa: reconstruir teóricamente el derecho como un sistema independiente de la voluntad y de las convicciones de quienes lo interpretan y aplican. Sin embargo, esta separación entre lenguaje y práctica jurídica desconoce importantes contribuciones de la tradición analítica en filosofía del lenguaje, en cuanto a la relación entre lenguaje y realidad. En particular, termina reduciendo el derecho a simples formas y textos vacíos, y con ello desconoce que a través de las prácticas jurídicas se va dando significado a los textos normativos.Adoptar esta visión del derecho al estudio de las relaciones internacionales tiene, al menos, una consecuencia metodológica: el simple análisis formal del texto de los tratados no permite comprender el efecto del derecho internacional en el comportamiento de los Estados. Para entender las relaciones entre el derecho internacional y el comportamiento estatal es necesario describir la manera como se construye el significado de los textos a través de la práctica jurídica de los Estados. En tal sentido, resultaría útil redefinir la agenda de investigación neoliberal en relación con la legalización y enfocarse en la forma como los Estados y los tribunales internacionales construyen el significado de los tratados y demás normas internacionales. ; --- The concept of legalization was recently developed by neoliberal institutionalism as a special kind of institutionalization of international politics. Neoliberals built the concept of legalization using the analytical tools developed by H. L. A. Hart to distinguish law from other mechanisms of social control, like power and morals. Within Hart's theory, such tools have a normative function: theoretically rebuilding law as a system of rules that is independent from the will and the beliefs of those who interpret and apply legal rules. However, Hart's resulting separation of legal texts from legal practice obscures important contributions that the analytical tradition in philosophy of language has made to the understanding of the relation between language and reality. Specifically, such a separation reduces law to simple forms and texts disregarding the extent to which legal practice gives meaning to legal texts.Adapting Hart's conception of law to International Relations has at least one important methodological consequence: the formal analysis of treaties cannot explain the influence of international law over state behavior. To understand the influence of international law on state behavior, one must previously describe the relation between legal practice and the meaning of legal texts. Thus, a redefinition of neoliberal research agenda on legalization should focus on the way States and international courts construct the meaning of treaties and other international norms.