Suchergebnisse

The article examines two antagonistic theories of international relations – neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism using the case of Iran's nuclear policy. The author compares the approaches of neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists to the problem of nuclear proliferation and analyzes how these approaches can explain the evolution of Iran's military nuclear program. Iran is a country with significant energy resources, namely second place after Saudi Arabia in terms of oil reserves and second in terms of natural gas reserves after Russia; Iran also has a unique geographical location in such regions as the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Also, a certain policy of Iran is formed on the basis of the Shiite branch of Islam, which already distinguishes this country, given the particularly unfavorable historical conditions under which the Shiite Islam was formed and the events of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988, when Iran faced Iraq alone and use of chemical weapons by Iraq, which deepened Iranian isolation thoughts. The fact that there has been no international response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons has heightened Iran's sense of isolation. This experience was certainly imprinted in the Iranian national psyche and caused even greater distrust in international arms control treaties. Relations with the United States in Iran are extremely tense and unstable, depending on the US administration and the political situation in Iran, as Iran has traditionally maneuvered between radical conservatives and more moderate politicians. The US elections in 2020 and the elections in Iran in 2021 will be an important stage in the further development of relations and the fate of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The article examines the extent to which the theoretical considerations of proponents of theories of neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism are reflected in Iran's practical nuclear policy and what impact these two theories may have on the future nuclear strategy of the Iranian leadership. ; Стаття розглядає дві антагоністичні теорії міжнародних відносин – неореалізм та неоліберальний інституціоналізм на прикладі ядерної політики Ірану. Автор порівнює підходи неореалістів та неоліберальних інституціоналістів до проблеми ядерного розповсюдження й аналізує, як ці підходи можуть пояснити еволюцію воєнної ядерної програми Ірану. Іран – це країна, яка має значні енергетичні ресурси, а саме займає друге місце після Саудівської Аравії за обсягом запасів нафти і друге – за обсягом запасів природного газу після Росії; також Іран має унікальне географічне положення в таких регіонах, як Персидський залив та регіон Близького Сходу. Також політика Ірану формується на основі шиїтського напряму ісламу, що вже відрізняє цю країну, враховуючи особливі несприятливі історичні умови, за яких формувалася шиїтська течія ісламу, та події Ісламської революції в Ірані 1979 року та ірано-іракської війни 1980–1988 рр., коли Іран зіткнувся з Іраком та використанням хімічної зброї сам на сам. Той факт, що не було міжнародної реакції на використання Іраком хімічної зброї, посилив відчуття ізоляції Ірану. Цей досвід, безумовно, відпечатався в іранській національній психіці та викликав ще більш глибоку недовіру до міжнародних договорів про контроль над озброєннями. Відносини США та Ірану вкрай напружені та нестабільні, залежать від Адміністрації США та політичної ситуації в Ірані, адже Іран традиційно маневрує між радикальними консерваторами та більш поміркованими політиками. Вибори США 2020 та вибори в Ірані 2021 р. стануть важливим етапом подальшого розвитку відносин та визначать долю Спільного всеосяжного плану дій (СВПД). У статті досліджується, наскільки теоретичні міркування прихильників теорій неореалізму та неоліберального інституціоналізму знайшли відображення у практичній ядерній політиці Ірану, і який вплив ці дві теорії можуть мати на подальше формування ядерної стратегії іранського керівництва в майбутньому.

The article examines two antagonistic theories of international relations – neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism using the case of Iran's nuclear policy. The author compares the approaches of neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists to the problem of nuclear proliferation and analyzes how these approaches can explain the evolution of Iran's military nuclear program. Iran is a country with significant energy resources, namely second place after Saudi Arabia in terms of oil reserves and second in terms of natural gas reserves after Russia; Iran also has a unique geographical location in such regions as the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Also, a certain policy of Iran is formed on the basis of the Shiite branch of Islam, which already distinguishes this country, given the particularly unfavorable historical conditions under which the Shiite Islam was formed and the events of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988, when Iran faced Iraq alone and use of chemical weapons by Iraq, which deepened Iranian isolation thoughts. The fact that there has been no international response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons has heightened Iran's sense of isolation. This experience was certainly imprinted in the Iranian national psyche and caused even greater distrust in international arms control treaties. Relations with the United States in Iran are extremely tense and unstable, depending on the US administration and the political situation in Iran, as Iran has traditionally maneuvered between radical conservatives and more moderate politicians. The US elections in 2020 and the elections in Iran in 2021 will be an important stage in the further development of relations and the fate of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The article examines the extent to which the theoretical considerations of proponents of theories of neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism are reflected in Iran's practical nuclear policy and what impact these two theories may have on the future nuclear strategy of the Iranian leadership. ; Стаття розглядає дві антагоністичні теорії міжнародних відносин – неореалізм та неоліберальний інституціоналізм на прикладі ядерної політики Ірану. Автор порівнює підходи неореалістів та неоліберальних інституціоналістів до проблеми ядерного розповсюдження й аналізує, як ці підходи можуть пояснити еволюцію воєнної ядерної програми Ірану. Іран – це країна, яка має значні енергетичні ресурси, а саме займає друге місце після Саудівської Аравії за обсягом запасів нафти і друге – за обсягом запасів природного газу після Росії; також Іран має унікальне географічне положення в таких регіонах, як Персидський залив та регіон Близького Сходу. Також політика Ірану формується на основі шиїтського напряму ісламу, що вже відрізняє цю країну, враховуючи особливі несприятливі історичні умови, за яких формувалася шиїтська течія ісламу, та події Ісламської революції в Ірані 1979 року та ірано-іракської війни 1980–1988 рр., коли Іран зіткнувся з Іраком та використанням хімічної зброї сам на сам. Той факт, що не було міжнародної реакції на використання Іраком хімічної зброї, посилив відчуття ізоляції Ірану. Цей досвід, безумовно, відпечатався в іранській національній психіці та викликав ще більш глибоку недовіру до міжнародних договорів про контроль над озброєннями. Відносини США та Ірану вкрай напружені та нестабільні, залежать від Адміністрації США та політичної ситуації в Ірані, адже Іран традиційно маневрує між радикальними консерваторами та більш поміркованими політиками. Вибори США 2020 та вибори в Ірані 2021 р. стануть важливим етапом подальшого розвитку відносин та визначать долю Спільного всеосяжного плану дій (СВПД). У статті досліджується, наскільки теоретичні міркування прихильників теорій неореалізму та неоліберального інституціоналізму знайшли відображення у практичній ядерній політиці Ірану, і який вплив ці дві теорії можуть мати на подальше формування ядерної стратегії іранського керівництва в майбутньому.

As a neoliberal institution, European Union has succeded in integrating. However, after the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe was failed to be ratified, European Union is experiencing setback of legitimacy. European Union later imposed Lisbon Treaty that was arranged right after the failure of constitution treaty. Still, the implementation of Lisbon Treaty triggered some new issues due to its content that is more or less similar to the previous unratified treaty. One of the issues came from the migration policy. The rejection from some of the member countries explained the legitimacy crisis on the institution of European Union. This legitimacy crisis is surely a negative precedent for European Union as a neoliberal institution. As in neoliberal institutionalism, an institution is supposed to be an independent variable when a state decides to cooperate and integrate itself in an institution. This writing is aimed to review the neoliberal institutionalism of European Union in the problems of the migration policy implementation upon Lisbon Treaty.This research used qualitative method, with neoliberal institutionalism as its core theory. This research found that European Union as an institution lacks of consideration towards the condition of its member states in making regulations. This can be seen on how the migration regulation on Lisbon Treaty still could not be implemented uniformly on all the member states. Besides, the refusal of Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia upon this migration regulation strengthen the crisis of legitimacy in European Union as a neoliberal institutionalism. The spesific finding upon this migration issues on Lisbon Treaty brought us to a conclusion that the neoliberal institutionalism in European Union needs to be examined due to the decadence of the institution's legitimacy.

The model of cooperative leadership is an alternative solution to leadership understood in terms of domination, hegemony or imposing its own political will on other entities participating in the system of mutual connections. The specificity of the political system of the European Union gives great importance to both intergovernmental and supranational mechanisms, while the key role in shaping this system is still played by the Member States. Although the treaty provisions ensured formal equality of states, the importance of Germany as an informal leader of the Community is increasingly becoming the subject of political debate about the EU. Taking into account the assumptions of neoliberal institutionalism related to both the key position of states and the great importance of institutions guaranteeing the transparency of their activities, as well as taking into account the long-term benefits of cooperation, the article defines the concept of leadership in the context of state cooperative behavior. The adopted methodological and theoretical framework allowed for a detailed analysis of Germany's influence in the EU, especially in the field of diplomatic activities. The aim of the article was to define the main determinants of the role of Germany as the EU leader, which bases its leadership on cooperation with other Member States, recognizing and respecting institutional solutions that limit the possibility of implementing individual priorities and guarantee transparency of actions for common interests, and in the long run legitimize the role of the state as an informal leader who represents a common position negotiated in the forum of the institutions. Using the institutional and legal method, the method of existing research and a case study (peace negotiations under the Normandy format), the main assumptions were verified and it was confirmed that the determinant of Germany's leadership is not only its political and economic potential, but also the ability to cooperate and provide information to EU institutions on activities in the implementation of the priorities of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The approach based on respect for common interests and transparency of actions strengthened Germany's image as a leader. ; Model przywództwa kooperatywnego jest rozwiązaniem alternatywnym wobec przywództwa rozumianego w kategoriach dominacji, hegemonii czy narzucania własnej woli politycznej pozostałym podmiotom uczestniczącym w układzie wzajemnych powiązań. Specyfika systemu politycznego Unii Europejskiej nadaje duże znaczenie zarówno mechanizmom międzyrządowym, jak i ponadnarodowym, natomiast kluczową rolę w kształtowaniu tego systemu nadal odgrywają państwa członkowskie. Mimo że postanowienia traktatowe zagwarantowały formalną równość państw, znaczenie Niemiec jako nieformalnego lidera Wspólnoty staje się coraz częściej przedmiotem politycznej debaty o UE. Uwzględniając założenia neoliberalnego instytucjonalizmu związane zarówno z kluczową pozycją państw, jak i dużym znaczeniem instytucji gwarantujących przejrzystość ich działań, a także biorąc pod uwagę długotrwałe korzyści ze współpracy, w artykule zdefiniowano pojęcie przywództwa w kontekście zachowań kooperacyjnych państwa. Przyjęte ramy metodologiczno-teoretyczne pozwoliły na szczegółową analizę wpływu Niemiec w UE, zwłaszcza na polu działań dyplomatycznych. Celem artykułu było określenie głównych wyznaczników roli Niemiec jako lidera UE, który swoje przewodnictwo opiera na współpracy z innymi państwami członkowskimi, uznając i respektując rozwiązania instytucjonalne, które ograniczają możliwość realizacji indywidualnych priorytetów i gwarantują przejrzystość działań na rzecz wspólnych interesów, a w dłuższej perspektywie legitymizują rolę państwa jako nieformalnego lidera, który reprezentuje wynegocjowane na forum instytucji wspólne stanowisko. Wykorzystując metodę instytucjonalno-prawną, metodę badań zastanych oraz studium przypadku (negocjacje pokojowe w ramach formatu normandzkiego), zweryfikowano główne założenia i potwierdzono, że wyznacznikiem przywództwa Niemiec jest nie tylko potencjał polityczny i gospodarczy, ale także zdolność do współpracy i dostarczanie informacji instytucjom UE na temat działań w zakresie realizacji priorytetów Wspólnej Polityki Zagranicznej i Bezpieczeństwa. Podejście oparte na respektowaniu wspólnych interesów i przejrzystości działań wzmocniło wizerunek Niemiec jako lidera UE.

The model of cooperative leadership is an alternative solution to leadership understood in terms of domination, hegemony or imposing its own political will on other entities participating in the system of mutual connections. The specificity of the political system of the European Union gives great importance to both intergovernmental and supranational mechanisms, while the key role in shaping this system is still played by the Member States. Although the treaty provisions ensured formal equality of states, the importance of Germany as an informal leader of the Community is increasingly becoming the subject of political debate about the EU. Taking into account the assumptions of neoliberal institutionalism related to both the key position of states and the great importance of institutions guaranteeing the transparency of their activities, as well as taking into account the long-term benefits of cooperation, the article defines the concept of leadership in the context of state cooperative behavior. The adopted methodological and theoretical framework allowed for a detailed analysis of Germany's influence in the EU, especially in the field of diplomatic activities. The aim of the article was to define the main determinants of the role of Germany as the EU leader, which bases its leadership on cooperation with other Member States, recognizing and respecting institutional solutions that limit the possibility of implementing individual priorities and guarantee transparency of actions for common interests, and in the long run legitimize the role of the state as an informal leader who represents a common position negotiated in the forum of the institutions. Using the institutional and legal method, the method of existing research and a case study (peace negotiations under the Normandy format), the main assumptions were verified and it was confirmed that the determinant of Germany's leadership is not only its political and economic potential, but also the ability to cooperate and provide information to EU institutions on activities in the implementation of the priorities of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The approach based on respect for common interests and transparency of actions strengthened Germany's image as a leader. ; Model przywództwa kooperatywnego jest rozwiązaniem alternatywnym wobec przywództwa rozumianego w kategoriach dominacji, hegemonii czy narzucania własnej woli politycznej pozostałym podmiotom uczestniczącym w układzie wzajemnych powiązań. Specyfika systemu politycznego Unii Europejskiej nadaje duże znaczenie zarówno mechanizmom międzyrządowym, jak i ponadnarodowym, natomiast kluczową rolę w kształtowaniu tego systemu nadal odgrywają państwa członkowskie. Mimo że postanowienia traktatowe zagwarantowały formalną równość państw, znaczenie Niemiec jako nieformalnego lidera Wspólnoty staje się coraz częściej przedmiotem politycznej debaty o UE. Uwzględniając założenia neoliberalnego instytucjonalizmu związane zarówno z kluczową pozycją państw, jak i dużym znaczeniem instytucji gwarantujących przejrzystość ich działań, a także biorąc pod uwagę długotrwałe korzyści ze współpracy, w artykule zdefiniowano pojęcie przywództwa w kontekście zachowań kooperacyjnych państwa. Przyjęte ramy metodologiczno-teoretyczne pozwoliły na szczegółową analizę wpływu Niemiec w UE, zwłaszcza na polu działań dyplomatycznych. Celem artykułu było określenie głównych wyznaczników roli Niemiec jako lidera UE, który swoje przewodnictwo opiera na współpracy z innymi państwami członkowskimi, uznając i respektując rozwiązania instytucjonalne, które ograniczają możliwość realizacji indywidualnych priorytetów i gwarantują przejrzystość działań na rzecz wspólnych interesów, a w dłuższej perspektywie legitymizują rolę państwa jako nieformalnego lidera, który reprezentuje wynegocjowane na forum instytucji wspólne stanowisko. Wykorzystując metodę instytucjonalno-prawną, metodę badań zastanych oraz studium przypadku (negocjacje pokojowe w ramach formatu normandzkiego), zweryfikowano główne założenia i potwierdzono, że wyznacznikiem przywództwa Niemiec jest nie tylko potencjał polityczny i gospodarczy, ale także zdolność do współpracy i dostarczanie informacji instytucjom UE na temat działań w zakresie realizacji priorytetów Wspólnej Polityki Zagranicznej i Bezpieczeństwa. Podejście oparte na respektowaniu wspólnych interesów i przejrzystości działań wzmocniło wizerunek Niemiec jako lidera UE.

This article examines the reasons for adopting a non‑institutional character of the Visegrad cooperation in the years 1991‑1992. Its focus concerns two causes of the initial reluctance to institutionalise the Visegrad Group: the high level of unpredictability in Central Europe after the collapse of Communism and the symbolic role the Group was expected to play outside the region. These issues are considered through the prism of two theories in International Relations: neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. Both provide theoreti‑ cal grounds to support the research hypothesis which assumes that the infor‑ mal character of the Visegrad cooperation was a pragmatic choice of its found‑ ing members. However, neorealist and neoliberal explanations of how the political background and security issues could have influenced their decision vary. The article concludes that the neorealist approach holds more explana‑ tory power in this regard, suggesting that the choice of the Visegrad states was dictated by the preservation of their national interests and subjected to ex‑ ternal limitations, rather than motivated by a common intention to facilitate their regional cooperation. ; Arkadiusz Nyzio

Enter any additional information or requests for the Library here. ; This article presents and argues for a collaborative model for disaster risk management in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The research employed a qualitative study through a literature review and empirical research through focus group interviews to realize its objectives. As a key theory of multinational collaboration, neoliberal institutionalism—a subset of the international relations theory—was used to develop the SADC institutional collaborative model. The model combined the theoretical, political, and technical dimensions of collaboration to enhance buy-in for the disaster risk management and reduction function of governments. The model demonstrates the need for a multidisciplinary approach to achieving disaster risk management and reduction in the SADC and elsewhere, if the developmental objectives of disaster risk reduction are to be realized without interference in the domestic affairs of the member countries. This model is therefore grounded in seeking consensus and cooperation among cooperating states in a quest to ensure national implementation of the regional framework on disaster risk reduction.

Enter any additional information or requests for the Library here. ; This article presents and argues for a collaborative model for disaster risk management in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The research employed a qualitative study through a literature review and empirical research through focus group interviews to realize its objectives. As a key theory of multinational collaboration, neoliberal institutionalism—a subset of the international relations theory—was used to develop the SADC institutional collaborative model. The model combined the theoretical, political, and technical dimensions of collaboration to enhance buy-in for the disaster risk management and reduction function of governments. The model demonstrates the need for a multidisciplinary approach to achieving disaster risk management and reduction in the SADC and elsewhere, if the developmental objectives of disaster risk reduction are to be realized without interference in the domestic affairs of the member countries. This model is therefore grounded in seeking consensus and cooperation among cooperating states in a quest to ensure national implementation of the regional framework on disaster risk reduction.

Neoliberal Kurumsalcılık, uluslararası ilişkiler teorisinde İkinci Dünya Savaşı'ndan sonra liberal-idealist politik paradigma fikirlerini geliştiren bir okuldur, uluslararası siyasi kurumların, devletlerin uluslararası ilişkilerde başarılı bir şekilde işbirliği yapmalarına izin verebileceğini savunmaktadır. Neoliberal Kurumsalcılık yaklaşımı özellikle Batı Avrupa ülkeleri arasında gerçekleşen işbirliğini ve bütünleşme sürecini açıklayıcı bir niteliğe sahiptir. Fakat bölgesel kurumsallaşma dinamiklerinin zayıf olduğu bir bölge olan Orta Asya'nın istikrarsız bölgelere yakınlığı ve bölge içinde süregiden çatışmalar hem Orta Asya devletleri için hem de bölgeye komşu devletler için bir tehdit oluşturmaktadır. Bu bakımdan, tezin temel amacı, Neoliberal Kurumsalcılık yaklaşımını kullanarak iki farklı örgütün ŞİÖ ve BRICS'in örneklerinde önemini açıklamaya çalışmaktır. ; Neoliberal institutionalism is a school in international relations theory that develops liberal-idealist political paradigm ideas after the Second World War, arguing that international political institutions can allow states to cooperate successfully in international relations. The approach of Neoliberal institutionalism is particularly descriptive of the cooperation and integration process between Western European countries. However, as a region where regional institutionalization dynamics are weak, the proximity of Central Asia to unstable regions and ongoing conflicts within the region pose a threat to both Central Asian states and neighboring states. In this respect, the main purpose of thesis is to explain the importance of two different organizations in the examples of SCO and BRICS by using Neoliberal Institutionalism approach.

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'.

This study focuses on international institutions and their impact in world politics. It presents an analysis of the EU-UN cooperation in Security and crisis management. Applying a neoliberal view of institutionalized cooperation between the two international organizations I am trying to understand how they work together. Many years after its creation the United Nations has been leading many interventions in different zones of the world; enhance peace, and foster local development. Facing many difficulties concerning crisis management the United Nations finds another way to make its operations more effective by working with regional agencies that are also very active and important concerning crisis management into their zones. The European Union as an intergovernmental organization is emerging actor in peacekeeping and peace-building and has been an active partner of the United Nations. The partnership has been differentiated and further developed in different zones. This study tries to understand how the EU and UN cooperate. What have been their participations in the field of peacekeeping, peace-building and human rights? Keywords: European Union, United Nations, Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding, Neoliberal Institutionalism, Human Rights. ; ÖZ: Bu çalışmanin odak noktasi uluslararasi kurumlar ve onlarin dünya politikasina etkileridir. AB-BM işbirliği icerisinde Guvenlik ve kriz yönetimi ile ilgili analizini sunmaktadir. İki uluslararasi organizasyon arasindaki kurumlasmisis birliğini ve nasil birlikte calistiklarini yenilikçi liberal bir bakis acisi uygulayarak anlamaya çalışıyorum. Kurulusundan yillar sonra Birlesmis Milletler, dunyanin bircok farkli yerindeki barışı saglamak ve yerel gelişimiarttirmak gibi faaliyetlerde önderlik etmistir. Kriz yonetimi gibi bircok farkli sorunla yuzlesen Birlesmis Milletler, kendi bolgelerinde de yerel olarak aktif ve önemli faaliyetlerde bulunan kurumlarla birlikte çalışarak yaptigi faaliyetleri daha efektif kilmistir. Devletler arasi bir organizasyon olan Avrupa Birliği, dunyada barisi saglamada ve baris ortami olusturmada çok büyük rol oynamistir veuzun yillardir Birlesmis Milletlerin aktif bir partneri olmustur. Dunyanin farkli bolgelerinde bu partnerlik farklilasmakda ve daha ileriye tasinmaktadir Bu arastirma AB ve BM nin nasil is birligi icerisinde olsugunu anlamaya calismaktadir. Bu iki organizasyonun barış saglamada, baris ortami olusturmada ve insan haklariyla ilgili calismalarda katılımları neler olmustur? Anahtar kelimeler: Avrupa Birligi, Birleşmiş Milletler, Barış sağlama, Barış ortami oluşturma, yenilikçi liberal kurumlasma, insan haklari. ; Master of Arts in International Relations. Thesis (M.A.)--Eastern Mediterranean University, Faculty of Business and Economics, Dept. of International Relations, 2020. Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wojciech Forysinski.

When explaining the ubiquity of rankings, researchers tend to emphasize macro or contextual phenomena, such as the power of or the trust in numbers, neoliberal forces, or a general spirit of competition. Meanwhile, the properties of rankers are rarely, if at all, taken into account. In contrast to the received wisdom, we argue that the institutionalization of rankings in different fields is also contingent upon another, often-neglected factor: Over time, rankers have become increasingly more organized. To investigate the role of ranking organizations, we look into the distinct properties of present-day rankings and highlight three dimensions along which rankings have evolved over the course of the twentieth century, namely, publication frequency, handling complex tasks, and audience engagement. On this basis, we argue that these dimensions have to a large extent been affected by formal organization and we show how ranking organizations have over time developed capacities to: (a) publish rankings on a continual basis; (b) handle the often complex production process by means of division of labor; and (c) generate considerable degrees of attention by addressing large and diverse audiences. On a more general note, we argue that accounting for the role of organization in the instutionalization of rankings requires a combination of insights from both "old" and "new" strands of thinking in institutional theory.

International relations theorists and global health politics scholars largely fail to communicate with one another. We argue that drawing on insights from classic and contemporary international theory more explicitly will positively augment the study of global health politics. This paper highlights four major theoretical orientations in the international relations literature (realism, neoliberal institutionalism, constructivism, and feminism) and discusses how an understanding of these perspectives can strengthen our understanding of global health policy.

The article dwells on two distinct forms of modern liberalism that one can encounter in modern international relations. The first one is called neoliberal institutionalism, justly relying on the idea of global political and economic institutions, governing world society, whereas the latter bears the sound title of new liberalism that in its turn evokes the grandiloquent and complex ideas of global justice, being an indispensable commodity of the global political system.

Robert Keohane is a leading contemporary international relations scholar. His ideas and doctrines are important parts of neoliberal institutionalism. In his books Power and Interdependence, and After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, he has a unique perspective on power, a core concept of international relations, that differs from realism and constructivism. This paper uses documentary analysis to distill and summarize the discussion of power in Robert Keohane's work, which helps to systematically study the neoliberal institutionalist view of power and to make the classic theory show its charm beyond its time.