Subject and system in international interaction

1989 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Dryzek ◽  
Margaret L. Clark ◽  
Garry McKenzie
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Formal Theory ◽  
System Structure ◽  
International Regimes ◽  
Subjective Approach ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
Cognitive Approaches ◽  
International Interaction

Recent interest in cognitive approaches to international interaction in general and international regimes in particular has not been matched by development in theory and methodology. This article details a systematic “subjective” approach that seeks to meet this need. Its claims are developed through its comparison with the accomplishments and shortcomings of more established approaches to the study of international interaction and, in particular, microeconomic formal theory. The subjective alternative can model both individual subjects and the systems in which they are participating. As such, it offers much more in terms of continuities and connections between agents and system structure than do traditional psychological analyses in international relations. The theoretical arguments proceed in the context of a study of cooperation and conflict over Antarctica and its evolving regimes.

New International Factors of Twenty First Century

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Saif Nasrat Tawfiq Al - Haramazi
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Digital Technology ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
First Century ◽  
International Context ◽  
New Concepts ◽  
Important Input ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
International Interaction

There are many non-traditional additions to the influential works in the international or international context, which have expanded and become very large.  Some of them have not entered into this field of international relations. Hence the need to supplement, renew and add new concepts There digital (electronic) factor, has become the key to the hard and soft domination of international units, and an important input in international relations, especially the twenty-first century. We have been able to explore the reality of the international interaction based on (cooperation, competition, conflict). In conclusion, the global system will remain state-based and international organizations. At the same time, it will continue to be born and no states in its interactions with the ease of use of digital technology by individuals on the planet..

scholarly journals On the concept of international disorder

2020 ◽  
pp. 004711782092228
Author(s):  
Aaron McKeil
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Order And Disorder ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Systems

International relations today are widely considered to be experiencing deepening disorder and the topic of international disorder is gaining increased attention. Yet, despite this recent interest in international disorder, in and beyond the academy, and despite the decades-long interest in international order, there is still little agreement on the concept of international disorder, which is often used imprecisely and with an alarmist rather than analytical usage. This is a problem if international disorder is to be understood in theory, towards addressing its concomitant problems and effects in practice. As such, this article identifies and explores two ways international order studies can benefit from a clearer and more precise conception of international disorder. First, it enables a more complete picture of how orderly international orders have been. Second, a greater understanding of the problem of international order is illuminated by a clearer grasp of the relation between order and disorder in world politics. The article advances these arguments in three steps. First, an analytical concept of international disorder is developed and proposed. Second, applying it to the modern history of international order, the extent to which there is a generative relationship between order and disorder in international systems is explored. Third, it specifies the deepening international disorder in international affairs today. It concludes by indicating a research agenda for International Relations and international order studies that takes the role of international disorder more seriously.

Geopolitics, Geography, and War

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Fettweis
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Temperate Climate ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Mountain Ranges ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
International Interaction ◽  
The Many

The study of international relations has always been multidisciplinary. Over the course of the last century, political scientists have borrowed concepts, methods, and logic from a wide range of fields—from history, psychology, economics, law, sociology, anthropology, and others—in their effort to understand why states act as they do. Few of those disciplines contributed more to the course of 20th-century international relations scholarship than geography. As the layout of the chessboard shapes the game, so do the features of the Earth provide the most basic influence upon states. That geography affects international relations is uncontroversial; what is not yet clear, however, is exactly how, under what conditions, and to what extent. After all, a board can teach only a limited amount about the nature of a game. Many theories of state behavior involve several ceteris-paribus assumptions about the setting for international interaction, even if the substantial variation in geographical endowments assures that all things will never be equal. Some states are blessed (or cursed) with a rich supply of natural resources, good ports, arable land, and temperate climate; others struggle with too little (or too much) rainfall, temperature extremes, mountain ranges or deserts, powerful neighbors, or lack of access to the sea. While the number of studies examining the effects of the constants of geography on state behavior may pale in comparison to those that focus on the variables of human interaction, international relations has not been silent about geography. What insights have come from the many investigations into the relationship between the game of international politics and the board it is played on, the surface of the Earth?

Geopolitical Economy and the Chimera of Hegemony

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 281-293
Author(s):  
Rowan Lubbock
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
State System ◽  
International Regimes ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Discipline ◽  
Capitalist State ◽  
Conditions Of Possibility

Abstract This review critically engages with Radhika Desai’s concept of geopolitical economy as a framework for understanding the evolution of the capitalist state system. While presenting a useful challenge to many of the most deeply-held beliefs in International Relations theory, Desai’s over-reliance on a geopolitical lens produces a relatively one-sided account of the ways in which capitalism forges distinct international regimes and ideological formations under a given set of historical conditions of possibility. Thus, Desai’s somewhat opaque reading of the international relations of capitalism clouds our understanding of what the current conjuncture might entail for any possible future beyond the social discipline of capital.

scholarly journals The agent-structure problem in international relations theory

1987 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander E. Wendt
Keyword(s):  
System Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World System ◽  
Structuration Theory ◽  
System Structure ◽  
World System Theory ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
State Agents ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Agent Structure

While neorealism and world-system theory both claim to be “structural” theories of international relations, they embody very different understandings of system structure and structural explanation. Neorealists conceptualize system structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of preexisting state agents, whereas world-system theorists conceptualize system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves. These differences stem from what are, in some respects, fundamentally opposed solutions to the “agent-structure” or “micromacro” problem. This opposition, however, itself reflects a deeper failure of each theory to recognize the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures—a failure which leads to deep-seated inadequacies in their respective explanations of state action. An alternative solution to the agent-structure problem, adapted from “structuration theory” in sociology, can overcome these inadequacies by avoiding both the reduction of system structures to state actors in neorealism and their reification in world-system theory. Structuration theory requires a philosophical basis in scientific realism, arguably the “new orthodoxy” in the philosophy of natural science, but as yet largely unrecognized by political scientists. The scientific realist/structuration approach generates an agenda for “structural-historical” research into the properties and dispositions of both state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded.

Theorising the international system: perspectives from Historical Sociology

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN HOBDEN
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
State Formation ◽  
International System ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
The State ◽  
Historical Account ◽  
International Context ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
State Context ◽  
Inter State

Recent interest in the work of Historical Sociologists has concentrated on their renewed interest in the state. There is considerable regard for the historical account of state formation and development produced by writers such as Mann, Skocpol and Tilly. Surprisingly there has been less attention paid to another feature of their writings—the locating of states in an inter-state context. This article examines the international context envisioned by four historical sociologists. It argues that, although these writers have been successful at historicising state formations, this powerful account has not been matched with a historical account of international relations. If this project is to move forward, a complementary historical account of international contexts, or global structures, is required.

On Systems and International Regimes

1975 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst B. Haas
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Systems Theory ◽  
Inverse Relationship ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
International Regimes ◽  
International Action ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Creation

As the consequences of science and technology impinge more and more on international relations, states attempt to deal with the promise and dangers implicit in these consequences by the creation of international regimes. The nature and scope of such regimes are justified, in part, by the scientific and technological givens with which they are to deal. Increasingly, however, the process of justification is dominated by constructs and arguments taken from systems theory, thus mixing the epistemological styles of the natural and the social sciences. It is often not clear whether justification in terms of systems theory is rhetoric or based on demonstrated isomorphisms. The article seeks to answer this question by presenting a four-fold typology of systems theories together with their assumptions and relevance to the creation of international regimes. The article then examines three specific proposals for international action on science and technology, prepared under OECD auspices, in order to demonstrate the extent to which they rely on systems theory and to determine how persuasive the systemic justification is. The conclusion: there is an inverse relationship between the elaborateness of the systemic justification and the acceptability of the regime on logical, empirical, and moral grounds.

Liberalism and Security

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Owen IV
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
The State ◽  
Democratic Peace ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Reformation ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
International Interaction ◽  
The Individual

Liberalism has always been concerned with security, albeit the security of the individual; institutions, including the state, are all established and sustained by individuals and instrumental to their desires. Indeed, liberalism cannot be understood apart from its normative commitment to individualism. The tradition insists that all persons deserve, and it evaluates institutions according to how far they help individuals achieve these goals. Nor is liberalism anti-statist. Liberal theory has paid particular attention to the state as the institution defined by its ability to make individuals secure and aid their commodious living. Although liberal security literature that only examines individual states’ foreign policies may be guilty of denouncing the role of international interaction, the general liberal claim argues that the international system, under broad conditions, permits states choices. As such, for liberalism, states can choose over time to create and sustain international conditions under which they will be more or less secure. Liberalism’s history can be traced from the proto-liberalism in the Reformation to the emergence of the social contract theory and neo-theories, as well as liberalism’s focus on increasing security. Meanwhile, current debates in liberalism include the democratic peace and its progeny, reformulations of liberal international relations (IR) theory, and meta-theory. Ultimately, liberalism’s most striking recent successes concern the democratic peace and related research on democratic advantages in international cooperation. Liberalism is a useful guide to international security insofar as individuals and the groups they organize affect or erode states.

scholarly journals Green bonds in China and the Sino-British collaboration: More a partnership of learning than commerce

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Le-Yin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Chinese Economy ◽  
Identity Transformation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
China Trade ◽  
International Interaction ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Desk Research ◽  
Opening Up

This article explores the role of Sino-British collaboration in promoting green bond development in China, the extent to which it meets the United Kingdom’s wider objectives regarding the UK-China bilateral relationship and the underlying factors. Drawing on desk research and interviews, it tests and validates the hypothesis that the key driving force for this development is the coupling of the financialisation of the Chinese economy and the politics of ‘ecological civilisation’, although learning through international interaction has also played a role. It further shows that the scope for the United Kingdom to benefit from this growth is limited by the structure of UK-China trade, China’s strong macro-economic control and its approach to international relations that prioritises learning and identity transformation rather than the opening up of its markets. Inter-hub competition also plays a part.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document