Beyond Westphalia? Capitalism after the ‘Fall’

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 89-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
BARRY BUZAN ◽  
RICHARD LITTLE
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Power Structure ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
Historical Significance ◽  
The Future ◽  
International Role ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Important Shift

When the Berlin Wall was breached in 1989 and the Cold War ended, specialists in the field of international relations (IR) readily acknowledged that it was necessary to take stock and assess the historical significance of these events. Unsurprisingly, no agreement has been reached. For most realists, the events reflect no more than an important shift in the power structure of the international system. But for liberals, the forty years of Cold War are now depicted not as a struggle for power, but as an ideological battle between capitalism and communism from which capitalism has emerged triumphant. The significance of this development for the future of international relations is difficult to gauge. As a key concept, ‘capitalism’ has largely been the preserve of the Marxian fringe in IR. It did not resonate amongst most mainstream theorists in the field, whether realist or liberal. The concept was most familiar as a term of communist propaganda. It was avoided by many specialists during the Cold War era who failed to see how capitalism could promote an understanding of superpower relations. But with the end of the Cold War now linked to the triumph of capitalism, it is impossible for liberals, in particular, to discuss the future of the international system without some evaluation of the unfolding international role being played by capitalism.

scholarly journals Acordos de Sokovia e os Limites do Poder: Capitão América e Reflexões Sobre o Papel da Superpotência no Sistema Internacional

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 434-456
Author(s):  
Liliane Klein Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Civil War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
American People ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Captain America ◽  
The Cold War

Ao observar o sistema unipolar que emergiu do final da Guerra Fria, é marcante o sentimento de insegurança geopolítica gerada pela existência de apenas uma superpotência global e as dúvidas da atuação do Estado soberano nessa conjuntura. Nesse paradigma, Capitão América: Guerra Civil é lançado com uma simbologia contestadora do papel do hegemon no sistema internacional. Com isso, inicialmente é exposto o enredo do filme, seguido das teorias liberal e realista das Relações Internacionais e da semiótica greimasiana. Com isso em vista, é feita a análise dos símbolos do longa-metragem e, por fim, se conclui que os autores do texto tinham como objetivo disseminar uma mensagem de união política entre os americanos.     Abstract: Observing the unipolar system emerging from the closure of the Cold War, is remarkable the sentiment of geopolitical insecurity generated by the existence of only one global superpower and the doubts about the role of the sovereign State in such system. In this paradigm, Captain America: Civil War is released with a contesting symbology about the role of the hegemon in the international system. Therefore, first it is exposed the movie plot, followed by the liberal and realist theories of international relations and the French semiotics. With this in mind, the symbols in the feature are analised and, in conclusion, it is stated that the authors wish to convey a message in bipartisan union amongst the American people. Keywords: International Relations Theory, Semiotics, Captain America.     Recebido em: setembro/2019. Aprovado em: maio/2020.

The Future as Arbiter of Theoretical Controversies: Predictions, Explanations and the End of the Cold War

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Lee Ray ◽  
Bruce Russett
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Democratic Peace ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Future ◽  
Traditional Area ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Empirical Analyses

Some analysts assert that a failure by the discipline of international relations to predict the end of the Cold War reinforces their conviction that predominant theories as well as systematic empirical analyses of international politics have proved fruitless. Accurate predictions are an important product of useful theory, partly because predictions cannot be modified in order to accommodate the events upon which they focus, since the outcomes to be accounted for are unknown. But predictions are contingent statements about the future, not unconditional assertions, which might more accurately be labelled prophecies.Three related streams of work - a political forecasting model that relies on rational choice theory, insights and information provided by traditional area specialists, and democratic peace theory - together constitute an emerging basis for making accurate predictions about the political future, and deserve attention in any evaluation of the utility of systematic empirical analyses of politics. Moreover, the systematic empirical approach is not entirely bereft of potential to provide a better understanding of the end of the Cold War. The democratic peace proposition suggests that if the autocratic protagonist in a confrontation becomes more democratic, tensions should be significantly reduced. This implication of democratic peace did not go unnoticed in the years before the Cold War ended.

History ends, worlds collide

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 41-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRIS BROWN
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Social Life ◽  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The Social ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Business As Usual

The end of the Cold War was an event of great significance in human history, the consequences of which demand to be glossed in broad terms rather than reduced to a meaningless series of events. Neorealist writers on international relations would disagree; most such see the end of the Cold War in terms of the collapse of a bipolar balance of power system and its (temporary) replacement by the hegemony of the winning state, which in turn will be replaced by a new balance. There is obviously a story to be told here, they would argue, but not a new kind of story, nor a particularly momentous one. Such shifts in the distribution of power are a matter of business as usual for the international system. The end of the Cold War was a blip on the chart of modern history and analysts of international politics (educated in the latest techniques of quantitative and qualitative analysis in the social sciences) ought, from this perspective, to be unwilling to draw general conclusions on the basis of a few, albeit quite unusual, events. Such modesty is, as a rule, wise, but on this occasion it is misplaced. The Cold War was not simply a convenient shorthand for conflict between two superpowers, as the neorealists would have it. Rather it encompassed deep-seated divisions about the organization and content of political, economic and social life at all levels.

scholarly journals Installation “Breakthrough”, Implementation and Memorialisation of the “Cold War” in the USA

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-64
Author(s):  
V.E. Dergacheva ◽  
Yu.G. Chernyshov
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Rhetoric ◽  
The United States ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
Politics Of Memory ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cold War

Using the installation “Breakthrough” as an example, the article examines the widespread in the United States assessments and methods of memorializing the results of the Cold War. The authors note that the thesis of a US victory in the Cold War was central to official US political rhetoric in the early 1990s. This is confirmed by the politics of memory — in particular, the creation of the installation “Breakthrough”, the establishment of the commemorative medal “Cold War Victory Medal”, etc. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is considered the most symbolic event of the end of the Cold War. One of the fragments of this wall is called “The Breakthrough”, it is now in Westminster College in Fulton (Missouri), where W. Churchill in 1946 pronounced his famous speech and where (in a symbolic sense) the Cold War began. Installation “Breakthrough”, being a symbol of the beginning and end of ideological confrontation, carries a certain ideological message — it is a “breakthrough to freedom” and victory in the “cold war”. However, by the early 2000s, when passions subsided in society and wider access to not only American, but also Soviet archival documents was opened up, more ba-lanced assessments of the causes and results of the Cold War began to appear in American scientific circles. Some American historians started talking about the common victory of the USA and the USSR over the ideological confrontation, which could develop into a dangerous “hot war.” Globalization also influenced the perception of the outcome of the Cold War: this confrontation is assessed by some American researchers as a natural stage in the development of international relations, which led to a new redistribution of centers of influence on the map of the “multipolar” world.

The critical impasse of peacebuilding: Toward an analytically eclectic critique of liberal peacebuilding

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-599
Author(s):  
Cheng Xu
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
Middle Range ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Liberal Peacebuilding

In the decades following the Cold War, scholars of International Relations (IR) have struggled to come to grips with how the fundamental shifts in the international system affect the theoretical underpinnings of IR. The debates on peacebuilding have served as a fierce battleground between the dominant IR research programs—realism and liberalism—as to which provides both the best framework for understanding contemporary security challenges as well as policy prescriptions. I engage with the recent arguments made by David Chandler and Mark Sedra, two prominent critical scholars of IR, and argue that IR as a field would be best served to leave behind the “great debates” of the different research programs, and instead focus on middle-range problem-solving and analytically eclectic approaches. This essay further argues that the best way forward is for critical theorists to take a conciliatory approach with the contributions from the other research programs.

Coronavirus and the Future of Globalization

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. xxxii-xxxvi
Author(s):  
Aamer Raza
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Popular Media ◽  
New Wave ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Cold War

Coronavirus Pandemic has generated a discussion regarding the future of globalization. This article places this new wave of pessimism regarding the future of globalization in the broader tension surrounding globalization that has existed in international relations discourse since the end of the Cold War. The article points out some of the previous challenges endured by globalization. It also points out that whereas at this point popular media and news commentary portray pessimism as the dominant feeling, the trend towards multilateralism and global cooperation is also discernable in other responses to the pandemic.

scholarly journals Conceptual Fundamentals of Post-Westphalian International Relations

2020 ◽  
Vol 12(48) (4) ◽  
pp. 69-85
Author(s):  
Alla Kyrydon ◽  
Sergiy Troyan
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
International Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Soviet Bloc ◽  
Structure Changes ◽  
The World ◽  
The Cold War

Conceptual approaches to understanding the current stage of the evolution of international relations were put in place during the destruction of the bipolar world of the Cold War and the formation of new foundations of the world and international order. The distinctiveness of this process is that the collapse of the postwar system took place in peaceful conditions. Most often, two terms are used to describe the interconnectedness and interdependence of world politics after the fall of the Iron Curtain: the post-bipolar (post-westphalian) international system or international relations after the end of the Cold War. Two terms, post-bipolar international system and international relations after the end of the Cold War, have common features, which usually allows them to be used as synonyms and makes them the most popular when choosing a common comprehensive definition for the modern international relations. The collapse of the Soviet bloc and the global bipolar system put on the agenda issues that cannot be resolved within the traditional terms “poles,” “balance of power,” “configuration of the balance of power” etc. The world has entered a period of uncertainty and growing risks. the global international system is experiencing profound shocks associated with the transformation of its structure, changes in its interaction with the environment, which accordingly affects its regional and peripheral dimensions. In modern post-bipolar relations of shaky equilibrium, there is an obvious focus on the transformation of the world international order into a “post-American world” with the critical dynamics of relations between old and new actors at the global level. The question of the further evolution of the entire system of international relations in the post-bipolar world and the tendency of its transformation from a confrontational to a system of cooperation remains open.

What Changes in Summer and Autumn 1989?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Elise Sarotte
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Causal Chain ◽  
The Other ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The One ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Nondemocratic Regimes

This chapter addresses why November 1989 became the moment that the models for the future were launched. By the night of November 9, five developments had permanently altered the Cold War and produced a causal chain that resulted in the unintentional opening of the Berlin Wall. The nature of this causal chain suggests that theorists of power and theorists of ideas need to pay attention to each other to understand what happened. On the one hand, some developments were based on old-fashioned realist calculations. On the other hand, some developments were ones of attitude rather than capability, of ideas rather than material abilities. In the course of 1989, half of Europe had come to the conclusion that it need not continue to live under nondemocratic regimes in the interest of maintaining the stability of the whole.

Adapting International Relations Theory to the End of the Cold War

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrence Hopmann
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Incremental Change ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Formidable Challenge ◽  
Almost All ◽  
The Cold War

The end of the Cold War posed a formidable challenge for theorists of international relations. Almost all of the theoretical approaches that were in vogue in the 1980s were unable to account for the sudden end of the bipolar Cold War system. These approaches could explain incremental change in international politics, but they fell woefully short when confronted by revolutionary developments of the sort that occurred in 1989–1991. Leading scholars in the field of international relations in recent years have sought to adapt earlier theories and devise new ones to help explain drastic changes in the international system. The books under review show that improvements and useful innovations have occurred but that the field still has a long way to go before it can fully cope with abrupt, radical change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document