As if nature doesn't matter: Ecology, regime theory and international relations

This chapter provides a summary introduction to the book. It explains the central question the book addresses and why it is important. Namely, it asks why academic nuclear deterrence theory maintains that nuclear superiority does not matter, but policymakers often behave as if it does. It then provides a brief explanation of the answer to this question: the superiority-brinkmanship synthesis theory. It discusses the implications of the argument for international relations theory and for US nuclear policy. In contrast to previous scholarship, the argument of this book provides the first coherent explanation for why nuclear superiority matters even if both sides possess a secure, second-strike capability. In so doing, it helps to resolve what may be the longest-standing, intractable, and important puzzle in the scholarly study of nuclear strategy. It concludes with a description of the plan for the rest of the book.

Download Full-text

International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2997914 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 92 (3) ◽

pp. 367-397 ◽

Cited By ~ 97

Author(s):

Anne-Marie Slaughter ◽

Andrew S. Tulumello ◽

Stepan Wood

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

International Relations Theory ◽

Regime Theory ◽

Joint Research ◽

Wide Range ◽

American Society ◽

Interdisciplinary Scholarship ◽

United Nations System ◽

Year 2000

Nine years ago, Kenneth Abbott published an article exhorting international lawyers to read and master regime theory, arguing that it had multiple uses for the study of international law. He went as far as to call for a “joint discipline” that would bridge the gap between international relations theory (IR) and international law (IL). Several years later, one of us followed suit with an article mapping the history of the two fields and setting forth an agenda for joint research. Since then, political scientists and international lawyers have been reading and drawing on one another’s work with increasing frequency and for a wide range of purposes. Explicitly interdisciplinary articles have won the Francis Deák Prize, awarded for the best work by a younger scholar in this Journal, for the past two years running; the publication of an interdisciplinary analysis of treaty law in the Harvard International Law Journal prompted a lively exchange on the need to pay attention to legal as well as political details; and the Hague Academy of International Law has scheduled a short course on international law and international relations for its millennial lectures in the year 2000. Further, the American Society of International Law and the Academic Council on the United Nations System sponsor joint summer workshops explicidy designed to bring young IR and IL scholars together to explore the overlap between their disciplines.

Download Full-text

Terminological Entrepreneurs and Discursive Shifts in International Relations: How a Discipline Invented the “International Regime”

International Studies Review ◽

10.1093/isr/viaa003 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jens Steffek ◽

Marcus Müller ◽

Hartmut Behr

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

Regime Theory ◽

International Regime ◽

Corpus Linguistic ◽

Digital Discourse ◽

Disciplinary History ◽

History Of ◽

New Perspective ◽

Definition Of ◽

Linguistic Methods

Abstract The disciplinary history of international relations (IR) is usually told as a succession of theories or “isms” that are connected to academic schools. Echoing the increasing criticism of this narrative, we present in this article a new perspective on the discipline. We introduce concepts from linguistics and its method of digital discourse analysis (DDA) to explore discursive shifts and terminological entrepreneurship in IR. DDA directs attention away from schools of thought and “heroic figures” who allegedly invented new theories. As we show exemplarily with the rise of “regime theory,” there were entire generations of IR scholars who (more or less consciously) developed new vocabularies to frame and address their common concerns. The terminological history of “international regime” starts in nineteenth century international law, in which French authors already used “régime” to describe transnational forms of governance that were more than a treaty but less than an international organization. Only in the 1980s, however, was an explicit definition of “international regime” forged in American IR, which combined textual elements already in use. We submit that such observations can change the way in which we understand, narrate, and teach the discipline of IR. DDA decenters IR theory from its traditional focus on schools and individuals and suggests unlearning established taxonomies of “isms.” The introduction of corpus linguistic methods to the study of academic IR can thus provide new epistemological directions for the field.

Download Full-text

Learning by Creating: Making Games in a Political Science Course

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s104909652000164x ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-5

Author(s):

Sangbum Shin

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

Political Science ◽

Personal Interview ◽

Self Directed Learning ◽

Student Surveys ◽

The World ◽

Directed Learning ◽

Games And Simulations ◽

As If

ABSTRACT This article describes a project-based course titled “International Relations and Games” in which students were required to create game rules and scenarios using IR concepts, theories, approaches, and topics. Although students learned through participation in games and simulations in previous classes, they acquired further knowledge by developing their own games—a case of “learning by creating.” The course was designed with expectations that (1) game-creation activities would facilitate peer-based and self-directed learning; (2) it would help improve students’ creativity; and (3) it would enable students to understand the importance and utility of discipline in the world beyond their classroom. Students conducted three game-creation projects in the semester. Based on the instructor’s observations, student surveys, and personal-interview results, it is concluded that all three expectations were met—especially that students felt as if they were leading the class.

Download Full-text

The History of International Organization(s)

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies ◽

10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.519 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Bob Reinalda

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

United Nations ◽

American Exceptionalism ◽

The United States ◽

International Organization ◽

Regime Theory ◽

The United Nations ◽

United Nations System ◽

Object Of Study ◽

Nations System

The emerging discipline of Political Science recognized international organization as an object of study earlier (i.e., around 1910) than International Law, which through an engagement with League of Nations ideals began to follow the developments of international organizations (IOs) during the 1920s, and History, which kept its focus on states and war rather than on IOs until the early 2000s. The debate between Liberal Institutionalism and (after 1945 dominant) Realism deeply influenced the study of IOs. The engagement of the United States in the United Nations System, however, stimulated further studies of IOs and produced new theoretical orientations that left room for Realist factors. The modernization of International Relations studies through Regime Theory eventually removed the need to ask historical questions, resulting in short-term studies of IOs, but new approaches such as Constructivism and Historical Institutionalism contributed to studies of long-term change of IOs and critical junctures in history. The main International Relations approach traces the rise of the United Nations System (or, more broadly, IOs) as an instrument of American exceptionalism in the world. This view is being criticized by the paradigmatic turn in the discipline of History in the early 2000s, which has included IOs in its research and relates the creation of IOs to imperial powers such as the United Kingdom and France that wanted to safeguard their empires. These historical studies start in 1919 rather than 1945 and also question International Relations’ Western-centrist universalism by including competing universalisms such as anticolonial nationalism.

Download Full-text

Treaty-Making in International Organizations

The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Treaties ◽

10.1093/law/9780190947842.003.0003 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 38-50

Author(s):

Shirley V. Scott

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

International Organizations ◽

Quantitative Research ◽

Regime Theory ◽

Third Body ◽

Unit Of Analysis ◽

Quantitative Research Methods ◽

The Us ◽

Multilateral Treaty ◽

Multilateral Treaties

International relations research has in recent years become more relevant for international lawyers, even if it often requires some translation. This chapter engages with three bodies of international relations scholarship of relevance to understanding UN treaty-making. The first, on norm dynamics, has a unit of analysis smaller than a multilateral treaty; a norm typically equates to one or more of the substantive provisions of a treaty. The second and older body of literature, on regimes and more recently regime complexes, has generated insights pertaining to treaty design and effectiveness, often through the application of quantitative research methods. Given that there has been two-and-a half-decades of regime research the contribution of regime theory to knowledge of multilateral treaties nevertheless remains underwhelming. The third body of literature addressed in the chapter is that regarding the decline of the liberal international order. Liberal institutionalist scholars may be lamenting the apparent demise of the US-led order to which the complex web of UN treaties has been so integral but they may not be sufficiently conscious of the fact that such a sentiment is not universally shared. Understanding the politics of multilateral treaties can only be enriched by an even greater maturity and sophistication of international relations scholarship.

Download Full-text