Organizing for Peace-International Organization in World Affairs. By Daniel S. Cheever and H. Field HavilandJr.. [Stevens & Sons, Ltd., for London Institute of World Affairs. 1954 x and 917 pp. £2 15s.] - International Politics. By Norman J. Padelford and George A. Lincoln. [New York: MacMillan Company. 1954. xii and 719 pp.] - International Relations-The World Community m Transition. By Norman D. Palmer and Howard C. Perkins. [Stevens & Sons, Ltd., for London Institute of World Affairs. 1954. ix and 1270 pp. £2 15s.]

1955 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-155
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Organization ◽  
World Community ◽  
The World

From the Colonial to Feminist IR: Feminist IR Studies, the Wider FSS/GPE Research Agenda, and the Questions of Value, Valuation, Security, and Violence

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 739-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. Agathangelou
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Global Political Economy ◽  
Personal Lives ◽  
Ir Studies ◽  
The World ◽  
Forms Of Violence

International relations (IR) feminists have significantly impacted the way we analyze the world and power. However, as Cynthia Enloe points out, “there are now signs—worrisome signs—that feminist analysts of international politics might be forgetting what they have shared” and are “making bricks to construct new intellectual barriers. That is not progress” (2015, 436). I agree. The project/process that has led to the separation/specialization of feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist global political economy (FGPE) does not constitute progress but instead ends up embodying forms of violence that erase the materialist bases of our intellectual labor's divisions (Agathangelou 1997), the historical and social constitution of our formations as intellectuals and subjects. This amnesiac approach evades our personal lives and colludes with those forces that allow for the violence that comes with abstraction. These “worrisome signs” should be explained if we are to move FSS and FGPE beyond a “merger” (Allison 2015) that speaks only to some issues and some humans in the global theater.

Empire, History and the Contemporary Global Order

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic Lieven
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Global Order ◽  
The Core ◽  
The World

This lecture discusses empire in its entirety across the millennia and across all the regions of the world. It presents an argument that power in its many manifestations is the core and essence of the empire. The lecture also seeks to address the concerns of both historians and students of international relations. It stresses the crucial significance of power in a way that is more familiar to international relations scholars than to many contemporary historians of empire. Finally, the lecture shows how important empire has been in shaping the contemporary global order, and that it still has much to tell about the nature of modern international politics.

scholarly journals Racial sovereignty

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 39-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerem Nisancioglu
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
International Politics ◽  
17Th Century ◽  
Constitutive Relationship ◽  
World Today ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of

This article explores how International Relations (IR) might better conceptualise and analyse an underexplored but constitutive relationship between race and sovereignty. I begin with a critical analysis of the ‘orthodox account’ of sovereignty which, I argue, produces an analytical and historical separation of race and sovereignty by: (1) abstracting from histories of colonial dispossession; (2) treating racism as a resolved issue in IR. Against the orthodox account, I develop the idea of ‘racial sovereignty’ as a mode of analysis which can: (1) overcome the historical abstractions in the orthodox account; (2) disclose the ongoing significance of racism in international politics. I make this argument in three moves. Firstly, I present a history of the 17th century struggle between ‘settlers’ and ‘natives’ over the colonisation of Virginia. This history, I argue, discloses the centrality of dispossession and racialisation in the attendant attempts of English settlers to establish sovereignty in the Americas. Secondly, by engaging with criticisms of ‘recognition’ found in the anticolonial tradition, I argue that the Virginian experience is not simply of historical interest or localised importance but helps us better understand racism as ongoing and structural. I then demonstrate how contemporary assertions of sovereignty in the context of Brexit disclose a set of otherwise concealed colonial and racialised relations. I conclude with the claim that interrogations of racial sovereignty are not solely of historical interest but are of political significance for our understanding of the world today.

International Relations: The World Community in Transition

1955 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-410
Author(s):  
P. A. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
World Community ◽  
The World

Is There a Discipline of IR? A Heterodox Perspective

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Pettman
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Military Strategy ◽  
International Governance ◽  
Strategic Issues ◽  
The World ◽  
The Many ◽  
Peace And War

International relations (IR) is widely accepted as an academic discipline in its own right, despite the many subdisciplines which hold it together. These disparate subdisciplines, in fact, have come to define international relations as a whole. Establishing systematic matrices that describe and explain the discipline as a whole can show how the subdisciplines that constitute international relations have sufficient coherence to allow us to say that there is a discipline there. To look at the discipline otherwise would be viewing it as a mere collection of insights taken from other disciplines—in short, international relations could not be defined as a discipline at all. Such an argument forms a more heterodox view of international relations—one which does not attempt to engage with traditional debates about what constitutes the subject’s core as compared with its periphery. The “old” international relations was largely confined to politico-strategic issues to do with military strategy and diplomacy; that is, to discussions of peace and war, international organization, international governance, and international law. It was about states and the state system and little more. By contrast the “new” international relations is an all-inclusive account of how the world works. The underlying coherence of this account makes it possible to provide more comprehensive and more nuanced explanations of international relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document