Is Strategic Studies Rationalist, Materialist, and A-Critical? Reconnecting Security and Strategy

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-510
Author(s):  
Pascal Vennesson
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
International Security ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
The Past ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Thomas Schelling ◽  
Strategic Studies

AbstractBetween the 1940s and the 1960s, strategy was at the heart of security studies and closely intertwined with International Relations (IR). Over the past three decades, however, the study of strategy has been relegated to a secondary position in the international security subfield and marginalized in IR theorizing. One important source of this disconnect is the challenge mounted by critical security advocates, who sought to reorient the study of security away from strategic studies. They reached into the philosophy of science and pulled out three familiar dichotomies, rationalism/constructivism, materialism/idealism, and problem-solving/critical theorizing, that they could utilize within security debates. Specifically, they argue that strategic studies leaves out too much of what is really important for security and world politics because it is rationalist, materialist, and retains an uncritical view of knowledge production. In this article, I turn the critical security conventional wisdom on its head and show that strategic studies, exemplified by the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz and Thomas Schelling, actually transcends these dichotomies and hence offers an indispensable source of insights for both security studies and IR.

Islamic International Relations Towards a Theoretical Framework

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gubara Hassan
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Muslim World ◽  
The West ◽  
The Past ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
The World

The Western originators of the multi-disciplinary social sciences and their successors, including most major Western social intellectuals, excluded religion as an explanation for the world and its affairs. They held that religion had no role to play in modern society or in rational elucidations for the way world politics or/and relations work. Expectedly, they also focused most of their studies on the West, where religion’s effect was least apparent and argued that its influence in the non-West was a primitive residue that would vanish with its modernization, the Muslim world in particular. Paradoxically, modernity has caused a resurgence or a revival of religion, including Islam. As an alternative approach to this Western-centric stance and while focusing on Islam, the paper argues that religion is not a thing of the past and that Islam has its visions of international relations between Muslim and non-Muslim states or abodes: peace, war, truce or treaty, and preaching (da’wah).

The past, present, and future of intervention

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 1233-1253 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEORGE LAWSON ◽  
LUCA TARDELLI
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
The Past ◽  
Nineteenth And Twentieth Centuries

AbstractDespite the prominent place of intervention in contemporary world politics, debate is limited by two weaknesses: first, an excessive presentism; and second, a focus on normative questions to the detriment of analysis of the longer-term sociological dynamics that fuel interventionary pressures. In keeping with the focus of the Special Issue on the ways in which intervention is embedded within modernity, this article examines the emergence of intervention during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, assesses its place in the contemporary world, and considers its prospects in upcoming years. The main point of the article is simple – although intervention changes in character across time and place, it is a persistent feature of modern international relations. As such, intervention is here to stay.

scholarly journals Impact of technology on Translation and Translation Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-361
Author(s):  
Yves Gambier
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Past ◽  
Attitudes And Perceptions ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Impact Of Technology ◽  
Multimodal Communications

The landscape in translation and interpreting is changing deeply and rapidly. For a long time, but not necessarily everywhere, translation was denied as a need (except for the political and religious powers), as effort (translation being defined as a kind of mechanical work, as substitution of words), and as a profession (translators embodying a subaltern position). Technology is bringing in certain changes in attitudes and perceptions with regards international, multilingual and multimodal communications. This article tries to define the changes and their consequences in the labelling and characterisation of the different practices. It is organised in five sections: first, we recall that translation and interpreting are only one option in international relations; then, we explain the different denials of translation in the past (or the refusal to recognize the different values of translation). In the third section, we consider how and to what extent technology is transforming today practices and markets. The ongoing changes do not boil solely to developments in Machine Translation (which started in the 1960s): community, crowdsourced/collaborative translation and volunteer translation encompass different practices. In many cases, users provide their own translations, with or without formal qualifications in translation. The evolution is not only technical but also economic and social. In addition, the fragmentation and the diversity of practices do have an impact on a multi-faceted market. In the fourth section, we emphasize that there are nowadays different concepts of translation and competitive paradigms in Translation Studies. Finally, we tackle the organisational challenge of the field, since the institutionalisation of translation and Translation Studies cannot remain the same as when there was a formal consensus on the concept of translation.

Gender and Global Security

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Hudson ◽  
R. Charli Carpenter ◽  
Mary Caprioli
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Military Training ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Gender Analysis ◽  
Human Race ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Global Security ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
Sense Of Power

It is not only gender ambiguity that is securitized in the international arena, but femininity as well. Some scholars argue that conflict over what women are and what they should do is characterized as a risk to national/global security. Meanwhile, there are those who would characterize gender as irrelevant to, or is one of many variables, in thinking about “security.” Feminist international relations (IR) scholars, however, have argued that gender is across all areas of international security, and that gender analysis is transformative of security studies. A redefinition of security in feminist terms that reveals gender as a factor at play can uncover uncomfortable truths about the reality of this world; how the “myth of protection” is a lie used to legitimize war; and how discourse in international politics is constructed of dichotomies and that their deconstruction could lead to benefits for the human race. Feminist work asserts that it is inadequate to define, analyze, or account for security without reference to gender subordination, particularly, the dichotomy of the domination/subordination concept of power. Gender subordination can be found in military training routines that refer to underperforming men as “girls,” or in the use of rape and forced impregnation as weapons of war. It is the traditional sense of “power as dominance” that leads to situations such as the security dilemma.

International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline. By D. S. L. Jarvis, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000. 288p. $34.95.

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 259-260
Author(s):  
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Columbia University ◽  
University Of South Carolina ◽  
New Politics ◽  
The Past ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Sociological Approaches

Over the past twenty years, the so-called third debate, or the constructivist turn in international relations theory, has elic- ited a great deal of attention. Various critical theories and epistemologies-sociological approaches, postmodernism, constructivism, neo-Marxism, feminist approaches, and cul- tural theories-seem to dominate the leading international relations journals. Postmodernism (also called critical theo- ry), perhaps the most radical wave of the third debate, uses literary theory to challenge the notion of an "objective" reality in world politics, reject the notion of legitimate social science, and seek to overturn the so-called dominant dis- courses in the field in favor of a new politics that will give voice to previously marginalized groups.

Towards an International Political Ergonomics

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Luke Austin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Violence Prevention ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The Unconscious ◽  
Practice Turn

This article introduces International Political Ergonomics. International Political Ergonomics is a novel research programme focused on achieving political change through the ergonomic (re)design of world politics. The approach is grounded on a shift across International Relations which recognizes that its epistemic (i.e. knowledge-producing) core is often inadequate to achieve change. Insights from the practice turn and behaviouralist International Relations, as well as from philosophy, sociology and neuroscience, demonstrate that much international behaviour is driven by the ‘unconscious’ or ‘non-reflexive’ re-articulation of repertoires of actions even where the pathologies of this process are known. This implies that knowledge production and dissemination (i.e. to policymakers, global publics) is often unable to effect influence over social practices. What is thus required is a non-epistemic means of producing world political change. International Political Ergonomics is a research programme that takes up this task. It does so by describing how small material interventions into world politics can radically shift individual behaviours by encouraging greater rationality, reflexivity and deliberation. After laying out the theoretical basis for this claim, the article demonstrates it by detailing the application of International Political Ergonomics to violence-prevention efforts. The article concludes by reflecting on the radical implications that International Political Ergonomics has for the vocation of International Relations.

There is no such thing as society: beyond individualism and statism in international security studies

1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Shaw
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Sociological Perspective ◽  
Actor Model ◽  
Conceptual Issue

This article offers a sociological perspective on a major conceptual issue in international relations, the question of ‘security’, and it raises major issues to do with the role of sociological concepts in international studies. For some years now, the work of sociological writers such as Skocpol, Giddens and Mann1 has attracted some interest in international studies. International theorists such as Linklater and Halliday have seen their work as offering a theoretical advance both on realism and on Marxist alternatives. At the same time, these developments have involved the paradox that, as one critic puts it, ‘current sociological theories of the state are increasingly approaching a more traditional view of the state—the state as actor model—precisely at a time when the theory of international relations is getting away from this idea and taking a more sociological form.

scholarly journals Strategic Triangles and Balancing in World Politics

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-43
Author(s):  
D. A. Degterev ◽  
M. S. Ramich
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Composite Index ◽  
World Order ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Past ◽  
Regional Conflicts ◽  
Buffer States

Trilateral diplomacy is a common format of interaction in international relations, which forms various configurations of the balance of power within the framework of triangles. The concept of a “triangle” is characterized by ambivalence, has a variety of characteristics and principles of formation.The article provides an overview of the theoretical discourse on strategic triangles, as well as of practical examples of trilateral diplomacy of the past and present day. The main characteristics of strategic triangles and the features of changes in their configuration are identified (the case of USA–PRC–USSR triangle). Classification of both symmetric and asymmetric triangles (unicenter and bicenter) are given, the concept of buffer states, as well as regional conflicts with the participation of a great power as a defender, are presented.The most influential countries at the global and regional levels, forming geopolitical triangles, are identified basing on the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC). The concept of pivot states is analyzed permitting to indicate relatively small but geopolitically important countries, forming triangles together with influential states.The main strategic triangles of the modern world order are analyzed, presenting mostly countries of Asia (China, Japan, India), Russian Federation, USA and EU. The main trends of global competition based on geopolitical triangles in the XXI-st century are identified.

scholarly journals Strategic studies in the service of hegemony: A view of strategic culture from the perspective of the second generation

Vojno delo ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-29
Author(s):  
Vladimir Ajzenhamer
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Strategic Culture ◽  
The Future ◽  
Scientific Potential ◽  
Critical Interpretation ◽  
Strategic Studies

This paper is dedicated to the second generation of so-called cultural strategists, whose contribution to the development of strategic culture and the study of strategy as a form of discourse is unjustly neglected, especially when it comes to the most prominent representative of the entire generation, Bradley Klein. According to the author of this paper, Klein's NEO-Gramscian approach to strategic studies remains the underused scientific potential, which could, in the future, contribute to a better understanding of international relations and international security. Therefore, the author aims to acquaint the reader with Klein's critical interpretation of strategic culture, seen as a discursive instrument of the hegemony of political and military elites, and to point out the importance of Klein's analysis of strategic discourse, which is intentionally marginalized by other theorists of this subdiscipline.

scholarly journals BRICS in International Legal Space: Humanitarian Imperatives of International Security

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-34
Author(s):  
B. Asadov ◽  
V. Gavrilenko ◽  
S. Nemchenko
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Interaction Model ◽  
World Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Large Country ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
International Peacekeeping

The article is devoted to the examination of the formation of new vectors for international relations development within the global format of cooperation. The establishment and unification of BRICS in the international legal sphere through a wide range of common interests and views of its members towards issues facing the modern world reflect objective tendencies of world development to the formation of amultipolar international relations system and determination of particular large country actors of broad integration and having many dimensions. The authors reveal particular characteristics of the international-legal status of BRICS, which make it possible to have an effective impact on challenges facing the modern world. The legal BRICS status differs crucially from traditional legal approaches to international organizations. Acting as a special subject of world politics, creating more trusted interaction conditions, BRICS focuses its attention on the alternative world order principles within the new model of global relations. Such a format of multilateral cooperation, as well as more trusted and additional mechanisms of international interaction, gives the members an opportunity to demonstrate their geopolitical and geoeconomic world significance, and in addition their demanded humanitarian role, which, as the analysis of the mentioned actor demonstrates, is aimed at forming its own interaction model. The logic of the BRICS agenda extension to the level of an important global management system element demonstrates the goal in the field of action and, accordingly, intensive progress of humanitarian imperatives. For these humanitarian imperatives, the issues of international peacekeeping, security, protection, encouraging human rights and providing stable development are an objective necessity, especially for active demonstration of the members’ viewpoints on the international scene. For understanding the process of the alignment of international security humanitarian imperatives it is necessary to study the existing objective needs in conjunction with each country, member of BRICS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document