Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Kroenig
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Deterrence Theory ◽  
Nuclear Strategy ◽  
Nuclear Policy ◽  
Previous Scholarship ◽  
As If

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.

Actor, structure, process: transcending the state personhood debate by means of a pragmatist ontological model for International Relations theory

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (04) ◽  
pp. 1057-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
ULRICH FRANKE ◽  
ULRICH ROOS
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Ontological Model ◽  
Corporate Practice ◽  
As If

AbstractThe following article refers to the current debate about state personhood opened by Wendt's claim for a treatment of states as real persons in order to prevent the reductionist argument that states only are treated ‘as if’ they were persons. By understanding phenomena like states consistently as structures – as ‘structures of corporate practice’ – we argue that there is a possibility to escape from the situation dually framed by Wendt. This alternative is constituted by a tripartite pragmatist ontological model that consists of actors, structures of corporate practice, and processes. After having presented our view of the debate and its central problems in a first step, we will set forth our model and its implications for the study of international relations in a second and third step.

Grappling with Dr. Strangelove’s “Wargasm” Fantasy

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 464-481
Author(s):  
Rodger A Payne
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
National Security ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
Sexual Fantasies ◽  
Stanley Kubrick ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Nuclear Strategy ◽  
Private Correspondence

Abstract Dr. Strangelove continues to be viewed as one of the most acclaimed films of all-time. Likewise, international relations (IR) experts commonly list the film among the most essential IR-themed movies. The IR scholars who discuss Dr. Strangelove as a text or recommend it for courses generally claim that it can be used to explain nuclear deterrence, the security dilemma, mutually assured destruction, Cold War competition, and various other traditional serious concerns of the field. They also recognize that the satirical film is critical of nuclear strategy. This article considers Dr. Strangelove’s sexual subtext, involving important metaphors and symbols that IR scholars characteristically ignore. Yet, for decades, film critics and scholars from other disciplines have identified and emphasized the importance of the film's comedic “sexual framework” and concluding “wargasm.” Director Stanley Kubrick even acknowledged these key elements in private correspondence. The film suggests that the national security establishment's masculine view of the utility of nuclear weapons and deterrence are comparable to absurd male sexual fantasies. Feminist IR scholars frequently note that mainstream scholars largely ignore their critique of masculine views of the discipline and nuclear strategy. The article concludes that scholars in the field should both prioritize Dr. Strangelove’s sexual subtext and rely upon feminist contributions to help understand those elements.

Identities, Border, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory. Edited by Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, and Yosef Lapid. Minneapolis: University of Minnestota Press, 2001. 328p. $57.95 cloth, $22.95 paper. Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations. Edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. 431p. $50.00 cloth, $24.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 676-678
Author(s):  
Nicholas Onuf
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
North American ◽  
State Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Common Stock ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
The Many ◽  
As If ◽  
The Way

The editors of Bridges and Boundaries asked contributors—nine political scientists and eight historians, all of them North American—to reflect on their respective disciplines and the way they go about “the study of international events” (p. 1). We should notice a positivist disposition here. While contributors “share an interest…in the state, politics and war” (p. 2), events are the stuff of international relations. That the state, politics, and war are complex institutional phenomena perhaps not reducible to events points to conceptual issues that this volume fails generally to address. Instead, contributors discuss the many problems attending generalized explanation and empirical fit—theory and science—as if their shared interests imply a common stock of core concepts.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Keir A. Lieber ◽  
Daryl G. Press
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Nuclear Age

This chapter explains the central anomaly of the nuclear age. It talks about the continuation of great power competition under the shadow of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the most effective instruments of deterrence ever invented, but they have not eliminated the incentives for countries to compete intensely with each other for greater security, power, and strategic advantage. The chapter focuses on understanding why power politics endure in the nuclear age, which not only solve a puzzle for international relations theory but also provides vital insights into the requirements of nuclear deterrence. It also explains the trends that may undermine nuclear deterrence in the coming decades.

Africa's Challenge to International Relations Theory. Edited by Kevin C. Dunn and Timothy M. Shaw. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 242p. $65.00.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 878-879
Author(s):  
Clement E. Adibe
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Political Consequences

Africa's Challenge to International Relations Theory, edited by Kevin Dunn and Timothy Shaw, offers a timely reflection on the content and nuance of international relations theory in an era of “the new inequality” (Craig Murphy, “Political Consequences of the New Inequality,” International Studies Quarterly 45 [September 2001]: 347–56). The central question posed by the authors is: How international is international relations theory? In the authors' view, not very much. As a consequence, their objective in the volume is “to replace the dominant/dominating denotative reading of the IR text with a more pluralist connotative reading” (p. 8; my emphasis). Drawing on African experiences in the discipline of international relations, all 13 chapters of this engaging volume take aim at various manifestations of the Eurocentricity and “provincialism” of international relations theory then and now. Very early in the volume, Dunn sets the stage for a deliberate and systematic engagement with the discipline for its relegation of Africa to the footnote of international relations theory (p. 4).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document