Conclusion

Author(s):  
Andrea Ghiselli

The perception that other states are more centralized and better organized than they actually are, as Robert Jervis (1976, 319–42) pointed out in his classic Perception and Misperception in International Politics, is a common phenomenon in international relations. Today, one of the most widely shared myths about China is how its political model is unique because it has succeeded in completing large-scale projects, from building the longest bridge in the world to lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, in a quick and effective way. Dazzled by those achievements, regardless of their actual success, both supporters and detractors often take them as evidence of China’s capacity to play the long game, to work out and execute complex strategies. After all, when so much time has been spent, so many sacrifices made, so many resources consumed, there must be a plan. Every headline, every announcement, every statement about the next big project reinforces this myth. Myths like this appear useful and are easily accepted because they help us to simplify reality and justify our actions. They conveniently spare us having to look at what lies beneath the surface. This is why they are created and why they are dangerous when they are used as foundations for political arguments at times of growing tensions in international affairs....

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 739-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. Agathangelou

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Ned Lebow ◽  
Mervyn Frost

We elaborate a little noticed strategy generally used by weaker actors both in domestic and international politics: the ethical trap. Actors who fall into such traps lose ethical standing and influence at home as well as abroad. We explore the concept of the trap and distinguish it from policy interventions and escalation in which there is no deliberate enticement. We document historical instances of successful ethical trapping both within states and between them. We also discuss traps that were not sprung. We contend that ethical traps have become an increasingly salient feature of contemporary asymmetrical warfare both within states and internationally. We conclude with some propositions about the global practice in which ethical traps are set and the conditions in which they are likely to succeed and some observations about the relative vulnerability of liberal and non-liberal regimes to these traps. This in turn says something important about the practical consequences of ethical violations in international affairs.


2018 ◽  
pp. 25-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa ŁOŚ-NOWAK

The world of the 21st century provides an intriguing space for academic reflection, offering new challenges and stimulating new concepts of international relations. In this context there emerges the significant question of the essence and direction of these concepts. They may entail deconstruction followed by a reconstruction of the research space in this field. Astrategy of resetting cannot be excluded here, either. Assuming that reconstruction is the appropriate solution there are significant issues of its scope and direction. If a total reset is considered rational we need to address the issue of what it should involve. This is a difficult question for researchers into international relations because it would mean that the hitherto achievements of this subject are being questioned. The post-positivist approach of numerous researchers, which manifests their response to the positivist methodology in the field of international relations, has not so far produced a unified methodological formula or a relatively coherent theory of international relations. Questions concerning the function of science, the nature of the social world (ontology) and the relationship between knowledge and the world (epistemology) remain open. Therefore, it may be worth going back to M. Wight’s provocative thesis that it is impossible to construct a reasonable theory of international relations, mainly owing to the dichotomy of the two fields of research that – in his opinion – cannot be overcome, namely the dichotomy of the ‘international’ (the realm of external affairs of states) and ‘internal’ (the realm of internal affairs within state), which are mutually exclusive because of their specificity; and once again ask the questions of how sensible the thesis of the dichotomy of both these environments is in a world that is strongly conditioned by the cross-border actors, interdependence and globalization. While the separateness of the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ state environments was, for Wight, an important obstacle, making it impossible to construct an academic theory explaining international relations, at the same time the current theory regarding their exclusivity in the context of the internalization of international affairs and the externalization of conditions inside states seems unsustainable. This phenomenon currently allows us to explain the imperative for combining these two environments, overlapping them …breaking down the old, established orders as a result of the now clearly visible phenomena and processes of the ‘internal state’ merging into the ‘international environment’ and vice versa, the disappearance of the traditional functions of borders, the weakening of old institutions and structures for steering the international environment as well as replacing them with entirely new institutions and structures.


Author(s):  
Dominic Lieven

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 39-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerem Nisancioglu

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
PEDRO CEZAR DUTRA FONSECA ◽  
LUCAS DE OLIVEIRA PAES ◽  
ANDRÉ MOREIRA CUNHA

ABSTRACT This paper aims to analyze the concept of emerging power established to the understanding of international affairs. The work observes that the use of the lexicon emerging - regarding to markets, countries or powers - as qualifier for a range of international relations phenomena became a constituent part of the matter. In spite of that, the empirical denotation of the predicate is ahead of the amount of efforts on its theoretical contextualization. Our methodological hypothesis is that the rational denial of the concepts prevailing connotative spectrum by acknowledging the embedded wisdom about cognate phenomena synthesizes a theoretical framework on its accurate use.


Author(s):  
Daniel Pejic

The literature on cities and international relations (IR), or “global urban politics,” as it is sometimes termed, is a diverse stream of social science research that has developed in response to major demographic and economic shifts that began in second half of the 20th century and continue to today. During this time the world has witnessed dramatic globalization and urbanization, centralizing populations in cities. It is predicted that by 2050 close to 70 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas, meaning that 21st-century challenges will be largely urban in nature. Across areas such as migration, health, environmental sustainability, and economic development, citizens and city governments are constantly exposed, and need to respond to, the impacts of globalization on cities. At the international level, multilateral organizations have recognized this shift and are increasingly involving cities, or networks of cities, as interlocutors in global forums. IR has been slow to acknowledge the increasing importance of cities in international affairs, as it conflicts with the state-centric paradigm of mainstream theory. Most early scholarship on cities and globalization came from urbanists and political economists, who studied the development of “global cities” that were acting as the critical nodes in the architecture of the world economy. This literature predominately identified cities as the sites of global processes, with limited capacity to influence or shape them. It also offered a narrow, economistic conception of cities that vastly prioritized the experiences of wealthy cities in the Global North. More recently, scholars have begun to study and theorize the role of cities as actors in global affairs, particularly through forms of networked governance and involvement in key multilateral discussions. This bibliography tracks the evolution of this research agenda from its conception to the present day. It begins with a limited background in the study of urban politics, providing a crucial framework for understanding how the diverse streams of research developed. It then details the continuing work on “global cities,” which recognized the increasing importance of cities to international affairs in the late 20th century, although largely defined in narrow economic terms. What follows is a broader theorization of the role of cities in global governance, which begins to afford some agency to cities to shape international affairs across a range of policy areas and brings them directly into the purview of IR. While most of this literature has still been driven by, and focused on, cities of the Global North, there have been efforts to broaden the geographic focus and recognize the way globalization and urbanization have been experienced differently in cities across the globe. Finally, the bibliography draws on a recent literature exploring some of the political and legal implications of this shift to the “urban century.”


Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 263
Author(s):  
Sotiris Roussos

By the end of the 20th century, after great political upheavals, two world wars, the decolonization process and political, social and scientific revolutions, it is hard to miss that the world is in a deep de-secularization process. In the Middle East, this process has taken multiple trajectories and has made geopolitics of religion central in reshaping regional issues and in restructuring modes of international politics and international system’s intervention in the Middle East.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 544-564
Author(s):  
Benjamin Klasche ◽  
Peeter Selg

The endeavour to explain and predict international affairs is getting harder since it is ever more widely accepted that heterogeneous and fluid actors are making international politics. Positivists of various types have dominated the discussion on knowledge creation in the discipline of International Relations (IR), but the increasing acceptance of the dynamic character of international politics has led to the support and use of constructivist, post-Western or feminist approaches. There has also been an uptick in methodological discussions on these critical, non-positivist approaches. This article contributes to these debates by offering the first steps towards a cognitive frames–based methodology for IR. With a pragmatist ontology as its foundation, the approach re-sets the focus of analysis to the rationality of the international actors. The article, offers an initial description, by relying on illustrative examples, of the creation, the reach, durability and the organisational structure of cognitive frames in the global arena.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document