A Research Agenda for the Study of Peaceful Change in World Politics

Author(s):  
Deborah Welch Larson ◽  
T.V. Paul ◽  
Harold A. Trinkunas ◽  
Anders Wivel ◽  
Ralf Emmers

This concluding chapter offers a summary and evaluation of the key ideas contained in the chapters of this Handbook. The chapter discusses peaceful change in terms of conceptual clarity; historical evolution of scholarship in the area, especially the interwar, Cold War, and post–Cold War era efforts at analyzing the concepts; and the policy innovations in this realm. This is followed by an evaluation of the key umbrella theories of international relations—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—and how they approach peaceful change. Some important sources and mechanisms of change are analyzed. This is followed by discussion of the policy contributions of selected great and rising powers toward peaceful change. The chapter then offers a summary of contributions and progress that various regions have made in the area of peaceful change. It concludes with some ideas for future research while highlighting the significance of the subject matter for international relations and the world order.

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
George Zviadadze

After transformation of unipolarity and reformatting world order system, a question been forwarded on how new system is to be founded on. As it is known classical international relations system developed since Westphalia Agreement of 1648 has been composed mainly by the state as key actors of international politics. The system has been developed two type of regimes: soft bipolarity and balance of power interchanged in several period of time consequently. One of the characteristic features of globalization is a fundamental change of the international system and world order. It differs from the world of post-Cold War period with the stance of different actors of international relations on each other as well as with the forms of sharing power and that of interconnections. In that context there were four phases of the international relations systems: the system of Westphalia, the system of Vienna, the system of Versailles, the system of Yalta-Potsdam and later international relations were transformed into bipolarity one. Since demolishing classical Cold War order and entering into new epoch of anarchic scenario, the states as key actors of the system have been diminishing in favour of so-called “nonstate actors”. However, in the international system of the 21st century, the nationstate still has particular functions. It represents the dominant element of the world politics which can influence the behaviour of the population and non-state actors.


1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-106
Author(s):  
M. A. Muqtedar Khan

This paper seeks to understand the impact of current global politicaland socioeconomic conditions on the construction of identity. I advancean argument based on a two-step logic. First, I challenge the characterizationof current socioeconomic conditions as one of globalization bymarshaling arguments and evidence that strongly suggest that along withglobalization, there are simultaneous processes of localization proliferatingin the world today. I contend that current conditions are indicative ofthings far exceeding the scope of globalization and that they can bedescribed more accurately as ccglocalization.~H’2a ving established thisclaim, I show how the processes of glocalization affect the constructionof Muslim identity.Why do I explore the relationship between glocalization and identityconstruction? Because it is significant. Those conversant with current theoreticaldebates within the discipline of international relations’ are awarethat identity has emerged as a significant explanatory construct in internationalrelations theory in the post-Cold War era.4 In this article, I discussthe emergence of identity as an important concept in world politics.The contemporary field of international relations is defined by threephilosophically distinct research programs? rationalists: constructivists,’and interpretivists.’ The moot issue is essentially a search for the mostimportant variable that can help explain or understand the behavior ofinternational actors and subsequently explain the nature of world politicsin order to minimize war and maximize peace.Rationalists contend that actors are basically rational actors who seekthe maximization of their interests, interests being understood primarilyin material terms and often calculated by utility functions maximizinggiven preferences? Interpretivists include postmodernists, critical theorists,and feminists, all of whom argue that basically the extant worldpolitical praxis or discourses “constitute” international agents and therebydetermine their actions, even as they reproduce world politics by ...


Author(s):  
T.V. Paul

This introductory chapter offers an overview of the core themes addressed in The Oxford Handbook of Peaceful Change in International Relations. It begins with a discussion of the neglect of peaceful change and the overemphasis on war as the source of change in the discipline of international relations. Definitions of peaceful change in their different dimensions, in particular the maximalist and minimalist varieties, are offered. Systemic, regional, and domestic level changes are explored. This is followed by a discussion of the study and understanding of peaceful change during the interwar, Cold War, and post–Cold War eras. The chapter offers a brief summary of different theoretical perspectives in IR—realism, liberalism, constructivism, and critical as well as eclectic approaches—and how they explore peaceful change, its key mechanisms, and its feasibility. The chapter considers the role of great powers and key regional states as agents of change. The economic, social, ideational, ecological, and technological sources of change are also briefly discussed.


2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 191-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. John Ikenberry

The United States is today a global superpower without historical precedent. It stands at the centre of an expanding democratic-capitalist world order that is itself, fifty years after its creation, the dominant reality in world politics. Despite expectations that American hegemony would disappear and trigger the emergence of a new and unstable multipolar post-Cold War order, the opposite has in fact happened. American power has grown even greater in the decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although American power is not uniformly welcome around the world, serious ideological challengers or geopolitical balancers are not to be found. Scholars who a decade ago were debating the prospect of co-operation and conflict in a post-hegemonic world are now debating the character and future of world politics within an American unipolar order.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anelise Freitas Pereira Gondar ◽  
Aline Duarte da Graça Rizzo

The Post-Cold War world order fueled discussions in the field of Humanities on theoretical and methodological resources in the very attempt to understand and explain the increasingly multi-polarized and complex international system. While considering the field of History — especially in its attempt to theoretically and methodologically cross borders — and while being active in the field of International Relations, we see possibilities of fruitful encounters between both areas of research, particularly when it comes to recent discussions on what came to be called in the 1990s “global history”. The article initially presents a conceptual definition of global history; then moves on to underpin its claim that History and IR areentangled disciplines that, despite different theoretical points of departure, not only share similar basic assumptions (state-centrism and the Western intellectual framework of thought) but also have been sharing similar intellectual preoccupations. In the third part, we explore possibilities of writing global history from the Latin-American perspective by discussing three recent contributions to the field. Finally, the text briefly enunciates possibilities of mutual enlightenment between the disciplinary fields of History and IR based on the idea of Global IR.


2017 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 159-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Yakunin

This article briefly examines the political and ideological aspects of Western countries’ post-Cold War approach to the world order. The Western triumph in the Cold War is generally attributed to reasons that are largely erroneous. The ongoing crises in international relations reveal structural inconsistencies, which have been present in the United States’ foreign strategy since the collapse of the Soviet Union and have contributed to the subsequent erosion of the global order. The article analyzes the new trends of globalization resulting from the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It concludes that Russia and China have now largely recognized Washington’s failure to establish a unipolar world system and to legitimize it through various political and media mechanisms and techniques. It suggests that it is only through the solidary development that both China and Russia are currently championing with their recent grand integration initiatives that a more successful and sustainable multipolar world benefiting every nation on the planet can be built and maintained.


2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Tamm

Despite their catastrophic proportions, the Congo Wars have received little attention from international relations scholars. At the heart of these conflicts were alliances between rebel groups and neighboring rulers. What are the origins of such transnational alliances, which have been a major feature of nearly all civil wars in post–Cold War Africa? Recent scholarship on external support for rebel groups does not offer a clear answer, either providing long lists of the goals that state sponsors may have or avoiding the question of motives altogether. A focus on political survival reveals that African rulers form alliances with rebels in nearby states to reduce the threats of rebellions and military coups that the rulers themselves face at home. Transnational alliances serve either to weaken a ruler's domestic enemies by undermining their foreign sponsors or to ensure the continued allegiance of key domestic supporters by providing them with opportunities for enrichment. Case studies of the alliance decisions made in the two Congo Wars by the rulers of Angola, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe show that their struggles for political survival account for why they sided either with their Congolese counterparts or with Congolese rebels.


2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES PETRAS ◽  
MORRIS MORLEY

International relations is now marked by a distinct bias against both realism and materialism. This, allied to the currently fashionable notion that in a globalized, liberal economy cooperation rather than competition is the norm, has meant that few scholars have been concerned to analyse the sources of rivalry between the various capitalist states. This article suggests that a version of realism informed by a keen sense of power and hierarchy remains essential if we are to understand the dynamics of US foreign policy in the post-Cold War period. The case study deployed here revolves around the various attempts made by one of America's allies to contest Washington's vision of a ‘new world order’. The French challenge assumed many forms but in the end was seen off by the dominant state; the outcome only confirming US preponderance and guaranteeing its hegemonic position into the 21st century.


1995 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 579-583
Author(s):  
John Horvath

With the cold war officially “over,” political scientists are busy settingthe stage for the next pattern of conflict. Cold war ideology, best describedas “a perpetual war for perpetual peace,” has left an unexpected vacuumin world politics. With the post-cold war world order more unstable anddangerous than at any time since the end of the Second World War, manyin the West find themselves struggling with an identity crisis. The goldenage that was to arise from the defeat of communism has not come-oneither side of the Iron Curtain-and prospects for world peace are moreunlikely now than at any time during the cold war. In order to come toterms with this bankruptcy of present-day foreign policy, western societyhas begun to search for pariahs. As Kunstler observes, “it seems that theAmerican public perennially needs identifiable villains to stimulate itsgastric juices.” Consequently, Islam and Muslims have become the latesttarget.Unlike previous enemies and opponents, which were based onnation-states and stimulated through nationalism and calls for patriotism,today’s “evil empire” is based on civilizations and fueled byracism. According to Huntington, “the fault lines between civilizationswill be the battle lines of the future.” Hence Islam is seen as a distinctthreat. The cultural fault lines between Islamic civilization and other civilizationsaround the world, from the Balkans and the bulge of Africa toCentral Asia, are considered the most violent and unstable areas onearth. In Huntington’s words, “Islam has bloody borders.”’ Such a viewof Islam and Islamic civilization as something cancerous to global stabilityis a perfect replacement for the former enemy and its ideology: theex-Soviet Union and communism. Once again, the American (and westem)military-industrial complex can justify the continued need to producearms while “defense” budgets continue to divert monies fromsocial expenditures.In Europe, as elsewhere, there is a basic misunderstanding of whatIslam is and represents. Stereotypes of “Muslim terrorists” have permeatedsociety. Anyone with a beard and/or a dark complexion is often treated assuspect. Muslims are generally seen as fanatics, worshipping the likes ofAyatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein and wanting nothing more in lifethan to kill Salman Rushdie. While many Westerners consider Muslims tobe fundamentalists, Muslims can view Westerners as being just as ...


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-92
Author(s):  
A. V. Kupriyanov ◽  
G. G. Makarevich

The article analyzes the tools and mechanisms that Indian elites used to adapt the country’s foreign policy to the post-Cold War world order. We describe the internal political development of India over the past 30 years, noting that the general foreign and economic policies remained unchanged due to the political consensus. We analyze the desire of the Indian leadership to form a solid economic foundation, which is perceived in the framework of India’s strategic thought as a prerequisite for the country to claim the status of great power. Finally, we discuss the primary imperatives of the Indian external policy, i.e., building a sphere of influence necessary for the polycentric world. It is noted that India’s main external security challenges remain the same (China and Pakistan), although they have changed qualitatively: the PRC has become one of the superpowers, overtaking India in terms of economic development, and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons. We conclude that, on the whole, the Indian elites managed to relatively safely lead the country through the chaos of the post-Cold War world, turning it into one of the largest economies in the world and providing the necessary conditions for raising its status in world politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document