When Do Ideological Enemies Ally?

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-146
Author(s):  
Mark L. Haas
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
Ideological Differences ◽  
Common Interests

Abstract Why is it that international ideological enemies—states governed by leaders engaged in deep disputes about preferred domestic institutions and values—are sometimes able to overcome their ideological differences and ally to counter shared threats, and sometimes they are not? Alliances among ideological enemies confronting a common foe are unlike coalitions among ideologically similar states facing comparable threats. Members of these alliances are perpetually torn by two sets of powerful contending forces. Shared material threats push these states together, while the effects of ideological differences pull them apart. To predict when ideological enemies are and are not likely to ally in the pursuit of common interests, it is necessary to know which of these contending forces is likely to dominate at a particular time. The values of two ideological variables beyond that of ideological enmity play the key role in determining outcomes: (1) states’ susceptibility to major domestic ideological changes and (2) the nature of the ideological differences among countries. Similar levels of ideological enmity and material threats will have vastly different effects on leaders’ alliance policies as the values of these additional ideological variables alter.

Diskursus Demokrasi Pancasila dalam Lintas Perspektif Etnisitas

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Eko Wahyono ◽  
Fadhillah Sri Meutia
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Context ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
State Collapse ◽  
Ideological Differences ◽  
Second World

Discourses on democracy are always rolling in various trajectories and time battles. Democracy is not final, but will always seek form in every social and cultural context of Indonesian society. Pancasila democracy which is often regarded as a finished item encounters various challenges and even resistance from various groups. This cannot be separated from the variety and heterogeneity of Indonesian society, ethnicity, political, and cultural contestation that will always adorn the trajectory of Pancasila democracy. Many multiethnic countries have been decimated and dispersed because of the ideological differences of each group, the empirical facts in the midst of the multi-ethnic state collapse in the post-Second World War still stand firm with all its turmoil. It is interesting to see again the construction and deconstruction that shape democracy in Indonesia in cross-history and perspective.Keyword: Democration, Pancasila, ethinicity

Low system justification drives ideological differences in joke perception: A critical commentary and re-analysis of Baltiansky et al. (2020)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry Robert McSweeney Purser ◽  
Craig A. Harper
Keyword(s):  
Data File ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Poor People ◽  
Women Poor ◽  
Critical Commentary ◽  
Original Analysis ◽  
The Social ◽  
Ideological Differences ◽  
High System ◽  
Racial Ethnic

A recent study by Baltiansky, Craig, & Jost (2020) tested two hypotheses related to system justification and the perception of stereotypical humor. They reported to have found evidence for a cross-over interaction, with judgments of jokes being contingent on a combination of the social status of the targets of jokes and raters’ system justification motivations. Here, we discuss the original analysis, presentation, and interpretation of the data in Baltiansky et al. (2020), before presenting a re-analysis of the authors’ shared data file. We show that the framing of claims such as “high system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups (e.g., women, poor people, racial/ethnic minorities) to be funnier than low system-justifiers did” (p. 1) are misleading in their framing. Instead, our re-analyses suggest that ideological differences in joke perception are driven primarily by those scoring low on the system justification motivation rating jokes about ostensibly low-status groups as less funny than jokes about other social groups.

SIBERIAN WARRIORS’ PETITIONS AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE OF F. GOLOVIN REGIMENTS CAMPAIGN TO DAURIA (1686–1689)

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (72) (4) ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
E. A. Bagrin
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Situation ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Historical Source ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Common

The article examines unpublished petitions of Siberian warriors who participated campaign of Ambassador F. A. Golovin to Dauria in 1686–1689. The campaign ended with the signing of the first treaty between Russia and China concerning the border. Petitions contains requests of warriors to return them home, warriors’ merits and deprivations. These documents allow to compare the information of original participants of campaign with the data reflected in the chancellery of the embassy. This comparison not only confirmed the reliability of the description of campaign to Dauria in the sources, but also made it possible to reveal some facts not mentioned in the embassy documents. These petitions describe the common interests and needs of warriors of various categories from different towns of Siberia. In some cases, the petitioners embellish or conceal some facts. These documents emphasize most clearly the emergency situation with provision of food and material needs of warriors as a result of hardships during transitions and military operations.

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberts Cynthia ◽  
Leslie Armijo ◽  
Saori Katada
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Global Finance ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Outside Options ◽  
Power Shift ◽  
Global Power ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Sustainable Economic Growth

The chapter analyzes the prospects for continued BRICS collective financial statecraft. Contrary to initial expectations, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have hung together by identifying common aversions and pursuing common interests within the existing international order. Their future depends not only on their bargaining power, but also on their ability to overcome domestic impediments to the sustainable economic growth that provides the basis for their international positions. To continue successfully with collective financial statecraft, the members must tackle the so-called middle-income trap, as well as their preferences for informal rules originating from their own institutional weaknesses or regime preferences. This study shows that, in the context of a global power shift, the BRICS club has operated to protect the member countries’ respective policy autonomy, while also advancing their joint voice in global governance. Recently, the BRICS have made concrete institutional gains, giving them expanded outside options to achieve specific objectives in global finance.

The Sino–Russian Strategic Partnership

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul J. Bolt ◽  
Sharyl N. Cross
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Relative Power ◽  
Mutual Respect ◽  
Major Power ◽  
The West ◽  
The World ◽  
Key Players ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Relationship

The Conclusion reviews the volume’s major themes. Russia and China have common interests that cement their partnership, and are key players in shaping the international order. Both seek better relations with the West, but on the basis of “mutual respect” and “equality.” While the relationship has grown deeper, particularly since 2014, China and Russia are partners but not allies. Thus, their relationship is marked by burgeoning cooperation, but still areas of potential competition and friction. Russia in particular must deal with China’s growing relative power at the same time that it is isolated from the West. While the Russian–Chinese relationship creates challenges for the United States and Europe and a return of major power rivalry, there is also room for cooperation in the strategic triangle comprising China, Russia, and the West. Looking ahead, the world is in a period of dramatic transition.

Common Interests of Humankind and the International Regulation of the Use of Force

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enzo Cannizzaro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mere Existence ◽  
Further Development

The chapter discusses the philosophical foundations of the current regulation of the use of force. The chapter argues that, in correspondence with the emergence of a sphere of substantive rules protecting common interests of humankind, international law is also gradually developing a system of protection against egregious breaches of these interests. This conclusion is reached through an analysis of the law and practice governing the action of the UN Security Council as well as the law of state responsibility concerning individual and collective reactions to serious breaches of common interests. This system is based on positive obligations imposed upon individual states as well as UN organs, and it appears to be still rudimentary and inefficient. However, the chapter suggests that the mere existence of this system, these shortcomings notwithstanding, has the effect of promoting the further development of the law in search for more appropriate mechanisms of protection.

The Influence of the Two Covenants on States Parties Across Regions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Besson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Third ◽  
International Human ◽  
Domestic Influence ◽  
Domestic Law

As a companion to the five regional reports in this volume, this chapter’s aim is a double one: first, to bring the comparison up to the regional level, and second, to analyse the international and domestic institutions, procedures, and mechanisms that affect how international human rights instruments influence domestic law. The chapter is therefore both a study in comparative international human rights law and a contribution to its methodology. Its structure is four-pronged. The first section clarifies the aim, object, and method of the comparison. The second section presents a comparative assessment of the Covenants’ domestic influence across regions and develops a grid of comparative analysis. The third section addresses the authority of the Committees’ interpretations of the Covenants, relying on a bottom-up comparative law argument. The fourth section discusses the role of human rights comparison and of regional human rights law in enhancing the legitimacy of the Committees’ future interpretations.

Counterterrorism Between the Wars

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary S. Barton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Independence Movements ◽  
Second World ◽  
The U.S

This is a book about terrorism, weapons, and diplomacy in the interwar years between the First and Second World Wars. It charts the convergence of the manufacture and trade of arms; diplomacy among the Great Powers and the domestic politics within them; the rise of national liberation and independence movements; and the burgeoning concept and early institutions of international counterterrorism. Key themes include: a transformation in meaning and practice of terrorism; the inability of Great Powers—namely, Great Britain, the United States, France—to harmonize perceptions of interest and the pursuit of common interests; the establishment of the tools and infrastructure of modern intelligence—including the U.S.-U.K. cooperation that would evolve into the Five Eyes intelligence alliance; and the nature of peacetime in the absence of major wars. Particular emphasis is given to British attempts to quell revolutionary nationalist movements in India and elsewhere in its empire, and to the Great Powers’ combined efforts to counter the activities of the Communist International. The facilitating roles of the Paris Peace Conference and League of Nations are explored here, in the context of the Arms Traffic Convention of 1919, the Arms Traffic Conference of 1925, and the 1937 Terrorism Convention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document