Experiencing the end and afterlives of International Relations/theory

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Sylvester
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Eastern Bloc ◽  
Abstract Thinking ◽  
Ordinary People ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The World ◽  
The Face

Having raised the question of whither the international at the end of International Relations a few years ago, this article treats the state of International Relations theory as a continuing endist issue for discussion. Of interest is the restructuring of the field in the post-Cold War years, partly as a result of debates about epistemologies and partly in light of the failure of realisms to lead International Relations to the door of the Soviet and Eastern Bloc collapse, which many thought it could. As the world globalized, so did International Relations, turning itself into a field of differences — theoretical, geographical, philosophical, methodological, and so on. Is this the end of International Relations or its new afterlife? I argue that there are signs that old topics of International Relations, like war, are being taken up in new ways and in new collaborations, such as those that feminist International Relations has forged. At the same time, many camps display the old International Relations tendency to elevate abstract thinking above quotidian international relations, even in the face of clear evidence that the agency of people played a major role in shifting Cold War and Middle East configurations of power. International Relations’ camps should strive less for their own distinctive analysis and more for communication with colleagues, ordinary people making today’s international relations and policy proponents.

Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-106
Author(s):  
M. A. Muqtedar Khan
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Socioeconomic Conditions ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Important Concept ◽  
Construction Of Identity ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

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 ...

Back to the Future, Part II: International Relations Theory and Post-Cold War Europe

1990 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley Hoffmann ◽  
Robert O. Keohane ◽  
John J. Mearsheimer
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Future

Introduction: The Emergence of “Greater China”

1993 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 653-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Shambaugh
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Greater China ◽  
The World ◽  
Post War ◽  
New Millennium

The post-Cold War world is witnessing the reconfiguration of international relations with the emergence of new actors and relationships on the world stage. These new actors and patterns of relations are reshaping the familiarities of the post-war era. As the new millennium approaches, one has the sense that the world is in transition from one epoch to another. Among the new realities of our era is the emergence of “Greater China.”

International Relations Theory

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Cristol
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Starting Point

International relations (IR) theory is difficult to define. It is often taught as a theory that seeks both to explain past state behavior and to predict future state behavior. However, even that definition is contested by many theorists. Traditional IR theories can generally be categorized by their focus either on humans, states, or on the state system as the primary source of conflict. Any bibliography of international relations theory is bound to create controversy among its readers. Why did the author choose one theory and not the other? Why did the author choose one source and not the other? Indeed, a wide variety of permutations would be perfectly valid to provide the researcher with an adequate annotated bibliography, so why were these particular entries chosen? This article identifies Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism as the three major branches of IR theory. These three branches have replaced the earlier realism-idealism dichotomy. The “English School” could be considered part of any of the aforementioned three branches, and its placement in the IR theory world is the subject of some debate. It has therefore been given its own section and is not included in any of the other sections. Critical IR theory and Feminist IR theory are often considered part of constructivism; however, there is much debate over whether they constitute their own branches, and so they are included in this article (as well as in their own entries in the OBO series), though the sources are somewhat different. Post–Cold War IR Theory is given its own heading because there are a number of theories that were proposed in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War that are still widely taught and discussed in the field. Perhaps the most controversial inclusion is that of Neoconservatism. Though it is quite possible to mount a case for it to be considered a theory of US foreign policy, it is theoretically distinct from other IR theories (the belief in bandwagoning instead of balancing). The final three sections are included to show how political theory has influenced IR theory, and how history and foreign policy have influenced IR theory (and vice versa). The included sections and citations represent both the mainstream of IR theory and those nonmainstream theories that have just started to break into the mainstream of IR theory. This article provides a starting point for both the beginning and the serious scholar of international relations theory.

The foreign policy options of a small unrecognised state: the case of Abkhazia

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Thomas Frear
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Universal Principle ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Significant Challenge ◽  
The World ◽  
Systemic Understanding

The study of international relations has historically focused on the activities of large, powerful states, dismissing the smaller entities of the international system as unimportant or merely objects of policy for the larger entities. This truism extends especially to those entities that exist in an unrecognised or partially recognised limbo, neither a full part of the international system nor an ungoverned space. Yet in the post-Cold War world, following the dissolution of large multi-national states such as the USSR, these entities have begun to proliferate. This proliferation provides a significant challenge to an international system in which the primary participants are states, and to the institutions created to oversee their interaction. Unrecognised entities, existing outside of this framework, represent a threat to the universal principle of sovereignty, that one true institutionalised aspect of international relations. As such the study of these entities and their interaction with the world outside their borders is a study important for a systemic understanding of contemporary international relations. This article aims to address the foreign policy of one such entity, Abkhazia.

Ubiquity of ‘Power’ and the Advantage of Terminological Pluralism: Japan's Foreign Policy Discourse

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
LINUS HAGSTRÖM
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
English Language ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Policy Discourse ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Post Cold War

This article demonstrates that ubiquitous references to ‘power’ in English-language foreign policy discourse can be understood in the light of the inclination in international relations theory to place power on a par with capability. It makes two claims: that such a concept of power is ill-fitted for foreign policy analysis; and that much clarity would be gained by following the Japanese example of terminological pluralism and thus abandoning ‘power’ as a catch-all term. Foreign policy analysis would benefit from adopting a concept that takes power to reside in specific relationships. Its adoption would moreover dissolve a power paradox associated with the analysis of Japan's post-Cold War foreign policy.

Norms of Self-Determination: Thinking Sovereignty Through

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 195-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Scott
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Third World ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Way

This essay is an exploration of the contemporary normative conditions of thinking about the problem of sovereignty. Specifically it is a consideration of some aspects of the way in which the problem of Third World sovereignty has been taken up and argued out in international relations theory and international law on the legal-political terrain of self-determination. The essay traces the transformation of the norm of self-determination as an anti-colonial standard to its post-Cold War re-composition as a norm of democratic governance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document