scholarly journals THE EVOLUTION OF APPROACHES TOWARDS THE UNDERSTANDING OF HEGEMONY IN THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

2016 ◽  
pp. 34-46
Author(s):  
N. Romaniuk ◽  
M. Puriy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Antonio Gramsci ◽  
Direct Influence ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Theoretical Reasoning ◽  
Robert Cox ◽  
John Ruggie

The article examines theoretical approaches of realism, liberalism, Marxism and constructivism towards the investigation, analysis and understanding of the phenomenon of hegemony in theory of international relations. It analyzes the fundamental claims of key representatives of each of the suggested theoretical approaches regarding hegemony. The authors emphasize the importance of theoretical works of representatives of each approach and demonstrate their direct influence on the formation and development of the studied theory within the science of international relations. In particular, the article provides an analysis of the theoretical views of such leading international relations scholars and theorists, as John Ikenberry, Robert Gilpin, Charles Kindleberger, John Mearsheimer, John Ruggie, Alexander Wendt and Christian Reus-Smit. In addition, the views of Antonio Gramsci, Robert Cox, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, which formed the foundation of the theory of hegemony in international relations, were investigated. The authors emphasize on the fundamental impact of the investigated approaches of realism, liberalism, marxism and constructivism towards the understanding of the phenomenon of hegemony within the academia, as well as on the theoretical reasoning and on the realization of this phenomenon in international relations. Concordantly, the relevance of the study of the phenomenon of hegemony in terms of theory and practice of international relations is emphasized.

Interpretation and the ‘science’ of international relations

1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Neufeld
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Robert Cox ◽  
John Ruggie

The issue of ‘interpretive’ approaches to the study of international relations has achieved prominence in recent meta-theoretical discussions of the discipline. It has been suggested, for example, that the work of interpretive theorists, such as Hayward Alker, Richard Ashley, Friedrich Kratochwil, John Ruggie and Robert Cox, represents an approach which is qualitatively different and distinct from the traditional, positivist-inspired approach to the study of international politics.

The pragmatist influence on managerial ideas and practices

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Lorino
Keyword(s):  
Community Of Inquiry ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Direct Influence ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Corporate World ◽  
Quality Movement ◽  
Reflection In Action ◽  
Process Perspective ◽  
Exploratory Inquiry

A key idea of pragmatism is the inseparability of theory and practice, thought and action. Pragmatism is said to have had few contacts with the organizational world, and few direct practical applications, except in the domain of education. In particular, the pragmatist direct influence on the managerial world is often undervalued. However, pragmatist ideas have had a significant impact on managerial doctrines and can be traced in today’s debates amongst organization practitioners. This chapter studies three of those channels: Follett’s direct or indirect (for example through Chester Barnard’s work) influence on the corporate world as well as the management of public institutions; the stream of action research and reflection-in-action, in particular Donald Schön’s work; and the development of the quality movement as an anti-Taylorian revolution, deeply influenced by pragmatist thinkers (exploratory inquiry, community of inquiry, instrumental mediations, process perspective), more recently distorted into a Taylorian revival under the “lean management” label.

scholarly journals Bad World: The Negativity Bias in International Politics

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic D.P. Johnson ◽  
Dominic Tierney
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Negative Information ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Negativity Bias ◽  
Positive Information ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
New Research

A major puzzle in international relations is why states privilege negative over positive information. States tend to inflate threats, exhibit loss aversion, and learn more from failures than from successes. Rationalist accounts fail to explain this phenomenon, because systematically overweighting bad over good may in fact undermine state interests. New research in psychology, however, offers an explanation. The “negativity bias” has emerged as a fundamental principle of the human mind, in which people's response to positive and negative information is asymmetric. Negative factors have greater effects than positive factors across a wide range of psychological phenomena, including cognition, motivation, emotion, information processing, decision-making, learning, and memory. Put simply, bad is stronger than good. Scholars have long pointed to the role of positive biases, such as overconfidence, in causing war, but negative biases are actually more pervasive and may represent a core explanation for patterns of conflict. Positive and negative dispositions apply in different contexts. People privilege negative information about the external environment and other actors, but positive information about themselves. The coexistence of biases can increase the potential for conflict. Decisionmakers simultaneously exaggerate the severity of threats and exhibit overconfidence about their capacity to deal with them. Overall, the negativity bias is a potent force in human judgment and decisionmaking, with important implications for international relations theory and practice.

scholarly journals François Fénelon: Modern philosopher or conservative theologian?

2021 ◽  
pp. 147488512110020
Author(s):  
Alexandra Oprea
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Education Of Women ◽  
Political Philosopher

Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.

Cyber Power in International Relations

2021 ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
Tim Stevens ◽  
Camino Kavanagh
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Strategic Objectives ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Strategic Outcomes

This chapter provides a conceptual and analytical framework for the understanding of ‘cyber power’ in the theory and practice of international relations. Cyber power is the product of relationships between actors, rather than a material quantity that can be possessed and converted into strategic outcomes. This chapter identifies four forms of cyber power that arise from different configurations of state and non-state actors: compulsory, institutional, structural, and productive. Analysis of national cyber strategies shows how states develop, leverage, and exploit their relationships with the actors and structures of the international system to generate cyber power in pursuit of their strategic objectives. Cyber power should therefore be understood as a multiplicity of forms of power in and through cyberspace, not as a singular concept or practice. Moreover, cyber power should be framed within broader conceptualizations of power, rather than treated as somehow distinct and discrete.

Rethinking State-Non-state Alliances: A Theoretical Analysis of the U.S. Kurdish Relationship

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-204
Author(s):  
Ozum Yesiltas
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Theoretical Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Archival Data ◽  
World War ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Syrian Crisis ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
The U.S

This study investigates the growing influence of Middle Eastern non-state actors as agents of foreign policy and their interactions with states through an analysis of the U.S.-Kurdish relationship. Incorporating archival data and interviews with Kurdish and American policy makers, the paper analyses the factors that have affected the U.S.-Kurdish relationship from World War II to the recent Syrian crisis in the context of the mainstream theoretical approaches within the discipline of International Relations. The article concludes that the failure to formulate a coherent Kurdish policy complicates the U.S.’ Middle East strategy and contributes to outcomes unfavourable to U.S. interests in the region.  Abstract in Kurmanji Hêza ji kenaran : Pêşniyara bo siyaseteke derveyî ya hevgirtî ya Dewletên Yekbûyî yên Amerîkayê li hemberî Kurdan Ev lêkolîn tesîra her ku diçe mezin dibe ya aktorên ne-dewletî li Rojhilata Navîn wek failên siyaseta derve, digel danûstandinên wan bi dewletan re, li ser hîma tehlîla têkiliya DYA û Kurdan vedikole. Bi vehewandina daneyên arşîvî û hevdîtinên li gel siyasetmedarên kurd û amerîkî, ev nivîsar nêrînên bîrdozî yên herî berbelav di  babetaTêkiliyên Navneteweyî de bi kar tîne, ji bo ku faktorên bandor li têkiliyên DYA-Kurd ji Şerê Cîhanê yê Duyem heta qeyrana surî ya dawîn  kirine, tehlîl bike. Nivîsar bi vê encamê digihîje ku têkçûna sazkirina siyaseteke kurd a hevgirtî ji bo stratejiya DYA ya li Rojhilata Navîn zehmetiyan derdixe û netîceyên neyînî bo berjewendiyên DYA jî bi xwe re tîne. Abstract in Sorani Hêzê Sînoran: Kurdan Reyde Mesela Sîyasetê Teberî yê DYA yê ‘Pêgirewteyî’ Pê analîzê têkilîya DYA û kurdan, no cigêrayîş Rojhelato Mîyanên de tesîrê averşîyayoxî yê aktoranê bêdewletanê sey ajananê sîyasetê teberî û dewletan reyde înteraksîyonanê nê aktoran tehqîq keno. Bi dayeyanê arşîvan û roportajanê qerardaranê sîyasetî reyde, no nuşte faktoranê ke Cengê Cîhanî yê II. ra heta krîzê Sûrîye yê nikayinî têkilîya DYA û kurdan ser o tesîr kerdo, ê faktoran çarçewaya teorîyanê bingeyênan yê beşê Têkilîya Mîyanneteweyî de analîz keno. Na meqale netîce de vana ke DYA besenêkerd polîtîkayêka kurdan a pêgirewtîye virazê, na kêmanîye kî Rojhelato Mîyanên de stratejîya DYA kena têmîyan û peynîye de faydeyê xo nêreseno menfeatanê DYA yê a herême. Abstract in Zazaki Destellat le kenarewe : keysêk derbarey hawrrayî le siyasetî derewey Emerîka da beramber be Kurdekan Em nûsîne le karîgerî geşesendinî hêzwektere bê-netewekan le ser siyasetî Rojhellatî Nawerrast da dekollêtewe, legell peywendiyan legell dewlletekan da le rêgayi şirovekirdinî peywendî nêwan wîlayete yekgirtwekanî Emerîka û Kurdekan da. Be têkellkirdinî datay erşîf û çawpêketin legell siyasetmedare emerîkî û Kurdekan da, em nûsîne şirovey ew fakterane dekat ke karîgeryan le ser peywendî nêwan wîlayete yekgrtwekanî emerîka û Kurdekan da hebuh le cengî cîhanî duwemewe heta qeyranî tazey Suriya, le çwarçêwey têore berbillawekan le zanistî peywendiye nîwdewlletiyekan da. Encamî wutareke eweye ke be hoy şikesthênan le dirustkirdinî siyasetêkî yekgirtû beramber Kurdekan, astengî bo planî Wîlayete Yekgrtwekanî Emerîka le Rojhellatî Nawerrast da dirust dekat û debête hoy dirustbûnî derencamî nerênî le qazancî Wîlayete Yekgirtwekanî Emerîka le nawçeke da.

scholarly journals Battlefield praxis: The alliance of realism and constructivism and the “fall” of liberal internationalism

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 262-282
Author(s):  
Vladimir Ajzenhamer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Precise Determination ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
Current State ◽  
Disciplinary Field ◽  
Political Praxis

The Great Debates are an important stage in the development of International Relations (IR) as a science. However, the ?exactness? of its chronology and content, as well as the precise determination of the actors and results, is questionable on several grounds. Therefore, relying on this, often contradictory, interpretations of the outcome of the Great Debates, little can be said about the current state of the mentioned theoretical dialogue. Today, IR scholars mostly discuss abandoning the idea of macro theory and the pluralistic silence in which medium-scale theories resonate in peace. However, this "diagnosis" still does not give us an answer to the question of who really won the fight of so-called big theories, or which theoretical paradigm today has the greatest influence within the disciplinary field? Applying the idea of reflexivity between the theory of international relations and the practice of foreign policy, the author of this paper rejects the restrictions of the mythos of the discipline (at the center of which is the myth of the Great Debates) and turns to the analysis of international political praxis as an instrument for the identification of the mentioned theoretical impact. At the center of the analysis are the foreign policy principles of the United States, which the author reviews in a hundred-year time interval, in particular emphasizing the doctrine of Wilsonianism and the principles of foreign policy advocated by the current US President Donald Tramp. Facing Wilsonianism and Trampism (determining, in turn, the latter as a realistic-constructivist Anti-Wilsonian coalition), the author offers his view of the current state of paradigmatic ?clashes? in the theory and practice of international relations.

Does ‘gender’ make the world go round? Feminist critiques of international relations

1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Jones
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Care Giving ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Alternative Vision ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Human Individual

In the last two decades, the classical tradition in international relations has come under sustained attack on a number of fronts, and from a diverse range of critics. Most recently, feminist thinkers, following in the footsteps of neo-Marxists and critical theorists, have denounced IR as ‘one of the most gender-blind, indeed crudely patriarchal, of all the institutionalized forms of contemporary social and political analysis’. Feminists have sought to subvert some of the most basic elements of the classical paradigm: the assumption of the state as a given; conceptions of power and ‘international security’; and the model of a rational human individual standing apart from the realm of lived experience, manipulating it to maximize his own self-interest. Denouncing standard epistemological assumptions and theoretical approaches as inherently ‘masculinist’, feminists, particularly those from the radical band of the spectrum, have advanced an alternative vision of international relations: one that redefines power as ‘mutual enablement’ rather than domination, and offers normative values of cooperation, care giving, and compromise in place of patriarchal norms of competition, exploitation, and self-aggrandizement.

The Philadelphian system: sovereignty, arms control, and balance of power in the American states-union, circa 1787–1861

1995 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel H. Deudney
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
American States ◽  
Close Analysis ◽  
Legitimate Violence ◽  
American Union ◽  
Real State

A rediscovery of the long-forgotten republican version of liberal political theory has arresting implications for the theory and practice of international relations. Republican liberalism has a theory of security that is superior to realism, because it addresses not only threats of war from other states but also the threat of despotism at home. In this view, a Hobson's choice between anarchy and hierarchy is not necessary because an intermediary structure, here dubbed “negarchy,” is also available. The American Union from 1787 until 1861 is a historical example. This Philadelphian system was not a real state since, for example, the union did not enjoy a monopoly of legitimate violence. Yet neither was it a state system, since the American states lacked sufficient autonomy. While it shared some features with the Westphalian system such as balance of power, it differed fundamentally. Its origins owed something to particular conditions of time and place, and the American Civil War ended this system. Yet close analysis indicates that it may have surprising relevance for the future of contemporary issues such as the European Union and nuclear governance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document