Making sense of international relations

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Amitav Acharya
Polar Record ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Knecht ◽  
Paula Laubenstein

Abstract The governance of the Arctic as a frontier for international environmental and climate cooperation, resource politics and security governance holds the promise to provide important insights into some of the 21st century’s most enduring and pressing global challenges. This article reviews the state of the art of Arctic governance research (AGR) to assess the potential and limitations of a regional studies community for making sense of Northern politics and contributing to the broader discipline of international relations (IR) research. A bibliometric analysis of 398 articles published in 10 outlets between 2008 and 2019 reveals that AGR faces at least four limitations that undermine understanding and explaining the processes and outcomes of regional politics and inhibit generalisable observations applicable to questions of global governance: academic immaturity, methodological monoculturalism, state-centrism and analytical parochialism. The lack particularly of theoretically driven and comparative research is indicative of a deeper crisis in AGR which, if unaddressed, could further solidify the community’s unjustified reputation as quixotic in orientation and negligible in its contributions to IR research.


Author(s):  
Elise Rousseau ◽  
Stephane J Baele

Abstract This paper offers an original theoretical framework for the study of insults in international relations (IR). Bringing into IR the two main theoretical approaches to aggravating language, slurs and dysphemisms, we conceptualize insults’ disruptive impact on international interactions in a way that explains their logic, consequences, and risks. Specifically, we argue that insults constitute both at once tactical tools used by international actors to achieve their interests by disrupting an interaction and modifying the payoffs associated with it and linguistic artifacts constructing and sharpening self- and other identities. The components of our theoretical framework are illustrated with a wide range of empirical cases of international insults.


1988 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Clark

International relations scholars have long enjoyed an uncomfortable relationship with the concept of sovereignty. It has appeared as conceptually forbidding territory, journeys into which are likely to yield only a formalistic or unduly legalistic understanding of international relations, too close to the dignified trappings, and too remote from the efficient workings, of the international system.


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 269-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuchao Zhu

A country’s image is the product largely of one nation’s socially constructed perception (or misperception) of another nation. A country’s image may seem politically insignificant, but its image and associated identity are often socially meaningful and have an important impact on the overall milieu for narratives and discourses in international relations. This essay intends to make sense of Canada’s image among Chinese. It first defines the concept of “image” and specifically Canada’s image in China. Then, through examination of various aspects of image-making, such as symbolic individual figures, media venues, and popular topics, this article seeks to deconstruct this image. It argues that the Canadian image is important for Sino-Canadian relations because a country’s image and reputation are among the most valuable assets its people possess and a key component of soft power. The political weight of public image, however, is more the product of a country’s importance and less its image. For example, compared to the relatively negative public image of the United States in China, Canada’s more positive public image does not make it more important to China’s government or its people.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-356
Author(s):  
Cristina Masters ◽  
Marysia Zalewski

Cristina Masters (CM): The articles in this forum speak to how influential and inspiring your work is for scholars in the discipline of International Relations (IR), not least feminist scholars. Particularly, I think, for encouraging us to (re)think and (re)work with deeply familiar ‘things’ in deeply unusual – yet troublingly fecund – ways. Blood, for example, comes up quite frequently in your writing on methodology, even though it appears, as you say, an ‘unlikely candidate for methodological use’. What is so promising about blood for making sense of global politics?


2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise Philipsen

In this article, I argue that the introduction of ethnography to International Relations has not taken full advantage of the potential of bringing these two fields together. Using international intervention as an example, I suggest that to bring out this potential we need to be more attentive to the classical virtues of ethnography. This means taking the subjects of our studies much more seriously, as people capable of making sense of and reacting to the structures of power they are embedded in. Here implementers tasked to put international policies into action in relation to a concrete context provide an overlooked source of knowledge. Using their experiences, reflections and ways of dealing with the concrete dilemmas that arise in their daily work enables us to analyse intervention as concrete relations of power that play out, affect and are mitigated by people in the field. Seeing knowledge as in this manner arising from the field provides a deeper knowledge that is necessary if we want to read intervention not only as an exertion of power from the international to the local, but as dynamically reshaped, resisted and made sense of in the field.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document