Great power management and debate over climate responsibility

Author(s):  
Sanna Kopra
Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTIAN BRÜTSCH

AbstractEven before the global financial crisis restored the International Monetary Fund's (‘IMF’ or ‘Fund’) political fortunes, the ‘monetary managers’ regained ground in supposedly hostile parts of the world, most notably in sub-Saharan Africa. To shed light on the Fund's appeal to governments that do not need its leverage to put dithering cabinets, unruly coalition partners, or restive opposition forces in line, this article examines the interplay between intergovernmental organisations (IGO) and the ‘master institutions’ of the anarchical society. It builds on classic English School inquiries into the ‘words and deeds’ of agents that define, maintain, and transform international societies; tracks collective efforts to harness international credit and debt; and probes bureaucratic obstinacy and great power management in the Fund's conduct in three member states that differ in terms of their borrowing habits, funding options, and creditor relations. It concludes that, in contrast to its reputation as a technocratic manager of cooperation or an imperial agent of contestation, the IMF's appeal lies in its willingness to act as a diplomatic champion of coexistence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Filippo Costa Buranelli

Abstract This article reflects on how the concept of regionalism has been used to explain and interpret Central Asian politics since independence. It argues that regionalism, often a norm-laden analytical category based on Eurocentric assumptions, tends to paint the region as “failed” and regional states as incapable of institutionalizing multilateral relations. In its place, the article suggests the concept of order, which is more neutral and—through its focus on the operation of sovereignty, diplomacy, international law, authoritarianism, and great power management—is able to incorporate elements of both the conflict and cooperation that have marked the region’s politics since 1991.


Author(s):  
Cornelia Navari

The English School has made three contributions to the science of peaceful change: the inevitable conflict of order and justice; the necessity of Great Power management of peaceful change; and regional orders as the locus of peaceful change. The first refers to a structural conflict between state sovereignty and human rights and also serves as the parameters of a discourse on ethical possibilities among sovereign states. The second—the requirement of Great Power management—is both an observation on the course of history and a structural determinant, arising from the gross inequalities among states. The third—the notion that regional international societies can be peacemakers—is not unique to the English School. Its contribution is that any region can be a form of international society with its own distinctive rules and adjudicative procedures, and that accordingly, any region is potentially able to become a “security community.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document