scholarly journals RASING FORCES: PATTERNS OF REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN WORLD POLITICS

2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (06) ◽  
pp. 165-176
Author(s):  
Djamel Ben MERAR ◽  
Nassera MELLAH
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Dual Roles ◽  
Reciprocal Interactions ◽  
Power Equation ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Emerging Powers

This article examines Rising Powers: Patterns of Power Redistribution in Global Politics, by creating a reliable framework for understanding the increasing complexities of the actors in the international arena. This is by studying the concept of power, which is one of the basic concepts in political science, whereby force imposes its logic on the curves of international relations and has multiple forms due to its complex nature. In what can be considered dual roles and reciprocal interactions, and to understand the dimensions, manifestations and nature of the actors in the power equation, especially the emergence of tensions and conflicts between the interests of the United States of America and the emerging powers in the world in light of the new strategic directions after the Cold War and each party's attempt to dominate areas of influence and wealth Proceeding from a pragmatic geopolitical policy.

Cultural Diversity and World Politics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elif Kalaycioglu
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Shared Meanings ◽  
Shared Culture ◽  
Equal Recognition ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Material Power ◽  
The Impact

The end of the Cold War, the emergence of nonWestern states as influential actors in global politics, and waves of Western nativism in the United States and Europe have placed questions of cultural diversity centrally in global politics. Although the mainstream paradigms of international relations (IR), namely, realism and liberalism, have remained focused on material power and mutual gains via institutions as the cruxes of global politics, starting with the mid-1990s, an increasing number of IR scholars have attended to the question of cultural diversity and world politics. This scholarship has approached culture, alternatively, as a set of shared meanings stable over time, meanings that are institutionally stabilized, or a field of multiple and competing representations. Accordingly, some (the English school, conventional constructivism) posit culture as internally coherent and externally diverse, associating shared culture with accord and cultural diversity with discord. Others (critical constructivism, postcolonial IR) focus on the power-laden processes through which cultural diversity comes to be associated with Otherness and discord. Most of the relevant scholarship, however, defies paradigmatic categorization. These works are better grouped as interventions into IR theory and as scholarship that focuses on the impact of cultural diversity on the conduct of world politics. The first set of interventions have identified the state of cultural diversity in IR theorizing as an absence, a deep suspicion and an active suppression, or an outdated conceptualization. The IR theoretical path forward has, accordingly, been identified as the inclusion of culture, as dispensing with key theoretical heuristics of the field, or as a new focus on how cultural diversity has been globally governed. The analyses of cultural diversity and the conduct of world politics, taken together, show the intricate connections between existing institutions and norms, and assertions of cultural diversity. While diversity challenges universalizing forms of governance, the demands for the equal recognition of diversity are shaped by existing institutions. Despite key theoretical and analytical insights, the scholarship on cultural diversity can pay further attention to (a) the relation between theoretical notions of cultural diversity and cultural diversity as employed in global politics and (b) the relation between cultural diversity and other global political domains, such as geopolitics. On this, the literature can benefit from engagement with the IR scholarship on civilizations. At the same time, the latter scholarship is highly relevant to the question at hand because civilizations are key conduits of the global politics of cultural diversity.

scholarly journals The United States: Still a Global Hegemonic Power?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hang Nguyen Thi Thuy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The U.S

This article argues that U.S. hegemony has not declined since the end of the Cold War as claimed in much of the international relations literature. On the contrary the post Cold War international political landscape is still characterized by unipolarity in which the U.S. is the sole superpower. However what is questionable is how long the U.S. can sustain its global hegemonic power. The paper begins by discussing how hegemony has been defined. Then, while arguing that the alleged decline of U.S. hegemony by the declinists is too simplistic, the article underlines research that brings the present preponderance of U.S. power in the global politics into question. The article further describes U.S. unprecedented capabilities and its leadership in the security and economic frameworks that have constituted the foundation for the international order to provide empirical evidence to support the assertion that the U.S. remains a global hegemon.  

After Victory

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. John Ikenberry
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Politics ◽  
World Order ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Big Bang ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Napoleonic Wars ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
The Cold War

The end of the Cold War was a “big bang” reminiscent of earlier moments after major wars, such as the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and the end of the world wars in 1919 and 1945. But what do states that win wars do with their newfound power, and how do they use it to build order? This book examines postwar settlements in modern history, arguing that powerful countries do seek to build stable and cooperative relations, but the type of order that emerges hinges on their ability to make commitments and restrain power. The book explains that only with the spread of democracy in the twentieth century and the innovative use of international institutions—both linked to the emergence of the United States as a world power—has order been created that goes beyond balance of power politics to exhibit “constitutional” characteristics. Blending comparative politics with international relations, and history with theory, the book will be of interest to anyone concerned with the organization of world order, the role of institutions in world politics, and the lessons of past postwar settlements for today.

Trust, but Verify

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
East West

This book uses trust—with its emotional and predictive aspects—to explore international relations in the second half of the Cold War, beginning with the late 1960s. The détente of the 1970s led to the development of some limited trust between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lessened international tensions and enabled advances in areas such as arms control. However, it also created uncertainty in other areas, especially on the part of smaller states that depended on their alliance leaders for protection. The chapters in this volume look at how the “emotional” side of the conflict affected the dynamics of various Cold War relations: between the superpowers, within the two ideological blocs, and inside individual countries on the margins of the East–West confrontation.

Another Geopolitics? International Relations and the Boundaries of World Order

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regan Burles
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Ecology ◽  
International System ◽  
World Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Ecological Change ◽  
Ecological Theories ◽  
Problems And Solutions ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Geopolitics has become a key site for articulating the limits of existing theories of international relations and exploring possibilities for alternative political formations that respond to the challenges posed by massive ecological change and global patterns of violence and inequality. This essay addresses three recent books on geopolitics in the age of the Anthropocene: Simon Dalby's Anthropocene Geopolitics: Globalization, Security, Sustainability (2020), Jairus Victor Grove's Savage Ecology: War and Geopolitics at the End of the World (2019), and Bruno Latour's Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climactic Regime (2018). The review outlines and compares how these authors pose contemporary geopolitics as a problem and offer political ecology as the ground for an alternative geopolitics. The essay considers these books in the context of critiques of world politics in international relations to shed light on both the contributions and the limits of political ecological theories of global politics. I argue that the books under review encounter problems and solutions posed in Kant's critical and political writings in relation to the concepts of epigenesis and teleology. These provoke questions about the ontological conceptions of order that enable claims to world political authority in the form of a global international system coextensive with the earth's surface.

scholarly journals SMART POWER AS THE FACTOR IN THE SINO-U.S. RELATIONS

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2(71)) ◽  
pp. 4-7
Author(s):  
Cheng Guo ◽  
Yin Qun
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Research Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Smart Power ◽  
Power Construction ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Definition Of

This research work analyzes the characteristics of American public diplomacy from the perspectives of smart power theory, comparing China and the United States’ smart power strategy. The article revealed that globalization and the process of technological evolution have led profound changes in the contempopary world politics and international relations, the smart power factors such as culture, science, technology, and information have become increasingly prominent in political science. These factors have not only created the fundamental theory of smart power, but also affected the form and definition of diplomacy. The research methodology is based on a complex combination of scientific methods, mainly comparative, analytical, systematic. The obtained conclusions can be referred that smart power as a key factor, has become a new theoretical perspective for understanding changes in contempopary international relations and foreign policy. It has naturally become the theoretical support for public diplomacy, meanwhile public diplomacy itself is also an important content and strategic path for smart power construction.

scholarly journals Beyond the BRICS: Power, Pluralism, and the Future of Global Order

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Hurrell
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Years ◽  
First Century ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Rising Powers ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Story Line ◽  
Global System ◽  
The Core ◽  
Emerging Powers

AbstractIn the early years of the twenty-first century the narrative of “emerging powers” and “rising powers” seemed to provide a clear and powerful picture of how international relations and global politics were changing. Yet dramatic changes in the global system have led many to conclude that the focus on the BRICS and the obsession with the idea of rising powers reflected a particular moment in time that has now passed. The story line is now about backlash at the core; and, with the exception of China, rising powers have returned to their role as secondary or supporting actors in the drama of global politics. Such a conclusion is profoundly mistaken for three sets of reasons: the continued reality of the post-Western global order; the need to understand nationalist backlash as a global phenomenon; and the imperative of locating and strengthening a new pluralist conception of global order.

The United States and Asia

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Ellings ◽  
Joshua Ziemkowski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
World War ◽  
Scholarly Research ◽  
Area Studies ◽  
The Cold War

The United States’ experience with Asia goes back to 1784. Over the subsequent two-and-a-third centuries scholarly research grew in fits and starts, reflecting historical developments: the growth of US interests and interdependencies in the region; the wars in Asia in which the United States fought; the ascendance of the United States to international leadership; and the post–World War II resurgence of Asia led by Japan, then the four tigers, and most dramatically China. The definition of Asia evolved correspondingly. Today, due to strategic and economic interdependencies, scholars tend to view it as incorporating Northeast, Southeast, South, and Central Asia and Russian Asia as well as relevant portions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The most recent US National Security Strategy (White House 2017, cited under Contemporary US-Asia Relations: General) reconceives the Asia-Pacific as the Indo-Pacific, stretching “from the west coast of India to the western shores of the United States” and constituting “the most populous and economically dynamic part of the world” (pp. 45–46) The first Asia scholars came to prominence in the United States during World War II, and the Cold War strengthened the impetus for interdisciplinary area and regional studies. Through the middle and late Cold War years, social scientists and historians concentrated further, but they increasingly looked inward at the development of their separate disciplines, away from interdisciplinary area studies as conceived in the 1940s and 1950s. While area studies declined, barriers between academia and the policy world emerged. Many scholars disapproved of the Vietnam War. “Revisionists” in the international relations, foreign policy, and area studies fields held that US policy and the extension of global capitalism were conjoined, suppressing both economic development and indigenous political movements in Asia and elsewhere. Simultaneously, behavioral science and postmodernist movements in policy-relevant fields developed. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, Theory and methodology overtook the old approach of area-specific research that tried to integrate knowledge of the history, culture, language, politics, and economics of particular nations or subregions. Theory and methodology prevailed in research, tenure, and promotion. Policy-relevant studies became viewed as “applied” science. Another factor was money. Already under pressure, area studies was dealt a major blow at the end of the Cold War with cutbacks. Research on policy issues related to the United States and Asia increasingly came from think tanks that housed scholars themselves and/or contracted with university-based specialists. In recent years due to the rapid development of China and the urgent challenges it presents, interest in policy-relevant topics has revived on campuses and in scholarly research, especially in the international relations and modern history of the Indo-Pacific and the politics, economics, environment, and foreign and military affairs of China. Interest has revived too in the subregions of Asia, much of it driven by Chinese activities abroad.

“Feminist” Theoretical Inquiries and “IR”

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. Agathangelou ◽  
Heather M. Turcotte
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Gender Analysis ◽  
Political Economies ◽  
Inferior Status ◽  
Knowledge And Practice ◽  
And Gender

Feminist international relations (IR) theories have long provided interventions and insights into the embedded asymmetrical gender relations of global politics, particularly in areas such as security, state-nationalism, rights–citizenship, and global political economies. Yet despite the histories of struggle to increase attention to gender analysis, and women in particular, within world politics, IR knowledge and practice continues to segregate gendered and feminist analyses as if they are outside its own formation. IR as a field, discipline, and site of contestation of power has been one of the last fields to open up to gender and feminist analyses. One reason for this is the link between social science and international institutions like the United Nations, and its dominant role in the formation of foreign policy. Raising the inferior status of feminism within IR, that is, making possible the mainstreaming of gender and feminism, will require multiple centers of power and multiple marginalities. However, these institutional struggles for recognition through exclusion may themselves perpetuate similar exploitative relationships of drawing boundaries around legitimate academic and other institutional orders. In engaging, listening and writing these struggles, it is important to recognize that feminisms, feminist IR, and IR are intimately linked through disciplinary struggles and larger geopolitical struggles of world affairs and thus necessitate knowledge terrains attentive to intersectional and oppositional gendered struggles (i.e., race, sexuality, nation, class, religion, and gender itself).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document