THE NEOREALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM BEHIND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DURING COVID-19

The literature contains much discussion on the contemporary differences between neorealism and neoliberalism, especially in the context of international relations. However there have, as yet, been limited attempts to investigate how these international relations theories fare in explaining state responses to the COVID-19 outbreak. This study reviews the conceptual frameworks underpinning neorealism and neoliberalism and applies them to key state behaviors during the COVID-19 outbreak. Some examples of neorealism attached to the current pandemic include: criticism of the role of the World Health Organization, the closure of international borders, international competition to collect pharmaceutical products, bans on exports, richer states protecting their national interests, the international misuse of power during emergency orders, restrictions placed on the international media, and the deployment of military forces. By contrast, neoliberalism's focus on international cooperation is noted in U.S., Chinese, and other countries’ attempts to distribute knowledge and aid internationally, as well as in the efforts of key international organizations like the World Health Organization and the global Covax initiative. I offer an evidence-based conceptual framework using neorealism and neoliberalism to show how both have informed international behavior during the COVID-19 outbreak—although continued emphasis on the former shows few signs of abating as the pandemic approaches its third year.

THE DEMOCRATIC UNION PARTY (PYD) AND PEOPLE'S PROTECTION UNITS (YPG) IN TURKISH OFFICIAL DISCOURSE

This article explores the construction of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the People's Protection Units (YPG) in Turkish official discourse. In the article, I employ critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyze written texts produced during the years 2014–2019 that reflect the position of the Turkish authorities. The article sets out the main narratives that construct the PYD and YPG as terrorist organizations and posits them as a threat to both Turkey and the international community. The analysis reveals that these narratives serve the purpose of delegitimizing the PYD and YPG and legitimizing Turkish military operations and violations against Syrian Kurds. It highlights that the Turkish official position regarding the PYD and YPG is driven by two ideological factors: first, the influence of Kurdish autonomy in Syria on the action of Kurds in Turkey, and second, the barrier that the PYD and YPG have created against the Islamist agenda of Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Syria.

TERRORISM AND RIGHT-PARTY VOTE SHARES IN LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS

This study examines the electoral consequences for ideologically right-leaning political parties in the wake of terrorist attacks by employing an original dataset that captures political party vote shares and multiple terrorist indicators. Our analysis extends the partisan voting hypothesis to 56 democracies from multiple regions and levels of development between 1975–2014. Specifically, we find that the origins of terrorist perpetrators, the severity of terrorist attacks, and the frequency of terrorist incidents decrease right-party vote shares in legislative contests when incorporating standard controls. All told, these findings reinforce political psychological reasoning that contends terrorist attacks impact citizens’ emotions and voting calculations.

MILITARY POWER DOES NOT DENOTE CAPACITY

The following study analyzes the exercise of power by both the United States and China in their confrontation for hegemonic dominance. Through observational and qualitative methods, an examination of the mechanisms underlying China's strategic statecraft and how it implements its exercise of power reveals its genesis and how it contested and controlled the order in Southeast Asia. Navigating through economic indicators, the research determines that the decline of American power is a myth, but it establishes a decline in its influence and prestige arising from its strategic and tactical choices. The study identified multiple systemic contingencies and political irrationalities for the non-realization of systemic unipolarity, resulting in a nonpolar world. It concludes that neither the incomparable military power of the United States nor the greater economic power of China has, in the contemporary world, fundamental comparative advantages for achieving systemic hegemony.

HEALTH VULNERABILITY VERSUS ECONOMIC RESILIENCE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The purpose of this study is to understand how countries have leveraged on their economic resilience to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus is on a global sample of 150 countries. The study develops a health vulnerability index (HVI) and leverages on an existing economic resilience index (ERI) to provide four main scenarios from which to understand the problem statement, namely ‘low HVI-low ERI,’ ‘high HVI-low ERI,’ ‘high HVI-high ERI,’ and ‘low HVI-high ERI’ quadrants. Countries that have robustly fought the pandemic are those in the ‘low HVI-high ERI’ quadrant and, to a lesser extent, countries in the ‘low HVI-low ERI’ quadrant. Most European countries, namely one African country (Rwanda), four Asian countries (e.g., Japan, China, South Korea, and Thailand), and six American countries (e.g., United States, Canada, Uruguay, Panama, Argentina, and Costa Rica) are apparent in the ideal quadrant.

TRUMP, BOLSONARO, AND THE FRAMING OF THE COVID-19 CRISIS

In the aftermath of the global COVID-19 crisis, whereas many world leaders enacted swift lockdown orders and robust testing regimes to preserve public health and to speed up economic recovery, Donald Trump in the United States and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil responded to outbreaks by publicly downplaying the significance of the crisis and argued that overly restrictive health measures would create too sizable an economic risk. These two presidents have done much to weaken democracy and trust in government. In this article, we examine the extent to which two institutions in each country––federalism and the party system––impacted the ways in which they framed the COVID-19 crisis and policy responses to it in 2020, especially during the first months of the pandemic. Our evidence suggests that each of these institutions provided opportunities for both leaders to reconstruct public understandings of the crisis while deflecting blame for negative public-health outcomes.

SUICIDE, SOCIAL CAPITAL, AND HATE GROUPS IN THE UNITED STATES

In recent years, hate groups have increasingly attracted public attention while at the same time escaping the purview of scholars. Although overt prejudiced attitudes have lost public support in recent decades, hate group and hate-group activity has remained relatively consistent. What, then, explains the enduring power of hate? I argue that hate groups have arisen in reaction to the loss of social capital, particularly in regard to rural and exurban communities. Using county-level suicide rates as a proxy for the loss of social capital, I test this theory using data from the lower 48 states from 2010 to 2019. I find that each 5.38 percent increase in suicide rates is associated with 1 additional hate group forming. These findings highlight the importance of examining quality-of-life in understanding far-right activity, and challenge previous findings with regard to rurality and hate.