Search

You searched for: Content Type Journal Article Remove constraint Content Type: Journal Article Political Geography Global Focus Remove constraint Political Geography: Global Focus Publication Year within 3 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 3 Years Publication Year within 5 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 5 Years Topic International Relations Remove constraint Topic: International Relations
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: David Blaney, Tamara A. Trownsell
  • Publication Date: 08-2021
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Uluslararasi Iliskiler
  • Institution: International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
  • Abstract: The contemporary IR craft homogenizes a pluriverse of time-spacescapes as if it were a “one-world world.” We propose a strategy of recrafting to engender a nimble discipline for actively encountering ‘the world multiply’ and a generation of scholars capable of engaging various forms of knowing/being/sensing/doing. Worlding multiply requires: (1) taking seriously the plurality of worlds that emerge through distinct existential assumptions and (2) learning how to translate/read across time-spacescapes built through incommensurate ways of doing/being without reducing one to the other. We suggest conscientiously developing tools—new skills, concepts, ways of being—for encountering complexity in both pedagogy and scholarship.
  • Topic: International Relations, International Relations Theory, Pedagogy, Academia, Scholarships
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Amya Agarwal
  • Publication Date: 08-2021
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Uluslararasi Iliskiler
  • Institution: International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
  • Abstract: A West-centric knowledge bias has plagued International Relations (IR) for some time, prompting many non-West scholars to develop indigenous knowledge systems. In doing so, there is, however, a risk of both essentialization of certain cultures/histories; and reproducing the hierarchic and exclusionary structure of knowledge production. Moving beyond the add and stir critique style of non-Western approaches to IR, this paper explores the significance of connections and hybrid histories to understand gendered state practices. Through a case study of state performance in Kashmir, the paper traces the hybrid masculinist legacies (colonial, Brahminical and Kshatriya) derived from both Western and non-Western histories.
  • Topic: International Relations, Gender Issues, Governance, State Building, Masculinity
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Luiz Felipe Brandao Osorio
  • Publication Date: 06-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
  • Institution: Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
  • Abstract: Imperialism takes on a new guise after the Second World War. In a panorama of expanding production relations, capitalism becomes, in fact, a mode of world production, based on Fordism. In this dynamic, new elements are incorporated into the analysis of international relations, such as the periphery, unequal exchanges, the transfer of value, and the world system, which end up not only eclipsing imperialism but also giving it other outlines. In this tone, it is necessary to investigate three influential authors, such as Wallerstein, Arrighi, and Amin, demonstrating their place and their limits in the central debate of international relations. Over time, the three, due to the vigor of their ideas and political engagement, became essential authors for criticizing the moment of capitalism in which we are inserted, even if it is to refute them. Studying it means unraveling yet another important knot in the task of investigating imperialism, an essential concept for understanding reality.
  • Topic: International Relations, Foreign Policy, Imperialism, Capitalism
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Howard Duncan
  • Publication Date: 12-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Uluslararasi Iliskiler
  • Institution: International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
  • Abstract: Immigration policy has taken centre stage in the social sciences over the past 20 years. Despite the proliferation of articles and books in this field, very little attention has been paid to immigration policy as foreign policy. It is domestic policy that prevails in the literature, most notably about the effects of immigration on destination societies. This article distinguishes the domestic and foreign policy aspects of immigration policy, acknowledging as it does so that foreign policy is virtually always an expression of national self-interest. It concludes with observations on the realist and idealist/liberal approaches to international relations theory including with respect to the recently adopted United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration and the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees. Its purpose is to draw attention to this neglected aspect of immigration policy and to encourage others to explore it in greater detail, from the perspectives of both individual states and the world’s international institutions.
  • Topic: International Relations, Foreign Policy, Migration, Sovereignty, United Nations, Immigration, Border Control
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Alan McPherson
  • Publication Date: 03-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Strategic Visions
  • Institution: Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy, Temple University
  • Abstract: Contents News from the Director Spring 2020 Colloquium …………………2 Spring 2020 Prizes……………………......3 Diplomatic History ……………………….3 Non-Resident Fellow, 2020-2021………...4 Funding the Immerman Fund……………..4 Thanks to the Davis Fellow ………………4 News from the Community …………………... 5 Note from the Davis Fellow ………………….. 9 Spring 2020 Interviews Timothy Sayle ……………………….…..10 Sarah Snyder ………………………….…13 Book Reviews Lincoln, Seward, and US Foreign Relations in the Civil War Review by Alexandre F. Caillot …15 How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Review by Graydon Dennison …..17 Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order Review by Stanley Schwartz ……19
  • Topic: International Relations, Foreign Policy, NATO, Empire, Diplomatic History
  • Political Geography: United States, Europe, Global Focus
  • Author: Mikelli Marzzini, L.A. Ribeiro
  • Publication Date: 01-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Contexto Internacional
  • Institution: Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
  • Abstract: Responsibility to Protect (R2P) brought about new challenges for research on norms in International Relations, mainly due to the actions of emerging powers. These states have exhibit- ed complex behaviour towards norms. Rather than classifying them as simple norm-rejecters or norm-takers, current literature on norms in International Relations has classified them as norm- shapers. In their behaviour, emerging powers seek to shape the norm from various angles. In this sense, the need arises to theoretically frame these types of engagement. This essay aims to analyse the action of normative shapers through the lens of the English School of International Relations, combined with constructivism. After presenting the norm-shapers and characterising them theoret- ically, a new concept is introduced, called pluralist norm-shapers.
  • Topic: International Relations, Norms, Pluralism , Emerging Powers
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Bruno Pauli Medeiros, Luiz Rogerio Franco Goldoni
  • Publication Date: 01-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Contexto Internacional
  • Institution: Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
  • Abstract: This article is based on the premise that the increasing human interaction in cyberspace elevates it to the level of a strategic domain and, as such, raises theoretical and practical challeng- es for International Relations. It is founded on an epistemological reflection on the fundamental assumptions of the paradigms that permeate International Relations. The main objective is to con- ceptualise cyberspace as the strategic domain in the 21st century, as well as to develop an analytical framework that will both provide evidence and investigate the resilience of the foundations of cur- rent International Relations, these being specifically, the following precepts: i) sovereignty based on territoriality, ii) state monopoly of power, and iii) accountability between international actors. With this in mind, the approach refers to defence documentation and scientific sources in order to reach a definition that will characterise cyberspace, considering its technical, scientific and strategic aspects. At the same time, the bibliographic work underpins the development of the analytical tool known as the Fundamental Conceptual Trinity of Cyberspace, based on the characteristics of the cyberspace domain: i) deterritoriality, ii) multiplicity of actors, and iii) uncertainty.
  • Topic: International Relations, Accountability, Monopoly, Cyberspace, Territory
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Cícero Ricci Cavini
  • Publication Date: 06-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Brazilian Journal of African Studies
  • Institution: Brazilian Journal of African Studies
  • Abstract: International Security developed after the World War II, under the aspect of state protection. Traditional security currents have developed their theories in a Cold War environment, thus, there are epistemological elements of Rationalism and Positivism (Barrinha 2013; Lasmar 2017). The goal of this study is to observe the influence of diplomacy on international controversies, analyze real situations where diplomacy influenced the mediation choice and the armed conflict choice, and finally, deepen the knowledge of the consequences of war and mediation. The article has its theoretical framework on Post-Structuralism, characterized by Lasmar (2017) by the conditioning of the human being as meaning and attributor of the facts (social construction). In the International Security sphere, Post-Structuralism must nominate the threat or the protection as also the means for this. Therefore, it can expose the hidden intentions in the act of political construction (including political speech). The authors and researchers Christer Jönsson and Karin Aggestam question the preference of the states for mediation or war, and, given that, we intend to contribute with analysis under the diplomatic prism. Thus, we can align the revisited theory to the diplomatic actions, collaborating with the international security system.
  • Topic: Conflict Prevention, International Relations, Security, Diplomacy
  • Political Geography: Brazil, Global Focus
  • Author: Orion Noda
  • Publication Date: 12-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
  • Institution: Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
  • Abstract: The field of International Relations (IR) is barely ‘international’. Scholars have voiced their concerns and as a result, we have witnessed calls for diversity and inclusion in IR, be it in publication or in syllabi. Notwithstanding, the misrepresentation of non-Western scholars in the production of knowledge is significant. This article sheds light on the dynamics of publishing from a non-Western perspective and reinforces Post-Colonial epistemological critiques in IR. Based on the latest dataset from the International Studies Association (ISA)’s journals, this article argues that the current setting of IR journals is not suited for and receptive of non-Western scholars and epistemologies.
  • Topic: International Relations, Post Colonialism, Academia, Publishing
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Nathan Andrews
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
  • Institution: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
  • Abstract: The field of International Relations (IR) has experienced different waves of ‘great debates’ that have often maintained certain theoretical and methodological frameworks and perspectives as core to the field whereas others are seen as peripheral and merely a critique of the former. As a result of this segregation of knowledge, IR has not become as open to dialogue and diversity as we are made to believe. To be sure, aspects of the extant literature speak of IR as being ‘not so international’, a ‘hegemonic discipline’, a ‘colonial household’, and an ‘American social science’, among other derogatory names. Informed by such characterizations that depict a field of study that is not sufficiently diverse, the paper investigates the relationship between pedagogical factors and dialogue in IR. In doing so, it provides preliminary results from a pilot study in February-April 2019 that sought to examine different graduate-level IR syllabi from leading universities in the global North and South (Africa in particular). In particular, the objective was to decipher what course design, including required readings and other pedagogical activities in the classroom, tells us about dialogue and the sort of diversity needed to push IR beyond its conventional canons.
  • Topic: International Relations, Diversity, Academia, Intercultural Dialogue
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Deniz Kuru
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
  • Institution: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
  • Abstract: This study aims to provide an exploratory analysis of Global IR, by pointing to its novelty as a tool for expanding our disciplinary frameworks, and furthermore, by connecting it to the quite simultaneously emerging field of Global Intellectual History. Such an approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics that have led to an overall focus on the “global.” The first part elaborates how the idea of Global IR has emerged as a novel disciplinary tool, and pinpoints the various meanings it has gained. Second, the focus shifts to the novel scholarship of Global Intellectual History. Elaborating this field’s most significant contributions will make it possible to emphasize the useful role it can play in furthering the idea of Global IR in a more historically (self-)conscious manner. The importance of this approach will also be underlined by referring to the increased relevance of disciplinary critique in the specific context of IR-history (dis)connections. The third part turns its attention to various cases (as vignettes) that aim to visualize how connecting these two new “Globals” (i.e. Global IR and Global Intellectual History) could provide the discipline of IR with a better means to deal with the past and present of global politics. Therefore, by explaining the conceptual, ideational, and geo-epistemological divergences and commonalities whose roots can be more concretely studied through a broader engagement with Global Intellectual History, the article clarifies the advantages of this “inter-Global” connection. It concludes by discussing the value of Global IR in terms of its potential role for broadening the discipline not just in ways that are more (IR-)introspective but also in its bridge-building capacity to other fields with similar concerns, extending to Global Intellectual History and beyond, and provides a brief list of initial suggestions.
  • Topic: International Relations, History , Intellectual History, Academia
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Homeira Moshirzadeh
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
  • Institution: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
  • Abstract: The idea of dialogue of civilizations, as was envisaged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, includes multi-layer, multi-actor dialogues. Civilization, when defined as “correspondence between material conditions of existence and intersubjective meanings,”[1] has epistemological and ontological elements that constitute the parameters of knowledge. One may easily claim that the existing knowledge of international relations has its roots in Western civilization and, if it is to become a truly global body of knowledge, it has to be nourished by contributions from various civilizations, mostly belonging to the “periphery”. Yet, even this is not enough if we just reach an archipelago consisting of various islands of knowledge without a connection to each other. What may help bridging these islands is dialogue. Dialogues among IR scholars from different civilizational backgrounds may lead to more mutual understanding and even may lead to some common grounds found in-between. Dialogues can be conducted both at inter-civilizational and intra-civilizational levels as civilizations cannot be taken as monolithic wholes. This article seeks to clarify the meaning and implications of dialogue of civilizations in IR. Furthermore, the way in which dialogue of civilizations in the discipline can be conducted and the expectations thereof are discussed.
  • Topic: International Relations, Civilization, Dialogue
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Helen Louise Turton
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
  • Institution: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
  • Abstract: Disciplinary depictions using the core-periphery distinction are often premised on a ‘blurred’ and/or monolithic understanding of the core. For instance, the ‘core’ is often conceptualized broadly to include Western Europe and North America, or narrowly to refer to just the United States. Simultaneously the corresponding disciplinary self-images often refer to the core and the periphery as fixed and homogenous entities, which overlook the often diverse tendencies and hierarchies within the predefined space. This article therefore seeks to highlight the changing geographies of the core/periphery distinction in order to reveal the presence of different cores because there are different core properties. What this means is that the ‘core’ can appear in surprising spaces and occupy geographies that are normally associated with the periphery. In order to specifically illustrate certain workings and reach of the ‘core’ within spaces typically conceptualized as ‘peripheral’ this article will draw on existing data and research. The resultant empirical sketch will show how the ‘core’ is able to extend its reach and produce further epistemic hierarchies within peripheral spaces. In locating IR’s different cores and their hidden geographies this article aims to destabilize the core-periphery distinction in order to move beyond this disciplinary and disciplining archetype.
  • Topic: International Relations, Academia, Periphery
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Deepshikha Shahi
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
  • Institution: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
  • Abstract: The ever more global character of today’s International Relations (IR) is no longer satisfied with one-sided stories about how things have gone with either the West or the non-West. Rather, the ongoing discussions on Global IR persuade both the West and the non-West to squarely unfold their own narratives. As the theories and practices of contemporary international relations have remarkably acquired a ‘Global’ impetus, a lot of premium is being put on a ‘dialogic approach’ – that is, an approach to Global IR that insists upon a deeper two-way communicative-action between the West and the non-West. Although the dialogic approach to Global IR seeks to resolve a wide range of cognitive differences between the West and the non-West, it more often than not remains thwarted by a few unsettled contestations: (i) History vs. Philosophy, (ii) Chronology vs. Covariance, (iii) Language vs. Concept, (iv) Culture vs. Economy, and (v) Single vs. Plural. This paper sets out to shed light on these unsettled contestations in an endeavour to intellectually improve the prospects of a dialogic approach to Global IR.
  • Topic: International Relations, Academia, Eurocentrism, Dialogue
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Erik Ringmar
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
  • Institution: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
  • Abstract: The idea of the sovereign state is at the core of the Western understanding of international politics. If we are serious about coming up with non-Western theories of international politics, it is the state that must be questioned. This article suggests some ways in which this can be done. Only once we have unthought the state can we reconstruct international politics as a more equitable, and peaceful, world order.
  • Topic: International Relations, Politics, Sovereignty, State, Ottoman Empire, Pan-Africanism
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Henry Farrell, Abraham L. Newman
  • Publication Date: 07-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: International Security
  • Institution: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
  • Abstract: Liberals claim that globalization has led to fragmentation and decentralized networks of power relations. This does not explain how states increasingly “weaponize interdependence” by leveraging global networks of informational and financial exchange for strategic advantage. The theoretical literature on network topography shows how standard models predict that many networks grow asymmetrically so that some nodes are far more connected than others. This model nicely describes several key global economic networks, centering on the United States and a few other states. Highly asymmetric networks allow states with (1) effective jurisdiction over the central economic nodes and (2) appropriate domestic institutions and norms to weaponize these structural advantages for coercive ends. In particular, two mechanisms can be identified. First, states can employ the “panopticon effect” to gather strategically valuable information. Second, they can employ the “chokepoint effect” to deny network access to adversaries. Tests of the plausibility of these arguments across two extended case studies that provide variation both in the extent of U.S. jurisdiction and in the presence of domestic institutions—the SWIFT financial messaging system and the internet—confirm the framework's expectations. A better understanding of the policy implications of the use and potential overuse of these tools, as well as the response strategies of targeted states, will recast scholarly debates on the relationship between economic globalization and state coercion.
  • Topic: International Relations, Globalization, Information Age, Global Security, Weapons
  • Political Geography: United States, Global Focus
  • Author: Kristi Govella
  • Publication Date: 07-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Fletcher Security Review
  • Institution: The Fletcher School, Tufts University
  • Abstract: For most of history, the domains of the global commons were unclaimed, largely because the technology to access and utilize them did not exist.[1] In areas such as the high seas and outer space, it was impossible for states to establish and maintain sovereign control. Even as the relevant technologies developed, costliness and controls kept them initially concentrated largely in the hands of just a few major powers such as the Unit- ed States and the Soviet Union. For the United States, “command of the commons” became the military foundation of its hegemony, granting it the ability to access much of the planet and to credibly threaten to deny the use of such spaces to others.[2] Bipolar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union strongly influenced developments in the maritime and outer space domains. In the case of cyberspace, a more recent addition to the traditional global commons, the United States was also initially dominant due to its role in pioneering associated technologies. However, over time and particularly since the end of the Cold War, continuing technological innovation and diffusion have made these domains accessible to a growing number of countries. ​ This technological progress was born of both cooperation and competition between states. While some states chose to develop certain technologies indigenously, many acquired knowledge and equipment from abroad. Globalization of industry has made it easier for states to obtain a variety of foreign technologies, even lowering the threshold for them to procure disruptive military capabilities. In addition, over the last two decades, American primacy has been increasingly challenged by the rise of China, which has impacted the dynamics of technological development and diffusion across multiple domains. As China has acquired the technology to become more active in the commons, it has prompted major regional powers, such as Japan and India, to accelerate their own technological advancement, and other mid-sized and smaller countries have also become increasingly engaged.[3] ​ The consequence of this multiplication of technologically sophisticated actors has been the erosion of American primacy in the global commons. Although the United States still remains the most dominant player, it is faced with a more densely populated field, and management of these spaces has become more difficult. This article examines this trend in the high seas, outer space, and cyberspace since the end of the Cold War, with attention to the ways in which the rise of China and the relative decline of the United States have catalyzed greater engagement with the commons, particularly among the countries in Asia that find themselves most affected by this power transition. I argue that advances in and diffusion of technology have transformed the global commons into increasingly crowded domains characterized by interstate competition and heightened tensions. Whether these tensions prevail depends on the creation and strengthening of regimes to manage interactions and promote shared rules and norms...
  • Topic: International Relations, Security, Globalization, Science and Technology
  • Political Geography: China, Global Focus, United States of America
  • Author: Isiaka Alani Badmus, Bert Jenkins
  • Publication Date: 08-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
  • Institution: Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
  • Abstract: This paper reviewed some extense literature in peacekeeping. The review of the literature focused on two areas - concepts and theories of peacekeeping. After having discussed the three major approaches to think conceptually about peacekeeping in the literature, we argued that despite the existence of these multiple frameworks for addressing the conceptual problems of peacekeeping, they overlooked the imperative of the structures and processes of world politics, their impacts and how these have conditioned the roles of peacekeepers in it. Then, we examined four of the main theoretical approaches that are discernible in the peacekeeping literature, which offer possible frameworks for the analysis and interpretation of peacekeeping research. We argued that there is no single theory (or a metatheory) that fully explains the whole gamut of issues involved in peace operations. This is because these theoretical traditions provide different ways in which to comprehend peacekeeping. A single theory is highly unlikely to fully explain the complexities of contemporary peace operations, especially in a continent like Africa featuring different peacekeeping actors. Therefore, peacekeeping is best understood through the application of many theories in order to uncover the motives of peacekeeping authourising institutions, peacekeepers as well as the role(s) peacekeeping missions play and the interest they serve.
  • Topic: International Relations, Peacekeeping, Intellectual History, International Relations Theory
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Ayşe Ömür Atmaca, Pınar Gozen Ercan
  • Publication Date: 01-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Uluslararasi Iliskiler
  • Institution: International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
  • Abstract: The discipline of International Relations (IR) has defined its boundaries through masculine terms, which makes women and gender relations hardly visible. Nevertheless, women have always been an inseparable part of interstate relations, and the world’s most important problems cannot be treated separately from gender politics. On grounds of the basic assumptions of feminist IR theories, the aim of this study is to analyse how feminism offers new ways to understand contemporary issues of international security. In this vein, feminist IR literature is analysed from the perspective of security, and feminist critiques are exemplified through the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect”.
  • Topic: International Relations, Security, Feminism, Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Burak Bilgehan Özpek
  • Publication Date: 01-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Uluslararasi Iliskiler
  • Institution: International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
  • Abstract: Grand theories of international relations seek to produce general patterns, which are supposedly valid across time and space, yet fail to address particular actors and cases. According to Benjamin Most and Harvey Starr “general” and “universal” models, which only operate under certain explicitly prescribed conditions, do not suffice to generate a systemic understanding of foreign policy decisions and international phenomenon. The pre-theoretical framework of “opportunity and willingness,” which Most and Starr develop, produces a general model to analyze world affairs in a consistent way. This framework does not highlight any concrete factor such as power preponderance, regime type, and composition of elite or polarity as a condition for an international phenomenon. Instead, “opportunity and willingness” is more interested in what these factors represent and how these factors shape state behaviors. In other words, the “opportunity and willingness” framework suggests a model that still enables generalizations but also has power to explain particular cases.
  • Topic: International Relations, War, Conflict
  • Political Geography: Global Focus