| ID | 137129 |
| Title Proper | Whose problems are these anyway |
| Other Title Information | a response to Roland Paris |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Mutimer, David |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | It has been more than 30 years since Robert Cox introduced the distinction between problem solving and critical theory to the study of international relations.1 To remind us, Cox took problem-solving theory to be that which ‘takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships into which they are organized, as the given framework for action. The general aim of problem-solving is to make these relationships and institutions work more smoothly by dealing effectively with particular sources of trouble.’2 There is nothing necessarily wrong with solving problems, but it does tend to mask the ‘larger picture of the whole of which the initially contemplated part is just one component’, which critical theory leads us towards.3 I was reminded of Cox's work in reading Roland Paris’ analysis of the structural problems of R2P, because it is a masterful example of problem solving at its best, which at the same time begs us to take Cox's critical turn and look to the larger structures of which R2P and humanitarian intervention more particularly are a part.4 I would argue that the five structural problems Paris identifies are not features of humanitarian intervention, but rather of these larger structures within which the practice of intervention is embedded. In this short intervention I will defend this assertion, and then consider what difference it might make. |
| `In' analytical Note | International Peacekeeping Vol.22, No.1; Feb.2015: p.6-8 |
| Journal Source | International Peacekeeping Vol: 22 No 1 |
| Standard Number | International Relations – IR |