| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
105926
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is a politics to the West/non-West distinction that is bound up with predominant models for dialogue in IR; rethinking these models of dialogue implies a new politics, and therefore also, I will suggest, a move away from the West/non-West binary as a way of characterising the participants in dialogic exchange oriented towards the expansive transformation of disciplinary imaginaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
079472
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper argues that the debates between different ethical perspectives within feminism cannot be resolved in principle. Nevertheless, these debates point to a different feminist way of thinking about ethics in world politics. This feminist perspective puts the distinction between 'ethics' and 'world politics' into question in relation to feminism's defining concern with the sources and effects of women's oppression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
054398
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jun-Jul 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
047852
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Sage Publications, 1999.
|
| Description |
xvi, 208p.
|
| Standard Number |
076195516X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 043865 | 327.101/HUT 043865 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
159789
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The articles in this volume, and the many contributions to the Millennium Conference, ‘The Politics of Time in International Relations’ from which these articles were drawn, speak to the ongoing interest in issues of time and temporality in International Relations (IR) and associated disciplines. They also speak to the very broad range of ways in which time and temporality are seen to operate in international politics and the ways in which it (international politics) is studied and judged. I was deeply interested in and stimulated by my participation in the conference, and what follows is an attempt to situate my own specific concerns on issues of time and temporality, when I wrote Time and World Politics and subsequently, in the broader context of the developing literature on time and temporality in IR. Like most of the contributors to this volume, I see the attention paid to issues of time/temporality in IR as productive for research in the field. However, in agreement with at least two of the contributors, I am also aware that like any other production of academic knowledge, including supposedly ‘critical’ academic knowledge, there are always dangers and limitations inherent in that knowledge and its discursive and practical effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
157727
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article uses the example of Wittgenstein’s decision to go to war in 1914 to frame a contrast between two different ways of thinking about moral stupidity and moral intelligence in relation to war, those of Jeff McMahan and Jane Addams. The article clarifies how pathways for thinking about the morality of war are blocked and enabled not only by different accounts of justice but also by different understandings of war. It is argued that if we want to be morally intelligent in our judgments about the ethics of war we should follow the pathway marked out by Addams and think less about justice and more about war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
178986
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Canons of intellectual “greats” anchor the history and scope of academic disciplines. Within international relations (IR), such a canon emerged in the mid-twentieth century and is almost entirely male. Why are women thinkers absent from IR’s canon? We show that it is not due to a lack of international thought, or that this thought fell outside established IR theories. Rather it is due to the gendered and racialized selection and reception of work that is deemed to be canonical. In contrast, we show what can be gained by reclaiming women’s international thought through analyses of three intellectuals whose work was authoritative and influential in its own time or today. Our findings question several of the basic premises underpinning IR’s existing canon and suggest the need for a new research agenda on women international thinkers as part of a fundamental rethinking of the history and scope of the discipline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|