| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
185318
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
073985
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article provides a conceptual analysis of different uses of the term 'legitimacy'. Rather than attempting to provide a simple 'definition' I argue that the meaning of the concept cannot be understood in terms of a clear reference, but has to be analysed through its links with other concepts within a semantic field. In this way we are also able to 'explain' why at first contradictory uses of the term (designating its 'input' or the 'output' side) are part of its 'grammar'. To that extent attempts at stipulative definitions aiming at an unequivocal sense of the term fundamentally misunderstand the function of this concept within the political discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
091379
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Critically building upon the work of Herbert Butterfield, John Herz, and Robert Jervis, this article advances a more rigorous definition of the security dilemma. It demonstrates critical implications of the rigorously redefined concept. It examines several influential extensions and expansions of the original concept, showing that most have been inaccurate and misleading, and proposes remedies for correcting the mistakes. Finally, it identifies several areas of future research that may yield important new insights into the dynamics of the security dilemma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
163100
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Proxy wars are still under-represented in conflict research and a key cause for this is the lack of conceptual and terminological care. This article seeks to demonstrate that minimising terminological diffusion increases overall analytical stability by maximising conceptual rigour. The argument opens with a discussion on the terminological ambivalence resulting from the haphazard employment of labels referencing the parties involved in proxy wars. Here, the article introduces an analytical framework with a two-fold aim: to reduce label heterogeneity, and to argue in favour of understanding proxy war dynamics as overlapping dyads between a Beneficiary, a Proxy, and a Target. This is then applied to the issues of defining and theorising party dynamics in proxy wars. It does so by providing a structural-relational analysis of the interactions between the above-mentioned parties based on strategic interaction. It presents a tentative explanation of the proxy relationship by correlating the Beneficiary’s goal towards the Target with the Proxy’s preference for the Beneficiary. In adding the goal-preference relational heuristic, the article advances the recent focus on strategic interaction with a novel variant to explanations based on interest, power, cost–benefit considerations or ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|