|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
076865
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although International Relations and Middle East Studies share an interest in several aspects of Middle East politics, interdisciplinary research remains surprisingly scarce. This article asks why, despite repeated calls since the inception of these fields, this interdisciplinary gap has never been bridged. It supplements conventional approaches which emphasize a simple intellectual history, with elements of a political economy of the organization and production of knowledge, arguing that while intellectual convergence may be a necessary condition for interdisciplinarity, only a shift in epistemic grounds within which fields understand their scholarship can bring this about, and that this in turn requires a shift in the way knowledge is organized and produced. First, the article provides a genealogy of calls for interdisciplinary scholarship. Second, it locates interdisciplinary relations in the universalist organization of knowledge within which they emerged and which still (re)produce inter- and intra-disciplinary divides today. Finally, it considers the potential for Constructivism to provide an interdisciplinary bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
076863
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The perceived legitimacy of US foreign policy plummeted in the wake of the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Most commentators would agree that international law, or at least US actions in relation to international law, had something to do with this decline. But, what the recent debate as to how best to restore US legitimacy has starkly revealed, is that we know little as to just how international law accords legitimacy to certain foreign policy endeavours. While the legality of the action may have much to do with it, the relationship between international law, foreign policy and legitimacy appears to be more complex than is suggested by a straightforward legal-illegal categorization of behaviour. A theorization of international law as ideology can provide an overall explanation of the role of international law in the decline in US foreign policy legitimacy following the invasion of Iraq
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
076864
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The events of 9/11 appeared to make good on Ulrich Beck's claim that we are now living in a (global) risk society. Examining what it means to 'govern through risk', this article departs from Beck's thesis of risk society and its appropriation in security studies. Arguing that the risk society thesis problematically views risk within a macro-sociological narrative of modernity, this article shows, based on a Foucauldian account of governmentality, that governing terrorism through risk involves a permanent adjustment of traditional forms of risk management in light of the double infinity of catastrophic consequences and the incalculability of the risk of terrorism. Deploying the Foucauldian notion of 'dispositif', this article explores precautionary risk and risk analysis as conceptual tools that can shed light on the heterogeneous practices that are defined as the 'war on terror'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
076862
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While scholars of International Relations and comparative politics have usually treated rhetoric as epiphenomenal, one strand of constructivism has recently returned rhetoric to the heart of political analysis, especially through the mechanism of persuasion. We too maintain that rhetoric is central to political processes and outcomes, but we argue that persuasion is theoretically and methodologically problematic. We aver that rhetoric's role may be more usefully conceptualized in the context of coercion, and we advance a stylized model that illustrates how rhetorical coercion operates, explains why it works, and identifies key scope conditions. We subsequently illustrate our model's relevance through a detailed examination of a 'hard' case. This article's agenda is twofold. First, it advises scholars in these fields to avoid focusing on unanswerable questions about actors' motives and to examine instead what actors say, in what contexts, and to what audiences. Second, it lays the groundwork for a 'coercive constructivism', complementing the liberal version so prevalent today
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
055228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|