| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
081223
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper offers a critical perspective on the growing phenomenon of governance indicators in international politics. I employ a governmentality approach to shed light on the political meanings and outcomes of the increasing tendency of various international actors to rate and rank the governance capacities and performances of states. In particular, I argue that, beyond being an analytic tool or an advisory system for governments, this practice in fact reproduces structures of authority and hierarchy in the international system. Power and knowledge are bound together in many governance indicators, as powerful states either examine themselves, the quality of governance of Third World states, or adopt the examinations carried out by other agents. Consequently, poor and developing states cannot simply ignore these ratings and rankings. The governance indicators establish a discursive field of state legitimacy and normalcy and 'responsibilises' states: construct them as ethical actors that are capable of correct and responsible choices and policies. As a result, the responsibility of powerful states and international actors for a host of social, economic and political problems in many Third World countries is obscured. Therefore the paper calls for closer attention to be paid to the elements of power in these governance indicators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
100475
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
085120
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper conceptualizes the phenomenon of revenge in international politics and seeks to specify the conditions that increase or diminish the tendency of states to take revenge against enemies. We situate the discussion of revenge within the broader context of emotions in IR. We argue that whether or not a state will take revenge depends on the combinations of three interrelated and mutually constitutive variables: (1) the degree to which a state emotionally experiences harm against it as morally outrageous, (2) the extent of humiliation the harmed state feels, and (3) the degree to which international retaliation is institutionalized by rules and laws that govern the use of cross-border force. We examine the Second Lebanon War (July 2006) as a case of revenge in international politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|