| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
087857
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article responds to the debate provoked by the author's 'Does capitalism need the state system?' (Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20:4 2007, 533-549) and his exchanges with Justin Rosenberg (Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21:1 2008, 77-112). It is divided into three parts. The first restates the issues, situating them in the context of a growing Marxist preoccupation with the international in recent years, and contrasts the 'high road'-Rosenberg's attempt to use Trotsky's concept of uneven and combined development to provide a transhistorical perspective on intersocietal relations-with Callinicos's own preferred 'low road' of more focused analysis centred on the prevailing mode(s) of production. The second addresses the fundamental criticisms addressed to him by Hannes Lacher, Benno Teschke and John M Hobson, all of whom deny that there is a necessary relation between capitalism and the interstate system. The third considers the more specific comments offered by Neil Davidson, Gonso Pozo-Martin, and Jamie Allinson and Alex Anievas, before concluding with an appeal for a move off the terrain of abstract theory to more empirical studies that can test the relative value of rival conceptual constructions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
113781
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Contemporary research on the international relations of Southeast Asia has neglected the latent possibilities of reading non-western indigenous forms of international relations as a contribution to worldwide debates on the nature of international politics. Drawing on one precolonial account of Southeast Asian political practices in the Malay Archipelago, the Sejarah Melayu, this article proposes that Southeast Asians have previously philosophized about "intersocietal relations" in ways that privilege noble prowess, knowledge quests, and hierarchical justice through the interdependence of trade and culture within the region, and with India, China, and the Arab world. These features can still speak to contemporary relations between peoples rather than states and to security issues within borderless regions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|