| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
161179
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
111294
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
156838
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Regions of exception play a critical role in contemporary world politics: they are sites of civil conflict, economic backwardness, secessionist movements, opposition party support, and challenges to contemporary national projects. I argue in this article that the mainstream methodological language for understanding subnational politics renders such important cases illegible precisely because of these regions’ distinct histories and social structures. Using case materials drawn from contemporary Southeast Asia, I illustrate how to conceptualize regions of exception as representing particular tensions between the insights from comparative politics and area studies, with challenges for a purist view of causal inference in political science. Recognizing the challenges presented by regions of exception will help political scientists to better grasp key issues in contemporary world politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
100473
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Richard Ashley's writings in the 1980s are central to the production of post-structuralist or 'dissident' scholarship in International Relations (IR). In this article, I use analysis of the standard dissident view of Ashley's writings to examine the interpretive practices through which the community of dissident scholars was produced textually. Dissident 'thinking space' in the discipline was produced in part through the exclusion of Marx, capital and class, despite these being present in Ashley's writings throughout this period. Similar interpretive practices were applied to the writings of Michel Foucault, with similar effects. This exclusion has negative consequences for dissident scholarship, in particular analysis of historicity and the place of capitalism in contemporary world politics. Overcoming these problems requires reading the work of Ashley and other founders of dissident scholarship in a different way are attentive to the silences of thinking space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
093791
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
By what standards ought we to judge politicians? The article addresses the question in the light of the treatment of two controversial issues in contemporary world politics: the implementation of the 1984 UN Convention against Torture; and the post 9/11 rendition of terrorist suspects to US authorities by European governments. Their treatment brings out the way in which the role of political leaders is popularly conceived and understood. This conventional understanding is contrasted with the role recommended by Kant's political philosophy. An answer to the question depends on how we conceive politics in the first place. If politics is seen as a 'free for all' where all strategies can be canvassed then the response will be entirely different from a situation where we consider ourselves bound by rules of legitimacy and its attendant problems of morality and law. The article represents a rejection of certain received accounts of politics and approval of a Kantian view. The account of politics which in one respect or another tries to drive a wedge between politics and ordinary morality is seen as inferior to a Kantian concept of politics which is always conditioned by morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
163268
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
When commentators look back on the state of trust in contemporary world politics, the words of Charles Dickens in A tale of two cities will seem sadly appropriate: ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness’. On the one hand, the president of the world's supposedly leading liberal democracy is given to emotional declarations of trust in some of the world's least trustworthy autocrats, with Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|