|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
095806
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The regime of nuclear non-proliferation depends on more than the cost-benefit calculation. Instead, trust plays a significant role in both maintaining relationships and underwriting shared values. Understanding how trust is built and strengthened is vital as the nuclear landscape changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134471
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article begins by asking why Karl Deutsch never directly intervened in what has come to be known in the field as the second debate. This point of departure is used to outline Deutsch’s views on the purpose of knowledge. It is apparent that Deutsch was unwilling to make the distinction between the traditional and scientific approaches, which stood at the heart of the debate started by Hedley Bull. Deutsch’s position tried to embrace both approaches, because they were necessary in order to answer the big and important questions he asked. Deutsch also rejected the notion that the scientific approach could be devoid of normative concerns. Finally, the article argues that Deutsch keenly adopted methods connected with the scientific approach because he believed they made it possible to spot new patterns which might hold novel answers to the profoundly normative question of humankind’s survival.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
095114
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A successful outcome of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference is widely seen as vital if the NPT is to continue to play an important role in preventing nuclear proliferation. Focusing on the concept of trust, this article offers a novel perspective on the treaty and its future prospects. Too often dismissed as impossible or dangerous in international politics, trust has received little attention from both academics and practitioners. This article challenges this predominant view by making a case that the NPT establishes and embodies a series of trusting relationships between states. Trusting relationships are analysed as a way in which states relate to each other, taking into account both interests as well as promises. It does not make the case that once such relationships are established they will remain constant, but rather that trusting relationships are dynamic. They can be strengthened or weakened depending on the choices of actors. The article shows how trusting relationships have underpinned the NPT from its beginning and charts their evolution by reference to three key sets of relationships. These are, first, the relationships between the recognized nuclear weapon powers and the non-nuclear weapon states; second, those among the recognized nuclear weapon states; and third, those between the NPT signatories and those states remaining outside of the treaty. For each set of relationships the problems and issues that have eroded trust are outlined and the steps that might lead to the overcoming of these strains and the strengthening of the trusting relationships are discussed. By understanding the NPT through the prism of trust, the article sheds new light on both the achievements of the treaty as well as its potential fragility. At the same time, such an analysis opens up the directions of policy crucial to strengthening the treaty at the Review Conference and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
151001
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Securitization theory seeks to explain the politics through which (1) the security character of public problems is established, (2) the social commitments resulting from the collective acceptance that a phenomenon is a threat are fixed and (3) the possibility of a particular policy is created. In the last decade, research on securitization has grown significantly. The aim of this article is to evaluate the achievements of securitization theory. First, its main concepts and premises are critically discussed. This article then proceeds to examine the empirical applications of securitization theory to a broad range of issues, as well as the theoretical implications of these studies. Finally, it discusses the main challenges faced by securitization scholars and puts forward strategies to overcome them. This article develops three inter-related arguments. First, notably thanks to empirical studies, securitization theory has significantly developed beyond its initial focus on the speech act. Second, as a result, the distinctiveness of securitization theory currently lies in its capacity to articulate a specific approach to security – influenced by the speech act – with an ‘analytics of government’, which emphasizes practices and processes. Third, securitization theory faces three types of challenges, related, respectively, to theory, method and methodology. The capacity of scholars to overcome those will strongly influence the extent to which securitization theory will be able to make significant contributions to the debates in Security Studies and International Relations in the years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
134464
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This introduction to this Special Issue of International Relations dedicated to Karl Deutsch makes the case that his scholarship was transformative in more ways than is typically recognized in the discipline. Besides being a theoretical and methodological innovator, Deutsch also envisaged that research must have transformative qualities for the future of human relations. The latter in particular deserves attention of International Relations (IR) students because it opens up possibilities for novel empirical and theoretical research of international politics. Deutsch clearly believed that social scientific research must be normatively grounded and serve normative purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
141056
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How can trusting relationships be identified in international politics? The recent wave of scholarship on trust in International Relations answers this question by looking for one or the combination of three indicators – the incidence of cooperation; discourses expressing trust; or the calculated acceptance of vulnerability. These methods are inadequate both theoretically and empirically. Distinguishing between the concepts of trust and confidence, we instead propose an approach that focuses on the actors' hedging strategies. We argue that actors either declining to adopt or removing hedging strategies is a better indicator of a trusting relationship than the alternatives. We demonstrate the strength of our approach by showing how the existing approaches would suggest the US-Soviet relationship to be trusting when it was not so. In contrast, the US-Japanese alliance relationship allows us to show how we can identify a developing trusting relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|