| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
135269
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the very beginning of social sciences, the relationship between agents and the social system has been a central problématique. Unfortunately, the agent–structure problem, which is a much narrower version of the agent–system problem, has mostly replaced the latter in social sciences, including international relations (IRs). This article argues that our long-standing affair with the agent–structure problématique has been disastrous for IR and the broader social sciences, and that it is time to end it. Our obsession with structure or the agent–structure problématique has blinded us to the simple reality that system encompasses much more than agent-and-structure and as such, that focussing on structure alone cannot possibly lead us to an adequate understanding of the dynamics of any social system. Social scientists should embrace a genuinely systemic approach if they desire to understand adequately the dynamics within a system. A refocussing on system rather than on structure not only clarifies some of the key debates in IR theory but also points to important new directions for further research. The discussion here contributes to the recent resurging interest in the systemic approach within the broader social sciences, and IR in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
097004
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Offence-defence theory (ODT) dominates the understanding of many security and international relations (IR) theorists of the role in international politics that military technology plays. ODT has produced some of the most cited works in realism literature,1 as evident in the many works which-implicitly and explicitly-rely on ODT to propel their arguments.2 ODT is classified in such literature as quintessential defensive realism theory,3 and also identified as an important demarcation line between offensive and defensive realism.4
The impact of ODT goes far beyond that which it has made on strategic studies and the broader literature of realism. Its influence is such that even non-realists such as Robert Keohane, Lisa Martin, and Alexander Wendt have invoked ODT logic to operate arguments that counter the logic of (offensive) realism.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
119245
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Uncertainty, or incomplete information, is a fundamental fact that makes life interestingly frustrating and frustratingly interesting. Not surprisingly, uncertainty has occupied a central place in social sciences, including international politics.1
In international relations (IR), uncertainty is not just a theoretical jargon that lumps together our ignorance. Rather, uncertainty underpins a pressing and enduring challenge for statesmen and students of IR-the challenge of understanding the (immediate and deeper) causes behind other states' behavior (and non-behavior). While statesmen tend to rely on some gut feeling to gauge the forces behind other states' moves, students of IR have tried to import the social psychology literature on attribution to build a framework for understanding other states' behavior. Unfortunately, the social psychology literature on attribution provides only limited mileages for addressing uncertainty in IR. As a result, existing discussion on attribution in IR suffers from some crippling deficiencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|