|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
179948
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What are Chinese views of international security alliances? Some scholars argue that the idea of alliance formation has become obsolete in contemporary international relations (IR), while others predict that China will eventually return to alliance formation, as major power competition intensifies. This study analyzes 1,403 articles addressing China’s foreign relationships published in the top five Chinese IR/political science journals between 1990 and 2019. We use automatic content analysis to identify key concepts and measure trends in Chinese alliance thinking. Our findings challenge the view that alliances are obsolete in contemporary Chinese IR. Alliance debates have increased in prominence during Xi’s administration. Since the 1990s, however, the partnership concept has emerged as an alternative to the alliance concept. We examine the application of these concepts through cases of China’s relations with the United States, Russia, and India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
127712
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although intelligence postmortems are a common practice in the aftermath of intelligence failure, little is known about how they are conducted. This article explores the methodology employed by Robert Jervis in intelligence postmortems that followed the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and the formulation of the 2002 Iraq national intelligence estimate that warned of the possibility that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. The analysis reveals the challenges faced by scholars as they attempt to assess why analysts failed to offer accurate estimates and the way contemporary international relations theory can be applied to the realm of policy. The findings of the postmortems also shed light on areas where additional collaboration among scholars and analysts can advance the art of intelligence analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
111216
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Is there legitimate authority in international relations? Or, can we reduce most important behaviors to being motivated only by material interests, such as wealth or power? Are state interests the same, and self-evident, across time and space?
The debate about authority in international relations has generally either been purely theoretical, or focused on the contemporary international system.1 This article takes a different approach. Exploring international relations in eras other than in the Westphalian international system is one way in which scholars may obtain a different view on questions of authority and power. Although a wealth of fascinating research can occur if we take for granted the institutional environment and the type and nature of the actors involved, exploring the source and origin of varied international systems and actors within diverse systems may provide a different lens on fundamental theoretical issues such as authority and legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
138423
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
ISMs matter. They reflect underlying philosophical points of departure and are rooted in specific explicit assumptions about how the world works. The very different expectations and conclusions of diverse theories often stem from the fact that those theories were derived from distinct and contrasting paradigmatic roots. To be aware of those foundations is to understand the likely strengths, weaknesses, limitations, controversies, and specific attributes of the various theories. In contemporary international relations (IR) scholarship there is a common claim that we are past paradigms, and many younger scholars are expected to recite this mantra. But making such a claim is a political act, not an intellectual one. It reflects the hegemony of one particular paradigmatic perspective—one with specific analytical building blocks of individualism, materialism, and hyperrationalism—an approach that is a paradigm and one so powerful that it has been described as an “intellectual monoculture.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
127483
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
SOVEREIGN STATES traditionally build their relationships with external actors and partners in the interest of creating a favorable international environment for the effective achievement of national goals. The foreign policy of states performs a very important, but mainly an auxiliary function in dealing with their internal problems.
In recent decades, due to the growing interdependence of modern states, the internationalization of their life and the deepening of globalization processes, the significance of international factors for successfully dealing with national matters of individual states has increased markedly. International and domestic aspects of their policies are becoming more organically interlinked. This induces states to look for ways to raise their role in shaping a favorable international environment for national development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
128274
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
One of the most interesting phenomena in contemporary international relations is the growing role of local government entities in forging and intensifying cross-border interactions in the social, economic and cultural arenas. Lamentably, this aspect of international relations, which I conceptualize as local liberalism, has not received sufficient scholarly attention. This paper attempts to fill in the gap by describing and analyzing how local liberalism has played a role in China's relations with Southeast Asia. The paper argues that local governments in Yunnan and Guangxi have played an important and positive role in cementing the relations between China and Southeast Asia. The paper suggests that debunking the China 'black box' to examine the different units in China, including the sub-national governments, may provide more useful insights for our understanding of China-Southeast Asian relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
111921
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In an attempt to increase the legitimacy and traction of soft balancing in contemporary International Relations (IR) scholarship, and in order to rebuff critiques of its applicability, the concept is further clarified and applied to examine American foreign policy vis-à-vis Japan in the interwar period. Analysis reveals that soft balancing is not only a legitimate explanation, but also explains a major historical and theoretical puzzle-American grand strategy vis-à-vis Japan in interwar period-it shows that the concept is also applicable to account for patterns in non-unipolar systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
103313
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The "crusades"-a series of wars launched by the Latin Church between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries-pose a significant unresolved puzzle for International Relations Theory. The purpose of this article is to develop a historically sensitive yet theoretically governed account of the crusades that solves this puzzle. Empirically, the article draws heavily on a body of historiographical work that emphasizes the constitutive role of "religious" ideas and discourses in the evolution of the crusades. Theoretically, it adopts a constructivist approach, specifying the intersubjective factors that enabled the crusades to emerge as a significant instrument of papal "statecraft" and as a key element of medieval geopolitical relations. The article concludes with some reflections on the theoretical relevance of this account of the crusades for both medieval geopolitics and contemporary international relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
114166
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This analysis follows upon an article that previously was published in Diplomacy and Statecraft (2010) on Norman Angell's relationship with French thinking and political life. These two papers suggest international historians should look much more widely for our sources of understanding the policy options of the Powers in the early twentieth century than the habitual diplomatic documents and the like. They also aim to explore how ideas become policies, seen through the eyes of particular key actors. This analysis looks at the relations between the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, and a contemporary major American intellectual, Nicholas Murray Butler, between 1913 and 1932 using their letters as a basis. Bergson's fraught relationship with Butler sheds some light on Franco-American relations during the turbulent decades they knew each other. The article also looks at the thinking of James T. Shotwell, a long-time collaborator with Butler and, more generally, at the approaches to the contemporary international relations of their day that underpin and mark out American and French differences about how to construct a global order after the First World War.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
114982
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Anarchism does not feature in contemporary international relations (IR) as a discreet approach to world politics because until very recently it was antithetical to the traditional use-value of a discipline largely structured around the needs and intellectual demands of providing for the world's Foreign Offices and State Departments. This article tells part of the story of how this came to be so by revisiting the historiography of the discipline and an early debate between Harold Laski and Hans Morgenthau. What I will show here is that Morgenthau's Schmittian-informed theory of the nation state was diametrically opposed to Laski's Proudhon-informed pluralist state theory. Morgenthau's success and the triumph of Realism structured the subsequent evolution of the discipline. What was to characterise the early stages of this evolution was IR's professional and intellectual statism. The subsequent historiography of the discipline has also played a part in retrospectively keeping anarchism out. This article demonstrates how a return to this early debate and the historiography of the discipline opens up a little more room for anarchism in contemporary IR and suggests further avenues for research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
159482
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Pluralism has become a buzzword in International Relations. It has emerged in a number of linked literatures and has drawn the support of an unusual coalition of scholars: advocates of greater methodological diversity; those who feel that IR has degenerated into a clash of paradigmatic “-isms”; those who favor a closer relationship between academics and policy-makers; and those who wish to see greater reflexivity within the field. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no single vision of pluralism unites these scholars; they appear to be using the term in divergent ways. Accordingly, our aim is threefold. First, we wish to highlight this odd state of affairs, by placing it in disciplinary and intellectual context. Second, we distinguish between plurality—the de facto recognition that IR has become a more diverse field—and pluralism—a normative position which values that diversity, given the public vocation of social science. Finally, we lay out a more consistent understanding and defense of pluralism in those latter terms. We argue that, properly understood, pluralism entails a position of epistemological skepticism: the straightforward claim that no single knowledge system, discipline, theory, or method can claim singular access to truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|