|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
104133
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Increasingly, complexity-based thinking is challenging the dominant rationalist, realist and reductionist international relations (IR) framework. However, to move this challenge beyond the academic realm and into the day-to-day world of policy, complexity thinkers must begin to develop useful tools for policy practitioners. This paper attempts to address this issue by demonstrating the weaknesses and limits of one traditional IR tool (X-Y graphic visualizations) and the strengths of complexity tools (the fitness landscape and range of complexity outcomes). To demonstrate these arguments we examine how fitness landscapes can be used to reinterpret traditional perspectives on development and conflict and make difficult problems more approachable through three-dimensional visualizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
122836
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Partnerships in international migration governance promise a cooperative approach between countries of origin, transit and destination. The literature has generally conceptualised migration partnerships as a policy instrument. This article suggests that understanding the broader transformations taking place in international migration governance under the rubric of partnership demands a novel analysis. Using a governmentality perspective, I interpret migration partnerships as an instance of neoliberal rule. Focusing on the convergence of international migration governance between the international realm and the European and North American region in particular, I demonstrate that the partnership approach frames international migration governance so as to enlist governments, migrants and particular experts in governing international migration, and invokes specific technologies of neoliberal governing which contribute to producing responsible, self-disciplined partners who can be trusted to govern themselves according to the norms established by the partnership discourse. The partnership approach is not a mere policy instrument; it goes beyond the European region and has become an essential element of the governance of international migration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
132915
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Today, the domestic analogy is a well-established and frequently used term in the discipline of International Relations (IR). What is less established is that often two different analogies are hiding behind this term - an analogy between the domestic and the international realm, on the one hand, and an analogy between a state of nature and the international realm, on the other hand. This article argues that only in the former case, we can speak of domestic analogy. In the latter case, the 'state of nature' is mistaken for the 'domestic', which, on closer inspection, are converse terms. After a critique of the way in which the domestic analogy has been used in the literature, and in the work of Chiara Bottici in particular, I develop the alternative concept of the state of nature analogy and locate it within each of Martin Wight's three traditions of international theory. Once we have unraveled the two analogies, the advantages of using the state of nature analogy over the domestic analogy become manifest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
118953
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article responds to issues raised about global governmentality studies by Jan Selby, Jonathan Joseph, and David Chandler, especially regarding the implications of 'scaling up' a concept originally designed to describe the politics of advanced liberal societies to the international realm. In response to these charges, I argue that critics have failed to take full stock of Foucault's contribution to the study of global liberalism, which owes more to economic than political liberalism. Taking Foucault's economic liberalism seriously, that is, shifting the focus from questions of natural rights, legitimate rule, and territorial security to matters of government, population management, and human betterment reveals how liberalism operates as a universal, albeit not yet global, measure of truth, best illustrated by the workings of global capital. While a lot more translation work (both empirical and conceptual) is needed before governmentality can be convincingly extended to global politics, Foucauldian approaches promise to add a historically rich and empirically grounded dimension to IR scholarship that should not be hampered by disciplinary admonitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|