|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
117763
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24 has been accused of being over-dependent on the counterinsurgency 'classics' Galula and Thompson. But comparison reveals that it is different in spirit. Galula and Thompson seek practical control; the Manual seeks to build 'legitimacy'. Its concept of legitimacy is superficially Weberian, but owes more to the writings of the American Max Manwaring. The Manual presupposes that a rights-based legal order can (other things being equal) be made to be cross-culturally attractive; 'effective governance' by itself can build legitimacy. The fusion of its methods with an ideology creates unrealistic criteria for success. Its weaknesses suggest a level of incapacity to think politically that will, in time, result in further failures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
117762
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The concept of hegemony has regained attention from various theoretical perspectives in International Relations. This article argues that IR-poststructuralism can offer an independent perspective on the production of hegemonies in international politics. Based on IR-poststructuralism and poststructuralist discourse theory, it develops a conceptual framework and an associated methodological approach for the analysis of international hegemonies in concrete discourses. Thereby, the article conceptualises international hegemonies as the creation of a specific type of collective identity while arguing that for hegemonies to emerge, both the creation of an antagonistic Other and a vision of the opposed Self are necessary. The workings of the conceptual framework are illustrated with a comparative reconstruction of United Nations discourses on international terrorism and drug prohibition from 1961 to 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
117765
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This is a very difficult piece to reply to as it engages so minimally with the substance of my original article, 'From War to Security: Security Studies, the Wider Agenda, and the Fate of the Study of War'. Instead, Claudia Aradau appears most concerned to defend Critical Security Studies from critique. Apparently, among other things, I homogenise Critical Security Studies through 'a technique of ambiguous equivalences'.1 It may come as some surprise to readers of 'Security, War, Violence' that my article hardly mentions Critical Security Studies.2 Rather, I was primarily concerned with traditional security studies, on the one hand, and the 'wider agenda' - the idea that anything can be 'securitised' - on the other. My argument was that, in International Relations (IR), the study of war was largely a casualty of the debate between these two positions. Traditional security studies dealt with strategy not war, while the wider agenda was concerned with the logic of security itself. As a consequence, a discipline that imagines itself as centrally concerned with questions of war and peace does not in fact study war, part of a larger elision of war in the Enlightenment organisation of social and political inquiry. I go on in the article to outline the astounding absence of the Second World War in IR scholarship and then map out some ways in which the critical study of war leads us to think differently about the 'international' as a distinct space for inquiry. I was seeking to outline a 'critical war studies' for IR, to frame and enable a new direction for research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
117758
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In recent years, IR has been increasingly influenced by the critics of Eurocentric assumptions of the epistemologies of social science. The awareness of the perspectival nature of knowledge and the emphasis on aspects of colonialism previously unaccounted for, such as epistemological imperialism, led to the flourishing of approaches which, despite their differences, are connected by their common interest in subaltern voices and suppressed knowledges, their anti-hegemonic inclination, and their emphasis on the emancipation of the Other.
Post-Western IR theory is largely the offspring of such theoretical investigations and shares the ethical concerns of this critical tradition. The article identifies three strands of post-Western engagement: pluralism, particularism and postcolonialism. It focuses on postcolonialism because of the radical promise it represents on the one hand, and of the disconcerting implications of its epistemology on the other. Through the engagement with one of the most significant post-Western epistemological projects, Chakrabarty's Provincializing Europe, the article demonstrates why the 'post-Western' question as dealt with by postcolonialism is a compelling conundrum for critical thinking. This is because the ultimately postsecular stance and singularising ethics adopted by such approaches are paralysing for the practice of social science and for a relational consideration of alterity, which can be served more efficiently by reference to a genuine universalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
117764
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Tarak Barkawi has recently enjoined International Relations and security studies scholars to embark upon a critical study of the phenomenon of war. There is much to agree with in his argument and the idea of 'critical war studies' seems particularly apposite in a world where war and other forms of organised or dispersed violence have become increasingly constitutive of daily life. However, the turn to 'critical war studies' works by silencing disagreements and homogenising the heterogeneity of critical security studies. Instead, I propose a dialogue that brings to the fore the political stakes of a critique of war, security and violence. Not only have security and war been entwined in complex ways, but I argue that they need to be analysed within a continuum of violence that includes insurrections, revolts, revolutions, insurgencies, rebellions, seditions, disobediences, riots and uprisings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
117761
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study describes the spread of TCP/IP and therefore the diffusion of the Internet, beginning in the 1960s until the early 1990s. Understanding how TCP/IP emerged and spread provides insight into the changes and challenges brought by the Internet into world politics. Against arguments that the Internet reflects primarily economic or military concerns, I argue that notions of academic freedom are embedded in the fundamental technology of the Internet, TCP/IP, and that this embedded norm is essential to the Internet's consequences for modern political life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
117760
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Taking issue with Hobson and Lawson's rejection of the historical turn, this article argues that what is at stake in the turn is the type of knowledge of politics International Relations scholars should produce, and the relationship between theory and practice. The relevant issues are not, then, exhausted by answering the question 'What is history in International Relations?'; instead, the turn forms part of a wider movement in the social sciences away from neo-positivism and its deficient vision of history. The article follows one line of thought on non-neo-positivist International Relations and its relationship to history that seeks to emphasise the centrality of historical knowledge to political praxis understood as practical wisdom or phronesis. However, while a turn is thus to be welcomed, because the impact of International Relations knowledge lies ultimately in the relationship between the academy and politics, the stakes of the historical turn lie beyond International Relations, adequately historical or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|