|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
126062
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During the International Studies Association 2012 annual convention in San Diego, the idea of a special section examining the emerging research agenda around 'Critical War Studies' was first considered.1 The interest for the roundtable entitled 'The Urgency of Studying War Again-Differently' highlighted a rising awareness among critical scholars of the acute importance of studying war on its own terms. Tarak Barkawi argued that International Relations (IR) does not truly study war when it seeks to pinpoint war's causes, correlate its statistics or theorize the interstate system's dynamics. Although war has been at the centre of IR research agenda since its inception, Barkawi argued that the discipline does not question its essence and its intrinsic generative power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126066
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Still preoccupied with inter- and intrastate wars, IR [International Relations] wants to know why wars happen and how they end. It is the period between these two moments that IR war studies has not concerned itself or seriously engaged with. (Parashar 2013, 617, this special section)
This is one of the important points that Swati Parashar makes in her contribution to the discussion here on critical war studies. She offers a number of examples of life 'between these two moments' and life as it is when war in Sri Lanka is said to be over (but is not, in all aspects). She also insists, as another important and underexplored second point, that IR (thinks it) knows war but does not consider the possibility that war knows something about international relations and IR. Is it preposterous that war could know more about those bits of itself blanked out of IR than the master field knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
126067
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Half a century ago, at the inception of what today has become the European Union (EU), several EU member states held colonies around the world. Today most of these colonies have become independent states, but many continue to have close links with Europe. This article analyses the development of the legal regulation of these links from the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 until the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in late 2009. Based on this analysis the article goes on to discuss whether the proposition that the EU has developed into a normative power is supported by the legal analysis. It is concluded that the legal analysis lends strong support to the view that the EU seeks to be a normative power vis-Ã -vis the developing countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
126064
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Contemporary Western war-fighting is animated by the fictitious imagination of a war free from antagonism. In this logic, winning wars is about winning the 'hearts and minds' of local populations, about persuasion rather than confrontation. In recent years, the concept of 'strategic communication' (SC) has been elevated to the top echelons of strategic thinking in United States military circles, focusing attention on how to communicate 'effectively' with local populations. Via an analysis of the concept of SC, this article examines the ethico-political dimensions of contemporary Western-led 'population-centric' war. Through a reading inspired by Judith Butler's recent work in Precarious life (London: Verso 2006) and Frames of war (London: Verso 2009), and an analysis that turns on the link between ethics and ontology, I reflect on the significance of the 'communications turn' in warfare for our study of war in ontological terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
126065
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article extends and critiques Michel Foucault's political sociology of war by taking it beyond its modern subjects. Positioning his work alongside Homer, Heraclitus and Plato, it analyses relations between war, truth and race in the transition from Archaic to Classical Greece. In doing so, it approaches philosophical texts as direct reflections on specific historical experiences of war, making the case for a political theory of fighting as a necessary and under-developed aspect of critical war studies. Such an approach, the article concludes, opens up new scholarly possibilities for the political sociology of war and resources political intervention against war-waging powers whose authority-inside and outside the academy-derives from a supposedly authoritative relation to the history and conduct of fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
126063
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What happens when the 'international' as a distinct social space is approached from the perspective of war rather than war from the perspective of the 'international'? Tarak Barkawi's question (Millennium, 39:3, 2011, 701-706) is best answered by attempts to understand war not as part of inter/intra-state relations but as a socio-cultural, trans-historical institution that impacts on the 'everyday' lives of men, women and children. In this article I argue that war is not a disruption of the 'everyday', an abstraction that has a definite beginning and end, something we enter into and exit. Instead, it can be captured in daily and mundane lived experiences of people and in powerful emotions that constitute 'self', community and the 'other.' Drawing upon my research on wars in South Asia, I particularly reflect on how war shapes the banal and the fervent and how cultural and political narratives of 'war bodies' perform the 'international' in a variety of ways. Most significantly I want to draw attention to how international relations as a scholarly discipline is so deeply engaged with war and yet seems to have an estranged relationship with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|