|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
157229
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Regions—geopolitical spaces based on various definitions—have been judged as important for explanations about international politics. Area specialists devote their professional lives to the study of one or, perhaps, two regions. Quantitative international relations scholars use regional controls in empirical models of conflictual or cooperative relations, and they typically find that regions matter, at least statistically. Most states conduct much of their political relationships1 within regions rather than globally (Acharya 2007; Hurrell 2007). At a very minimum, geopolitical context constitutes a strong conditioning effect on how they conduct their external (and often internal) affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
157230
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The field of International Relations (IR) has recently witnessed the emergence of a wide variety of different approaches to make sense of the many ways emotions work in and through discourse. This forum takes stock of and investigates this link based on two interrelated questions: Why study emotions through discourse? How can we study emotions through discourse? Concerning the first question, we argue that textual and verbal utterances provide us with a promising way to make emotions empirically accessible for researchers. Regarding the second question, we argue that it is essential to develop specific criteria for the study of emotions via speech acts. We propose three criteria that the study of emotion discourse must answer to, which revolve around theory (what is an emotion?), expression (how are emotions communicated?), and effects (what do emotions do?). In a step toward fostering engagement and dialogue on these questions, the contributors of this forum propose a variety of approaches to study emotion discourse in world politics. The idea is to explore the ways in which discourse evokes, reveals, and engages emotions and how these effects can speak to larger questions in IR. Precisely, the goal with this forum is to go beyond the “emotions matter” approach of the first wave of emotions scholarship in IR to offer more specific ways to integrate the consideration of emotion into existing research, particularly that of a constructivist vein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157226
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Not-for-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are often considered norm entrepreneurs, or norm carriers, that contribute to the spread of norms such as those prohibiting torture or violence against women—for example, in the context of transnational advocacy networks (TANs). However, their role as norm takers is rarely studied even though it deserves attention. Whether NGOs implement norms—either by carrying out related projects themselves or by monitoring norm compliance by other actors—or whether they promote norms and translate them for other actors, they must first internalize these norms themselves. In order to be considered internalized, norms must be “so widely accepted that they…achieve a ‘taken-for-granted’ quality that makes conformance with the norm almost automatic” (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, 904). Norm internalization can be studied in terms of translation, assuming that new norms “have to fight their way into institutional thinking” whereby “[i]nitially reluctant actors are persuaded to incorporate the novel ideas into their mental world-views” (Elgström 2000, 458). Studying norm internalization within NGOs is a worthwhile and important endeavor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
157228
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Much of the literature in the field of international relations is currently concerned with the changing patterns of authority in world politics. This is particularly evident in the policy domain of climate change, where a number of authors have observed a relocation of authority in global climate governance. These scholars claim that multilateral treaty making has lost much of its spark, and they emphasize the emergence of transnational governance arrangements, such as city networks, private certification schemes, and business self-regulation. However, the different types of interactions between the various transnational climate initiatives and the intergovernmental level have not been studied in much detail and only recently attracted growing scholarly interest. Therefore, the present article addresses this issue and focuses on the interplay between three different transnational climate governance arrangements and the international climate regime. The analysis in this article underscores that substate and nonstate actors have attained several authoritative functions in global climate policy making. Nevertheless, the three case studies also demonstrate that this development does not imply that we are witnessing a general shift of authority away from the intergovernmental level toward transnational actors. Instead, what can be observed in global climate governance is an ongoing reconfiguration of authority, which apparently reaffirms the centrality of the international climate regime. Thus, this article points to the need for a more nuanced perspective on the changing patterns of authority in global climate governance. In a nutshell, this study shows that the international climate regime is not the only location where the problem of climate change is addressed, while it highlights the persistent authority of state-based forms of regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
157225
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The status of International Relations (IR) theory and its relevance for politics and ethics is the topic of an ongoing debate in the discipline.1 I argue that a reflection on IR ontologies and epistemologies is central in this regard. Epistemological positions have a claim on the way we believe we can achieve knowledge, and ontological commitments have a claim on the nature of “what is out there.” They shape how we imagine the world is and the way we fit in it. As Foucault (1991) has argued, the problem of truth is deeply political. The notion of “truth” encompasses both ontological and epistemological trajectories. The way we think about these two trajectories is central to devising possibilities for political agency and the way we justify our actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
157227
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the past two decades, a burgeoning plural policing literature has refocused the attention on the plurality of sponsors and providers that populate policing landscapes throughout the world. This article coheres and advances this research agenda in two ways. It provides the first critical examination of its conceptual and theoretical achievements, while also highlighting important gaps that remain in explaining how struggles over the political economy affect plural policing and vice versa. This requires applying political economy questions about power and resources to policing—“how,” by “whom,” and especially for “whose” benefit policing is delivered—and conceptualizing policing as one aspect of state–society relations. The article further elucidates strengths and weaknesses of the plural policing literature in a case study of Indonesia’s contemporary plural policing landscape. The importance of plural policing goes beyond academic endeavor. Indeed, plural policing is ubiquitous throughout the world and affects how security is provided, and power exercised, in most social realms whether at local, national or international level. It is thus a phenomenon difficult to ignore for comparative politics, IR scholars, and policymakers alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
157224
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article focuses on the image the discipline of International Relations (IR) projects of itself via visuals, particularly the image of chess on IR book covers. It points out the corroborative and critical role that images can play in defining the way we see IR. The article underlines particular features of visual metaphors, first pointing out their role in the epistemological process, and second, highlighting their capacity for voicing an expressive and captivating critique of the social world, which is enabled by the template they offer, a template that may be distorted and manipulated for expressing criticism. Finally, the article reflects on the image chess conveys about expectations of the kind of knowledge IR as a discipline could provide for “mastering” the world and identifying a winning strategy. Here, the image of chess is compared to insights offered by Clausewitz’s pendulum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|