| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
169063
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
169058
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the last decade, a call for decolonisation has challenged IR scholarship. The call has advocated for the need to decolonise the epistemology and ontology of the discipline, critically engaging with the legacies of imperialism, colonialism, racism, and patriarchy in global power relations. Parallel to the decolonial project, a call to globalise International Relations has been made by well-known scholars in recent years predominantly through the Global IR project. In this review essay of four books I briefly engage with the debates around Global IR and its critics drawing on a decolonial perspective. On the one hand, I discuss the potentialities and limitations of historiographical deconstruction as a methodological tool, raising issues with the current silencing of the ‘present’ due to the continued coloniality of knowledge. On the other hand, I delve into the wide range of possibilities that a serious and critical commitment to diversifying the discipline of IR might bring to academics in the so-called non-West/Global South. I analyse current critiques of Global IR considering them necessary though, in some cases, agents for the reification and silencing of the interests of the non-West/Global South. I argue that, whilst coloniality operates in multiple ways, decoloniality is also a project that surpasses the ideal total exteriority as imagined through the West/non-West dichotomy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
169060
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
169056
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How can we study the politics of human rights activism in violent social conflicts? International Relations scholarship has long neglected the ambiguous political relationships between human rights activism and violent social conflicts. Addressing this gap requires new research methodologies that place the focus not on the normative or legal dimensions of human rights, but in how their usage constitutes the political. In this article I argue that using post-foundational discourse theory makes visible ‘politics-as-ruptures’ that locate the political function of human rights activism precisely in the resistance to representations of violence in conflict discourses. I analyse this political function by asking how activists translate human rights norms, transform conflict discourses, and thereby contest power relations. As examples, the article presents three types of discursive politics that I studied in Colombia. These examples point out further pathways to pose empirical questions about the roles of human rights activism in transforming social conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
169062
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
169061
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
169059
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
169064
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
169057
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The republican tradition has long been influential within political theory, but has been less acknowledged within the discipline of International Relations (IR). Republican theorists and republican ideas of political liberty underlie many normative claims made by both liberal and realist schools of thought. The following examination of republicanism takes an interdisciplinary approach to argue the relevance of republicanism for IR theory. When republicanism is recognised within IR, it is often through a triumphalist reading of the early American republic and its founding. This article opens new ground by presenting a more critical account of republicanism. It does so by focusing on the connections between republican liberty and the history of republics to dominate those outside the polis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|