|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
177604
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the study of IR went through a deep theoretical reconceptualization of its objectives, ethics, and raison d’être as a discipline. New popular and provocative perspectives, like Fukuyama’s vision of a Liberal world devoid of any ideological struggle, or Huntington’s view of a bleak global future of intractable cultural conflict, all epitomized the growing need for new theoretical lenses with which to tackle the complexity of the emerging international order at the time. The English School (ES), born in the fulcrum of the Cold War, yet profoundly marked by a rather traditional ‘European’ perspective on world affairs, saw an important reinvigoration in the early 1990s. Since then, the so-called ‘reconvening’ of the ES has helped establish the international society approach as one of the main theoretical perspectives in contemporary world politics. Despite its many accomplishments in resuscitating global-order concerns and historico-sociological agendas in IR, however, there are important areas which have remained unattended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
171769
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is a fundamental link between political anthropology and Hedley Bull's classical study of international order, which has been persistently neglected by contemporary students of international society. While traditional assessments of Bull's work normally focus on the influences of political philosophy, international law, and history, a discussion of Bull's reliance on anthropological studies of anarchical societies is also essential for a more comprehensive understanding of his conceptualization of order and the sources, number, and functions of the “fundamental institutions” of international society. After showing how exactly political anthropology has underpinned Bull's work, the article explores its relevance for contemporary English school theorization. In particular, it offers a critique of the new institutionalists’ claims on the issue of sources, numbers, and functions of Bull's fundamental institutions. An updating of Bull's original “anthropological investigations” suggests a reconsideration of “Trade” as a sixth fundamental institution, a closer attention to “binding” and “dividing” forces in international society, as well as a reframing of the domestic analogy in IR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|