War has been an omnipresent aspect of the international order. Consequently, ‘realism’ sees conflict and war as the defining aspects of international relations. Conversely, ‘idealists’ posit that human reason/different forms of societal organization can curb or even eliminate belligerency. This essay draws on ‘critical theory’ to show that realism is essentially limited in its analysis of the world system.
Since March 1918, the signing of the Brest-Litovsk agreement and the collapse of the left wing coalition, and up to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the Communist Party was the sole decision-maker and ideology setter in the USSR. By virtue of its survival it must have had operational advantages. However, when taking a closer look at this system, severe weaknesses are evident.
This essay evaluates and compares the diplomatic relations of the United States and China during the Administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Using interest-based negotiation as the theoretical framework, the essay discusses the divergent diplomatic strategies enacted by the two presidents.
This essay begins with an articulation of authority, and the role of legitimacy in acquiring authority. It then defines power, moving away from realist conceptions to other social relations through which power manifests. It analyses how these different conceptions of power translate to authority once legitimacy is established before finally concluding with an examination of market authority as an illustration of interconnectedness of authority and power.
From a simple positivist position, it is relatively straightforward to claim that – in a not so distant future – the most significant threats to the human society will be environmentally related. It is difficult to conceive another set of problematics that could rival the global scale and potential magnitude of the consequences provoked – for instance – by a constant rise in the sea levels or by a substantial reduction in the global availability of water.
Since the end of World War II, international organizations (IOs) have proliferated and redefined the global political and economic landscape as states band together to advance particular interests. To perceive IOs as mere tools of hegemonic predation ignores the complex dynamics that have characterised their evolution.
This essay draws on the work of Partha Chatterjee to argue that a distinction might be drawn between political and cultural nationalism. Whilst political nationalism sought to challenge the notion of ‘colonial difference’ in the outer realm, cultural nationalism sought to maintain it (albeit reformed and reshaped) in the inner realm. This contradictory process continues to have important consequences for Africa today.
This essay examines the extent to which agency is the determining factor of a migrant’s situation at their point of departure and upon entering a new community. It suggests that whilst recognizing the individual is crucial, policy also needs to account for structural limitations which constrict choices.
This essay presents some of the major criticisms of global civil society, namely its conceptual vagueness and incoherence; its rhetorical function as a legitimation device that arguably undermines the transnational demos; and finally its maintenance and reproduction of the neoliberal order.
In seeking to explain ‘tribalism’ and ‘state failure’ in Africa, academics often point towards the misalignment of the nation and the state: either the post-colonial state has failed to make the nation, or nations have descended into ‘tribalism’ in the process of carving out a state. What is common in these two presumptions, is that all African nations or states have the power to make their counterpart; by extension, the ‘failure ‘of such processes is rarely problematised beyond domestic politics and historical references to the impact of colonialism.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
