Working within the traditional confines of I.R theory it is difficult to observe Islam in isolation, as states in the Middle East have, since their formation in the post-colonial era, acted with few exceptions in their own self interest. However, observing Islam as a theory of I.R. in its own right, as an al siyasi al Islami (Islamic political order) not as a factor which influences I.R, may well be a more intriguing quest.
Scholars witnessed a ‘bulldozer revolution’ in Serbia in 2000, a ‘rose revolution’ in Georgia in 2003, an ‘orange revolution’ in Ukraine in December 2004 and then a ‘tulip’ revolution in Kyrgyzstan in early 2005. Although only the Orange color revolutions actually had a color as it symbolize this term, ‘color revolution’ has become a popular term for referring to the four revolutions that occurred among regional specialist and local politicians. Why?
The intellectual hegemony of Morgenthau’s classical realism was succeeded in 1979 by the founding father of neo-realism, Kenneth Waltz. Waltz’s attempt to develop a systemic and scientific realism in ‘Theory of International Politics’ divided the school of thought into two blocks: classical realism and neo-realism. But what do these categorizations mean?
Small developing countries that have been historically caught up in great power politics often seem to be exotic destinations for travel books rather than concrete places. Cambodia is one such example. As an insignificant part of the international system, it is difficult to appreciate what is happening there without seeing it for yourself. But Cambodia is a microcosm of development, and the changes that are happening there by no means trivial.
In recent years, the United States has been quietly increasing its presence in West Africa with a variety of declared humanitarian interests. Discussion as to the ‘true’ motivations vary, from the need to shore up its role as global hegemon in the face of Chinese advances, to attempts to neutralise the territory as a base camp or staging ground for terrorists, to the need for new desire for US goods. The most pragmatic of the ‘true’ motivations offered is the need to secure oil supplies.
How ironic it would be if the most direct consequence of the “war on terror” was the overthrow of a government by Muslim extremists and the destabilization of a nuclear-armed country. With the Taliban gaining full control of the Swat Valley in Pakistan last February and advancing to within 60 miles of Islamabad just a few months ago – moving much faster and over a wider area than in any of their previous incursions – such a catastrophe seems to be looming just over the horizon.
In this essay I will investigate how racism functions as a metric for the biopolitics of security. I will begin by analysing the development of the counter-historical discourse, from its opposition to traditional sovereignty, through to the development of the ‘warring nations’ thesis, and it’s eventual reformulation as a discourse of the state.
This essay makes a comparative study of al Qaeda and Hezbollah, considering their ideological origins, justifications for terror, and overall objectives and tactics. The author finds that al Qaeda’s ideological groundings strongly influence the global, symbolic nature of the group’s objectives. In contrast, Hezbollah’s origin as a resistance front against Israel has left room for ideological flexibility, resulting in goals that are regional and pragmatic.
Coercive diplomacy is one of the most intriguing and common practices of conducting inter-state relations and embodies the essence of the art of diplomacy: achieving political objectives and fostering a state’s national interest without waging a war. The present essay will first offer a theoretical framework on the notion of coercive diplomacy.
Even though the clash of civilisations thesis encompasses different levels of analysis from man, civilisation, and the world at large, it concentrates on solely cultural factors. Allowing these factors to override other sectors of analysis in the discipline of international relations does not necessarily lead to enhancing our understanding of world politics.
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.
