Pub Date : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1163/21967415-08020010
A. Pacher
{"title":"Christian Schmidt-Wellenburg and Stefan Bernhard (eds), Charting Transnational Fields. Methodology for a Political Sociology of Knowledge (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2020)","authors":"A. Pacher","doi":"10.1163/21967415-08020010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-08020010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128549500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1163/21967415-08020016
Riccardo Alcaro, Marco Siddi
Since the creation of the EU, there have been instances in which a restricted number of member states has handled an issue of international security on behalf of the Union. This article argues that, while controversial, these ‘lead groups’ have been a valuable practice. They have been effective in generating intra-EU consensus on specific issues and spurring the EU into action, thereby enabling a European response in the context of conflict management and complex international negotiations. Lead groups are sub-optimal arrangements compensating for the in-built institutional shortcomings of unanimity-based decision-making in EU foreign policy. As such, they do not bring integration further. They have nonetheless shown significant potential in giving initiative and content to EU foreign policy. This is shown through the analysis of two case studies, the Anglo-Franco-German trio involved in Iran’s nuclear issue and the Franco-German duo brokering a truce between Russia and Ukraine.
{"title":"Lead Groups in EU Foreign Policy: The Cases of Iran and Ukraine","authors":"Riccardo Alcaro, Marco Siddi","doi":"10.1163/21967415-08020016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-08020016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Since the creation of the EU, there have been instances in which a restricted number of member states has handled an issue of international security on behalf of the Union. This article argues that, while controversial, these ‘lead groups’ have been a valuable practice. They have been effective in generating intra-EU consensus on specific issues and spurring the EU into action, thereby enabling a European response in the context of conflict management and complex international negotiations. Lead groups are sub-optimal arrangements compensating for the in-built institutional shortcomings of unanimity-based decision-making in EU foreign policy. As such, they do not bring integration further. They have nonetheless shown significant potential in giving initiative and content to EU foreign policy. This is shown through the analysis of two case studies, the Anglo-Franco-German trio involved in Iran’s nuclear issue and the Franco-German duo brokering a truce between Russia and Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125524017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1163/21967415-08020009
Konstantinos Kostagiannis
{"title":"Jacek Więcławski, Understanding Realism in Contemporary International Relations: Beyond the Structural Realist Perspective (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2019)","authors":"Konstantinos Kostagiannis","doi":"10.1163/21967415-08020009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-08020009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"801 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129938035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1163/21967415-08020012
Nerouz Satik
{"title":"Matthieu Cimino (ed.), Syria: Borders, boundaries, and the state (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020)","authors":"Nerouz Satik","doi":"10.1163/21967415-08020012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-08020012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"279 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116503365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1163/21967415-08020001
G. Beaud
{"title":"Simon Le Roulley and Mathieu Uhel (eds), Chercheur.es critiques en terrains critiques [Critical Researchers in Critical Fields] (Paris: Le Bord de l’Eau, 2020)","authors":"G. Beaud","doi":"10.1163/21967415-08020001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-08020001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121072502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-07DOI: 10.1163/21967415-BJA10034
David Eiser, N. McEwen, G. Roy
This paper examines the extent to which the UK’s three devolved governments have sought and achieved influence on the UK Government’s evolving post-Brexit international trade policy, distinguishing their influence at key stages of the trade policy cycle (mandate, negotiations and implementation). Despite carrying the legal responsibility to implement those aspects of trade deals that fall within areas of devolved competence, the devolved governments’ attempts to secure meaningful influence on the UK’s trade agreements have largely been frustrated. This reflects a lack of trust between the devolved and UK governments, weaknesses in the framework for and operation of intergovernmental relations, and a strong desire of the UK government to retain control centrally wherever possible. The resulting tensions have exacerbated devolved governments’ concerns over the authority of the devolved institutions post-Brexit.
{"title":"The Trade Policies of Brexit Britain: the Influence of and Impacts on the Devolved Nations","authors":"David Eiser, N. McEwen, G. Roy","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper examines the extent to which the UK’s three devolved governments have sought and achieved influence on the UK Government’s evolving post-Brexit international trade policy, distinguishing their influence at key stages of the trade policy cycle (mandate, negotiations and implementation). Despite carrying the legal responsibility to implement those aspects of trade deals that fall within areas of devolved competence, the devolved governments’ attempts to secure meaningful influence on the UK’s trade agreements have largely been frustrated. This reflects a lack of trust between the devolved and UK governments, weaknesses in the framework for and operation of intergovernmental relations, and a strong desire of the UK government to retain control centrally wherever possible. The resulting tensions have exacerbated devolved governments’ concerns over the authority of the devolved institutions post-Brexit.","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115517292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-17DOI: 10.1163/21967415-BJA10024
M. Evangelista
Russia’s brutal wars against the separatist republic of Chechnya, starting in the mid-1990s, entailed untold numbers of war crimes and human rights abuses, including kidnapping, extrajudicial killings, torture, murder, and vast destruction of property and civilian life by aerial bombardment and artillery barrages. Blocked from pursuing justice through the Russian courts or by having the Russian government fulfill its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, victims instead worked with activists and lawyers to bring cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Starting in 2003, the Court has found against Russia in some 250 cases – in effect bringing the higher standards of human rights law to the domain of armed conflict, normally regulated (with mixed success) by international humanitarian law (“laws of war”). The first step in the process of understanding this normative change is to identify and understand the transformation: from a normative standpoint, the Court rulings constitute a major achievement for civilian protections during wartime; they build on earlier precedents in cases against Turkey and the United Kingdom, which not only expand protections for civilians but also extend the espace juridique of the Court’s competence beyond Europe to include, for example, British military forces in Iraq. The second step provides a social-sciences perspective by adding an empirical dimension to the study of these cases. We see that the actual consequences of the Court’s decisions on the military practices of Russia and other states have been limited and may even portend a backlash that could undermine protections for civilians in warfare. The last step of normative analysis suggests that even if appeals to a court of human rights might not serve the goal of reducing war crimes in general, the use of human-rights norms retains a certain plausibility to the extent that if offers victims an opportunity to present their claims and seek remedies.
从上世纪90年代中期开始，俄罗斯对分离主义的车臣共和国发动了残酷的战争，造成了数不清的战争罪行和侵犯人权行为，包括绑架、法外处决、酷刑、谋杀，以及空中轰炸和炮火对财产和平民生命的巨大破坏。由于无法通过俄罗斯法院或让俄罗斯政府履行《日内瓦公约》规定的义务，受害者转而与活动人士和律师合作，向欧洲人权法院(European Court of Human Rights)提起诉讼。自2003年以来，法院在约250起案件中作出了对俄罗斯不利的判决——实际上将人权法的更高标准引入了通常由国际人道主义法(“战争法”)规范(成败参半)的武装冲突领域。理解这种规范变化过程的第一步是识别和理解这种转变:从规范的角度来看，法院的裁决构成了战时平民保护的重大成就;它们以先前针对土耳其和联合王国的判例为基础，这些判例不仅扩大了对平民的保护，而且还将法院管辖权的范围扩大到欧洲以外，例如包括在伊拉克的英国军队。第二步通过在这些案例的研究中增加经验维度，提供了社会科学的视角。我们看到，法院对俄罗斯和其他国家军事行为的裁决的实际后果是有限的，甚至可能预示着可能破坏战争中对平民的保护的反弹。规范分析的最后一步表明，即使向人权法院提出上诉可能无助于一般减少战争罪行的目标，但使用人权准则仍具有一定的合理性，因为它为受害者提供了提出其要求和寻求补救的机会。
{"title":"The Pitfalls and Promises of Human Rights Claims in the Chechen Wars: Russia at the European Court","authors":"M. Evangelista","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Russia’s brutal wars against the separatist republic of Chechnya, starting in the mid-1990s, entailed untold numbers of war crimes and human rights abuses, including kidnapping, extrajudicial killings, torture, murder, and vast destruction of property and civilian life by aerial bombardment and artillery barrages. Blocked from pursuing justice through the Russian courts or by having the Russian government fulfill its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, victims instead worked with activists and lawyers to bring cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Starting in 2003, the Court has found against Russia in some 250 cases – in effect bringing the higher standards of human rights law to the domain of armed conflict, normally regulated (with mixed success) by international humanitarian law (“laws of war”). The first step in the process of understanding this normative change is to identify and understand the transformation: from a normative standpoint, the Court rulings constitute a major achievement for civilian protections during wartime; they build on earlier precedents in cases against Turkey and the United Kingdom, which not only expand protections for civilians but also extend the espace juridique of the Court’s competence beyond Europe to include, for example, British military forces in Iraq. The second step provides a social-sciences perspective by adding an empirical dimension to the study of these cases. We see that the actual consequences of the Court’s decisions on the military practices of Russia and other states have been limited and may even portend a backlash that could undermine protections for civilians in warfare. The last step of normative analysis suggests that even if appeals to a court of human rights might not serve the goal of reducing war crimes in general, the use of human-rights norms retains a certain plausibility to the extent that if offers victims an opportunity to present their claims and seek remedies.","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123315192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-17DOI: 10.1163/21967415-BJA10022
Ariel Colonomos
This paper argues that, for both sociological and epistemic reasons, the ethics of war needs the social sciences and, accordingly, sets an alternative to the two prevailing approaches in the literature in the ethics of war field, i.e. the just war tradition model and the ethics of war theory. Given what we learn from the factual description of war and its interpretation in the social sciences, and given what their epistemic premises are, both models - and more particularly the second one – fail to address important normative issues that arise in the course of warfare. Based on the discussion of two case studies – states’ policy in the face of hostage-taking and the rule of proportionality – I argue it is important to move beyond the divide between a state-centric approach (the just war tradition) and an individualistic one (the ethics of war theory): it is indispensable to take into consideration other social spheres where norms emerge and find, between those spheres, some ‘overlapping normative ground’. I argue, both sociologically and normatively, that norms rely upon interlocking sets of expectations. I also argue that these social expectations need to be thoroughly examined in order to ascertain the plausibility of norms in warfare. As a conclusion, for reasons that are both sociological and normative, I stress the political importance, within a liberal and knowledge-oriented society, of the access to facts that always need to be interpreted when making normative claims.
{"title":"Why the Ethics of War needs the Social Sciences","authors":"Ariel Colonomos","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper argues that, for both sociological and epistemic reasons, the ethics of war needs the social sciences and, accordingly, sets an alternative to the two prevailing approaches in the literature in the ethics of war field, i.e. the just war tradition model and the ethics of war theory. Given what we learn from the factual description of war and its interpretation in the social sciences, and given what their epistemic premises are, both models - and more particularly the second one – fail to address important normative issues that arise in the course of warfare. Based on the discussion of two case studies – states’ policy in the face of hostage-taking and the rule of proportionality – I argue it is important to move beyond the divide between a state-centric approach (the just war tradition) and an individualistic one (the ethics of war theory): it is indispensable to take into consideration other social spheres where norms emerge and find, between those spheres, some ‘overlapping normative ground’. I argue, both sociologically and normatively, that norms rely upon interlocking sets of expectations. I also argue that these social expectations need to be thoroughly examined in order to ascertain the plausibility of norms in warfare. As a conclusion, for reasons that are both sociological and normative, I stress the political importance, within a liberal and knowledge-oriented society, of the access to facts that always need to be interpreted when making normative claims.","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122582460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-17DOI: 10.1163/21967415-BJA10020
R. Price
Some have argued for the relevance for normative ethics of empirical research in international relations on the origins and role of moral norms. Building on such arguments, the paper considers the relevance of contemporary research in moral psychology and neuroscience for the ethics of war. Research in those fields has implications for our understanding of the sources and nature of moral beliefs and judgement, and thus may shed light on efforts to morally bound violence. In this chapter I consider how such research helps us understand the norm of non-combatant immunity, and explore the implications for understanding the effectiveness of such norms and for normative practice.
{"title":"Moral Psychology, Neuroscience, and Non-Combatant Immunity","authors":"R. Price","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Some have argued for the relevance for normative ethics of empirical research in international relations on the origins and role of moral norms. Building on such arguments, the paper considers the relevance of contemporary research in moral psychology and neuroscience for the ethics of war. Research in those fields has implications for our understanding of the sources and nature of moral beliefs and judgement, and thus may shed light on efforts to morally bound violence. In this chapter I consider how such research helps us understand the norm of non-combatant immunity, and explore the implications for understanding the effectiveness of such norms and for normative practice.","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116999859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-17DOI: 10.1163/21967415-BJA10021
Chris D. Brown
There has always been a degree of tension between, on the one hand, the writings of philosophers, theologians and lawyers on the ethics of war, and, on the other, the moral approach of soldiers, those actually engaged in combat. The former base their thinking on deontological reasoning, albeit with occasional reluctant gestures towards notions such as ‘military necessity’, while the latter are by temperament consequentialist, stressing, in particular, the importance of reciprocity. This tension is controllable in the implausible context of war between liberal, Western European countries, but comes to the surface in situations where regular Western armies are in combat with the armed forces of non-liberal states, or in situations of asymmetric warfare. The question is posed – can the notion of a just war survive in the absence of reciprocity?
{"title":"Deontology, Consequentialism and Reciprocity in Contemporary Just War Thinking","authors":"Chris D. Brown","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000There has always been a degree of tension between, on the one hand, the writings of philosophers, theologians and lawyers on the ethics of war, and, on the other, the moral approach of soldiers, those actually engaged in combat. The former base their thinking on deontological reasoning, albeit with occasional reluctant gestures towards notions such as ‘military necessity’, while the latter are by temperament consequentialist, stressing, in particular, the importance of reciprocity. This tension is controllable in the implausible context of war between liberal, Western European countries, but comes to the surface in situations where regular Western armies are in combat with the armed forces of non-liberal states, or in situations of asymmetric warfare. The question is posed – can the notion of a just war survive in the absence of reciprocity?","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127932742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：