The paper analyzes the process of formation and development of two academic disciplines: political science and international relations. It shows that although the focus of international relations is primarily political relations, these two disciplines have developed in parallel. The peculiarity of the development of political science and international relations in the USSR / Russia is noted. Due the transformation of the political organization of the world and the convergence of domestic and foreign policy, there is a need for theoretical work on the convergence of political science and international relations.
{"title":"International Relations and Political Science: Correlation of Subject Areas","authors":"M. Lebedeva","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3856488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3856488","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyzes the process of formation and development of two academic disciplines: political science and international relations. It shows that although the focus of international relations is primarily political relations, these two disciplines have developed in parallel. The peculiarity of the development of political science and international relations in the USSR / Russia is noted. Due the transformation of the political organization of the world and the convergence of domestic and foreign policy, there is a need for theoretical work on the convergence of political science and international relations.","PeriodicalId":274998,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Relations Theory & Conflict (Topic)","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124136281","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}
This paper examines if an ancient principle, ``the enemy of my enemy is my friend,'' is a good predictor of group formation. I model coalition formation as a static network formation game with complementarities between a pair of adjacent nodes. I demonstrate that the ancient proverb is indeed a sufficient condition for the existence of a stable network that is also efficient.
{"title":"The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend: A New Condition for Stable Networks","authors":"Hideto Koizumi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3508607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3508607","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines if an ancient principle, ``the enemy of my enemy is my friend,'' is a good predictor of group formation. I model coalition formation as a static network formation game with complementarities between a pair of adjacent nodes. I demonstrate that the ancient proverb is indeed a sufficient condition for the existence of a stable network that is also efficient.","PeriodicalId":274998,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Relations Theory & Conflict (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115703563","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}
This article advances the understanding of ‘hedging’ in international politics by highlighting and examining the limits to smaller powers’ hedging behavior. Building on the line of reasoning that hedging is an outcome of regional or state-level, rather than system-level, variables, the article suggests that the room for hedging available to smaller states shrinks as great powers become more competitive and attempt to balance against one another. With an empirical focus on the post-Cold War South China Sea region, particularly the evolving behavior of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, the article demonstrates how, under the conditions of growing China–US competition, these regional states start moving from hedging to more pronounced bandwagoning vis-à-vis great powers regardless their domestic-level sociopolitical dispositions. Therefore, hedging has limits and can be envisaged as a ‘luxury’ that is inversely related to the intensity of great power balancing.
{"title":"Shrinking Room for Hedging: System-Unit Dynamics and Behaviour of Smaller Powers","authors":"A. Korolev","doi":"10.1093/IRAP/LCZ011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IRAP/LCZ011","url":null,"abstract":"This article advances the understanding of ‘hedging’ in international politics by highlighting and examining the limits to smaller powers’ hedging behavior. Building on the line of reasoning that hedging is an outcome of regional or state-level, rather than system-level, variables, the article suggests that the room for hedging available to smaller states shrinks as great powers become more competitive and attempt to balance against one another. With an empirical focus on the post-Cold War South China Sea region, particularly the evolving behavior of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, the article demonstrates how, under the conditions of growing China–US competition, these regional states start moving from hedging to more pronounced bandwagoning vis-à-vis great powers regardless their domestic-level sociopolitical dispositions. Therefore, hedging has limits and can be envisaged as a ‘luxury’ that is inversely related to the intensity of great power balancing.","PeriodicalId":274998,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Relations Theory & Conflict (Topic)","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121209037","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}
This article offers a discussion of nuclear doctrines and their significance for war, peace and stability between nuclear-armed states. The cases of India and Pakistan are analysed to show the challenges these states have faced in articulating and implementing a proper nuclear doctrine, and the implications of this for nuclear stability in the region. We argue that both the Indian and Pakistani doctrines and postures are problematic from a regional security perspective because they are either ambiguous about how to address crucial deterrence related issues, and/or demonstrate a severe mismatch between the security problems and goals they are designed to deal with, and the doctrines that conceptualize and operationalize the role of nuclear weapons in grand strategy. Consequently, as both India's and Pakistan's nuclear doctrines and postures evolve, the risks of a spiralling nuclear arms race in the subcontinent are likely to increase without a reassessment of doctrinal issues in New Delhi and Islamabad. A case is made for more clarity and less ambition from both sides in reconceptualizing their nuclear doctrines. We conclude, however, that owing to the contrasting barriers to doctrinal reorientation in each country, the likelihood of such changes being made—and the ease with which they can be made—is greater in India than in Pakistan.
{"title":"Nuclear Doctrines and Stable Strategic Relationships: The Case of South Asia","authors":"M. Shankar, T. V. Paul","doi":"10.1111/1468-2346.12503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12503","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a discussion of nuclear doctrines and their significance for war, peace and stability between nuclear-armed states. The cases of India and Pakistan are analysed to show the challenges these states have faced in articulating and implementing a proper nuclear doctrine, and the implications of this for nuclear stability in the region. We argue that both the Indian and Pakistani doctrines and postures are problematic from a regional security perspective because they are either ambiguous about how to address crucial deterrence related issues, and/or demonstrate a severe mismatch between the security problems and goals they are designed to deal with, and the doctrines that conceptualize and operationalize the role of nuclear weapons in grand strategy. Consequently, as both India's and Pakistan's nuclear doctrines and postures evolve, the risks of a spiralling nuclear arms race in the subcontinent are likely to increase without a reassessment of doctrinal issues in New Delhi and Islamabad. A case is made for more clarity and less ambition from both sides in reconceptualizing their nuclear doctrines. We conclude, however, that owing to the contrasting barriers to doctrinal reorientation in each country, the likelihood of such changes being made—and the ease with which they can be made—is greater in India than in Pakistan.","PeriodicalId":274998,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Relations Theory & Conflict (Topic)","volume":"32 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"118959660","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：