International Politics最新文献

The USA and Venezuela enjoyed a robust bilateral defense relationship for much of the twentieth century. By the 2000s, however, security cooperation had deteriorated. What explains these changes, and what were the key inflection points? Taking a descriptive methodological approach, we use official documents, public declarations, and data on arms transfers, joint military exercises, and military training, to show that the erosion of the relationship driven largely by Venezuela—specifically, its government’s anti-Americanism and counter-hegemonic aspirations in the 1999–2006 period—and was further aided by a lack of US engagement. Subsequent attempts at US reengagement have been limited and unfocused, while Venezuela has turned to other states as security cooperation providers. Ultimately, the decay of this bilateral defense relationship holds serious security implications for the Americas and offers lessons for both scholars and policymakers.

This article develops a descriptive study of the Biden administration’s 2021 decision process regarding whether to withdraw US military forces from Afghanistan. It addresses a practical question for both scholars and practitioners. How can outside observers assess a major foreign policy decision based upon contemporary public information? Observers regularly seek to determine whether a security strategy was ‘good or bad,’ and many have a vested interest in addressing such questions as or shortly after the policy decision occurred. Unfortunately, most assessments of a foreign policy decision process incorporate known outcomes, which can distort the analysis. Descriptive research provides a solution by allowing researchers to depict a decision case as it occurred. The following article describes the Biden administration’s strategic and political deliberations behind the Afghanistan withdrawal decision. It relies upon information publicly available within a year of that process. In turn, it evaluates this decision by directly comparing several major assessment ideal types: procedural, substantive, and outcome-oriented. It ends with mixed findings but argues that structured description paired with comparison across those ideal types allows scholars to identify categories and observe patterns that are often invisible both to contemporary commentary and to causal theory. Such findings are useful for contemporary judgments as well as for developing further empirical scholarship.

Structurally, Qatar and Türkiye face different International Relations challenges—Turkey is a regional middle power with significant hard power resources, while Qatar is an ambitious small state with relatively scarce military capabilities. Nevertheless, the Arab Uprisings of 2011 and the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity provided the context for a dramatic acceleration in bilateral relations. In the decade and a half since those tumultuous events sent shockwaves across the Arab world, this relationship flourished to the extent that it can be located firmly on the alignment end of the alignment-rapprochement-discord-friction continuum. This paper assesses the extent that the concept of derivative power—whereby a small state derives power by convincing a larger state to take actions that boost its interests—played a role in driving forward this relationship during the embargo of Qatar between 2017 and 2021.

Three affective phenomena epitomise the downturn in Russian–Western relations and shed light on a watershed moment—the invasion of Georgia in August 2008: contempt, fear, and hubris. Each promotes distinct appraisal patterns and action tendencies. Following a shift in the construction of Russian identity vis-à-vis Europe, elite attitudes towards the West turned contemptuous. Faced with a security crisis in the Caucasus, the perceived consequences of inaction fostered the decision to attack Georgia with overwhelming force. Exacerbating the situation, both leaders were overconfident with respect to the outcome of a military confrontation. By highlighting the behavioural manifestations of these affective responses, this article reevaluates predominant accounts of the conflict, informed by major IR theories. It demonstrates the usefulness of emotion as a lens on foreign policy, addresses questions left open by prevailing narratives, and holds lessons for the impasse that is the current security dialogue between Russia and the West.

Brexit was a major European Union crisis with acute implications for smaller European countries. Both Portugal and Finland have considerably relied on the EU as small, geographically peripheral and ‘core’ member states. The comparison of their strategic responses to Brexit shows significant ‘sheltering’ within the EU but also more pro-active strategies in specific areas. While a hedging of bets was more prominent for Portugal in the foreign policy-area, reacting to the risk of a less ‘Atlantic’ EU, for Finland it was more notorious in the political economy domain where the country lost an important ‘liberal’ ally. These original comparative findings highlight both the EU’s enduring importance for small European states and the national efforts to preserve autonomy and influence under a more volatile continental landscape. The article also advances the ongoing discussion on the strategic adjustment to Brexit by suggesting possible factors helping understanding the pursuance of different coping strategies.

Descriptive research is sometimes understood as simply compiling and presenting objective facts, or ‘telling it like it is.’ We challenge this understanding, arguing that description involves a series of subjective, value-laden decisions that may reflect, reinforce, or alternatively undermine, existing narratives and power structures; accordingly, description is fundamentally, and unavoidably, political. We illustrate this argument with respect to descriptive research on violence against civilians by comparing how three descriptive research outputs—the Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s One-Sided Violence, the Political Instability Task Force’s Genocide and Politicide, and the Targeted Mass Killings datasets—define contested concepts relating to the distinction between combatants and civilians, identification of state actors, and intent. We demonstrate how differences in these definitions manifest in different descriptive inferences about violence in Burundi in 1993, and we discuss how an understanding of description as political relates to researchers’ responsibilities as compilers and users of descriptive data.

This study aims to bridge the disciplinary gap between IR and international law in the study of conflict resolution by highlighting the sui generis nature of arbitration as a hybrid political-legal method of dispute settlement that has been lost over the years due to its overly judicialized application. It reclaims the unique nature of arbitration by demonstrating its capacity to enable state flexibility and autonomy which can be found in mediation, whilst providing a final and legally binding solution, which is commonly associated with adjudication. Utilizing the case study of the Beagle Channel arbitration between Chile and Argentina (1971–77), this study demonstrates that a key reason behind the general misuse and disuse of arbitration is the failure of states to capture its sui generis nature and instead adopt an overly judicialized approach.

The reception of the Wealth of Nations in the years after its publication reveals a wide range of interpretations of Smith’s ideas. On the one hand, Smith appealed to revolutionaries and subversives; on the other hand, he appealed to ‘conservatives’ who supported the burgeoning laissez-faire movement. By 1800, however, in intellectual circles, the ‘conservative’ Smith had largely won out. Yet, this was not the case for advocates of working-class interests. As this paper will show, reformers of the early-to-mid-19th century emphasized Smith’s sympathetic attitude towards the labouring poor, his labour theory of value and his distinction between productive and unproductive labour. Reformers turned to Smith for intellectual validation of the workers’ right to vote and often to a larger share of the national produce, hailing him as a supporter of the working classes. The backlash against the ‘subversive’ Smith was significant, with protectors of the status quo pointing to the dangers of ‘misrepresenting’ Smith’s ideas.

I read Shih’s intervention as an invitation to pay attention to relationality in not only ontological but also epistemological terms. I begin by observing that even those bodies of scholarship that focus on relationality are not always aware of our connectedness in terms of the production of ideas and knowledge about how the world works. It is essential, I argue, that studying the ways in which we are connected does not remain focused purely on material usurpation (historical materialism) or self-other relations (feminism, post-structuralism) but also encompasses the production of ideas and knowledge. Brought into an IR discussion, this is about the production of our ideas and knowledge about how the world works, which is best captured by Edward Said’ distinction between ‘origin’ versus ‘beginning’ of ideas. Whereas looking for the ‘origin’ of ideas assumes a singular source, an exploration of ‘beginnings’ takes as its starting point the eventuality that there exist multiple sources across time and space, and focuses on the study of relations of give-and-take and learning between world’s peoples.

This article proposes an alternative domestic-level explanation as to why has Brazil not developed a robust nuclear industry like India if both countries departed from similar diplomatic positions. The existing literature focuses mainly on diplomatic or geopolitical topics to address this puzzle. This research endeavor undertakes an inquiry into the intricacies of the matter through the application of Hymans' hypothesis, which delves into the contextual milieu within which scientists operate. This entails an exploration of how policymakers lend their support to scientific and technological mechanisms, thereby steering them toward the realization of their envisioned objectives. Employing a qualitative research paradigm, the findings of this study pivot upon insights gleaned from semi-structured interviews and primary source materials. The present scholarly article conducts an in-depth examination centered on the realm of Brazilian nuclear policy, with India serving as an illustrative shadow case. Notably, India is emblematic of a nation wherein scientists have aptly navigated the requisite conditions to propel the advancement of the nuclear industry. The discourse contends that the diminished influence of scientists in the policymaking continuum, coupled with the dearth of investments in science, technology, and innovation, stand as pivotal considerations for comprehending the setbacks witnessed within Brazil's pursuit of nuclear autonomy.