Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1177/03043754211008677
Maximilian Lakitsch
The theoretical work of Thomas Hobbes marks the dawn of political modernity and thus also the beginning of modern reasoning about governing. In his Leviathan, Hobbes creates the modern space of the political through the exclusion of the world’s social and natural abundance. This crossroads of political thinking might not least be of relevance for the Anthropocene. After all, affirming the Anthropocene returns mankind to a cosmos of infinite human–nature interrelationships, which strongly resembles Hobbes’s conceptual depiction of the premodern state of nature and its incomprehensible, contingent, and precarious world, a world that Hobbes had intended to ban for good. In this context, this article reconsiders the state of nature’s internal dynamics in its relevance for governing in the Anthropocene—at the expense of the normative claims of modernist governing. After all, embracing the complex ontologies of the Anthropocene and the state of nature disperses agency among the human and nonhuman world, which questions the idea of ethical and political accountability. Without such a reference, governing runs the risk of becoming arbitrary and thereby another shallow projection of modernist conceptions. This article develops an interpretation of political subjectivity as a reference for governing, deriving from the materialistic world of the Hobbesian state of nature. On this foundation, the article elaborates on how this reading of subjectivity reconfigures the conception of political space and how this shift affects the scope of governing.
{"title":"Hobbes in the Anthropocene: Reconsidering the State of Nature in Its Relevance for Governing","authors":"Maximilian Lakitsch","doi":"10.1177/03043754211008677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754211008677","url":null,"abstract":"The theoretical work of Thomas Hobbes marks the dawn of political modernity and thus also the beginning of modern reasoning about governing. In his Leviathan, Hobbes creates the modern space of the political through the exclusion of the world’s social and natural abundance. This crossroads of political thinking might not least be of relevance for the Anthropocene. After all, affirming the Anthropocene returns mankind to a cosmos of infinite human–nature interrelationships, which strongly resembles Hobbes’s conceptual depiction of the premodern state of nature and its incomprehensible, contingent, and precarious world, a world that Hobbes had intended to ban for good. In this context, this article reconsiders the state of nature’s internal dynamics in its relevance for governing in the Anthropocene—at the expense of the normative claims of modernist governing. After all, embracing the complex ontologies of the Anthropocene and the state of nature disperses agency among the human and nonhuman world, which questions the idea of ethical and political accountability. Without such a reference, governing runs the risk of becoming arbitrary and thereby another shallow projection of modernist conceptions. This article develops an interpretation of political subjectivity as a reference for governing, deriving from the materialistic world of the Hobbesian state of nature. On this foundation, the article elaborates on how this reading of subjectivity reconfigures the conception of political space and how this shift affects the scope of governing.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"46 1","pages":"3 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/03043754211008677","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46387735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1177/03043754211021270
Carlos Solar
Despite international conventions and legislation, evermore frequently we witness the hundreds of thousands of people arrested, detained and abducted against their will from across all sorts of life and geographical contexts (i.e., journalists in Yemen, human rights defenders in Pakistan or campaigners in Myanmar.) By definition, enforced disappearances occur when three elements combine: deprivation of liberty against the will of the person; involvement of government officials, at least by acquiescence; and a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person (UNGA, 2010). In practice, however, forced disappearances are the outcome of complex and intertwined factors, usually involving unaccountable parties avoiding enforceable legislation (Rozema, 2011). Against this backdrop, researchers have begun to pay greater attention to state and non-state sanctioned disappearances. This commentary surveys recent data on enforced disappearance and suggests ways to help expand the knowledge frontier. Iron-fist security restrictions implemented worldwide (and more so in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic) have seemingly catalysed dehumanising forms of routinised and often authorised violence. From 2012 to 2020, the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances has received 895 requests for urgent action concerning incidents in member states, with moth of them coming from Iraq, Mexico, Colombia and Honduras. In a vast number of cases, family members, close contacts or representatives of the disappeared persons blame the poor and ineffective search and investigation strategies put up by the public authorities (UNGA, 2020). The extent of the problem is wide and far reaching. Disappearances in cross-border contexts, for example, reveal states’ failure to protect asylum seekers, refugees and internally displaced and stateless persons. In Syria, from March 2011 to August 2019, at least 144,889 individuals were detained or forcibly disappeared by the main actors at conflict, that is, the regime forces, militias, Islamist groups, factions of the opposition, and foreign criminals and combatants (SNHR, 2019). Migrants and refugees exiting Central American countries such as El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala heading north to Mexico and the United States also disappear. Many times, migrants are exposed to violent situations, including the death, forced disappearance, and kidnapping of relatives. They are also threatened with extortion, and many have been previous victims of assault and torture (Doctors Without Borders, 2020). It is estimated that more than 5500 people have disappeared in the United State-Mexico border since the mid-1990s, along many more found dead on their attempts to cross “dangerous wilderness, perilous
{"title":"Forced Disappearances and the Inequalities of a Global Crime","authors":"Carlos Solar","doi":"10.1177/03043754211021270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754211021270","url":null,"abstract":"Despite international conventions and legislation, evermore frequently we witness the hundreds of thousands of people arrested, detained and abducted against their will from across all sorts of life and geographical contexts (i.e., journalists in Yemen, human rights defenders in Pakistan or campaigners in Myanmar.) By definition, enforced disappearances occur when three elements combine: deprivation of liberty against the will of the person; involvement of government officials, at least by acquiescence; and a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person (UNGA, 2010). In practice, however, forced disappearances are the outcome of complex and intertwined factors, usually involving unaccountable parties avoiding enforceable legislation (Rozema, 2011). Against this backdrop, researchers have begun to pay greater attention to state and non-state sanctioned disappearances. This commentary surveys recent data on enforced disappearance and suggests ways to help expand the knowledge frontier. Iron-fist security restrictions implemented worldwide (and more so in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic) have seemingly catalysed dehumanising forms of routinised and often authorised violence. From 2012 to 2020, the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances has received 895 requests for urgent action concerning incidents in member states, with moth of them coming from Iraq, Mexico, Colombia and Honduras. In a vast number of cases, family members, close contacts or representatives of the disappeared persons blame the poor and ineffective search and investigation strategies put up by the public authorities (UNGA, 2020). The extent of the problem is wide and far reaching. Disappearances in cross-border contexts, for example, reveal states’ failure to protect asylum seekers, refugees and internally displaced and stateless persons. In Syria, from March 2011 to August 2019, at least 144,889 individuals were detained or forcibly disappeared by the main actors at conflict, that is, the regime forces, militias, Islamist groups, factions of the opposition, and foreign criminals and combatants (SNHR, 2019). Migrants and refugees exiting Central American countries such as El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala heading north to Mexico and the United States also disappear. Many times, migrants are exposed to violent situations, including the death, forced disappearance, and kidnapping of relatives. They are also threatened with extortion, and many have been previous victims of assault and torture (Doctors Without Borders, 2020). It is estimated that more than 5500 people have disappeared in the United State-Mexico border since the mid-1990s, along many more found dead on their attempts to cross “dangerous wilderness, perilous","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"46 1","pages":"17 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/03043754211021270","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47112837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1177/03043754211005887
N. N. Esentürk
{"title":"EU Powers Under External Pressure: How the EU’s External Actions Alter Its Internal Structures","authors":"N. N. Esentürk","doi":"10.1177/03043754211005887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754211005887","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"46 1","pages":"23 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/03043754211005887","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46042426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1177/0304375421999175
T. Beaumont
When we occupy the spaces of war memorials, we respond with certain bodily comportments that relay the “truth” of those killed by war violence. Through a phenomenological examination of embodied responses to two war memorials, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, I argue that social institutions employ bodies as a means of legitimizing a violence that is seen as redemptive. More specifically, I demonstrate how the redemptive quality of certain types of violence is an assumption replicated in social practices where individuals have learned the particular bodily skills of discourses surrounding redemptive violence.
{"title":"The Phenomenology of Redemptive Violence","authors":"T. Beaumont","doi":"10.1177/0304375421999175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375421999175","url":null,"abstract":"When we occupy the spaces of war memorials, we respond with certain bodily comportments that relay the “truth” of those killed by war violence. Through a phenomenological examination of embodied responses to two war memorials, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, I argue that social institutions employ bodies as a means of legitimizing a violence that is seen as redemptive. More specifically, I demonstrate how the redemptive quality of certain types of violence is an assumption replicated in social practices where individuals have learned the particular bodily skills of discourses surrounding redemptive violence.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"45 1","pages":"184 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0304375421999175","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45991867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1177/0304375421989572
J. Barkin, L. Sjoberg
What is missing from the debate about the “end of IR theory” or the rejection of the now infamous “isms”? Queer theory. Those who declare that IR theory is over and those who see it as making a comeback; those who reject the “isms” and those who champion them seem like they are on opposite sides of a very wide spectrum. This article argues, however, that all is not as it seems. Instead, the various “sides” of the debates about the futures of IR all take for granted a common set of understandings of what research is, what research success is, that research success is valuable, and how those things predict the futures of IR. Their only significant disagreement is about how they see the story unfolding. We disagree on the result as well, but the root of our disagreement is in the terms of the debates. We see IR as failing in two ways: failing to find a self-satisfactory grand narrative and failing to achieve its necessarily impossible goals. The current state-of-the-field literature fights the failing of IR theory—even those who see it as over memorialize its successes. We argue that failure is not to be fought but to be celebrated and actively participated in. Analyzing IR’s failures using queer methodology and queer analysis, we argue that recognizing IR’s failure can revive IR as an enterprise.
{"title":"The Queer Art of Failed IR?","authors":"J. Barkin, L. Sjoberg","doi":"10.1177/0304375421989572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375421989572","url":null,"abstract":"What is missing from the debate about the “end of IR theory” or the rejection of the now infamous “isms”? Queer theory. Those who declare that IR theory is over and those who see it as making a comeback; those who reject the “isms” and those who champion them seem like they are on opposite sides of a very wide spectrum. This article argues, however, that all is not as it seems. Instead, the various “sides” of the debates about the futures of IR all take for granted a common set of understandings of what research is, what research success is, that research success is valuable, and how those things predict the futures of IR. Their only significant disagreement is about how they see the story unfolding. We disagree on the result as well, but the root of our disagreement is in the terms of the debates. We see IR as failing in two ways: failing to find a self-satisfactory grand narrative and failing to achieve its necessarily impossible goals. The current state-of-the-field literature fights the failing of IR theory—even those who see it as over memorialize its successes. We argue that failure is not to be fought but to be celebrated and actively participated in. Analyzing IR’s failures using queer methodology and queer analysis, we argue that recognizing IR’s failure can revive IR as an enterprise.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"45 1","pages":"167 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0304375421989572","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46143644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-15DOI: 10.1177/0304375420929586
Maiken Gelardi
In the globalizing international relations (IR) debate, the “West” and “Global South” have conventionally been presented as fundamentally different categories. This has disguised any interconnectedness between the two categories and variation within them. What does this mean for the quest for “Global South theorizing?” In order to address this binary logic in the globalizing IR literature, I analyze the case of human security as an example of Global South theorizing. First, I disentangle the Western/Global South origins and inflection of the human security concept and find that there is Global South agency related to its conceptual development, but also Western inflections. Second, I examine and compare the apparent rejection of the concept in two regions of the Global South—Southeast Asia and Latin America—and find both similarities and differences in their disinterest in engaging with the concept. Curiously, the similarities lie in the positionality of these regions and their difference to the West. In this way, the article points to the danger of using these categories in a manner that reemphasizes binary logics and their constitutive effects, and it exposes the complexity regarding what we consider Global South and Global South theorizing.
{"title":"Blurring Borders: Investigating the Western/Global South Identity of Human Security","authors":"Maiken Gelardi","doi":"10.1177/0304375420929586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420929586","url":null,"abstract":"In the globalizing international relations (IR) debate, the “West” and “Global South” have conventionally been presented as fundamentally different categories. This has disguised any interconnectedness between the two categories and variation within them. What does this mean for the quest for “Global South theorizing?” In order to address this binary logic in the globalizing IR literature, I analyze the case of human security as an example of Global South theorizing. First, I disentangle the Western/Global South origins and inflection of the human security concept and find that there is Global South agency related to its conceptual development, but also Western inflections. Second, I examine and compare the apparent rejection of the concept in two regions of the Global South—Southeast Asia and Latin America—and find both similarities and differences in their disinterest in engaging with the concept. Curiously, the similarities lie in the positionality of these regions and their difference to the West. In this way, the article points to the danger of using these categories in a manner that reemphasizes binary logics and their constitutive effects, and it exposes the complexity regarding what we consider Global South and Global South theorizing.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"45 1","pages":"143 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0304375420929586","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49070464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-06DOI: 10.1177/0304375420921086
Ziya Öniş, Mustafa Kutlay
This article sketches an analytical framework to account for new patterns of global governance. We characterize the emergent postliberal international order as a new age of hybridity, which signifies that no overriding set of paradigms dominate global governance. Instead, we have a complex web of competing norms, which creates new opportunities as well as major elements of instability, uncertainty, and anxiety. In the age of hybridity, non-Western great powers (led by China) play an increasingly counter-hegemonic role in shaping new style multilateralism—ontologically fragmented, normatively inconsistent, and institutionally incoherent. We argue that democracy paradox constitutes the fundamental issue at stake in this new age of hybridity. On the one hand, global power transitions seem to enable “democratization of globalization” by opening more space to the hitherto excluded non-Western states to make their voices heard. On the other hand, emerging pluralism in global governance is accompanied by the regression of liberal democracy and spread of illiberalism that enfeeble “globalization of democratization.”
{"title":"The New Age of Hybridity and Clash of Norms: China, BRICS, and Challenges of Global Governance in a Postliberal International Order","authors":"Ziya Öniş, Mustafa Kutlay","doi":"10.1177/0304375420921086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420921086","url":null,"abstract":"This article sketches an analytical framework to account for new patterns of global governance. We characterize the emergent postliberal international order as a new age of hybridity, which signifies that no overriding set of paradigms dominate global governance. Instead, we have a complex web of competing norms, which creates new opportunities as well as major elements of instability, uncertainty, and anxiety. In the age of hybridity, non-Western great powers (led by China) play an increasingly counter-hegemonic role in shaping new style multilateralism—ontologically fragmented, normatively inconsistent, and institutionally incoherent. We argue that democracy paradox constitutes the fundamental issue at stake in this new age of hybridity. On the one hand, global power transitions seem to enable “democratization of globalization” by opening more space to the hitherto excluded non-Western states to make their voices heard. On the other hand, emerging pluralism in global governance is accompanied by the regression of liberal democracy and spread of illiberalism that enfeeble “globalization of democratization.”","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"45 1","pages":"123 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0304375420921086","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44659249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1177/0304375420938284
David Olsson
There is an ongoing debate in the research literature on whether the neoliberal economic rationalities permeating public administration, policy, and governance across much of the world provide the means necessary for promoting sustainable development. Parallel to this debate, it has been suggested that resilience thinking, a notion with growing policy importance, could either reproduce the neoliberal mainstream or challenge it at its core, depending on the modes of resilience thinking emerging from practice. Taking the position that new economic rationalities are needed, this study examines how transformative modes of resilience thinking that emerge from practice create tensions that can support a transformation toward the economic rationalities of the so-called doughnut economics, an alternative economic model that outlines a vision and a path toward ecological and social sustainability.
{"title":"The Transformative Potential of Resilience Thinking: How It Could Transform Unsustainable Economic Rationalities","authors":"David Olsson","doi":"10.1177/0304375420938284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420938284","url":null,"abstract":"There is an ongoing debate in the research literature on whether the neoliberal economic rationalities permeating public administration, policy, and governance across much of the world provide the means necessary for promoting sustainable development. Parallel to this debate, it has been suggested that resilience thinking, a notion with growing policy importance, could either reproduce the neoliberal mainstream or challenge it at its core, depending on the modes of resilience thinking emerging from practice. Taking the position that new economic rationalities are needed, this study examines how transformative modes of resilience thinking that emerge from practice create tensions that can support a transformation toward the economic rationalities of the so-called doughnut economics, an alternative economic model that outlines a vision and a path toward ecological and social sustainability.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"45 1","pages":"102 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0304375420938284","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48438226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1177/0304375420931706
Filippos Proedrou
Scholarly literature has recently developed the notions of Anthropocene geopolitics and planetary security. How these relate to and whether they inform states’ foreign policy, however, remains a largely underdeveloped issue. This article goes some way toward addressing this gap both theoretically and empirically. Theoretically, it unpacks how traditional and Anthropocene geopolitics diverge in their approach toward the security repercussions of climate change and teases out the emanating foreign policy implications. These revolve around different levels of climate ambition, divergent approaches to fossil energy geopolitics, and differing weighting of planetary security versus mainstream geopolitical threats. Against this theoretical background, this article empirically zooms in on the EU case to explore which geopolitical mindset guides EU’s pursuit of climate change concerns and their incorporation in the EU foreign policy design. The analysis finds that, despite its comprehensive foreign climate policy initiatives, the EU remains fixed to a traditional geopolitical mindset and a foreign policy that underappreciates planetary security threats. This article subsequently operationalizes a foreign policy design informed by the Anthropocene geopolitics approach and sketches what it would entail.
{"title":"Anthropocene Geopolitics and Foreign Policy: Exploring the Link in the EU Case","authors":"Filippos Proedrou","doi":"10.1177/0304375420931706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420931706","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly literature has recently developed the notions of Anthropocene geopolitics and planetary security. How these relate to and whether they inform states’ foreign policy, however, remains a largely underdeveloped issue. This article goes some way toward addressing this gap both theoretically and empirically. Theoretically, it unpacks how traditional and Anthropocene geopolitics diverge in their approach toward the security repercussions of climate change and teases out the emanating foreign policy implications. These revolve around different levels of climate ambition, divergent approaches to fossil energy geopolitics, and differing weighting of planetary security versus mainstream geopolitical threats. Against this theoretical background, this article empirically zooms in on the EU case to explore which geopolitical mindset guides EU’s pursuit of climate change concerns and their incorporation in the EU foreign policy design. The analysis finds that, despite its comprehensive foreign climate policy initiatives, the EU remains fixed to a traditional geopolitical mindset and a foreign policy that underappreciates planetary security threats. This article subsequently operationalizes a foreign policy design informed by the Anthropocene geopolitics approach and sketches what it would entail.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"45 1","pages":"101 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0304375420931706","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43538049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-27DOI: 10.1177/0304375419898334
David A. Hughes
International Relations (IR) scholars uncritically accept the official narrative regarding the events of 9/11 and refuse to examine the massive body of evidence generated by the 9/11 truth movement. Nevertheless, as calls for a new inquiry into the events of 9/11 continue to mount, with the International 9/11 Consensus Panel and World Trade Centre Building 7 Evaluation inquiries having recently published their findings, and with a U.S. Federal Grand Jury on 9/11 having been announced, now would be an opportune moment for IR scholars to start taking the claims of 9/11 truth seriously. A survey of the 9/11 truth literature reveals that the official 9/11 narrative cannot be supported at multiple levels. Two planes did not bring down three towers in New York. There is no hard evidence that Muslims were responsible for 9/11 other than in a patsy capacity. Various U.S. government agencies appear to have had foreknowledge of the events and to have covered up evidence. Important questions regarding the hijacked planes need answering, as do questions about the complicity of the mainstream media in 9/11. IR scholars avoid looking at evidence regarding the events of 9/11 for several reasons. They may be taken in by the weaponized term, “conspiracy theory.” A taboo on questioning the ruling structures of society means that individuals do not wish to fall outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion. Entertaining the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag requires Westerners to reject fundamental assumptions that they have been socialized to accept since birth. The “War on Terror” has created a neo-McCarthyite environment in which freedom to speak out has been stifled. Yet, if IR scholars are serious about truth, the first place they need to start is 9/11 truth.
{"title":"9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline","authors":"David A. Hughes","doi":"10.1177/0304375419898334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375419898334","url":null,"abstract":"International Relations (IR) scholars uncritically accept the official narrative regarding the events of 9/11 and refuse to examine the massive body of evidence generated by the 9/11 truth movement. Nevertheless, as calls for a new inquiry into the events of 9/11 continue to mount, with the International 9/11 Consensus Panel and World Trade Centre Building 7 Evaluation inquiries having recently published their findings, and with a U.S. Federal Grand Jury on 9/11 having been announced, now would be an opportune moment for IR scholars to start taking the claims of 9/11 truth seriously. A survey of the 9/11 truth literature reveals that the official 9/11 narrative cannot be supported at multiple levels. Two planes did not bring down three towers in New York. There is no hard evidence that Muslims were responsible for 9/11 other than in a patsy capacity. Various U.S. government agencies appear to have had foreknowledge of the events and to have covered up evidence. Important questions regarding the hijacked planes need answering, as do questions about the complicity of the mainstream media in 9/11. IR scholars avoid looking at evidence regarding the events of 9/11 for several reasons. They may be taken in by the weaponized term, “conspiracy theory.” A taboo on questioning the ruling structures of society means that individuals do not wish to fall outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion. Entertaining the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag requires Westerners to reject fundamental assumptions that they have been socialized to accept since birth. The “War on Terror” has created a neo-McCarthyite environment in which freedom to speak out has been stifled. Yet, if IR scholars are serious about truth, the first place they need to start is 9/11 truth.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":"45 1","pages":"55 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0304375419898334","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45995589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：