Pub Date : 2022-09-06DOI: 10.1177/13540661221117058
Anette Stimmer, Jess Gliserman
Despite morality’s important role in international relations, we still lack a compelling way to study it. Some scholars define norms as moral in nature but fail to define morality or conceptualize it too narrowly. We address this problem by defining morality subjectively, allowing us to differentiate it from norms and study its impact on decisions of international significance. To do so, we adapt the moral convictions concept developed by psychologists to qualitative, elite-focused political research. Actors with moral convictions rely upon their individually held beliefs about fundamental right and wrong, whereas norm-followers look outward to community expectations. Morality requires sincere belief and weakens social influences. The September 2019 Brexit rebellion is an ideal case because it endangered rebels’ careers, rendering material self-interest an unlikely motive. This allows us to investigate the role of norms and moral principles. Based on interviews with British Members of Parliament (MPs) and text analysis, we find that community norms and personal moral principles interact: when existing norms give unclear guidance and identification with their in-group weakens, actors are likely to rely on their own principles to interpret norms. Morality can affect which norms matter but does not negate their influence altogether: pre-existing norms channel and constrain morality and its consequences. Many MPs moralized existing norms related to democratic decision-making, which mitigated some consequences of moralization, such as intolerance toward those with opposing views. This new conceptual and methodological approach thus helps to disentangle ideational factors and understand their influence on decisions of international significance.
{"title":"Disentangling norms, morality, and principles: the September 2019 Brexit rebellion","authors":"Anette Stimmer, Jess Gliserman","doi":"10.1177/13540661221117058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221117058","url":null,"abstract":"Despite morality’s important role in international relations, we still lack a compelling way to study it. Some scholars define norms as moral in nature but fail to define morality or conceptualize it too narrowly. We address this problem by defining morality subjectively, allowing us to differentiate it from norms and study its impact on decisions of international significance. To do so, we adapt the moral convictions concept developed by psychologists to qualitative, elite-focused political research. Actors with moral convictions rely upon their individually held beliefs about fundamental right and wrong, whereas norm-followers look outward to community expectations. Morality requires sincere belief and weakens social influences. The September 2019 Brexit rebellion is an ideal case because it endangered rebels’ careers, rendering material self-interest an unlikely motive. This allows us to investigate the role of norms and moral principles. Based on interviews with British Members of Parliament (MPs) and text analysis, we find that community norms and personal moral principles interact: when existing norms give unclear guidance and identification with their in-group weakens, actors are likely to rely on their own principles to interpret norms. Morality can affect which norms matter but does not negate their influence altogether: pre-existing norms channel and constrain morality and its consequences. Many MPs moralized existing norms related to democratic decision-making, which mitigated some consequences of moralization, such as intolerance toward those with opposing views. This new conceptual and methodological approach thus helps to disentangle ideational factors and understand their influence on decisions of international significance.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"28 1","pages":"955 - 982"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49165729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01Epub Date: 2022-06-06DOI: 10.1177/13540661221095970
Anastasia Shesterinina
What accounts for overarching trajectories of civil wars? This article develops an account of civil war as a social process that connects dynamics of conflict from pre- to post-war periods through evolving interactions between nonstate, state, civilian, and external actors involved. It traces these dynamics to the mobilization and organization of nascent nonstate armed groups before the war, which can induce state repression and in some settings escalation of tensions through radicalization of actors, militarization of tactics, and polarization of societies, propelled by internal divisions and external support. Whether armed groups form from a small, clandestine core of dedicated recruits, broader networks, social movements, and/or fragmentation within the regime has consequences for their internal and external relations during the war. However, not only path-dependent but also endogenous dynamics shape overarching trajectories of civil wars. During the war, armed groups develop cohesion and fragment in the context of evolving internal politics, including socialization of fighters, institution-building in the areas that they control, which civilians can collectively resist, competition and cooperation with other nonstate and state forces, and external influence. After the war, armed groups transform to participate in continuing conflict and violence in different ways in interaction with multiple actors. This analysis highlights the contingency of civil wars and suggests that future research should focus on how relevant actors form and transform as they relate to one another to understand linkages between conflict dynamics over time and on continuities and discontinuities in these dynamics to grasp overarching trajectories of civil wars.
{"title":"Civil war as a social process: actors and dynamics from pre- to post-war.","authors":"Anastasia Shesterinina","doi":"10.1177/13540661221095970","DOIUrl":"10.1177/13540661221095970","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What accounts for overarching trajectories of civil wars? This article develops an account of civil war as a social process that connects dynamics of conflict from pre- to post-war periods through evolving interactions between nonstate, state, civilian, and external actors involved. It traces these dynamics to the mobilization and organization of nascent nonstate armed groups before the war, which can induce state repression and in some settings escalation of tensions through radicalization of actors, militarization of tactics, and polarization of societies, propelled by internal divisions and external support. Whether armed groups form from a small, clandestine core of dedicated recruits, broader networks, social movements, and/or fragmentation within the regime has consequences for their internal and external relations during the war. However, not only path-dependent but also endogenous dynamics shape overarching trajectories of civil wars. During the war, armed groups develop cohesion and fragment in the context of evolving internal politics, including socialization of fighters, institution-building in the areas that they control, which civilians can collectively resist, competition and cooperation with other nonstate and state forces, and external influence. After the war, armed groups transform to participate in continuing conflict and violence in different ways in interaction with multiple actors. This analysis highlights the contingency of civil wars and suggests that future research should focus on how relevant actors form and transform as they relate to one another to understand linkages between conflict dynamics over time and on continuities and discontinuities in these dynamics to grasp overarching trajectories of civil wars.</p>","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"28 3","pages":"538-562"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9373192/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9108146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/13540661221117029
H. Boon
How should one understand the construction of a state’s identity in the international system—its international identity? In this article, I attempt to provide richer answers. Drawing insights from social psychology, specifically Social Identity Theory and Identity Theory, I provide a micro-account of identity construction to better specify the mechanisms and logics through which international identity is constructed. This framework proposes the following general arguments about international identity formation. First, the construction of international identity is interpreted as a process of role negotiation between the state Self and relevant Other, animated by the mechanisms of self-categorization, alter’s casting, and role appraisal. Second, the collective motivations of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-consistency drive state identity change or continuity. As a plausibility probe, I apply the framework to a current analysis of China’s construction of an international identity as a “responsible” power in recent years, with a corresponding focus on the United States as the primary Other.
{"title":"International identity construction: China’s pursuit of the responsible power identity and the American Other","authors":"H. Boon","doi":"10.1177/13540661221117029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221117029","url":null,"abstract":"How should one understand the construction of a state’s identity in the international system—its international identity? In this article, I attempt to provide richer answers. Drawing insights from social psychology, specifically Social Identity Theory and Identity Theory, I provide a micro-account of identity construction to better specify the mechanisms and logics through which international identity is constructed. This framework proposes the following general arguments about international identity formation. First, the construction of international identity is interpreted as a process of role negotiation between the state Self and relevant Other, animated by the mechanisms of self-categorization, alter’s casting, and role appraisal. Second, the collective motivations of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-consistency drive state identity change or continuity. As a plausibility probe, I apply the framework to a current analysis of China’s construction of an international identity as a “responsible” power in recent years, with a corresponding focus on the United States as the primary Other.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"28 1","pages":"808 - 833"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46938611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-24DOI: 10.1177/13540661221118787
A. King
The claim that transitions in international order are not only products of transitions in power, but also products of transitions in shared ideas is now relatively uncontroversial in the International Relations literature. Yet persistent gaps remain in understanding how ideas are shared, and which states play a role in sharing an international order’s ideas. This paper demonstrates that ideas are shared through social, interactive processes, which involve both superordinate states and subordinate ones. Nevertheless, as a result of their unequal power, subordinate state agency is typically expressed when subordinate states operate in conjunction with superordinate ones, a finding that poses empirical challenges for studying subordinate states’ ideas and their order-shaping role. To resolve this challenge, the paper explores how a pair of superordinate and subordinate states – the United States and the Republic of China – operated in conjunction with one another to shape the transition to a post-WWII order at Bretton Woods. It examines cases of idea convergence and divergence between the United States and China; carefully disentangles the conscious and unconscious drivers of idea convergence; and highlights three distinct mechanisms – amplifying, grafting and resistance by appropriation – through which subordinate states shape a changing order’s shared ideas.
{"title":"Power, shared ideas and order transition: China, the United States, and the creation of the Bretton Woods order","authors":"A. King","doi":"10.1177/13540661221118787","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221118787","url":null,"abstract":"The claim that transitions in international order are not only products of transitions in power, but also products of transitions in shared ideas is now relatively uncontroversial in the International Relations literature. Yet persistent gaps remain in understanding how ideas are shared, and which states play a role in sharing an international order’s ideas. This paper demonstrates that ideas are shared through social, interactive processes, which involve both superordinate states and subordinate ones. Nevertheless, as a result of their unequal power, subordinate state agency is typically expressed when subordinate states operate in conjunction with superordinate ones, a finding that poses empirical challenges for studying subordinate states’ ideas and their order-shaping role. To resolve this challenge, the paper explores how a pair of superordinate and subordinate states – the United States and the Republic of China – operated in conjunction with one another to shape the transition to a post-WWII order at Bretton Woods. It examines cases of idea convergence and divergence between the United States and China; carefully disentangles the conscious and unconscious drivers of idea convergence; and highlights three distinct mechanisms – amplifying, grafting and resistance by appropriation – through which subordinate states shape a changing order’s shared ideas.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"28 1","pages":"910 - 933"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41718729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-23DOI: 10.1177/13540661221114370
Natalya Naqvi
In the aftermath of recent crisis, national governments across the global south increasingly see state ownership and control of finance as a vital public policy tool. What explains variation in state control of finance in the wake of crisis? Interventionist policies can elicit disinvestment or exit threats from private financial actors if they limit profitability. When disinvestment threats are credible, policymakers may rule out reform for fear of devastating economic consequences. I argue that the credibility of disinvestment threats is conditioned by two key variables, the resilience of the national economy to capital flight, which affects the level of damage capital flight will inflict, and global financial liquidity, which can be used to undercut domestic disinvestment threats. These arguments are developed through comparative case studies of cross-national and over-time variation in the scale and scope of public development banking in Brazil and South Africa in the wake of the 2008 crisis.
{"title":"Economic crisis, global financial cycles and state control of finance: public development banking in Brazil and South Africa","authors":"Natalya Naqvi","doi":"10.1177/13540661221114370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221114370","url":null,"abstract":"In the aftermath of recent crisis, national governments across the global south increasingly see state ownership and control of finance as a vital public policy tool. What explains variation in state control of finance in the wake of crisis? Interventionist policies can elicit disinvestment or exit threats from private financial actors if they limit profitability. When disinvestment threats are credible, policymakers may rule out reform for fear of devastating economic consequences. I argue that the credibility of disinvestment threats is conditioned by two key variables, the resilience of the national economy to capital flight, which affects the level of damage capital flight will inflict, and global financial liquidity, which can be used to undercut domestic disinvestment threats. These arguments are developed through comparative case studies of cross-national and over-time variation in the scale and scope of public development banking in Brazil and South Africa in the wake of the 2008 crisis.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"29 1","pages":"283 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42792129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-23DOI: 10.1177/13540661221115961
Miles M. Evers
How do policymakers discover their energy security interests abroad? Conventional wisdom assumes states have an inherent interest in securing an affordable and steady supply of oil. In this paper, I show that policymakers often fail to realize such vital interests on their own. Instead, multinational actors like international oil corporations (IOCs) educate policymakers on their state’s security interests abroad. By integrating prior scholarship on corporate power with insights on lobbying in American politics, I theorize that multinational corporations like IOCs can influence security policy when two conditions are met: first, policymakers demand information on security policy because of issue complexities, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and structural holes in the international system; and second, these corporations possess social ties that grant them the access, trust, and legitimacy to supply those policymakers with information. In the context of energy security, IOCs provide information on foreign sources of oil, threats posed to access, and anticipatory strategies for protecting access. I apply the theory to the origins of U.S. lend-lease aid to Saudi Arabia in 1943. Through sequential analysis, process-tracing, and comparative counterfactual reasoning, I argue an American IOC hastened U.S. interests in securing Saudi oil by using its ties to lobby the Roosevelt Administration at a time when the Administration lacked information on the country. The theory and findings broaden the state-centric view of energy security, contribute new evidence to historiography on US–Saudi relations, and fill an important gap in our understanding of corporate lobbying in security policy.
{"title":"Discovering the prize: information, lobbying, and the origins of US–Saudi security relations","authors":"Miles M. Evers","doi":"10.1177/13540661221115961","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221115961","url":null,"abstract":"How do policymakers discover their energy security interests abroad? Conventional wisdom assumes states have an inherent interest in securing an affordable and steady supply of oil. In this paper, I show that policymakers often fail to realize such vital interests on their own. Instead, multinational actors like international oil corporations (IOCs) educate policymakers on their state’s security interests abroad. By integrating prior scholarship on corporate power with insights on lobbying in American politics, I theorize that multinational corporations like IOCs can influence security policy when two conditions are met: first, policymakers demand information on security policy because of issue complexities, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and structural holes in the international system; and second, these corporations possess social ties that grant them the access, trust, and legitimacy to supply those policymakers with information. In the context of energy security, IOCs provide information on foreign sources of oil, threats posed to access, and anticipatory strategies for protecting access. I apply the theory to the origins of U.S. lend-lease aid to Saudi Arabia in 1943. Through sequential analysis, process-tracing, and comparative counterfactual reasoning, I argue an American IOC hastened U.S. interests in securing Saudi oil by using its ties to lobby the Roosevelt Administration at a time when the Administration lacked information on the country. The theory and findings broaden the state-centric view of energy security, contribute new evidence to historiography on US–Saudi relations, and fill an important gap in our understanding of corporate lobbying in security policy.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"29 1","pages":"104 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48288488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-16DOI: 10.1177/13540661221117051
Lennart Maschmeyer
The Russian-sponsored influence campaign targeting the 2016 US Presidential Elections surprised policy-makers and scholars, highlighting a gap in theories of (cyber) power. Russia had used information technologies to project power, yet more subtly than prevailing militarized conceptions of cyber power predicted. Rather than causing damage and disruption, it turned sources of American power into vulnerabilities. Recent scholarship emphasizes this mechanism’s technological novelty. Instead, I argue this campaign demonstrated the importance of an undertheorized instrument of power: subversion. Integrating Intelligence scholarship and International Relations theory, this article develops an innovative theory of subversion as reverse structural power. Structural power shapes structures of interaction and the capacities of structural positions to the benefit of the holder of such power. Subversion reverses these benefits into harms. It exploits vulnerabilities in structures to secretly manipulate them, leveraging the capacities of structural positions to produce outcomes neither expected nor intended by the holders of structural power. Traditional subversion targets social structures, while cyber operations target sociotechnical structures: namely, Information Communications Technologies (ICTs) embedded in modern societies. The targeted structures differ, yet both rely on subversive techniques of exploitation that reverse structural power. Cyber operations are means of subversion. This theory helps explain two unresolved issues in cybersecurity: the capability–vulnerability paradox and the outsize role of non-state actors. Finally, I demonstrate the theory’s utility in a plausibility probe, examining the 2016 Election Interference Campaign. It shows this campaign did not use new “weapons,” but rather integrated traditional and sociotechnical means of subversion.
{"title":"Subversion, cyber operations, and reverse structural power in world politics","authors":"Lennart Maschmeyer","doi":"10.1177/13540661221117051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221117051","url":null,"abstract":"The Russian-sponsored influence campaign targeting the 2016 US Presidential Elections surprised policy-makers and scholars, highlighting a gap in theories of (cyber) power. Russia had used information technologies to project power, yet more subtly than prevailing militarized conceptions of cyber power predicted. Rather than causing damage and disruption, it turned sources of American power into vulnerabilities. Recent scholarship emphasizes this mechanism’s technological novelty. Instead, I argue this campaign demonstrated the importance of an undertheorized instrument of power: subversion. Integrating Intelligence scholarship and International Relations theory, this article develops an innovative theory of subversion as reverse structural power. Structural power shapes structures of interaction and the capacities of structural positions to the benefit of the holder of such power. Subversion reverses these benefits into harms. It exploits vulnerabilities in structures to secretly manipulate them, leveraging the capacities of structural positions to produce outcomes neither expected nor intended by the holders of structural power. Traditional subversion targets social structures, while cyber operations target sociotechnical structures: namely, Information Communications Technologies (ICTs) embedded in modern societies. The targeted structures differ, yet both rely on subversive techniques of exploitation that reverse structural power. Cyber operations are means of subversion. This theory helps explain two unresolved issues in cybersecurity: the capability–vulnerability paradox and the outsize role of non-state actors. Finally, I demonstrate the theory’s utility in a plausibility probe, examining the 2016 Election Interference Campaign. It shows this campaign did not use new “weapons,” but rather integrated traditional and sociotechnical means of subversion.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"29 1","pages":"79 - 103"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45812708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-11DOI: 10.1177/13540661221115957
Tobias Berger
This article investigates the contribution of decolonising states to the nascent international order emerging after the end of World War II. More precisely, it investigates the Indian contribution to the emerging international human rights regime, focussing on two key contributions: the advocacy for a strong supranational authority endowed with substantial enforcement mechanisms for the realisation of human rights and the equally strong defence of a bifurcation of civil-political and socio-economic rights into two treaties. Both contributions have been largely ignored within International Relations – and where they have been acknowledged, they have been subsumed into either narratives of liberal progress (as in the case of human rights enforcement) or Cold War rivalry (as in the case of a separation of the two Human Rights Covenants). In contrast, this paper seeks to shed light on the agency of Indian diplomats and politicians. It shows how their positions were neither simply replications of pre-existing scripts nor bare executions of superpower preferences. Instead, they were responses to the challenges of becoming a post-colonial state in a still overwhelmingly imperial world. Two challenges stood out: the definition of citizenship in light of internal diversity and a widely dispersed diaspora and the challenge of development against the backdrop of highly unequal global economic relations. In this article, I trace the movement of key protagonists between the Constituent Assembly and the United Nations to show how they were engaged in a project of postcolonial worldmaking, which required the simultaneous transformation of domestic and international order.
{"title":"Worldmaking from the margins: interactions between domestic and international ordering in mid-20th-century India","authors":"Tobias Berger","doi":"10.1177/13540661221115957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221115957","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the contribution of decolonising states to the nascent international order emerging after the end of World War II. More precisely, it investigates the Indian contribution to the emerging international human rights regime, focussing on two key contributions: the advocacy for a strong supranational authority endowed with substantial enforcement mechanisms for the realisation of human rights and the equally strong defence of a bifurcation of civil-political and socio-economic rights into two treaties. Both contributions have been largely ignored within International Relations – and where they have been acknowledged, they have been subsumed into either narratives of liberal progress (as in the case of human rights enforcement) or Cold War rivalry (as in the case of a separation of the two Human Rights Covenants). In contrast, this paper seeks to shed light on the agency of Indian diplomats and politicians. It shows how their positions were neither simply replications of pre-existing scripts nor bare executions of superpower preferences. Instead, they were responses to the challenges of becoming a post-colonial state in a still overwhelmingly imperial world. Two challenges stood out: the definition of citizenship in light of internal diversity and a widely dispersed diaspora and the challenge of development against the backdrop of highly unequal global economic relations. In this article, I trace the movement of key protagonists between the Constituent Assembly and the United Nations to show how they were engaged in a project of postcolonial worldmaking, which required the simultaneous transformation of domestic and international order.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"28 1","pages":"834 - 858"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46847811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/13540661221112612
Henning Tamm, Allard Duursma
African states fight each other far more often by simultaneously supporting rebels in each other’s intrastate conflicts than by engaging in direct warfare. While nearly half of these mutual interventions between 1960 and 2010 were resolved via bilateral negotiated settlements, the majority of cases ended due to events in, or actions by, only one of the two states. What explains this variation? We argue that different combinations of combat outcomes in the two intrastate conflicts determine the severity of interstate commitment concerns and, therefore, the likelihood of a successful settlement. Specifically, we hypothesize that commitment problems are likely to be overcome only when both states experience stalemates or successes in their battles with rebels. By contrast, if both states suffer combat defeats, major commitment concerns on both sides make a settlement very unlikely. Finally, a combination of defeats and stalemates or successes also makes a settlement unlikely, as the state with the upper hand is likely both unwilling and unable to commit credibly to a settlement. We use several cases to illustrate our theory and then demonstrate how its causal mechanism works by leveraging within-case variation from the Chad–Sudan mutual intervention. We show that the two states reached a settlement only once both were winning at home while their rebel clients were losing abroad. Three alternative explanations—third-party threats, pressure, and security guarantees—cannot explain the settlement. Overall, our study extends bargaining theory to a new empirical domain and contributes to theorizing how its information and commitment logics interact.
{"title":"Combat, commitment, and the termination of Africa’s mutual interventions","authors":"Henning Tamm, Allard Duursma","doi":"10.1177/13540661221112612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221112612","url":null,"abstract":"African states fight each other far more often by simultaneously supporting rebels in each other’s intrastate conflicts than by engaging in direct warfare. While nearly half of these mutual interventions between 1960 and 2010 were resolved via bilateral negotiated settlements, the majority of cases ended due to events in, or actions by, only one of the two states. What explains this variation? We argue that different combinations of combat outcomes in the two intrastate conflicts determine the severity of interstate commitment concerns and, therefore, the likelihood of a successful settlement. Specifically, we hypothesize that commitment problems are likely to be overcome only when both states experience stalemates or successes in their battles with rebels. By contrast, if both states suffer combat defeats, major commitment concerns on both sides make a settlement very unlikely. Finally, a combination of defeats and stalemates or successes also makes a settlement unlikely, as the state with the upper hand is likely both unwilling and unable to commit credibly to a settlement. We use several cases to illustrate our theory and then demonstrate how its causal mechanism works by leveraging within-case variation from the Chad–Sudan mutual intervention. We show that the two states reached a settlement only once both were winning at home while their rebel clients were losing abroad. Three alternative explanations—third-party threats, pressure, and security guarantees—cannot explain the settlement. Overall, our study extends bargaining theory to a new empirical domain and contributes to theorizing how its information and commitment logics interact.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"29 1","pages":"3 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47379622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Purpose: This paper critically examines the translation of message terms in Qur’anic Translation of the Ministry of Religious Affairs of Republic of Indonesia. Methodology: The writers analyzed the case through three steps. The first step, is analyzing the context. The context covers people who involved in the process of communication; communicator, communicant, and communication environment. The second step, is analyzing key word of communication, especially to look for its derivation and its denotative meaning. The third step, is determining the indicators of key word. Finally, is exploring the implication of indicator in communication activities. Result: The study result shows that some translations of the terms are difficult to understand due to illogical use of Indonesian language. Moreover, some translations of the term do not refer the context of the verse. In addition, some translations of the term are overlapped. These translations do not reflect Qur’an-based communication and eventually do not support the integration of religion and science. Recommendation: New translation based on a good Indonesian language, context of verse and refers to communication studies will produce a better understanding of Qur’anic verses of communication. Moreover, it is recommended to use translations of key words that writers offer in this paper as an alternative. In addition, giving footnote for key words is another alternative that should be considered by translator team.
{"title":"QUR'ANIC TRANSLATION IN THE FRAME OF COMMUNICATION (An Evaluative Study of the Translation of Message Terms in the Qur'anic Translation of the Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia)","authors":"Amrullah Amrullah","doi":"10.47604/jir.1594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47604/jir.1594","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This paper critically examines the translation of message terms in Qur’anic Translation of the Ministry of Religious Affairs of Republic of Indonesia. \u0000Methodology: The writers analyzed the case through three steps. The first step, is analyzing the context. The context covers people who involved in the process of communication; communicator, communicant, and communication environment. The second step, is analyzing key word of communication, especially to look for its derivation and its denotative meaning. The third step, is determining the indicators of key word. Finally, is exploring the implication of indicator in communication activities. \u0000Result: The study result shows that some translations of the terms are difficult to understand due to illogical use of Indonesian language. Moreover, some translations of the term do not refer the context of the verse. In addition, some translations of the term are overlapped. These translations do not reflect Qur’an-based communication and eventually do not support the integration of religion and science. \u0000Recommendation: New translation based on a good Indonesian language, context of verse and refers to communication studies will produce a better understanding of Qur’anic verses of communication. Moreover, it is recommended to use translations of key words that writers offer in this paper as an alternative. In addition, giving footnote for key words is another alternative that should be considered by translator team.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75522569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：