Pub Date : 2024-05-16DOI: 10.1017/s1752971924000034
Scott Wolford, Toby J. Rider
International agreements save the costs of war, but complying with their terms can be costly. We analyse a model of interstate crisis bargaining in which one state may be unwilling or unable to make a costly investment that guarantees its subjects’ compliance. In equilibrium, peace is assured when the domestic government is militarily strong enough to demand terms that its subjects tolerate. When the domestic government is militarily weaker, peace requires that the foreign state compensate it for either the costs of enforcement or its subjects’ violations, and these prospective costs of peace may also lead the foreign state to solve the enforcement problem with war because peace is relatively costly. We also show that war due to enforcement problems is more common in militarily weak states and that equilibria at which the foreign state subsidizes enforcement are more common when the costs of violation fall disproportionately on the domestic state. The American invasion of Mexico in 1916 and the Red Army's peaceful withdrawal from East Germany in 1989 demonstrate the model's usefulness.
{"title":"Weak sovereignty and interstate war","authors":"Scott Wolford, Toby J. Rider","doi":"10.1017/s1752971924000034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971924000034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 International agreements save the costs of war, but complying with their terms can be costly. We analyse a model of interstate crisis bargaining in which one state may be unwilling or unable to make a costly investment that guarantees its subjects’ compliance. In equilibrium, peace is assured when the domestic government is militarily strong enough to demand terms that its subjects tolerate. When the domestic government is militarily weaker, peace requires that the foreign state compensate it for either the costs of enforcement or its subjects’ violations, and these prospective costs of peace may also lead the foreign state to solve the enforcement problem with war because peace is relatively costly. We also show that war due to enforcement problems is more common in militarily weak states and that equilibria at which the foreign state subsidizes enforcement are more common when the costs of violation fall disproportionately on the domestic state. The American invasion of Mexico in 1916 and the Red Army's peaceful withdrawal from East Germany in 1989 demonstrate the model's usefulness.","PeriodicalId":504364,"journal":{"name":"International Theory","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140970629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-16DOI: 10.1017/s1752971923000222
Tim Beaumont
Michael Walzer's use of John Stuart Mill's A Few Words on Non-Intervention (1859) helped to inaugurate it as a canonical text of international theory. However, Walzer's use of the text was highly selective because he viewed the first half as a historically parochial discussion of British foreign policy, and his interest in the second was restricted to the passages in which Mill proposes principles of international morality to govern foreign military interventions to protect third parties. As a result, theorists tend to see those canonized passages as if through a glass darkly. Attention to the detail and context of Mill's first-half critique of Lord Palmerston's opposition to the Suez Canal project reveals that his discussion of purely protective intervention is embedded in a broader exploration of the limits of self-defence, including the moral permissibility of preventive military force and the use of protective interventions for defensive purposes. Moreover, reading the text holistically facilitates a refutation of some objections directed at it by Michael Doyle to the effect that Mill's conception of self-defence incorporates elements of aggression which makes it extremely dangerous when adapted for application to the contemporary world.
迈克尔-沃尔泽（Michael Walzer）对约翰-斯图尔特-密尔（John Stuart Mill）的《关于不干涉的几句话》（1859 年）的使用，使其成为国际理论的经典文本。然而，沃尔泽对该书的使用具有高度的选择性，因为他认为前半部分是对英国外交政策的历史性偏狭讨论，而他对后半部分的兴趣仅限于密尔提出国际道德原则来规范外国军事干预以保护第三方的段落。因此，理论家们往往会隔着一层玻璃来看待这些经典段落。关注密尔在前半部分对帕默斯顿勋爵反对苏伊士运河项目的批判的细节和上下文，就会发现他对纯粹保护性干预的讨论蕴含在对自卫限度的更广泛探讨中，包括预防性军事力量的道德允许性和出于防御目的使用保护性干预。此外，从整体上解读该文本有助于驳斥迈克尔-多伊尔（Michael Doyle）针对该文本提出的一些反对意见，即密尔的自卫概念包含了侵略因素，这使得它在适用于当代世界时极为危险。
{"title":"John Stuart Mill on the Suez Canal and the limits of self-defence","authors":"Tim Beaumont","doi":"10.1017/s1752971923000222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971923000222","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Michael Walzer's use of John Stuart Mill's A Few Words on Non-Intervention (1859) helped to inaugurate it as a canonical text of international theory. However, Walzer's use of the text was highly selective because he viewed the first half as a historically parochial discussion of British foreign policy, and his interest in the second was restricted to the passages in which Mill proposes principles of international morality to govern foreign military interventions to protect third parties. As a result, theorists tend to see those canonized passages as if through a glass darkly. Attention to the detail and context of Mill's first-half critique of Lord Palmerston's opposition to the Suez Canal project reveals that his discussion of purely protective intervention is embedded in a broader exploration of the limits of self-defence, including the moral permissibility of preventive military force and the use of protective interventions for defensive purposes. Moreover, reading the text holistically facilitates a refutation of some objections directed at it by Michael Doyle to the effect that Mill's conception of self-defence incorporates elements of aggression which makes it extremely dangerous when adapted for application to the contemporary world.","PeriodicalId":504364,"journal":{"name":"International Theory","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140967465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-10DOI: 10.1017/s1752971923000210
M. Vulović, Filip Ejdus
The traditional Laing–Giddens paradigm views ontological insecurity as an unusual mental state triggered by critical situations and characterized by feelings of anxiety, disorientation and paralysis. However, theories inspired by Lacan suggest a different perspective, stating that ontological insecurity is not an exception but rather a regular state of mind. Similarly, ontological security is a fantasy stemming from the desire to fill the primordial lack, thus fuelling agency. While these Lacanian interpretations have introduced a fresh viewpoint into Ontological Security Studies (OSS), they have not fully incorporated one of the key concepts from Lacanian psychoanalysis – the object-cause of desire (French: objet petit a) – into international relations theory. In this article, we present a framework of how to conceptualize and empirically study the objects-cause of desire in world politics. Our arguments are exemplified in a case study of Serbia's resistance to Kosovo's UNESCO membership in 2015.
传统的莱恩-吉登斯范式认为，本体论不安全感是一种由危急情况引发的异常心理状态，其特点是焦虑、迷失方向和瘫痪感。然而，受拉康启发的理论却提出了不同的观点，认为本体论不安全感不是一种例外，而是一种正常的心理状态。同样，本体论安全感是一种幻想，源于填补原始匮乏的欲望，从而助长了能动性。虽然这些拉康式解释为本体论安全研究（OSS）引入了新的视角，但它们并未将拉康精神分析学派的一个关键概念--欲望的客体原因（法语：objet petit a）--完全纳入国际关系理论。在这篇文章中，我们提出了一个如何将欲望的客体原因概念化并对其进行实证研究的框架。我们的论点以塞尔维亚在 2015 年抵制科索沃加入联合国教科文组织的案例研究为例证。
{"title":"Object-cause of desire and ontological security: evidence from Serbia's opposition to Kosovo's membership in UNESCO","authors":"M. Vulović, Filip Ejdus","doi":"10.1017/s1752971923000210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971923000210","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The traditional Laing–Giddens paradigm views ontological insecurity as an unusual mental state triggered by critical situations and characterized by feelings of anxiety, disorientation and paralysis. However, theories inspired by Lacan suggest a different perspective, stating that ontological insecurity is not an exception but rather a regular state of mind. Similarly, ontological security is a fantasy stemming from the desire to fill the primordial lack, thus fuelling agency. While these Lacanian interpretations have introduced a fresh viewpoint into Ontological Security Studies (OSS), they have not fully incorporated one of the key concepts from Lacanian psychoanalysis – the object-cause of desire (French: objet petit a) – into international relations theory. In this article, we present a framework of how to conceptualize and empirically study the objects-cause of desire in world politics. Our arguments are exemplified in a case study of Serbia's resistance to Kosovo's UNESCO membership in 2015.","PeriodicalId":504364,"journal":{"name":"International Theory","volume":"3 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139440280","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：