Pub Date : 2023-07-10DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2231090
Farai Chipato, D. Chandler
In the contemporary moment of the Anthropocene there appears to be a growing consensus on the need to move beyond the key modernist binary, the Human/Nature divide. We draw out a shared understanding at work in International Relations across critical approaches in Science and Technology Studies (STS), new materialist, and material feminist fields, as well as critical Indigenous, decolonial and pluriversal thought. This is an understanding that seeks to go beyond the limits of modern epistemological and ontological assumptions of human exceptionalism. These approaches seek to rework both sides of the Human/Nature divide: to reconstitute the Human as a knowing, responsive and relational subject, no longer tainted by hierarchies of race and coloniality; while, redistributing agential capacities of responsivity, care and relation beyond the Human. Drawing from work across the broad field of critical Black studies, we flag up the limitations of these entangled, relational posthuman and more-than-human imaginaries, which can easily reproduce hierarchies of subordination and control. We suggest that another approach to the Human/Nature divide is possible, a critical perspective we call the Black Horizon, focused upon the task of deconstruction: an approach which emphasises difference rather than identity, negation rather than addition, critique rather than affirmation.
{"title":"Critique and the Black Horizon: questioning the move ‘beyond’ the human/nature divide in international relations","authors":"Farai Chipato, D. Chandler","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2231090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2231090","url":null,"abstract":"In the contemporary moment of the Anthropocene there appears to be a growing consensus on the need to move beyond the key modernist binary, the Human/Nature divide. We draw out a shared understanding at work in International Relations across critical approaches in Science and Technology Studies (STS), new materialist, and material feminist fields, as well as critical Indigenous, decolonial and pluriversal thought. This is an understanding that seeks to go beyond the limits of modern epistemological and ontological assumptions of human exceptionalism. These approaches seek to rework both sides of the Human/Nature divide: to reconstitute the Human as a knowing, responsive and relational subject, no longer tainted by hierarchies of race and coloniality; while, redistributing agential capacities of responsivity, care and relation beyond the Human. Drawing from work across the broad field of critical Black studies, we flag up the limitations of these entangled, relational posthuman and more-than-human imaginaries, which can easily reproduce hierarchies of subordination and control. We suggest that another approach to the Human/Nature divide is possible, a critical perspective we call the Black Horizon, focused upon the task of deconstruction: an approach which emphasises difference rather than identity, negation rather than addition, critique rather than affirmation.","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44265979","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 : 2023-07-04DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2228077
David Grealy, J. Gaskarth
This Special Issue brings the broader history of ‘ethical’ foreign policymaking in the UK into conversation with more contemporary case studies. In doing so, it highlights key issues that have shaped, and will continue to impact, Britain’s ability to play a leading role in the advancement of human rights norms and institutions as a ‘middle power’ within a shifting global order (Cooper and Dal, 2016; Efstathopoulos 2018; Murray and Brianson 2019). For some time, scholarly engagement with the ethics of British foreign policy and human rights promotion was dominated by discussion of New Labour’s foreign policy outlook as articulated in Robin Cook’s ‘mission statement’ for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in May 1997. British foreign affairs, Cook asserted, must have an ‘ethical dimension’ and the Labour government would therefore put human rights ‘at the heart’ of its foreign policy – a line that morphed in the media into ‘ethical foreign policy’ (Guardian, 1997). While New Labour has been credited for breaking new ground in terms of British engagement with the international human rights regime, this Special Issue looks to examine periods either side of the Cook era, to gain a wider historical picture of how human rights have been incorporated into British foreign policy (Wheeler and Dunne 1998; Gaskarth 2006; Gilmore 2015). Thus, we have three articles dedicated to the 1970s, a key moment in the integration of human rights into foreign policy thinking. This decade saw the rapid proliferation of non-governmental organisations and transnational activist networks, the embedding of human rights discourse within the East-West dialogue through the Helsinki Process, and the rights-based approach to US foreign policy advanced by the administration of Jimmy Carter. In their wake, the UK duly amplified its international human rights commitments, albeit with mixed results and limited influence (Snyder 2011; Tulli 2021; Grealy 2023a). Although this is recognised as a ‘breakthrough’ moment by human rights historians, it was also a period of missed opportunity as far as British policymaking was concerned (Eckel and Moyn 2014). In this section, David Grealy examines David Owen’s tenure as Foreign Secretary (1977–79) and his foreign policy towards Iran during the twilight of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s autocratic rule. Thomas Lowman investigates the role of human rights discourse in reframing diplomatic relations between the UK and Uganda during Idi Amin’s dictatorship (1971–79). Then, Mark
{"title":"Human rights and British foreign policy: case studies in middle power diplomacy","authors":"David Grealy, J. Gaskarth","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2228077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2228077","url":null,"abstract":"This Special Issue brings the broader history of ‘ethical’ foreign policymaking in the UK into conversation with more contemporary case studies. In doing so, it highlights key issues that have shaped, and will continue to impact, Britain’s ability to play a leading role in the advancement of human rights norms and institutions as a ‘middle power’ within a shifting global order (Cooper and Dal, 2016; Efstathopoulos 2018; Murray and Brianson 2019). For some time, scholarly engagement with the ethics of British foreign policy and human rights promotion was dominated by discussion of New Labour’s foreign policy outlook as articulated in Robin Cook’s ‘mission statement’ for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in May 1997. British foreign affairs, Cook asserted, must have an ‘ethical dimension’ and the Labour government would therefore put human rights ‘at the heart’ of its foreign policy – a line that morphed in the media into ‘ethical foreign policy’ (Guardian, 1997). While New Labour has been credited for breaking new ground in terms of British engagement with the international human rights regime, this Special Issue looks to examine periods either side of the Cook era, to gain a wider historical picture of how human rights have been incorporated into British foreign policy (Wheeler and Dunne 1998; Gaskarth 2006; Gilmore 2015). Thus, we have three articles dedicated to the 1970s, a key moment in the integration of human rights into foreign policy thinking. This decade saw the rapid proliferation of non-governmental organisations and transnational activist networks, the embedding of human rights discourse within the East-West dialogue through the Helsinki Process, and the rights-based approach to US foreign policy advanced by the administration of Jimmy Carter. In their wake, the UK duly amplified its international human rights commitments, albeit with mixed results and limited influence (Snyder 2011; Tulli 2021; Grealy 2023a). Although this is recognised as a ‘breakthrough’ moment by human rights historians, it was also a period of missed opportunity as far as British policymaking was concerned (Eckel and Moyn 2014). In this section, David Grealy examines David Owen’s tenure as Foreign Secretary (1977–79) and his foreign policy towards Iran during the twilight of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s autocratic rule. Thomas Lowman investigates the role of human rights discourse in reframing diplomatic relations between the UK and Uganda during Idi Amin’s dictatorship (1971–79). Then, Mark","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"467 - 473"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41627886","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 : 2023-07-02DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2231104
C. Gilgan
Abstract This article explores how the UK’s selective neglect in linking the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to its peaceful responses to Syria reinforces the claim that R2P is predominantly understood as military humanitarian intervention, which is deleterious for building international consensus for atrocity prevention and response. It does this through an empirical case study of the UK’s responses to Syria during 2014-2016 when the UK’s peaceful responses expanded, providing rich data for examining their underlying motivations. The article provides a case study of the UK’s contestation of R2P’s peaceful measures that builds upon existing work around the limits of contestation and norm degeneration due to how it feeds back to the international level. The article also explores the intersection between contestation and localisation and how the UK’s particular localisation of R2P feeds into claims and fears of western imperialism, which obstructs effective atrocity prevention and response.
{"title":"Exploring the limits of localisation through the UK’s contestation of R2P’s peaceful measures in Syria","authors":"C. Gilgan","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2231104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2231104","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores how the UK’s selective neglect in linking the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to its peaceful responses to Syria reinforces the claim that R2P is predominantly understood as military humanitarian intervention, which is deleterious for building international consensus for atrocity prevention and response. It does this through an empirical case study of the UK’s responses to Syria during 2014-2016 when the UK’s peaceful responses expanded, providing rich data for examining their underlying motivations. The article provides a case study of the UK’s contestation of R2P’s peaceful measures that builds upon existing work around the limits of contestation and norm degeneration due to how it feeds back to the international level. The article also explores the intersection between contestation and localisation and how the UK’s particular localisation of R2P feeds into claims and fears of western imperialism, which obstructs effective atrocity prevention and response.","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"551 - 577"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47714155","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 : 2023-06-29DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2228177
Lily McElwee
{"title":"Henry Sanderson, Volt Rush: The Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green","authors":"Lily McElwee","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2228177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2228177","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"597 - 599"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42483062","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 : 2023-06-26DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2228178
Andrew A. Latham, Shweta Shankar
Dr. Lily McElwee serves as a fellow in the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). She is also a CSIS-USC U.S.-Korea NextGen scholar and formerly a DZ bank fellow in transatlantic business and finance with the American Council on Germany. Her research interests include Chinese foreign policy, U.S.-EU-China relations, and global governance. Email: lmcelwee@csis.org
{"title":"Luke Patey, How China loses: the pushback against Chinese global ambitions","authors":"Andrew A. Latham, Shweta Shankar","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2228178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2228178","url":null,"abstract":"Dr. Lily McElwee serves as a fellow in the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). She is also a CSIS-USC U.S.-Korea NextGen scholar and formerly a DZ bank fellow in transatlantic business and finance with the American Council on Germany. Her research interests include Chinese foreign policy, U.S.-EU-China relations, and global governance. Email: lmcelwee@csis.org","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"599 - 602"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49035341","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 : 2023-06-24DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2225650
Matti Pesu, Ville Sinkkonen
{"title":"Trans-atlantic (mis)trust in perspective: asymmetry, abandonment and alliance cohesion","authors":"Matti Pesu, Ville Sinkkonen","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2225650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2225650","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49004060","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 : 2023-06-23DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2228179
Kevin Varghese
{"title":"Eduardo Moncada, Resisting Extortion: Victims, Criminals, and States in Latin America","authors":"Kevin Varghese","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2228179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2228179","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"602 - 604"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46695977","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 : 2023-05-16DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2207814
A. Ghiselli
{"title":"An opportunistic Russia in the Middle East, a view from China","authors":"A. Ghiselli","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2207814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2207814","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48283802","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 : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2205677
Martin Kirsch, Anni Roth Hjermann
{"title":"Letter from the editors","authors":"Martin Kirsch, Anni Roth Hjermann","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2205677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2205677","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"305 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43042803","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 : 2023-04-26DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2205679
Lucas Ribeiro de Belmont Fonseca
Known for his work researching topics related to international protection against atrocities, refugee protection and international responsibilities, including co-editing the journal ‘Global Responsibility to Protect’, Luke Glanville’s book ‘Sharing Responsibility: The History and Future of Protection from Atrocities’ examines the idea that states share responsibilities for protecting people beyond borders from atrocities. His analysis investigates the areas of international thought, practice, ethics, law and politics surrounding the duty to protect throughout the centuries. The book departs from the premise that the idea of international responsibilities to protect is hardly new, refuting a conventionally held claim in the mainstream literature on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The author backs his argument by affirming that, when justifying or calling for action to protect people beyond borders, states have frequently used the language of responsibility to defend the interests of humanity. This take enriches the debate in the R2P literature and calls for more thorough analysis of the actual novelty and relevance of R2P in the twenty-first century, with the potential to rebalance the parameters of understanding this concept. Five questions seem to guide Glanville’s intellectual enterprise in this book:
他以研究与国际保护免受暴行、难民保护和国际责任有关的主题而闻名，包括共同编辑《全球保护责任》杂志，卢克·格兰维尔（Luke Glanville）的《分担责任：保护人民免受暴行的历史和未来》（Sharing Responsibility:The History and Future of Protection from Atrocities）一书探讨了国家分担责任保护境外人民免受暴行之害的观点。他的分析调查了几个世纪以来围绕保护义务的国际思想、实践、伦理、法律和政治领域。这本书偏离了国际保护责任这一概念并不新鲜的前提，驳斥了主流文献中关于保护责任的传统主张。提交人支持他的论点，确认在为保护境外人民辩护或呼吁采取行动时，各国经常使用责任语言来捍卫人类利益。这一观点丰富了保护责任文献中的辩论，并呼吁对21世纪保护责任的实际新颖性和相关性进行更彻底的分析，有可能重新平衡理解这一概念的参数。在这本书中，格兰维尔的智力事业似乎有五个问题：
{"title":"Sharing Responsibility: The History and Future of Protection from Atrocities","authors":"Lucas Ribeiro de Belmont Fonseca","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2205679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2205679","url":null,"abstract":"Known for his work researching topics related to international protection against atrocities, refugee protection and international responsibilities, including co-editing the journal ‘Global Responsibility to Protect’, Luke Glanville’s book ‘Sharing Responsibility: The History and Future of Protection from Atrocities’ examines the idea that states share responsibilities for protecting people beyond borders from atrocities. His analysis investigates the areas of international thought, practice, ethics, law and politics surrounding the duty to protect throughout the centuries. The book departs from the premise that the idea of international responsibilities to protect is hardly new, refuting a conventionally held claim in the mainstream literature on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The author backs his argument by affirming that, when justifying or calling for action to protect people beyond borders, states have frequently used the language of responsibility to defend the interests of humanity. This take enriches the debate in the R2P literature and calls for more thorough analysis of the actual novelty and relevance of R2P in the twenty-first century, with the potential to rebalance the parameters of understanding this concept. Five questions seem to guide Glanville’s intellectual enterprise in this book:","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"70 10","pages":"451 - 456"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41246863","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：