Diplomats in embassies and permanent representations are increasingly using the messaging application WhatsApp to communicate with their peers. They use WhatsApp groups to coordinate initiatives at multilateral forums, communicate more rapidly with headquarters and stay in touch with organizational developments at home, as well as form more personal working relations among their peers. To make sense of this phenomenon, our analysis looks at adaptation in practice. Instead of separating digital practices from offline/traditional ways of doing things, we build on the practice turn in International Relations and develop a nuanced framework in which improvising agents in a transformed context adapt to new realities while continuously being influenced by past ways of doing things—a phenomenon called “hysteresis” by practice turners. We analyze how traditional practices are supplemented by new technologies (complementarities) as well as how offline and online relationships are shaped by similar practical logics (similarities). We apply these micro-lenses to understand multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Building on twenty-three interviews with practitioners, we find that WhatsApp redefines the meaning of face-to-face interactions among ambassadors and permanent representatives and makes physical meetings between diplomats more—rather than less—important.
{"title":"WhatsApp with Diplomatic Practices in Geneva? Diplomats, Digital Technologies, and Adaptation in Practice","authors":"Jeremie Cornut, Ilan Manor, Corinne Blumenthal","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac047","url":null,"abstract":"Diplomats in embassies and permanent representations are increasingly using the messaging application WhatsApp to communicate with their peers. They use WhatsApp groups to coordinate initiatives at multilateral forums, communicate more rapidly with headquarters and stay in touch with organizational developments at home, as well as form more personal working relations among their peers. To make sense of this phenomenon, our analysis looks at adaptation in practice. Instead of separating digital practices from offline/traditional ways of doing things, we build on the practice turn in International Relations and develop a nuanced framework in which improvising agents in a transformed context adapt to new realities while continuously being influenced by past ways of doing things—a phenomenon called “hysteresis” by practice turners. We analyze how traditional practices are supplemented by new technologies (complementarities) as well as how offline and online relationships are shaped by similar practical logics (similarities). We apply these micro-lenses to understand multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Building on twenty-three interviews with practitioners, we find that WhatsApp redefines the meaning of face-to-face interactions among ambassadors and permanent representatives and makes physical meetings between diplomats more—rather than less—important.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166092","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}
Almost all ceasefires experience violations, yet we know little about how such violations relate to the military and political aspirations of conflict parties. This article builds on ceasefire and bargaining literature to understand why ceasefire violations occur and how they relate to strategic decision-making processes. Building on these theoretical insights, it proposes a typology of four main types of ceasefire violations: strategic violations serve to strengthen the military advantage of a conflict party, retaliatory violations seek to ensure ceasefire compliance, spoiling violations aim to undermine the efforts of leaders, and localized violations are delinked from strategic decision-making processes. A case study of a major ceasefire violation in the Bangsamoro peace process illustrates how we may use informal Bayesian reasoning to empirically distinguish between these different types of violations. Treating ceasefire violations as part of wider military and political processes enables us to better understand the causal conditions under which ceasefire violations occur and identify strategic interests of different actors to carry out these violations. This helps explain the varied responses to ceasefire violations and sharpens our understanding of how to address them.
{"title":"Ceasefire Violations: Why They Occur and How They Relate to Strategic Decision-Making Processes","authors":"Valerie Sticher","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac046","url":null,"abstract":"Almost all ceasefires experience violations, yet we know little about how such violations relate to the military and political aspirations of conflict parties. This article builds on ceasefire and bargaining literature to understand why ceasefire violations occur and how they relate to strategic decision-making processes. Building on these theoretical insights, it proposes a typology of four main types of ceasefire violations: strategic violations serve to strengthen the military advantage of a conflict party, retaliatory violations seek to ensure ceasefire compliance, spoiling violations aim to undermine the efforts of leaders, and localized violations are delinked from strategic decision-making processes. A case study of a major ceasefire violation in the Bangsamoro peace process illustrates how we may use informal Bayesian reasoning to empirically distinguish between these different types of violations. Treating ceasefire violations as part of wider military and political processes enables us to better understand the causal conditions under which ceasefire violations occur and identify strategic interests of different actors to carry out these violations. This helps explain the varied responses to ceasefire violations and sharpens our understanding of how to address them.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166094","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}
Since 9/11, a number of scholars added gender as a new variable to explain how economic, political, and/or social developments in the Middle East have diverged from developments elsewhere. These studies relied almost exclusively on statistical analysis and frequently discounted much of the extant literature, especially the more feminist and historically sensitive and in-depth qualitative works on the subject matter. Almost uniformly, the point of departure for many of these works was the disempowered socioeconomic and/or political status of Arab/Muslim women. Most of the scholars of these works had no gender expertise and had never written on women previously. Regardless, these works spawned an important discussion in the field of comparative politics and their scholarly impact has been noteworthy. Such scholarship, however, is not benign. Accordingly, this article seeks to answer two critical questions: How does the work of non-gender specialists of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) come to have such a significant impact on the study of women and politics in the field of comparative politics? How can we approach these research inquiries differently so that expertise, lived realities, and history matter? The article argues that feminist international relations could serve as a critical corrective to this current trajectory of comparative politics research. This corrective also requires a commitment to feminist scholarship that begins with women's lives and seeks to eliminate gender inequality, as well as greater understanding of the composition and changing structure of our disciplinary communities.
{"title":"Troubled Comparative Trajectories and the Statistical Construction of Disempowered Arab and Muslim Women Subjects","authors":"Manal A Jamal","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac040","url":null,"abstract":"Since 9/11, a number of scholars added gender as a new variable to explain how economic, political, and/or social developments in the Middle East have diverged from developments elsewhere. These studies relied almost exclusively on statistical analysis and frequently discounted much of the extant literature, especially the more feminist and historically sensitive and in-depth qualitative works on the subject matter. Almost uniformly, the point of departure for many of these works was the disempowered socioeconomic and/or political status of Arab/Muslim women. Most of the scholars of these works had no gender expertise and had never written on women previously. Regardless, these works spawned an important discussion in the field of comparative politics and their scholarly impact has been noteworthy. Such scholarship, however, is not benign. Accordingly, this article seeks to answer two critical questions: How does the work of non-gender specialists of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) come to have such a significant impact on the study of women and politics in the field of comparative politics? How can we approach these research inquiries differently so that expertise, lived realities, and history matter? The article argues that feminist international relations could serve as a critical corrective to this current trajectory of comparative politics research. This corrective also requires a commitment to feminist scholarship that begins with women's lives and seeks to eliminate gender inequality, as well as greater understanding of the composition and changing structure of our disciplinary communities.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166093","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}
English School accounts of international relations always stressed some degree of interaction between political international society and ideational world society. Yet, English School research, relying on agential and structural premises, often misses how and where international society and world society interact. If intermediation between the two societies is identified, it often remains abstract. I argue that identifying agents and the standards defining their practices helps to understand intermediation between international society and world society. I suggest that likely candidates that practice intermediation are rooted in both international society and world society. This is because practices rooted in both realms are also defined by the standards of both realms. I argue that the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are likely intermediation instances between international society and world society. Both are equally footed in international society and world society. Given their organizational embedding in international society, both rely on practices informed by international society standards such as diplomacy. Yet, both also rely on world society standards such as their concern for humanity. Focusing on the sanctity of the individual rather than only on state-based interests and agendas of international society marks their concern and caring for refugees. I illustrate this argument with advocacy, an intermediation practice. Deprived of membership in a community, solutions for refugees in international society require political and moral theory from world society, relying on concepts such as humanity. Advocating for refugees on the grounds of world society's common humanity, the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are intermediation instances between world society and international society.
{"title":"Intermediation between International Society and World Society: The Pope and the UN Secretary-General on “the Figure of the Refugee”","authors":"Jodok Troy","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac044","url":null,"abstract":"English School accounts of international relations always stressed some degree of interaction between political international society and ideational world society. Yet, English School research, relying on agential and structural premises, often misses how and where international society and world society interact. If intermediation between the two societies is identified, it often remains abstract. I argue that identifying agents and the standards defining their practices helps to understand intermediation between international society and world society. I suggest that likely candidates that practice intermediation are rooted in both international society and world society. This is because practices rooted in both realms are also defined by the standards of both realms. I argue that the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are likely intermediation instances between international society and world society. Both are equally footed in international society and world society. Given their organizational embedding in international society, both rely on practices informed by international society standards such as diplomacy. Yet, both also rely on world society standards such as their concern for humanity. Focusing on the sanctity of the individual rather than only on state-based interests and agendas of international society marks their concern and caring for refugees. I illustrate this argument with advocacy, an intermediation practice. Deprived of membership in a community, solutions for refugees in international society require political and moral theory from world society, relying on concepts such as humanity. Advocating for refugees on the grounds of world society's common humanity, the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are intermediation instances between world society and international society.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"26 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166095","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}
{"title":"Drones and the Study of Public Opinion: Continuity or Change?","authors":"Jonny Hall","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac045","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74979246","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}
A growing chorus of critics have called upon transnational nongovernmental organizations (TNGOs) from the Global North to “decolonize” their practices, to “shift the power” to the Global South, and to put an end to “white saviorism” by initiating a variety of significant organizational changes. Despite these repeated calls, the TNGO sector still struggles to reform. Explanations for TNGOs’ ongoing struggles from within the field of international relations have generally centered on TNGOs themselves and the ironies and paradoxes of organizational growth and financial success. This article introduces a different argument that TNGOs’ struggles to adapt in response to their critics are the result of TNGOs’ “nonprofitness.” By virtue of being nonprofit, TNGOs are embedded in an architecture consisting of forms and norms that inherently limit the extent to which they are able to change. Using the construct of the architecture, this article provides a novel account for the challenges that TNGOs confront as they attempt to close the gap between the rhetoric and reality of inclusive and transformational socioeconomic, political, or environmental change.
{"title":"Understanding the Limits of Transnational NGO Power: Forms, Norms, and the Architecture","authors":"Hans Peter Schmitz, George E Mitchell","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac042","url":null,"abstract":"A growing chorus of critics have called upon transnational nongovernmental organizations (TNGOs) from the Global North to “decolonize” their practices, to “shift the power” to the Global South, and to put an end to “white saviorism” by initiating a variety of significant organizational changes. Despite these repeated calls, the TNGO sector still struggles to reform. Explanations for TNGOs’ ongoing struggles from within the field of international relations have generally centered on TNGOs themselves and the ironies and paradoxes of organizational growth and financial success. This article introduces a different argument that TNGOs’ struggles to adapt in response to their critics are the result of TNGOs’ “nonprofitness.” By virtue of being nonprofit, TNGOs are embedded in an architecture consisting of forms and norms that inherently limit the extent to which they are able to change. Using the construct of the architecture, this article provides a novel account for the challenges that TNGOs confront as they attempt to close the gap between the rhetoric and reality of inclusive and transformational socioeconomic, political, or environmental change.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"57 46","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166269","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}
{"title":"Issues and Strategies in a Managed Rivalry","authors":"D. Dreyer","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac041","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78241717","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}
Scholars have long debated whether international organizations (IO) matter in international politics. Skeptics argue that power politics determine outcomes while champions see IOs as important, independently shaping outcomes and reshaping the structure of politics. Between these extremes, scholars have made numerous theoretical and empirical contributions to understanding under what conditions IOs make a difference. Yet, the fundamental question remains: when IOs identify a significant problem, can they solve it? We identify an underutilized analytical approach to understanding this broad debate. Specifically, we suggest scholars analyze this question by focusing on an IOs response to given crises to provide internal validity to claims throughout this debate. Furthermore, we encourage scholars to move beyond the oft-cited global or European cases to better incorporate insights from IOs in various parts of the world. Here, we explore the Southern African Development Community's attempt to coordinate member states’ maritime strategy to solve the emergent piracy problem caused by the Somali civil war. In identifying these new directions for research, we demonstrate that IOs, even under difficult circumstances, are effective actors in international politics.
{"title":"Rethinking Tests of the IO Effectiveness Hypothesis: Evidence from Counter-Piracy Efforts in the Global South","authors":"Jonathan Ring, Gary Uzonyi","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac037","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have long debated whether international organizations (IO) matter in international politics. Skeptics argue that power politics determine outcomes while champions see IOs as important, independently shaping outcomes and reshaping the structure of politics. Between these extremes, scholars have made numerous theoretical and empirical contributions to understanding under what conditions IOs make a difference. Yet, the fundamental question remains: when IOs identify a significant problem, can they solve it? We identify an underutilized analytical approach to understanding this broad debate. Specifically, we suggest scholars analyze this question by focusing on an IOs response to given crises to provide internal validity to claims throughout this debate. Furthermore, we encourage scholars to move beyond the oft-cited global or European cases to better incorporate insights from IOs in various parts of the world. Here, we explore the Southern African Development Community's attempt to coordinate member states’ maritime strategy to solve the emergent piracy problem caused by the Somali civil war. In identifying these new directions for research, we demonstrate that IOs, even under difficult circumstances, are effective actors in international politics.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"57 30","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166272","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}
Although less than a decade old, the People's Republic of China's (PRC) Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been the subject of considerable attention and conjecture. After initial waves of speculation and punditry, now more rigorous work on the plans, structure, and implementation of this initiative is beginning to contribute to the debate. In this essay, we showcase how three recent monographs make sense of the BRI: One Belt One Road: Chinese Power Meets the World, by Eyck Freymann; The Belt Road and Beyond: State-Mobilized Globalization in China: 1998–2018, by Min Ye; and Orchestration: China's Economic Statecraft across Asia and Europe, by James Reilly. Surveying the arguments and findings of these works together, we seek to draw out insights and implications for how we should understand the BRI. In particular, we highlight the political significance of the BRI's close association with PRC leader Xi Jinping, the ways in which the BRI follows long-standing patterns of campaign-style mobilization within the PRC, the crucial role of local partners, and the BRI's potential consequences for the larger international system in light of the broader literature in international relations. We conclude by discussing the need to now also consider unintended outcomes.
{"title":"Making Sense of China's Belt and Road Initiative: A Review Essay","authors":"Todd H. Hall, A. Krolikowski","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Although less than a decade old, the People's Republic of China's (PRC) Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been the subject of considerable attention and conjecture. After initial waves of speculation and punditry, now more rigorous work on the plans, structure, and implementation of this initiative is beginning to contribute to the debate. In this essay, we showcase how three recent monographs make sense of the BRI: One Belt One Road: Chinese Power Meets the World, by Eyck Freymann; The Belt Road and Beyond: State-Mobilized Globalization in China: 1998–2018, by Min Ye; and Orchestration: China's Economic Statecraft across Asia and Europe, by James Reilly. Surveying the arguments and findings of these works together, we seek to draw out insights and implications for how we should understand the BRI. In particular, we highlight the political significance of the BRI's close association with PRC leader Xi Jinping, the ways in which the BRI follows long-standing patterns of campaign-style mobilization within the PRC, the crucial role of local partners, and the BRI's potential consequences for the larger international system in light of the broader literature in international relations. We conclude by discussing the need to now also consider unintended outcomes.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"105 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80705748","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：