International relations (IR) scholars are increasingly interested in the role of memory in world politics. In this paper, we examine a key tension in the uptake of memory in IR between its status as a topic studied within IR and its use as an optic through which the basic categories of IR might be rethought. Focusing on the problem of scales of analysis, central within memory studies more broadly, we suggest that while memory poses a challenge to typical scalar arrangements in IR, such as “levels” of analysis, memory is often studied within these very arrangements. We argue that this is significant because questions of scale are at times the central political problem at stake in international memory. We track this tension between topic and optic in studies of memory, national identity, and foreign policy; studies of collective trauma and sovereignty; and studies of conflict and cooperation over memory.
{"title":"Collective Memory and Problems of Scale in International Relations","authors":"Elise Sammons, Will Kujala","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 International relations (IR) scholars are increasingly interested in the role of memory in world politics. In this paper, we examine a key tension in the uptake of memory in IR between its status as a topic studied within IR and its use as an optic through which the basic categories of IR might be rethought. Focusing on the problem of scales of analysis, central within memory studies more broadly, we suggest that while memory poses a challenge to typical scalar arrangements in IR, such as “levels” of analysis, memory is often studied within these very arrangements. We argue that this is significant because questions of scale are at times the central political problem at stake in international memory. We track this tension between topic and optic in studies of memory, national identity, and foreign policy; studies of collective trauma and sovereignty; and studies of conflict and cooperation over memory.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140692352","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}
Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel, Anna Jarstad, Elisabeth Olivius, Johanna Söderström, Marie-Joëlle Zahar, Malin Åkebo
What strategies can be employed to conceptualize peace? In recent years, scholars have introduced an impressive array of “peace with adjectives” in order to make sense of some of the normative and empirical underpinnings of peace. Negative, positive, everyday, virtual, illiberal, partial, insecure, relational, emancipatory, agonistic, and feminist are some of the qualifiers that have been associated with the concept. While the growing attention to conceptualization is a welcomed development, we argue that the proliferation of new terms has led to increased fragmentation in the field of peace studies. Conceptual fragmentation impedes cumulative knowledge production and generates missed opportunities for fruitful discussions across theoretical and conceptual divides. In this article, we aim to provide more clarity to our field by mapping existing peace conceptualizations and identifying the strategies employed by scholars to construct innovative new terms. In our review, we identify 61 concepts and suggest that these conceptual innovations in peace research belong to one of three analytical strategies: developing diminished subtypes, conceptual narrowing, and conceptual expansion. Building on this categorization, we make recommendations for how peace researchers can enhance clarity and deepen constructive discussions between different conceptual approaches.
{"title":"Peace with Adjectives: Conceptual Fragmentation or Conceptual Innovation?","authors":"Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel, Anna Jarstad, Elisabeth Olivius, Johanna Söderström, Marie-Joëlle Zahar, Malin Åkebo","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae014","url":null,"abstract":"What strategies can be employed to conceptualize peace? In recent years, scholars have introduced an impressive array of “peace with adjectives” in order to make sense of some of the normative and empirical underpinnings of peace. Negative, positive, everyday, virtual, illiberal, partial, insecure, relational, emancipatory, agonistic, and feminist are some of the qualifiers that have been associated with the concept. While the growing attention to conceptualization is a welcomed development, we argue that the proliferation of new terms has led to increased fragmentation in the field of peace studies. Conceptual fragmentation impedes cumulative knowledge production and generates missed opportunities for fruitful discussions across theoretical and conceptual divides. In this article, we aim to provide more clarity to our field by mapping existing peace conceptualizations and identifying the strategies employed by scholars to construct innovative new terms. In our review, we identify 61 concepts and suggest that these conceptual innovations in peace research belong to one of three analytical strategies: developing diminished subtypes, conceptual narrowing, and conceptual expansion. Building on this categorization, we make recommendations for how peace researchers can enhance clarity and deepen constructive discussions between different conceptual approaches.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140608154","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}
In various conflict contexts where the state is unable to maintain security and public order, non-state armed groups (NSAGs) and the United Nations (UN) conduct their activities alongside one another. While previous research has focused on hostile relations between the UN and NSAGs, less attention has been given to collaborative interactions. This paper aims to address this research gap by formulating a novel conceptual typology of NSAG–UN interactions in the context of a peace operation. The typological framework comprises two-dimensions: firstly, the thematic field of interaction including human rights, humanitarian needs and governance, security, and political processes and, secondly, the nature of interaction ranging from confrontation to cooperation. Based on the typology, interaction activities between the UN and NSAGs in two peacekeeping operations—the UN Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)—are systematically documented and described. While both cases show confrontation in the security field, UNOCI also commonly cooperated with NSAGs on security-related issues; MINUSMA instead cooperated with NSAGs primarily regarding the political process. The analysis further proposes factors that may explain such variation, including institutional arrangements and NSAG characteristics. The conceptual framework presented in this paper is crucial in advancing knowledge about an empirical phenomenon that we know little about and that has important implications for different forms of “local” engagement in peace operations and the effectiveness of UN policies and practices.
{"title":"From Confrontation to Cooperation: Describing Non-State Armed Group–UN Interactions in Peace Operations","authors":"Jenniina Kotajoki","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In various conflict contexts where the state is unable to maintain security and public order, non-state armed groups (NSAGs) and the United Nations (UN) conduct their activities alongside one another. While previous research has focused on hostile relations between the UN and NSAGs, less attention has been given to collaborative interactions. This paper aims to address this research gap by formulating a novel conceptual typology of NSAG–UN interactions in the context of a peace operation. The typological framework comprises two-dimensions: firstly, the thematic field of interaction including human rights, humanitarian needs and governance, security, and political processes and, secondly, the nature of interaction ranging from confrontation to cooperation. Based on the typology, interaction activities between the UN and NSAGs in two peacekeeping operations—the UN Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)—are systematically documented and described. While both cases show confrontation in the security field, UNOCI also commonly cooperated with NSAGs on security-related issues; MINUSMA instead cooperated with NSAGs primarily regarding the political process. The analysis further proposes factors that may explain such variation, including institutional arrangements and NSAG characteristics. The conceptual framework presented in this paper is crucial in advancing knowledge about an empirical phenomenon that we know little about and that has important implications for different forms of “local” engagement in peace operations and the effectiveness of UN policies and practices.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140692589","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 recent wave of civil conflict scholarship examines rebel governance, the process through which insurgent groups organize local affairs in areas under their control. While current research predominantly focuses on the supply side of rebel governance, the attention given to the demand side has been relatively limited. In this study, we take stock of recent scholarship on the dynamic relationship between rebels and civilians to theoretically explore the supply side of rebel governance and develop a new demand-side typology that captures the key factors influencing civilian preferences regarding the nature of rebel rule. Specifically, we argue that demand for rebel governance is mainly shaped by the interaction between civilians’ perceptions of the state and civilian–rebel compatibility, which we define as civilians’ perceptions of the compatibility of the rebel group with their own values, ideology, identity, and preferred modes of socio-political organization. To illustrate our main theoretical points, we draw upon insights gleaned from multiple insurgencies. Our study significantly enhances our understanding of how rebel–civilian interactions mold the fabric of political order in civil war environments.
{"title":"The Supply and Demand of Rebel Governance","authors":"Adrian Florea, Romain Malejacq","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae004","url":null,"abstract":"A recent wave of civil conflict scholarship examines rebel governance, the process through which insurgent groups organize local affairs in areas under their control. While current research predominantly focuses on the supply side of rebel governance, the attention given to the demand side has been relatively limited. In this study, we take stock of recent scholarship on the dynamic relationship between rebels and civilians to theoretically explore the supply side of rebel governance and develop a new demand-side typology that captures the key factors influencing civilian preferences regarding the nature of rebel rule. Specifically, we argue that demand for rebel governance is mainly shaped by the interaction between civilians’ perceptions of the state and civilian–rebel compatibility, which we define as civilians’ perceptions of the compatibility of the rebel group with their own values, ideology, identity, and preferred modes of socio-political organization. To illustrate our main theoretical points, we draw upon insights gleaned from multiple insurgencies. Our study significantly enhances our understanding of how rebel–civilian interactions mold the fabric of political order in civil war environments.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140015647","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}
This article reviews one of the expanding research programs in international relations (IR): the study of populist foreign policy (PFP). Recent years have witnessed a significant proliferation of IR scholars researching the nexus between the global rise of populism and their foreign policies across different countries, regions, and sub-fields. However, scientific progress at such stage of this research program demands an in-depth “mapping” of its different ontological approaches. To this end, we identify and explore five “schools” of PFP that have been consolidated in the last decade, while highlighting their accomplishments in understanding the distinctive populist elements in foreign policy and their possibilities of analyzing local and external conditions under which PFP impacts global politics. We also set the stage for future contributions on the drivers, patterns, and effects of PFP, under the assumption that the populist phenomenon and its transnational dimensions will continue to affect IR prospects for a long time to come.
{"title":"Populist Foreign Policy: Mapping the Developing Research Program on Populism in International Relations","authors":"Daniel F Wajner, Philip Giurlando","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae012","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews one of the expanding research programs in international relations (IR): the study of populist foreign policy (PFP). Recent years have witnessed a significant proliferation of IR scholars researching the nexus between the global rise of populism and their foreign policies across different countries, regions, and sub-fields. However, scientific progress at such stage of this research program demands an in-depth “mapping” of its different ontological approaches. To this end, we identify and explore five “schools” of PFP that have been consolidated in the last decade, while highlighting their accomplishments in understanding the distinctive populist elements in foreign policy and their possibilities of analyzing local and external conditions under which PFP impacts global politics. We also set the stage for future contributions on the drivers, patterns, and effects of PFP, under the assumption that the populist phenomenon and its transnational dimensions will continue to affect IR prospects for a long time to come.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140015643","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}
Alba Rosa Boer Cueva, Keshab Giri, Caitlin Hamilton, Laura J Shepherd
International studies scholarship has benefitted from insights from anthropology, peace and conflict studies, geography, and other disciplines to craft a thoughtful set of reflections and considerations for researchers to take with them “into the field” when they embark on “fieldwork.” In this essay, we map out a history of critical approaches to fieldwork, starting with the encounters that initially encouraged reflection on the positionality of the researcher and the power dynamics of research. Building on decolonial feminist scholarship, we show how a commitment to reflexive practice “in the field” has developed further, through a reflection on the self as a researcher and on “the field” as a construct. This ethical and political commitment prompts a rethinking of key concepts in fieldwork (and research more generally), including those of “the researcher,” “the research participant” (or “population”), “expertise,” and what constitutes “data” and “knowledge.” We argue that a preferable approach to critical fieldwork is grounded in feminist and decolonial, anti-racist, anti-capitalist politics. This approach is committed not just to reflecting critically on “the field” and the interactions of the researcher within it but also to challenging the divisions, exclusions, and structures of oppression that sustain the separations between “here” and “there,” “researcher” and “researched,” and “knower" and “known.”
{"title":"A Decolonial Feminist Politics of Fieldwork: Centering Community, Reflexivity, and Loving Accountability","authors":"Alba Rosa Boer Cueva, Keshab Giri, Caitlin Hamilton, Laura J Shepherd","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae003","url":null,"abstract":"International studies scholarship has benefitted from insights from anthropology, peace and conflict studies, geography, and other disciplines to craft a thoughtful set of reflections and considerations for researchers to take with them “into the field” when they embark on “fieldwork.” In this essay, we map out a history of critical approaches to fieldwork, starting with the encounters that initially encouraged reflection on the positionality of the researcher and the power dynamics of research. Building on decolonial feminist scholarship, we show how a commitment to reflexive practice “in the field” has developed further, through a reflection on the self as a researcher and on “the field” as a construct. This ethical and political commitment prompts a rethinking of key concepts in fieldwork (and research more generally), including those of “the researcher,” “the research participant” (or “population”), “expertise,” and what constitutes “data” and “knowledge.” We argue that a preferable approach to critical fieldwork is grounded in feminist and decolonial, anti-racist, anti-capitalist politics. This approach is committed not just to reflecting critically on “the field” and the interactions of the researcher within it but also to challenging the divisions, exclusions, and structures of oppression that sustain the separations between “here” and “there,” “researcher” and “researched,” and “knower\" and “known.”","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139945384","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}
Roxanna Sjöstedt, Mimmi Söderberg Kovacs, Anders Themnér, Henrik Persson
Across the world, so-called warlord democrats (WDs) – former military or political leaders of armed groups who subsequently enter formal electoral politics – strongly influence the dynamics and trajectory of post-civil war politics. However, scholarship on war-to-peace transitions and post-conflict politics have often failed to pay attention to the agency of these important actors. This article rectifies this oversight, and thereby adds to the overarching scholarly debate on what enhances or hampers democratic processes after violent conflict. It makes two main contributions. First, by putting an explicit focus on the individual level of analysis and on the agency of WDs, the article opens up an avenue of research that previously has been black-boxed. Second, it demonstrates that the assumptions of socialization theory are particular suitable for enhancing our understanding of variations in the agency of WDs and their impact on post-conflict electoral politics. A novel analytical framework that refines the concept guides the empirical examination of the socialization processes of two WDs over time: Julius Maada Bio, the ex-junta leader who became President of Sierra Leone and Prince Johnson, the ex-warlord in Liberia who became Senator and presidential candidate. The findings suggest that the socialization theory holds promise as a new perspective on the study of WDs, but the theory may also need additional conceptual development and adjustment when applied outside its traditional empirical context and at the individual levels of analysis. Specifically, we find that the democratic socialization of our selected WDs display the characteristics of hybrid socialization, where conflicting normative frameworks result in lopsided socialization processes. But more research is needed on how to empirically distinguish between cost-benefit calculations and a logic of appropriateness, the long-term implications of hybrid socialization, and how to theoretically reconcile individual level socialization processes with that of states or groups.
{"title":"Socializing Warlord Democrats: Analyzing Violent Discursive Practices in Post-Civil War Politics","authors":"Roxanna Sjöstedt, Mimmi Söderberg Kovacs, Anders Themnér, Henrik Persson","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae005","url":null,"abstract":"Across the world, so-called warlord democrats (WDs) – former military or political leaders of armed groups who subsequently enter formal electoral politics – strongly influence the dynamics and trajectory of post-civil war politics. However, scholarship on war-to-peace transitions and post-conflict politics have often failed to pay attention to the agency of these important actors. This article rectifies this oversight, and thereby adds to the overarching scholarly debate on what enhances or hampers democratic processes after violent conflict. It makes two main contributions. First, by putting an explicit focus on the individual level of analysis and on the agency of WDs, the article opens up an avenue of research that previously has been black-boxed. Second, it demonstrates that the assumptions of socialization theory are particular suitable for enhancing our understanding of variations in the agency of WDs and their impact on post-conflict electoral politics. A novel analytical framework that refines the concept guides the empirical examination of the socialization processes of two WDs over time: Julius Maada Bio, the ex-junta leader who became President of Sierra Leone and Prince Johnson, the ex-warlord in Liberia who became Senator and presidential candidate. The findings suggest that the socialization theory holds promise as a new perspective on the study of WDs, but the theory may also need additional conceptual development and adjustment when applied outside its traditional empirical context and at the individual levels of analysis. Specifically, we find that the democratic socialization of our selected WDs display the characteristics of hybrid socialization, where conflicting normative frameworks result in lopsided socialization processes. But more research is needed on how to empirically distinguish between cost-benefit calculations and a logic of appropriateness, the long-term implications of hybrid socialization, and how to theoretically reconcile individual level socialization processes with that of states or groups.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139909241","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}
This paper proposes a comprehensive research program for determining the epistemological foundations of analytic wargaming. Wargaming has been used in military, government, and private sectors for decades, with tens of millions of dollars spent annually on it. In light of the changing strategic circumstances of the twenty-first century, it has only become more popular. However, the epistemological foundations of the method are poorly understood. Many professional wargamers contend that wargaming is an “art” and thus unable to be systemically evaluated. Recent work by a small coterie of international relations scholars has contended that wargaming can be reconciled with social science, typically by evaluating wargaming according to experimental standards. However, this solution strips wargames of most of their unique features and cannot explain why some of the most prominent wargames in history produced meaningful results. In this paper, I argue that in the attempt to better understand wargaming’s epistemology, scholars should begin by recognizing the prominent features of wargames and research each of these to determine if and how wargames produce rigorous knowledge. In making this argument, I identify five distinct “methodological machineries” of wargaming—the recurring processes through which wargames may produce knowledge—that distinguish wargaming from other social science methods: (i) they are representative, (ii) they feature consequential decisions made by human players, (iii) they are adjudicated, (iv) they are immersive, and (v) they are bespoke designs. I show how each of these machineries offers potential opportunities and dangers in the production of knowledge through the method of wargaming. In outlining these distinct features, I offer a clear and viable research program for epistemologists of wargaming.
{"title":"The Methodological Machinery of Wargaming: A Path toward Discovering Wargaming’s Epistemological Foundations","authors":"David E Banks","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae002","url":null,"abstract":"This paper proposes a comprehensive research program for determining the epistemological foundations of analytic wargaming. Wargaming has been used in military, government, and private sectors for decades, with tens of millions of dollars spent annually on it. In light of the changing strategic circumstances of the twenty-first century, it has only become more popular. However, the epistemological foundations of the method are poorly understood. Many professional wargamers contend that wargaming is an “art” and thus unable to be systemically evaluated. Recent work by a small coterie of international relations scholars has contended that wargaming can be reconciled with social science, typically by evaluating wargaming according to experimental standards. However, this solution strips wargames of most of their unique features and cannot explain why some of the most prominent wargames in history produced meaningful results. In this paper, I argue that in the attempt to better understand wargaming’s epistemology, scholars should begin by recognizing the prominent features of wargames and research each of these to determine if and how wargames produce rigorous knowledge. In making this argument, I identify five distinct “methodological machineries” of wargaming—the recurring processes through which wargames may produce knowledge—that distinguish wargaming from other social science methods: (i) they are representative, (ii) they feature consequential decisions made by human players, (iii) they are adjudicated, (iv) they are immersive, and (v) they are bespoke designs. I show how each of these machineries offers potential opportunities and dangers in the production of knowledge through the method of wargaming. In outlining these distinct features, I offer a clear and viable research program for epistemologists of wargaming.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139676957","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}
It is commonplace to say that international organizations (IOs) face a legitimacy crisis because they are perceived as undemocratic, unaccountable, and inefficient. Plausible as it may seem, this still must count as a conjecture. In this article, I review the rapidly growing literature that has explored this connection empirically. I follow three strands of research that approach the legitimacy of IOs from different angles. The first strand explores individual beliefs through observational and experimental surveys. The second strand analyzes public discourses, mapping arguments deployed to (de-)legitimize IOs. The third strand studies political action related to legitimacy, such as protest voting, street demonstrations, and withdrawal of member states from IOs. The empirical evidence shows that citizens expect fair procedures and balanced outcomes also in international politics; that legitimation discourses revolve around democratic standards and not only performance; and that institutions respond to protests. It is less clear, however, how the three dimensions of (de-)legitimation interact. I argue that we need to triangulate them more systematically to see the connections between beliefs, arguments, and political action at work. I suggest in-depth case studies, sensitive to the context and content of legitimation debates, that cover these three dimensions and their interactions simultaneously.
{"title":"Triangulating the Legitimacy of International Organizations: Beliefs, Discourses, and Actions","authors":"Jens Steffek","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad054","url":null,"abstract":"It is commonplace to say that international organizations (IOs) face a legitimacy crisis because they are perceived as undemocratic, unaccountable, and inefficient. Plausible as it may seem, this still must count as a conjecture. In this article, I review the rapidly growing literature that has explored this connection empirically. I follow three strands of research that approach the legitimacy of IOs from different angles. The first strand explores individual beliefs through observational and experimental surveys. The second strand analyzes public discourses, mapping arguments deployed to (de-)legitimize IOs. The third strand studies political action related to legitimacy, such as protest voting, street demonstrations, and withdrawal of member states from IOs. The empirical evidence shows that citizens expect fair procedures and balanced outcomes also in international politics; that legitimation discourses revolve around democratic standards and not only performance; and that institutions respond to protests. It is less clear, however, how the three dimensions of (de-)legitimation interact. I argue that we need to triangulate them more systematically to see the connections between beliefs, arguments, and political action at work. I suggest in-depth case studies, sensitive to the context and content of legitimation debates, that cover these three dimensions and their interactions simultaneously.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138475772","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}
The international (non)recognition of governments is a composite macro practice that has grown in visibility in recent years in response to contentious domestic political processes such as coups d’état, revolutions, and civil wars, yet it remains understudied in international relations. Doctrinal debates in international law and foreign policy reveal the normative vacuum and normative competition that have long surrounded this phenomenon, but say little about its specific operation and effects. This article brings together insights from recognition theory and international practice theory, and uses post-2011 Libya as an in-depth case study, drawing on elite interviews with diplomats, international officials, and other practitioners. The aim is to sketch a new research agenda by building a generalizable typology of smaller-scale government recognition micro practices (declaratory, diplomatic, informal engagement, intergovernmental cooperation, and support practices), and uncovering their guiding logics and consequences. I argue that, first, the international (non)recognition of governments is endowed with a distinct generative power, as it produces its own creatures through a range of micro practices that have identity formation and change, material empowerment, political legitimation, and sovereignty line-drawing effects. Secondly, it is geopolitically inevitable, as external actors involved in a country cannot ultimately avoid engaging with territorially grounded domestic political actors. Thirdly, it is not a black-and-white situation, as it involves a broad variety of practices guided by different, often contradictory logics. Finally, international government recognition practices are likely to run into three dilemmas stemming from three tensions: international versus domestic recognition, legitimacy versus effectiveness, and coherence versus inclusivity in conflict mediation.
{"title":"The International Recognition of Governments in Practice(s): Creatures, Mirages, and Dilemmas in Post-2011 Libya","authors":"Irene Fernández-Molina","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad050","url":null,"abstract":"The international (non)recognition of governments is a composite macro practice that has grown in visibility in recent years in response to contentious domestic political processes such as coups d’état, revolutions, and civil wars, yet it remains understudied in international relations. Doctrinal debates in international law and foreign policy reveal the normative vacuum and normative competition that have long surrounded this phenomenon, but say little about its specific operation and effects. This article brings together insights from recognition theory and international practice theory, and uses post-2011 Libya as an in-depth case study, drawing on elite interviews with diplomats, international officials, and other practitioners. The aim is to sketch a new research agenda by building a generalizable typology of smaller-scale government recognition micro practices (declaratory, diplomatic, informal engagement, intergovernmental cooperation, and support practices), and uncovering their guiding logics and consequences. I argue that, first, the international (non)recognition of governments is endowed with a distinct generative power, as it produces its own creatures through a range of micro practices that have identity formation and change, material empowerment, political legitimation, and sovereignty line-drawing effects. Secondly, it is geopolitically inevitable, as external actors involved in a country cannot ultimately avoid engaging with territorially grounded domestic political actors. Thirdly, it is not a black-and-white situation, as it involves a broad variety of practices guided by different, often contradictory logics. Finally, international government recognition practices are likely to run into three dilemmas stemming from three tensions: international versus domestic recognition, legitimacy versus effectiveness, and coherence versus inclusivity in conflict mediation.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71524917","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：