This article addresses growing calls for a fifth debate on international relations’ (IR) “race amnesia.” The central argument is two-fold. First, contrary to conventional wisdom, racial justice was not omitted in “orthodox” scholarship—in particular Morgenthau’s realism. On the contrary, classical realists repeatedly critiqued the lack of racial justice throughout their careers. Second, racial justice was not only a concern for Morgenthau but also integral to his conception of the national interest, particularly in the Vietnam War. To Morgenthau, the national interest failed in Vietnam because the United States failed to define its purpose at home. Fundamental to its purpose was the question of racial justice. Morgenthau’s conception of the national interest has an enduring impact on contemporary realist scholarship. This scholarship engages with issues that are relevant to postcolonial IR, such as the pursuit of primacy in the War on Terror, the backlash in the form of Trumpism, and the Black Lives Matter protests. Morgenthau’s work provides the intellectual roots that sustain these arguments. For a fifth debate on race in IR to materialize, it is thus this neglected dimension in Morgenthau’s writing that postcolonial scholarship needs to engage with.
{"title":"Toward IR’s “Fifth Debate”: Racial Justice and the National Interest in Classical Realism","authors":"Haro Karkour, Felix Rösch","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae030","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses growing calls for a fifth debate on international relations’ (IR) “race amnesia.” The central argument is two-fold. First, contrary to conventional wisdom, racial justice was not omitted in “orthodox” scholarship—in particular Morgenthau’s realism. On the contrary, classical realists repeatedly critiqued the lack of racial justice throughout their careers. Second, racial justice was not only a concern for Morgenthau but also integral to his conception of the national interest, particularly in the Vietnam War. To Morgenthau, the national interest failed in Vietnam because the United States failed to define its purpose at home. Fundamental to its purpose was the question of racial justice. Morgenthau’s conception of the national interest has an enduring impact on contemporary realist scholarship. This scholarship engages with issues that are relevant to postcolonial IR, such as the pursuit of primacy in the War on Terror, the backlash in the form of Trumpism, and the Black Lives Matter protests. Morgenthau’s work provides the intellectual roots that sustain these arguments. For a fifth debate on race in IR to materialize, it is thus this neglected dimension in Morgenthau’s writing that postcolonial scholarship needs to engage with.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141185132","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 this analytical essay, we situate truth commissions as relevant sites for International Relations (IR) research, in particular on professional communities and knowledge hierarchies. With an empirical focus on report-making, we argue that there is a need to rethink and revise established professional community concepts. While these concepts stress professional communities’ detachment from mundane pressures, we suggest a “pressure lens” to better grasp the key dynamics of expert knowledge production. Based on in-depth interpretive research on three truth commissions—in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and Tunisia—we set out to identify key dynamics in the report-making of truth commissions that contribute to the gap between high expectations and sobering realities regarding truth commissions as “victim-centred” policy instruments. Understanding the dynamics at play requires us to pay attention to unequal pressures—such as time and funding pressures, powerholder interference, and demands voiced by victims and survivors—that bear on the work of experts and professionals who produce truth commission reports. We argue that these pressures and, crucially, the ways in which they tend to play out under conditions of coloniality, are expressions of global hierarchies that shape professional report-making work.
{"title":"Global Hierarchies and Unequal Pressures in the Report-Making of Truth Commissions","authors":"Anne Menzel, Mariam Salehi","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae022","url":null,"abstract":"In this analytical essay, we situate truth commissions as relevant sites for International Relations (IR) research, in particular on professional communities and knowledge hierarchies. With an empirical focus on report-making, we argue that there is a need to rethink and revise established professional community concepts. While these concepts stress professional communities’ detachment from mundane pressures, we suggest a “pressure lens” to better grasp the key dynamics of expert knowledge production. Based on in-depth interpretive research on three truth commissions—in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and Tunisia—we set out to identify key dynamics in the report-making of truth commissions that contribute to the gap between high expectations and sobering realities regarding truth commissions as “victim-centred” policy instruments. Understanding the dynamics at play requires us to pay attention to unequal pressures—such as time and funding pressures, powerholder interference, and demands voiced by victims and survivors—that bear on the work of experts and professionals who produce truth commission reports. We argue that these pressures and, crucially, the ways in which they tend to play out under conditions of coloniality, are expressions of global hierarchies that shape professional report-making work.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141079335","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}
Back-channel negotiations are commonplace in peace negotiations and can serve as crucial mechanisms for reaching agreements. While there has been a moderate increase in scholarship examining back-channel negotiations in the last two decades, none has explored the gendered nature of these spaces. This article analyzes how and why back-channel negotiations are highly gendered processes and why their gendered nature matters for sustainable peace. We begin with a review of the current literature on back-channel negotiations and discuss how and why they are critical mechanisms in peace negotiation and agreement processes. Next, we show how women’s inclusion in peace negotiations and agreement practices matters for sustainable peace. Thereafter, we discuss how secret negotiation spaces are infused with gendered power and masculine logics of war and peace. We argue that three key features of back-channel negotiations—secrecy, uncertainty, and limited trust—come together to create an echo chamber of hypermasculinity ideas, values, styles, and norms that prevent women from achieving descriptive and substantive representation inside fundamental secret negotiation spaces. This article adds to the developing literature on back-channel negotiations and helps us better understand how and why women and their interests are regularly excluded from peace processes despite the global prominence of the United Nations’ Women, Peace, and Security agenda.
{"title":"Secrecy, Uncertainty, and Trust: The Gendered Nature of Back-Channel Peace Negotiations","authors":"Elizabeth S Corredor, Miriam J Anderson","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae023","url":null,"abstract":"Back-channel negotiations are commonplace in peace negotiations and can serve as crucial mechanisms for reaching agreements. While there has been a moderate increase in scholarship examining back-channel negotiations in the last two decades, none has explored the gendered nature of these spaces. This article analyzes how and why back-channel negotiations are highly gendered processes and why their gendered nature matters for sustainable peace. We begin with a review of the current literature on back-channel negotiations and discuss how and why they are critical mechanisms in peace negotiation and agreement processes. Next, we show how women’s inclusion in peace negotiations and agreement practices matters for sustainable peace. Thereafter, we discuss how secret negotiation spaces are infused with gendered power and masculine logics of war and peace. We argue that three key features of back-channel negotiations—secrecy, uncertainty, and limited trust—come together to create an echo chamber of hypermasculinity ideas, values, styles, and norms that prevent women from achieving descriptive and substantive representation inside fundamental secret negotiation spaces. This article adds to the developing literature on back-channel negotiations and helps us better understand how and why women and their interests are regularly excluded from peace processes despite the global prominence of the United Nations’ Women, Peace, and Security agenda.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"128 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141073922","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}
Territory is a distinctive feature of modern international politics, but there is little consensus over what about it is distinctively modern. Recent scholarship in historical international relations (IR) takes modern territoriality to be defined by the practice of creating and enforcing borders. Scholarship therefore dismisses the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, once thought to be the origin of the sovereign territorial state, because it did not change border practices. However, this approach ignores legal history. I argue that territory is a legal concept, and a history of modern territoriality must explain under what conditions rulers expressed their authority as territorial in nature. This article explains why the legal evolution of territorial rights (landeshoheit, iure territorii) in early modern Europe was distinctive of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). While national monarchies asserted their “sovereignty” as non-territorial in order to capture overseas empires, the HRE developed a legal doctrine of territorially circumscribed jurisdiction within the imperial hierarchy. The Peace of Westphalia was a culminating event in which diverse privileges were recast as a single territorial right. Territorial autonomy was not only consistent with the hierarchy of the HRE but was fundamental to preserving it. This article has two contributions. First, it adds to recent scholarship on modern territoriality by explaining how legal history furnished the preconditions for ruling territory. Second, it places Westphalia and the empire’s legal history within the recent turn toward empire in historical IR. An important source for the development of international law was the internal constitution of the HRE. This prompts us to reconsider the notion that international law assumes a world of sovereign territorial states. On the contrary, early international law concerned territorial states nested within imperial hierarchy, not the anarchy of sovereignty.
领土是现代国际政治的一个显著特点，但对于什么是现代领土却鲜有共识。历史国际关系（IR）领域的最新学术研究认为，现代领土性是由建立和实施边界的实践所定义的。1648 年的《威斯特伐利亚和约》曾被认为是主权领土国家的起源，因此学术界否定了该和约，因为它并没有改变边界实践。然而，这种做法忽视了法律史。我认为，领土是一个法律概念，现代领土史必须解释统治者在什么情况下将其权力表达为领土性质。本文解释了为什么近代早期欧洲领土权（landeshoheit, iure territorii）的法律演变与神圣罗马帝国（HRE）截然不同。当各国君主为了夺取海外帝国而宣称自己的 "主权 "是非属地性的时候，神圣罗马帝国却在帝国等级制度内发展出了一种属地限定管辖权的法律理论。威斯特伐利亚和约》是一个顶点事件，在该和约中，各种特权被重塑为单一的领土权。领土自治不仅符合帝国的等级制度，而且是维护这种制度的根本。本文有两个贡献。首先，它通过解释法律史如何为统治领土提供先决条件，为近代领土性研究增添了新的内容。其次，它将威斯特伐利亚和帝国的法律史置于历史国际关系中近期对帝国的转向之中。国际法发展的一个重要源泉是埃塞俄比亚的内部宪法。这促使我们重新考虑国际法假定由主权领土国家组成的世界这一概念。恰恰相反，早期国际法涉及的是帝国等级制度下的领土国家，而不是主权的无政府状态。
{"title":"Why Westphalia Still Matters: Territorial Rights under Empire","authors":"Benjamin Mueser","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae024","url":null,"abstract":"Territory is a distinctive feature of modern international politics, but there is little consensus over what about it is distinctively modern. Recent scholarship in historical international relations (IR) takes modern territoriality to be defined by the practice of creating and enforcing borders. Scholarship therefore dismisses the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, once thought to be the origin of the sovereign territorial state, because it did not change border practices. However, this approach ignores legal history. I argue that territory is a legal concept, and a history of modern territoriality must explain under what conditions rulers expressed their authority as territorial in nature. This article explains why the legal evolution of territorial rights (landeshoheit, iure territorii) in early modern Europe was distinctive of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). While national monarchies asserted their “sovereignty” as non-territorial in order to capture overseas empires, the HRE developed a legal doctrine of territorially circumscribed jurisdiction within the imperial hierarchy. The Peace of Westphalia was a culminating event in which diverse privileges were recast as a single territorial right. Territorial autonomy was not only consistent with the hierarchy of the HRE but was fundamental to preserving it. This article has two contributions. First, it adds to recent scholarship on modern territoriality by explaining how legal history furnished the preconditions for ruling territory. Second, it places Westphalia and the empire’s legal history within the recent turn toward empire in historical IR. An important source for the development of international law was the internal constitution of the HRE. This prompts us to reconsider the notion that international law assumes a world of sovereign territorial states. On the contrary, early international law concerned territorial states nested within imperial hierarchy, not the anarchy of sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"192 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140942994","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 line with the call for greater engagement with the affective and emotional dimensions of conducting research in conflict and post-conflict settings, this article addresses the methodological implications of incorporating emotionally sensed knowledge into the research process. It argues that emotions serve as fundamental heuristic keys for entering the field and acquiring situated knowledge. By reflecting upon practical challenges and ethical concerns encountered during field research in Iraq, the article aims to challenge disciplinary practices that promote emotional self-censorship and provide guidance to young researchers navigating the messy contingencies of fieldwork. The neglect of emotions in positivist approaches is examined in relation to the political economy of knowledge production, suggesting that prevailing emotional silence may lead to harmful research practices and threatens epistemological pluralism.
{"title":"Emotions in the Frontline. Notes on Interpretive Research in Conflict Areas","authors":"Alessandro Tinti","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae025","url":null,"abstract":"In line with the call for greater engagement with the affective and emotional dimensions of conducting research in conflict and post-conflict settings, this article addresses the methodological implications of incorporating emotionally sensed knowledge into the research process. It argues that emotions serve as fundamental heuristic keys for entering the field and acquiring situated knowledge. By reflecting upon practical challenges and ethical concerns encountered during field research in Iraq, the article aims to challenge disciplinary practices that promote emotional self-censorship and provide guidance to young researchers navigating the messy contingencies of fieldwork. The neglect of emotions in positivist approaches is examined in relation to the political economy of knowledge production, suggesting that prevailing emotional silence may lead to harmful research practices and threatens epistemological pluralism.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140942999","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 argues that interpersonal commitment is statespersons’ most highly coveted aim, the greatest benefit that interpersonal relations can yield in diplomacy. Accordingly, statespersons employ a range of relational practices in encounters with counterparts, seeking to create and harness commitment that will advance professional aims. We argue that statespersons can follow one of two paths to generate commitment: (1) creating feelings of gratitude and providing help that makes a counterpart feel indebted; or (2) cultivating friendly relations. Both demand the successful implementation of relational practices. On the basis of thirty semistructured interviews with past and present senior Israeli statespersons and an analysis of fifteen autobiographies written by senior Israeli diplomats and political figures, we demonstrate to what extent statespersons acknowledge the importance of interpersonal commitment and its ramifications; identify the relational practices that statespersons employ to elicit commitment from a counterpart; and discuss the conditions that facilitate the emergence of such a commitment. We conclude by discussing the differences between thin and thick interpersonal commitments and underlining the importance of interpersonal relations in diplomacy.
{"title":"Interpersonal Commitment: The Hidden Power of Face-to-Face Diplomacy","authors":"Gadi Heimann, Zohar Kampf","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae021","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that interpersonal commitment is statespersons’ most highly coveted aim, the greatest benefit that interpersonal relations can yield in diplomacy. Accordingly, statespersons employ a range of relational practices in encounters with counterparts, seeking to create and harness commitment that will advance professional aims. We argue that statespersons can follow one of two paths to generate commitment: (1) creating feelings of gratitude and providing help that makes a counterpart feel indebted; or (2) cultivating friendly relations. Both demand the successful implementation of relational practices. On the basis of thirty semistructured interviews with past and present senior Israeli statespersons and an analysis of fifteen autobiographies written by senior Israeli diplomats and political figures, we demonstrate to what extent statespersons acknowledge the importance of interpersonal commitment and its ramifications; identify the relational practices that statespersons employ to elicit commitment from a counterpart; and discuss the conditions that facilitate the emergence of such a commitment. We conclude by discussing the differences between thin and thick interpersonal commitments and underlining the importance of interpersonal relations in diplomacy.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140820001","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":"11 1","pages":""},"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}
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":"258 1","pages":""},"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":"34 1","pages":""},"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":"53 1","pages":""},"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}
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：