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":"1 1","pages":""},"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":"10 1","pages":""},"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":" 666","pages":""},"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":"64 16","pages":""},"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}
Journal Article Collective Memory, Contestations, and Global Politics Get access Kathrin Bachleitner. Collective Memory in International Relations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2021. 176 pp., £65 hardback. e-book available. Adarsh Badri Adarsh Badri Jawaharlal Nehru University, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1148-5640 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad049, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad049 Published: 10 October 2023 Article history Received: 28 September 2022 Revision received: 24 June 2023 Accepted: 26 September 2023 Published: 10 October 2023
{"title":"Collective Memory, Contestations, and Global Politics","authors":"Adarsh Badri","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad049","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Collective Memory, Contestations, and Global Politics Get access Kathrin Bachleitner. Collective Memory in International Relations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2021. 176 pp., £65 hardback. e-book available. Adarsh Badri Adarsh Badri Jawaharlal Nehru University, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1148-5640 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad049, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad049 Published: 10 October 2023 Article history Received: 28 September 2022 Revision received: 24 June 2023 Accepted: 26 September 2023 Published: 10 October 2023","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135256530","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}
Journal Article Civilian Agency in Civil War? Militia Formation and Diffusion in Mozambique Get access Violent Resistance: Militia Formation and Civil War in Mozambique. By Corinna Jentzsch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2022. 221 pp. ISBN: 978-1108837453. $99.99. Available as hardcover and e-book. I M R A N A BUBA I M R A N A BUBA University of Oslo, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1303-4472 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad044, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad044 Published: 10 October 2023 Article history Received: 01 April 2023 Published: 10 October 2023
内战中的民事机构?莫桑比克民兵的形成和扩散参见《暴力抵抗:莫桑比克民兵的形成和内战》。作者:Corinna Jentzsch剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2022。221页。ISBN: 978-1108837453。99.99美元。提供精装和电子书。I M R A N A BUBA I M R A N A BUBA挪威奥斯陆大学https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1303-4472查找作者的其他作品:牛津学术谷歌学者国际研究评论，第25卷，第4期，2023年12月，viad044, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad044出版日期:2023年10月10日文章历史收稿日期:2023年4月1日出版日期:2023年10月10日
{"title":"Civilian Agency in Civil War? Militia Formation and Diffusion in Mozambique","authors":"I M R A N A BUBA","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad044","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Civilian Agency in Civil War? Militia Formation and Diffusion in Mozambique Get access Violent Resistance: Militia Formation and Civil War in Mozambique. By Corinna Jentzsch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2022. 221 pp. ISBN: 978-1108837453. $99.99. Available as hardcover and e-book. I M R A N A BUBA I M R A N A BUBA University of Oslo, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1303-4472 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad044, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad044 Published: 10 October 2023 Article history Received: 01 April 2023 Published: 10 October 2023","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"226 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135256538","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}
Angelos Chryssogelos, Erin K Jenne, Christopher David LaRoche, Bertjan Verbeek, Andrej Zaslove, Sandra Destradi, David Cadier, Fabrizio Coticchia, Federico Donelli, Christian Lequesne
Abstract In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the international dimensions of populism, by now a major political phenomenon around the world. This interest, however, has been confined largely to the state level, especially the influence of populism on foreign policy. In this Forum, we argue that it is important for analysis to move beyond the state level and view populism as a concept and phenomenon of international relations (IR) rather than simply a factor of foreign policy. The Forum discusses implications of the rise of populism for IR theory, the role of international systemic change in the emergence of populism in national arenas, and the ways that regime type, state structure and institutions, ideational content, and the political strategies of populists condition the impact of populism on world politics. In this way, the Forum identifies specific directions for the study of populism in IR that scholars can follow in the future.
{"title":"New Directions in the Study of Populism in International Relations","authors":"Angelos Chryssogelos, Erin K Jenne, Christopher David LaRoche, Bertjan Verbeek, Andrej Zaslove, Sandra Destradi, David Cadier, Fabrizio Coticchia, Federico Donelli, Christian Lequesne","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the international dimensions of populism, by now a major political phenomenon around the world. This interest, however, has been confined largely to the state level, especially the influence of populism on foreign policy. In this Forum, we argue that it is important for analysis to move beyond the state level and view populism as a concept and phenomenon of international relations (IR) rather than simply a factor of foreign policy. The Forum discusses implications of the rise of populism for IR theory, the role of international systemic change in the emergence of populism in national arenas, and the ways that regime type, state structure and institutions, ideational content, and the political strategies of populists condition the impact of populism on world politics. In this way, the Forum identifies specific directions for the study of populism in IR that scholars can follow in the future.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"168 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135153121","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}
Journal Article “Eliding Joy” No More: Bringing Joy Back to Human Rights Get access Simmons William Paul. 2019. Joyful Human Rights. Philadephia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 290 pp., $75.00 Hardcover (ISBN-13 978-0812251012). Tracy Hoffmann Slagter Tracy Hoffmann Slagter University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, US Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad046, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad046 Published: 19 October 2023 Article history Received: 29 December 2022 Published: 19 October 2023
{"title":"“Eliding Joy” No More: Bringing Joy Back to Human Rights","authors":"Tracy Hoffmann Slagter","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad046","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article “Eliding Joy” No More: Bringing Joy Back to Human Rights Get access Simmons William Paul. 2019. Joyful Human Rights. Philadephia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 290 pp., $75.00 Hardcover (ISBN-13 978-0812251012). Tracy Hoffmann Slagter Tracy Hoffmann Slagter University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, US Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad046, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad046 Published: 19 October 2023 Article history Received: 29 December 2022 Published: 19 October 2023","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135255837","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}
Abstract What is Christendom in international relations? We argue that Christendom does not equate to a long-lost historical empire but an enduring imaginary of a political order where government secures the church and the church ministers to government. Such imaginaries have taken a diverse range of historical and geographical forms, which have barely been explored in International Relations (IR). They may be state-centric or decentered. As intellectual historians of the discipline have demonstrated, international relations was founded on a Christendom ontology and theology, and then rapidly forgot that fact. One major feature of this forgetting is a narrow historical conception of Christendom—its equation with Latin Christendom—in contrast with the wealth of scholarship in the humanities, which has revealed various conceptual forms and discursive practices of Christendom from at least the fourth century CE to the present. The effect of this narrowness has been to confirm IR’s historical Eurocentrism and prevent it from exploring the international politics of Eurasian, Eastern Orthodox forms of Christendom, and signs of new imaginaries of Christendom emerging in the Global South. But such neo-Christendoms—which imagine government as re-centered on the church—raise the possibility of the emergence of modern variations of the legitimized violence associated with Latin Christendom. Alternative theologies of post-Christendom—imagining the church as politically active but decentered from government—indicate that such an imaginary is contested not just beyond but within Christian theology. The paper provides a new definition of Christendom and re-evaluation of its afterlives for the study of religion and theology in international relations.
{"title":"What Is Christendom to Us? Making Better Sense of Christianity in Global Politics","authors":"John Heathershaw","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad051","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What is Christendom in international relations? We argue that Christendom does not equate to a long-lost historical empire but an enduring imaginary of a political order where government secures the church and the church ministers to government. Such imaginaries have taken a diverse range of historical and geographical forms, which have barely been explored in International Relations (IR). They may be state-centric or decentered. As intellectual historians of the discipline have demonstrated, international relations was founded on a Christendom ontology and theology, and then rapidly forgot that fact. One major feature of this forgetting is a narrow historical conception of Christendom—its equation with Latin Christendom—in contrast with the wealth of scholarship in the humanities, which has revealed various conceptual forms and discursive practices of Christendom from at least the fourth century CE to the present. The effect of this narrowness has been to confirm IR’s historical Eurocentrism and prevent it from exploring the international politics of Eurasian, Eastern Orthodox forms of Christendom, and signs of new imaginaries of Christendom emerging in the Global South. But such neo-Christendoms—which imagine government as re-centered on the church—raise the possibility of the emergence of modern variations of the legitimized violence associated with Latin Christendom. Alternative theologies of post-Christendom—imagining the church as politically active but decentered from government—indicate that such an imaginary is contested not just beyond but within Christian theology. The paper provides a new definition of Christendom and re-evaluation of its afterlives for the study of religion and theology in international relations.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135257863","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}
Journal Article Deter, Disrupt, or Deceive: Assessing Cyber Conflict as an Intelligence Contest Get access Robert Chesney Max Smeets Editors. Deter, Disrupt, or Deceive: Assessing Cyber Conflict as an Intelligence Contest. Georgetown University Press, 2023. 318pp. $36.95 (ISBN: 978-1647123260) Gil Baram Gil Baram University of California, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0384-612X Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad047, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad047 Published: 02 November 2023 Article history Received: 04 May 2023 Revision received: 07 July 2023 Published: 02 November 2023
期刊文章威慑，扰乱，还是欺骗:评估网络冲突作为一场智力竞赛获取链接Robert Chesney Max Smeets编辑威慑、干扰或欺骗:评估作为情报竞赛的网络冲突。乔治城大学出版社，2023。318页。$36.95 (ISBN: 978-1647123260) Gil Baram Gil Baram美国加州大学https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0384-612X查找作者的其他作品:Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad047, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad047出版日期:2023年11月2日文章历史收稿日期:2023年5月4日修订日期:2023年7月7日出版日期:2023年11月2日
{"title":"Deter, Disrupt, or Deceive: Assessing Cyber Conflict as an Intelligence Contest","authors":"Gil Baram","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad047","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Deter, Disrupt, or Deceive: Assessing Cyber Conflict as an Intelligence Contest Get access Robert Chesney Max Smeets Editors. Deter, Disrupt, or Deceive: Assessing Cyber Conflict as an Intelligence Contest. Georgetown University Press, 2023. 318pp. $36.95 (ISBN: 978-1647123260) Gil Baram Gil Baram University of California, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0384-612X Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, December 2023, viad047, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad047 Published: 02 November 2023 Article history Received: 04 May 2023 Revision received: 07 July 2023 Published: 02 November 2023","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"226 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135257541","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：