{"title":"Undermining Human Rights through Foreign Aid","authors":"Jacob Fortier","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"102 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75854868","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}
M. Tabaar, Reyko Huang, Kanchan Chandra, E. Finkel, Richard A. Nielsen, M. Revkin, M. Vogt, E. Wood
Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize “religious” conflicts and “religious” actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors’ behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors’ own claims about their motivations? How does the “secular bias” affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as “religious” by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about “religious” actors, “religious” motivations, and “religious” conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse.
{"title":"How Religious Are “Religious” Conflicts?","authors":"M. Tabaar, Reyko Huang, Kanchan Chandra, E. Finkel, Richard A. Nielsen, M. Revkin, M. Vogt, E. Wood","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize “religious” conflicts and “religious” actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors’ behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors’ own claims about their motivations? How does the “secular bias” affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as “religious” by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about “religious” actors, “religious” motivations, and “religious” conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86386060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Why Do We—or Don’t We—Fight?","authors":"Jordan Becker, Michael S. Kofoed","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad028","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88416320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction to: International Studies and Struggles for Inclusion","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"102 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82419566","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}
How does armed conflict affect the social fabric of societies? This question is central if we want to understand better why some countries experience repeated cycles of violence. In recent years, considerable scientific work has been put into studying the social legacies of armed conflict. This article brings these academic studies together in a novel way, taking a holistic perspective and analyzing each of the three constituent elements of social cohesion—trust, cooperation, and identity—in detail and along both a vertical (state–society relations) and a horizontal (interpersonal and intergroup relations) dimension. Bringing together insights from fifty empirical studies, I call into question the initial optimism expressed by some scholars that conflict increases social cohesion. Only political participation seems to often be positively affected by experiencing conflict. In contrast, social and political trust as well as identification and cooperation across groups declines. However, research in several of these sub-elements of social cohesion is still nascent so that the strengths and shortcomings of the different studies are discussed and future avenues for research are identified.
{"title":"What Do We Know about How Armed Conflict Affects Social Cohesion? A Review of the Empirical Literature","authors":"Charlotte Fiedler","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How does armed conflict affect the social fabric of societies? This question is central if we want to understand better why some countries experience repeated cycles of violence. In recent years, considerable scientific work has been put into studying the social legacies of armed conflict. This article brings these academic studies together in a novel way, taking a holistic perspective and analyzing each of the three constituent elements of social cohesion—trust, cooperation, and identity—in detail and along both a vertical (state–society relations) and a horizontal (interpersonal and intergroup relations) dimension. Bringing together insights from fifty empirical studies, I call into question the initial optimism expressed by some scholars that conflict increases social cohesion. Only political participation seems to often be positively affected by experiencing conflict. In contrast, social and political trust as well as identification and cooperation across groups declines. However, research in several of these sub-elements of social cohesion is still nascent so that the strengths and shortcomings of the different studies are discussed and future avenues for research are identified.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74613184","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}
Larry M Bartels, Ursula E Daxecker, Susan D Hyde, Staffan I Lindberg, Irfan Nooruddin
There is a widespread perception that we are witnessing a period of democratic decline, manifesting itself in varieties of democratic backsliding such as the manipulation of elections, marginalization and repression of regime opponents and minorities, or more incremental executive aggrandizement. Yet others are more optimistic and have argued that democracy is in fact resilient, or that we are observing coinciding trends of democratic decline but also expansion. This forum highlights key issues in the debate on democracy's decline, which center on conceptual and measurement issues, agreement on the phenomenon but not its nature or severity, the importance of international factors, the emphasis we should put on political elites versus citizens, and the consequences of backsliding for global politics. Staffan I. Lindberg provides an empirical perspective on the scope and severity of democracy's decline, and argues that polarization and misinformation are important drivers for this current wave of autocratization. Susan D. Hyde highlights the detrimental consequences of reduced support for democracy by the international community, which has affected civil society organizations—important arbiters of democracy—especially severely. Challenging some of these conclusions, Irfan Nooruddin claims that any gains for democracy after the end of the Cold War were short-lived, failing to sustain democracy because of an overemphasis on elections and a disregard for structural factors. Finally, Larry M. Bartels argues that we need to look to political elites and not citizens if we want to protect democracy in the United States and elsewhere, which has important implications for how we study democracy and its challenges.
人们普遍认为，我们正在目睹一个民主衰落的时期，表现为各种各样的民主倒退，如操纵选举、边缘化和镇压政权反对者和少数民族，或更多的行政权力扩大。然而，另一些人则更为乐观，他们认为民主实际上是有弹性的，或者我们正在观察民主衰落和扩张的同步趋势。本次论坛强调了关于民主衰落的辩论中的关键问题，这些问题集中在概念和衡量问题，对这种现象的共识，但不是其性质或严重程度，国际因素的重要性，我们应该强调政治精英与公民之间的关系，以及倒退对全球政治的后果。斯塔凡·i·林德伯格(Staffan I. Lindberg)对民主衰落的范围和严重程度提供了实证视角，并认为两极分化和错误信息是当前这波独裁浪潮的重要驱动因素。Susan D. Hyde强调了国际社会对民主支持减少的有害后果，这对公民社会组织——民主的重要仲裁者——的影响尤其严重。Irfan Nooruddin对其中一些结论提出了质疑，他声称冷战结束后民主的任何成果都是短暂的，由于过度强调选举和忽视结构性因素，民主未能维持下去。最后，拉里·m·巴特尔斯(Larry M. Bartels)认为，如果我们想要保护美国和其他地方的民主，我们需要关注政治精英，而不是公民，这对我们如何研究民主及其挑战具有重要意义。
{"title":"The Forum: Global Challenges to Democracy? Perspectives on Democratic Backsliding","authors":"Larry M Bartels, Ursula E Daxecker, Susan D Hyde, Staffan I Lindberg, Irfan Nooruddin","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad019","url":null,"abstract":"There is a widespread perception that we are witnessing a period of democratic decline, manifesting itself in varieties of democratic backsliding such as the manipulation of elections, marginalization and repression of regime opponents and minorities, or more incremental executive aggrandizement. Yet others are more optimistic and have argued that democracy is in fact resilient, or that we are observing coinciding trends of democratic decline but also expansion. This forum highlights key issues in the debate on democracy's decline, which center on conceptual and measurement issues, agreement on the phenomenon but not its nature or severity, the importance of international factors, the emphasis we should put on political elites versus citizens, and the consequences of backsliding for global politics. Staffan I. Lindberg provides an empirical perspective on the scope and severity of democracy's decline, and argues that polarization and misinformation are important drivers for this current wave of autocratization. Susan D. Hyde highlights the detrimental consequences of reduced support for democracy by the international community, which has affected civil society organizations—important arbiters of democracy—especially severely. Challenging some of these conclusions, Irfan Nooruddin claims that any gains for democracy after the end of the Cold War were short-lived, failing to sustain democracy because of an overemphasis on elections and a disregard for structural factors. Finally, Larry M. Bartels argues that we need to look to political elites and not citizens if we want to protect democracy in the United States and elsewhere, which has important implications for how we study democracy and its challenges.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165104","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 religion–politics nexus has become a thriving field within the study of global politics. However, the fast development has translated only into a moderate diversification of the research. Building on Bourdieu’s analysis of the social field, this paper argues that this limited pluralization is related to the strong heteronomy of the field. This heteronomy has three “concentric” sources—the dependence on the field of politics, the continued influence of the secularist bias of Western social science, and the dependence on the theoretical developments in the broader discipline of international relations. Methodologically, the article builds on a detailed analysis of eighteen top academic journals and their scholarly output related to religion in global politics.
{"title":"Religion and (Global) Politics: The State of the Art and Beyond","authors":"Petr Kratochvíl","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad014","url":null,"abstract":"The religion–politics nexus has become a thriving field within the study of global politics. However, the fast development has translated only into a moderate diversification of the research. Building on Bourdieu’s analysis of the social field, this paper argues that this limited pluralization is related to the strong heteronomy of the field. This heteronomy has three “concentric” sources—the dependence on the field of politics, the continued influence of the secularist bias of Western social science, and the dependence on the theoretical developments in the broader discipline of international relations. Methodologically, the article builds on a detailed analysis of eighteen top academic journals and their scholarly output related to religion in global politics.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165109","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}
Tarek Abou Chadi, Kanisha D Bond, Cassy Dorff, Jamie Hagen, Cullen S Hendrix, Cameron Thies
In the 3 years between the 2019 and 2022 International Studies Association (ISA) meetings, the profound state of global economic, social, and political upheaval around the world has become unavoidably evident for much, if not most, of the world. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, movements for inclusion and resulting backlashes sprang up across the globe. As scholars of international affairs, the members of the ISA seek to understand and contextualize world events. However, our members and the organization itself are not passive observers of history. These struggles directly influence the personal experiences of many of our members, within and beyond our profession. For these reasons, ISA leadership felt that it was important to mark the 2022 meeting with a Sapphire Series panel to discuss ``International Studies and Struggles for Inclusion.'' The panel brought together ISA members from various sections and backgrounds to offer diverse perspectives on a host of topics: How does the field of international studies understand these developments? How do struggles for inclusion affect our members and community of social scientists? And perhaps most importantly, what should the ISA be doing about them, in terms of both scholarship and organizational decisions?
{"title":"International Studies and Struggles for Inclusion","authors":"Tarek Abou Chadi, Kanisha D Bond, Cassy Dorff, Jamie Hagen, Cullen S Hendrix, Cameron Thies","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad018","url":null,"abstract":"In the 3 years between the 2019 and 2022 International Studies Association (ISA) meetings, the profound state of global economic, social, and political upheaval around the world has become unavoidably evident for much, if not most, of the world. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, movements for inclusion and resulting backlashes sprang up across the globe. As scholars of international affairs, the members of the ISA seek to understand and contextualize world events. However, our members and the organization itself are not passive observers of history. These struggles directly influence the personal experiences of many of our members, within and beyond our profession. For these reasons, ISA leadership felt that it was important to mark the 2022 meeting with a Sapphire Series panel to discuss ``International Studies and Struggles for Inclusion.'' The panel brought together ISA members from various sections and backgrounds to offer diverse perspectives on a host of topics: How does the field of international studies understand these developments? How do struggles for inclusion affect our members and community of social scientists? And perhaps most importantly, what should the ISA be doing about them, in terms of both scholarship and organizational decisions?","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165111","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 primary purpose of this article is to advance the ongoing global international relations (Global IR) debate and to offer some possible paths toward Global IR 2.0. To this end, this article first analyzes how Global IR has emerged, what contributions it makes to giving new impetus to IR knowledge (production), and, more importantly, what charges are leveled against Global IR. Although Global IR has produced an important body of scholarship, contributing substantially to identifying West-centrism as a key point of contention in IR and nudging the discipline toward theoretical pluralism, Global IR in its current form still carries the risk of reinforcing the old hierarchical and essentialized structure of knowledge production in ways that are analytic, epistemological, and ontological. Following this critical mapping exercise, I argue that while Global IR can serve as a key signifier of challenge to West-centrism, this important signifier needs to be redefined in terms of what it indicates and means—thereby becoming Global IR 2.0. In onto-epistemological terms, Global IR 2.0 relates more directly to questioning and dissolving essentialized ways of knowing in the discipline. In the final section of this article, I elaborate on how to realize this idea and harness it in practice.
{"title":"Knowledge Production beyond West-Centrism in IR: Toward Global IR 2.0","authors":"Yong-Soo Eun","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad015","url":null,"abstract":"The primary purpose of this article is to advance the ongoing global international relations (Global IR) debate and to offer some possible paths toward Global IR 2.0. To this end, this article first analyzes how Global IR has emerged, what contributions it makes to giving new impetus to IR knowledge (production), and, more importantly, what charges are leveled against Global IR. Although Global IR has produced an important body of scholarship, contributing substantially to identifying West-centrism as a key point of contention in IR and nudging the discipline toward theoretical pluralism, Global IR in its current form still carries the risk of reinforcing the old hierarchical and essentialized structure of knowledge production in ways that are analytic, epistemological, and ontological. Following this critical mapping exercise, I argue that while Global IR can serve as a key signifier of challenge to West-centrism, this important signifier needs to be redefined in terms of what it indicates and means—thereby becoming Global IR 2.0. In onto-epistemological terms, Global IR 2.0 relates more directly to questioning and dissolving essentialized ways of knowing in the discipline. In the final section of this article, I elaborate on how to realize this idea and harness it in practice.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165112","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}
Defense ministries regularly frame climate security in their national security strategies. Recently, “civil” ministries also begun mentioning climate security. However, they do not mean the same thing. This article develops four indicators to assess the commitment of climate security framings to an understanding of climate security as either human/environmental or national security issue. It applies the indicators to fifty submissions of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) by civil ministries and seventy defense publications. The paper finds that NDC commonly refer to climate changes’ anthropogenic origins and biophysical impacts but rarely to indirect consequences such as migration or conflict. In contrast, military administrations rarely mention anthropogenic origins but warn more often than NDC of indirect consequences. This shows that a civil domestic discourse on climate security has emerged, more attuned to human security and environmental security and more conducive to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The paper argues that organizational theory can explain these differences in securitization: defense and civil ministries frame climate security differently so that it falls in line with their respective mandates and established organizational features. The article concludes with a checklist for assessing framings of climate security.
{"title":"Tracking Climate Securitization: Framings of Climate Security by Civil and Defense Ministries","authors":"Anselm Vogler","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad010","url":null,"abstract":"Defense ministries regularly frame climate security in their national security strategies. Recently, “civil” ministries also begun mentioning climate security. However, they do not mean the same thing. This article develops four indicators to assess the commitment of climate security framings to an understanding of climate security as either human/environmental or national security issue. It applies the indicators to fifty submissions of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) by civil ministries and seventy defense publications. The paper finds that NDC commonly refer to climate changes’ anthropogenic origins and biophysical impacts but rarely to indirect consequences such as migration or conflict. In contrast, military administrations rarely mention anthropogenic origins but warn more often than NDC of indirect consequences. This shows that a civil domestic discourse on climate security has emerged, more attuned to human security and environmental security and more conducive to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The paper argues that organizational theory can explain these differences in securitization: defense and civil ministries frame climate security differently so that it falls in line with their respective mandates and established organizational features. The article concludes with a checklist for assessing framings of climate security.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165113","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：