DOCSLIB.ORG

Part I Theoretical Dimensions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part I Theoretical Dimensions University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 14 PART I THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 15 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE WATER DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A CONSTRUCTIVIST SYNTHESIS 1. Introduction Everyone on a daily basis uses theories6, whether they are professional water managers or just lay persons (Walt, 1998: 29). Similarly, scholars of water politics use theories to make sense of the concrete world they observe. Indeed, as new events and phenomena take form, or old ones are rediscovered, theories are employed to organise, describe, explain and predict the outcome of such events. For instance, over the last decade a new water paradigm has developed on the way humans use and manage water resources. A growing environmental conscience, promoted by interest groups, and the costs involved in building and operating WRMPs influenced the development of this paradigm (Gleick, 1998: 5-33). Although there is no explicit link between the water discourse (the way scholars ‘speak’ of water politics) and International Relations theoretical perspectives, as the one changes so too does the other. These theoretical perspectives are forever evolving and new developments periodically emerge from the field of water politics. Since a reciprocal association exists between the theoretical abstraction of the world and the concrete realm of water politics, there is an implicit link between theoretical perspectives and water politics. Moreover, the specific ways in which the water discourse and certain theoretical perspectives are linked indicate the extent to which the discourse is embedded in these perspectives. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the link between the water discourse and the various theoretical perspectives of International Relations and to contextualise the different theoretical perspectives in relation to water politics. The aim is to develop a theoretical framework to systematically analyse the transnational role and involvement of interest groups in water politics. Stated differently, the real world of interest group involvement in WRMPs will be linked to abstract theoretical perspectives to produce an answer to the stated research problem. Hence, the purpose is to discuss the link between the water discourse and theoretical perspectives; to outline the development of International Relations theory in relation to the water discourse; to discuss relevant mainstream, positivist theories and their assumptions and to link these theories to water politics; to discuss so-called tributary, reflectivist theory; and to bridge the divide between mainstream and tributary theories with reference to social constructivism. 6 For a more in-depth discussion on theories, see Meehan, E.J. (1988) and Ziman, J. (1984). University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 16 2. The Water Discourse and International Relations Theory Human beings have an intimate relationship with water. Historically, more particularly during the twentieth century, water was rarely the centre of attention of international relations, except in the context of so-called ‘high politics’. However, since the end of the Cold War, water politics has emerged as an issue of practical and scholarly concern that involves and extends to issues other than the physical presence and use of water, such as economics, development, the environment, security and human rights. Thus, the water discourse covers a broad array of issues. Furthermore, water is also of global concern. Consequently, the ‘complexities’ and ‘complexes’ of water have become a fundamental part of world politics during the past two to three decades (Du Plessis, 2000: 9-10). Hence the questions: What is the relationship between the water discourse and International Relations theory? How does International Relations theory accommodate and deal with the water discourse? In this respect, Du Plessis (2000: 11) observes that ‘the water discourse appears to navigate an uncertain course through international relations theory, and also seems unsure about (dis)embarkation points and direction-finding beacons’. The level of this uncertainty can be clarified by contextualising theory(ies) underpinning the water discourse in the setting of competing International Relations theories (Du Plessis, 2000: 11-15). In other words, the water discourse is embedded in or linked to competing theoretical perspectives and therefore shares certain elements with International Relations. Stated differently, various aspects of the water discourse are compatible with and relevant to International Relations. For example, the discourse itself also encompasses the environment. Because of the importance of ecology in the discourse, socio-economic development is also involved. The discourse is also linked to and concerned with the idea of security. In addition, security concerns extend to the relationship between environmental change, scarce natural resources, and conflict between international actors. It has furthermore a normative dimension and covers not only issues of value, for instance settled norms like sovereignty and autonomy, but also nascent norms like humanitarian intervention. More than that, the discourse also embraces ethical considerations, for instance the sharing, distribution of and access to scarce resources and the issue of human rights. International and domestic water law also forms part of the discourse as a foundation of order, justice, cooperation and governance. Likewise, the realities of geopolitics are also involved (Stutz & De Souza, 1998: 111; Du Plessis, 2000: 11-15; Turton et al., 2003: 7-21; Turton, 2003a: 13-15; Wolf, 2003: 1). With this in mind, how do scholars contextualise the water discourse in theoretical terms? Many scholars do not ‘contextualise the water discourse in a particular theoretical mode’ for example Gleick (1993), Ohlsson (1995a, 1995b), Payne (1996), Homer-Dixon (1994), Homer-Dixon (1996), Hudson (1996), McCully (1996), Solomon (1996), Okidi (1997), Percival (1997), Gleick (1998), Percival and Homer-Dixon (1998), Van Wyk (1998), Allan (1999), Fleming (1999), University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 17 Turton (1999) and Meissner (2000a; 2000b). The exception is Swatuk and Vale (2000), who ‘represent a post-positivist, reflectivist mode of theorising by criticising the current water discourse’ (Du Plessis, 2000: 10). Thus, only a few water discourse scholars are concerned with the importance of theoretical approaches to International Relations. This being the case, what is the nature of theorising in the water discourse? Although few academics inside the field are knowledgeable about International Relations theory, the subject is nevertheless saturated with theory. This is contrary to the opinion of one observer of the discourse who claims that: ‘Another gap being filled here [with a book on the hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango River basin] is the almost lack of theory about the problematique of international water. With the exceptions of Allan and … Turton, who continued to be a lone voice in the theoretical wilderness for years, and a small smattering of literature (especially Blatter and Ingram’s Reflections on water), the dialogue has been almost devoid of any theoretical underpinnings’ (Wolf, 2003: 1). However, theorising in the water discourse is implicit and subliminal and sheds little light on International Relations theory (Du Plessis, 2000: 10), with the exceptions of Lowi (1993), Meissner (1998) and Turton (2000a). Lowi argues her thesis from the perspective of neo-functionalism; Meissner takes a stand from a liberal-institutionalist position; while Turton, on the other hand, uses political ecology as a theoretical basis. These studies have been conducted within positivist (i.e. Lowi and Meissner) and post-positivist (i.e. Turton) contexts. This does not mean that Lowi, Meissner and Turton stand apart from other scholars in the water discourse concerning International Relations theory. Their stance is justified by the practical relevance of theory, because of the systematic manner in which the subject matter of water politics is dealt with (Du Plessis, 2000: 10-11). In spite of this, what is the theoretical position of other scholars in the water discourse? Most scholars participating in the discourse take ‘an atheoretical or deliberately non-theoretical’ stance. These scholars are usually unfamiliar with international relations theory, other than the International Relations specialists. Nevertheless, they contribute meaningfully to the water discourse by importing non-political theoretical constructs (Du Plessis, 2000: 10-11). In other words, although the water discourse is characterised by the previously mentioned atheoretical or deliberate non-theoretical character, the subliminal theoretical dimension of the discourse can nevertheless be traced with reference to the development of International Relations theory. 3. The Development and Typology of International Relations Theory International Relations has always been a contested discipline that has hardly ever been fully accepted or secured. Some see it as a sub-discipline of Political Science whereas others see it as an interdisciplinary undertaking. Regardless, the subject matter of International Relations changed considerably over time. During the 1990s the most spectacular changes occurred, due mainly to the end of the Cold War. In addition, International Relations is a divided, dividing, disordered and disagreed about discipline (Du Plessis, 2000: 15). To a certain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 20181025 01.Pdf
    はじめに 米ソ両大国が対峙する冷戦が、西側の勝利というかたちで結末を迎えた後、自由貿易、民主 的政治体制、基本的人権、国際ルールや法の支配、社会の開放性等を重視する自由主義的国際 秩序の優越は決定的になったとの認識が広がった。とりわけ、90 年代に米国が金融と情報技 術の組み合わせで経済的に復活して以降は、米国単極のパワー構造とあいまって、自由主義的 国際秩序が紆余曲折はあっても西側を超えて世界大に広がっていくと暗黙裡に前提される傾向 が生じた。自由民主主義体制が普遍化して歴史が終わる（フランシス・フクヤマ）とまでは言 わないにしても、ロシアや中国のような権威主義的な国々も、いずれは自由主義的な既存秩序 に統合されていくだろう、少なくとも既存秩序に反旗を翻すことはしまいと、日米欧の専門家 コミュニティのかなりの部分が思い込んでいたことは否定できない。 しかし、今やそうした楽観論は過去のものとなり、日米欧において自由主義的国際秩序の危 機が叫ばれるようになっている。自由で民主的な先進諸国の多くが、低成長、格差問題、財政 危機、少子高齢化といった重要課題について十分な対応力を示しえないでいる。いくつかの国 ではポピュリズムが台頭し、排外主義や貿易保護主義が強まっている。 何よりも、ながらく自由民主主義諸国のリーダーであった米国が、自国第一主義に大きく舵 を切ったことは時代を画するものである。中国やイランに対するこれまでの常識を覆す強硬な 外交姿勢もさることながら、米国政府が自らの主導してきた多国間主義や自由貿易体制、日本 や欧州との同盟関係をあからさまな批判の対象にする姿は衝撃的ですらある。自由主義的国際 秩序の推進役をもって任じてきた英国が国民投票で BREXIT の道を選択したこと、欧州各国 で反移民、反 EU を掲げる勢力が台頭していることも、自由主義的国際秩序の転機を感じさせ る。 こうした先進自由民主主義諸国の内側からの挑戦が、パワー・シフトと並行して生起し、相 互作用しているところに、今日の危機の本質がある。冷戦後の貿易自由化を追い風として中国 などの権威主義国家が台頭し、自由民主主義を掲げる日米欧の圧倒的な優位は崩れている。結 果として中国などは現状挑戦的な対外行動をとるようになり、それに先進国が警戒心を募らせ ている。加えて米国では、経済や社会の開放性に中国などが付け込んでいるとの不満が高まっ ており、通商やハイテク覇権をめぐって中国と鋭く対立するようになっている。それに対して、 自由貿易の擁護者を中国が自称するという皮肉な現象も生じている。新興民主主義諸国の中に は民主化から逆行し、政治的自由度を低下させる国も目立つ。 途上国における動きも、自由主義的国際秩序の動揺を増幅するものである。冷戦終結後に残 された安全保障課題の一つとされていた「破綻国家」が、ますます内戦の温床となると同時に、 テロや難民という経路で先進国世界を直接脅かす程度を強めている。米国単極への抵抗という 側面を有していた「ならず者国家」の行動は、米国単極が揺らぐ中で自由度を増し、秩序再編 の引き金となる潜在性を秘めている。 日本が依拠してきた自由主義的な秩序は一体いかなる挑戦を受けているのだろうか。それは 世界秩序の根本的な転換をもたらすものなのだろうか。日米欧世界は転換期を上手く乗り切 り、自由で民主的な国家体制と自由で開かれた国際秩序を維持発展させることができるのだろ うか。PHP「新世界秩序」研究会は、こうした問題意識に立って、現在の秩序変動の本質に ついて多角的な検討を重ね、あたらしい秩序の中で日本が何をめざし、どのような対応をとる べきかを議論してきた。本提言報告書はその成果をまとめたものである。
    [Show full text]
  • International Relations Theory and Non-Traditional Approaches to Security Is International Relations the Outcome of an Academic Research Project Undertaken by Dr
    About WISCOMP WISCOMP Initiated in 1999, WISCOMP is a project of the FOUNDATION FOR UNIVERSAL RESPONSIBILITY, in New Delhi, India. It is a South Asian initiative that works at Perspectives the confluence of peacebuilding and security studies. Gender concerns provide the leitmotif of its programs. International Relations Theory and 27 Non-Traditional Approaches to Security International Relations Theory and Non-Traditional Approaches to Security is International Relations the outcome of an academic research project undertaken by Dr. Siddharth Mallavarapu. Awarded by WISCOMP for academic research, media projects and special projects, the Scholar of Peace Fellowships are designed to encourage Theory and innovative work by academics, policymakers, defence and foreign affairs practitioners, journalists, NGO workers, creative artists and others. The Non-Traditional Approaches fellowships are seen as an important step to encourage work at the interface of gender and security; conflict resolution and peace. These studies are expected to provide information about problems pertaining to security, promote to Security understanding of structural causes of conflict, suggest alternatives and encourage peace initiatives and interventions. Twenty Seventh in the Perspectives series, this monograph addresses one of the core concerns of contemporary International Relations theory namely, how to incorporate ‘non-traditional’ concerns of security into the mainstream discourse. It examines the receptivity of different intellectual traditions in the discipline to these concerns. The author begins his analysis with the Realist discourse in the Siddharth Mallavarapu post cold war period and provides an overview of “traditional” conceptualizations of security. He then moves on to provide a succinct summary of the Liberal and Constructivist discourses, examining the receptivity of each of these streams to security formulations that move beyond survival of the sovereign state towards addressing individual well being and global sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • 39 Chapter 3: International Relations Discourse On
    39 CHAPTER 3: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DISCOURSE ON ZIMBABWE INTRODUCTION This section will focus on Realism, Liberalism, Normative Theory, Theory of International Law and Society, and The Decisions of States. This specific discourse has been chosen because arguably, the most keenly debated issue in IR is the pessimistic view of realism versus the optimistic view of liberalism.1 Both traditions also provide an extensive view of sovereignty, human nature, conflict, state survival and international politics. “Chris Brown defines the approach succinctly: ‘by normative international relations theory is meant the body of work which addresses the moral dimension of international relations and the wider questions of meaning and interpretation generated by the discipline.’”2 This is important in regard to research on Zimbabwe, because it investigates human rights, intervention into state sovereignty, justice and injustice, which are all normative issues.3 Theory of International Law and Society includes international law itself, Idea of World Community, and The Political Theory of International Society.4 The section entitled “The Decisions of States” investigates the decision – making process of states.5 This is important because the research focuses on foreign policy, and one needs to understand the thought processes behind it before one can make a judgement of the process itself. The research surrounding Zimbabwean land redistribution and its effects on internal politics and foreign policy is applied to a discourse in international relations because the study thereof aids in explaining the research by applying it to discourse. Theory is then used to investigate all the factors surrounding the research topic, the reason they exist, and the different arguments for and against these factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 8 Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism*
    Classical Realism & UNIT 8 LIBERALISM AND Neorealism NEO-LIBERALISM* Structure 8.0 Objectives 8.1 Introduction 8.2 The Liberal Tradition: Main Characteristics 8.3 Classical Liberalism 8.4 Liberal Approach in the Post War Years 8.4.1 Sociological Liberalism 8.4.2 Functionalism 8.4.3 Interdependence Liberalism 8.4.4 Republican Liberalism 8.5 Neo-Liberal Approach 8.5.1 A Break with Traditional Liberalism 8.5.2 The Neo-Neo Debate in IR 8.5.3 The Darker Side of Neo-Liberalism 8.6 Let Us Sum Up 8.7 References 8.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises 8.1 OBJECTIVES Liberalism is an eminent theory of international relations (IR). It has several dimensions. The objective is to explore the definitions, history and the various theoretical standpoints of liberalism. This unit introduces you to the key thinkers on the subject. Besides, it also helps to understand the key concepts associated with it. After reading this unit, student shall be able to: Identify the core principles of liberalism in the years before the Second World War Describe the major liberal theories that evolved in the post-war period Identify the core features of neoliberal approach to study IR Identify the core features of the Neo- Neo debate Describe the liberal vision of society, state and market Explore key aspects of neoliberalism and the evolution of international political economy 8.1 INTRODUCTION Like Realism, Liberalism (and its current variant neo-liberalism) is a mainstream approach to understand international politics. And, like Realism it is a name given to a family of related theories of international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • NEOLIBERALISM, NEOREALISM, and WORLD POLITICS David A. Baldwin
    -- NEOLIBERALISM, NEOREALISM, AND WORLD POLITICS David A. Baldwin In 1986 Robert 0. Keohane edited a volume entitled Neorealism and Its Critics, which focused on the reformulation of traditional realist thinking about international politics by Kenneth Waltz (1979) and reactions from a variety of scholars. Waltz had recast the tenets of classical realism in order to delineate more clearly the effects of the structure of the international system on the behavior of nation-states. In addition, Waltz viewed his work as different from that of earlier realists in its treatment of power and of states as units of the system (Waltz 1979; 1990). The critics, according to Keohane (1986a:24), sought to move beyond the nation-state by "devising new international institutions or regimes," by reinterpreting the principles of sover- eignty, or by challenging the "validity of the 'state as actor' model on which neorealism relies." Whereas some critics called for more atten- tion to economic and environmental interdependence as well as changes in governmental functions, information, and international regimes, others attacked the epistemology on which Waltz based his argument. In a sense, this volume picks up where Neorealism and Its Critics ended. Unlike that volume, however, the contributors to this one share many fundamental assumptions about the nature and purpose of social scientific inquiry. This allows them to engage one another's arguments directly and results in a more focused and productive debate. 4 David A. Baldwin Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics 5 In recent years the most powerful challenge to neorealism, some- Helen Milner (1991:70, 81-82) identifies the "discovery of orderly times labeled structural realism, has been mounted by neoliberal insti- features of world politics amidst its seeming chaos" as "perhaps the tutionalists.
    [Show full text]
  • On American Liberalism's Troubled Relationship with Psychology
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Honors Theses Student Research 2010 Therapeutic Discourse and the American Public Philosophy: On American Liberalism's Troubled Relationship with Psychology Clifford D. Vickrey Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses Part of the Other Philosophy Commons, Political Theory Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Social Psychology Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Vickrey, Clifford D., "Therapeutic Discourse and the American Public Philosophy: On American Liberalism's Troubled Relationship with Psychology" (2010). Honors Theses. Paper 551. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses/551 This Honors Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. Therapeutic Discourse and the American Public Philosophy: On American Liberalism’s Troubled Relationship with Psychology Clifford D. Vickrey Honors Thesis Colby College, Department of Government Prof. Joseph R. Reisert, Honors Advisor Prof. Jennifer A. Yoder, Reader December 2009 Contents Preface .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of General International Relations Theories
    LIST OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES A . The Clash of Civilizations . English school of international . Absolute gain (international . Classical realism in international relations theory relations) relations theory . Environmental security . Emanuel Adler . Collaborationism . Explanatory and constitutive . After Hegemony . Colonialism approaches in international . Samir Amin . Commercial liberalism relations theory . The Anarchical Society . Complex interdependence F . Anarchy in international relations . Composite Index of National . Feminist constructivism . Anarchy is What States Make of It Capability . Foundationalism in international . Anti-foundationalism in . Comprehensive National Power relations theory international relations theory . Constructivism (international . Functionalism in international . Atlanticism relations) relations B . Cosmopolitan democracy G . Balance of power in international . Critical international relations . G-Zero relations theory . Geopolitics . Bananas, Beaches and Bases . Critical Security Studies . Globalism . Behaviouralism in international D . Great Debates (international relations theory . Democratic peace theory relations theory) . Bilateralism . Deterrence theory . Green Theory in international . Border outpost . Developmentalism relations . Brinkmanship . Dialogue Among Civilizations H C E . Hegemonic stability theory . Centre for Dialogue . East–West dichotomy . Hegemony LIST OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES I . Liberal internationalism . Observation post . Idealism in
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of International Relations
    Theories of International Relations This book is a comprehensive guide to theories of International Relations (IR). Given the limitations of a paradigm-based approach, it sheds light on eighteen theories and new theoretical perspectives in IR by examining the work of key reference theorists. The chapters are all written to a common template: the introductory section provides readers with a basic understanding of the theory’s genesis by locating it within an intellectual tradition, paying particular attention to the historical and political context. The second section elaborates on the theory as formulated by the selected reference theorist. After this account of the theory’s core elements, the third section turns to theoretical variations, examining conceptual subdivisions and overlaps, further developments and internal critique. The fourth section scrutinizes the main criticisms emanating from other theoretical perspectives and highlights points of contact with recent research in IR. The fi fth and fi nal section consists of a bibliography carefully compiled to aid students’ further learning. Encompassing a broad range of mainstream, traditional theories as well as emerging and critical perspectives, this is an original and ground-breaking textbook for students of International Relations. The German edition of the book won the “Geisteswissenschaften International” Prize, collectively awarded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation, the German Federal Foreign Offi ce and the German Publishers & Booksellers Association. The translation of this work was funded by Geisteswissenschaften International - Translation Funding for Work in the Humanities and Social Sciences from Germany, a joint initiative of the Fritz Thyssen Foundation, the German Federal Foreign Offi ce, the collecting society VG WORT and the Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels (German Publishers & Booksellers Association).
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Diplomacy Harmonizing International Relations Through Music
    Cultural Diplomacy Harmonizing International Relations through Music By Mary Einbinder Master of Arts Thesis Gallatin School of Individualized Studies New York University May 2013 Cultural Diplomacy: Harmonizing International Relations through Music Abstract This thesis argues for the promotion of music as a cultural diplomacy instrument to improve intercultural communication and cooperation between the peoples of the world. How can music contribute to international cooperation and cross-cultural understanding? This question will be studied through an interdisciplinary framework connecting the fields of international relations and cultural studies. The constructivist theory in international relations fits best within this framework as it considers how the international structure is “socially constructed” and thus capable of being transformed by ideas, thoughts, beliefs and discourses. Constructivism focuses the analysis of international relations on human consciousness. This research derives from Milton Cummings’ definition of cultural diplomacy. “Cultural diplomacy” for Cummings is the exchange of ideas, values and information having for ultimate goal to promote mutual understanding. Cummings’s definition thus includes cultural relations and intercultural exchanges. This thesis disproves the notion of music as being a universal language in arguing that not every culture of the world relates to music the same way. A universal characteristic of music however, is its capacity to express man’s deepest emotions. Music through its ability
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge John Gerard Ruggie
    What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge John Gerard Ruggie Edward Teller, the nuclear physicist, used to draw overflow crowds to his ‘‘physics for poets’’ course at Berkeley, despite his hawkish views on military matters and unwavering conservative politics. Through a thick Hungarian accent he would an- nounce at the outset, ‘‘I will show you what makes the world hang together.’’And he did just that. An analogous puzzle has occupied theorists of international relations right from the start: what makes this world hang together? Traditionally, the intellectual protago- nists have been realism and liberalism—from Machiavelli or Hobbes versus Kant on down—with the liberal tradition attributing greater efficacy to ideational factors. The postwar academic aversion to idealism in the United States, however, resulted in a widespread discounting of, and thus a poor grasp on, the role of such factors in international life, be they identities, norms, aspirations, ideologies, or simply ideas about cause–effect relations. Two subsequent developments have reinforced this state of affairs. The first was the ascendancy of neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism in the 1980s and their convergence around neo-utilitarian precepts and premises.1 Within the ontology of neo-utilitarianism, ideational factors, when they are examined at all, are rendered in strictly instrumental terms, useful or not to self-regarding individuals (units) in the pursuit of typically material interests, including efficiency concerns. The second de- velopment has been the widespread embracing in the field of a model of social sci- ence that in certain epistemological respects has become almost Newtonian in char- acter.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Age Security Threats: Challenges to IR Theories
    Narottam Gaan* Digital Age Security Threats: Challenges to IR Theories The significance of information and communication technology (ICT) has been widely felt not only within a state but also among and between the states in their multifarious day-to-day interactions. Information and communication technology can be rightly said as constituting the nerve center of, both, domestic and international politics. These have become guiding metaphor for domestic and international politics to maintain stability and political order, provide peace and security and protect people from natural catastrophes. Sovereign state systems are no longer impregnable, sacrosanct; the unhindered flow of information and the revolutionary exposure of the people irrespective of which state, security or culture they belong to, to the very sinews of information, have made the entire world a melting pot of the absoluteness and arbitrariness of states. Earlier, issues confined to the boundary of the state or states have turned out to be global and mustered support from all sections, countries, nations and culture of the world. A new kind of threat from information and communication technologies seems to affect the states. Some would argue walking on the conventionally trodden furrows that state is still the main player in international politics maintaining its supremacy in providing security even in cyberspace.2 Others in a different vein maintain that the emergence of “virtual states” and network economies imply a decline of inter-state violence and hence the predominant role “security” playing in the past gets a plummeting. This optimistic undertone “sketches a future with an ever widening zone of international peace.”2 Still, there are many who hold that the information revolution has spurred many firms, interest organisations, social movements, individuals and transnational relations into * The author is Professor (retd.), Department of Political Science, Utkal University, Odisha.
    [Show full text]
  • International Relations Theory and the EU Reactions to the Russian Annexation of Crimea
    INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Author: Erik Rijs THEORY AND THE EU REACTIONS Student no: TO THE RUSSIAN ANNEXATION 20172363 OF CRIMEA 1 International relations theory and the EU reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea Abstract This master thesis is a research conducted to uncover the way three prominent international relations theories (structural realism, commercial liberalism and conventional constructivism) would explain the different reactions of EU nations to the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and to determine which of the three theories would be most accurate in its explanations. The reason for conducting a research like this is to put the theories to the test by taking their core principles and placing them side by side with a practical IR situation. Not only could this contribute to the development of the theories themselves, but also to the academic field of IR in general. The research was conducted by gathering different types of data regarding each EU country and then analysing it from the perspective of the three theories separately. First, data about the countries related to the core ideas of each theory was gathered: GDP and military expenditure (structural realism), share of Russian imports and exports of the total foreign trade and Russian dependency on natural gas (commercial liberalism) and the value scores on the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map (conventional constructivism). Then, information concerning the reaction of each EU country to the annexation of Crimea was gathered from news media articles, scholarly articles and official government statements. This data was analysed and across all texts re-occurring themes were identified and given a common label to be able to create a clear overview of the reactions of all EU countries.
    [Show full text]