scholarly journals The utopia and reality of sovereignty: social reality, normative IR and ‘Organized Hypocrisy’

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID JASON KARP

AbstractThis article applies E. H. Carr’s analysis of utopia and reality, and a Searlean-constructivist analysis of rules and norms, to the concept of ‘sovereignty’ in general, and Stephen Krasner’s argument in Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy in particular. In doing this, the article charts a theoretical space that incorporates insights from classical realism, scientific realism, and philosophical (social) constructivism. To view ‘utopia’ and ‘reality’ as distinct yet equally important planes of International Relations (IR) inquiry, thereby treating ‘sovereignty’ as a single concept with descriptive and normative elements, highlights both the merits and the shortcomings of Krasner’s approach. Furthermore, this type of analysis suggests a fruitful way to continue a contemporary normative discussion about what sovereign entities ought to do.

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (01) ◽  
pp. 123-139
Author(s):  
Taufan Herdansyah Akbar ◽  
Agus Subagyo ◽  
Jusmalia Oktaviani

Realism is an approach and paradigm that is in international relations, Realism began to be debated during World War II (World War II) because of the failure of the League of Nations (LBB). LBB is the brainchild of idealists who are considered to have failed to prevent war and create peace. Realism existed even before the paradigm debate which was later called classical realism with one of its characters being Niccolo Machiavelly. Niccolo Maciavelly's style of realism emphasizes that human nature is egositically and creates an anarchic world. In this study the research team wanted to prove that what Niccolo Machiavelly delivered was not merely increasing military power merely to create peace, but negotiation and diplomacy methods were also instruments of the State in achieving its national interests in realism like Indonesia. The national interests of Indonesia are everything for Indonesian politicians and the existence and power of Indonesia is the goal of Indonesia's interests to avoid war. Therefore Indonesia must have played its role in the Asian-African Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement at that time as an instrument of achieving national interests in Realism. This research will use qualitative research methods with a historical approach. The results of this study provide answers that Realism is not merely militaristic but also a role as a rational actor.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 562-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam R C Humphreys

Discussions of causal inquiry in International Relations are increasingly framed in terms of a contrast between rival philosophical positions, each with a putative methodological corollary — empiricism is associated with a search for patterns of covariation, while scientific realism is associated with a search for causal mechanisms. Scientific realism is, on this basis, claimed to open up avenues of causal inquiry that are unavailable to empiricists. This is misleading. Empiricism appears inferior only if its reformulation by contemporary philosophers of science, such as Bas van Fraassen, is ignored. I therefore develop a fuller account than has previously been provided in International Relations of Van Fraassen’s ‘constructive empiricism’ and how it differs from scientific realism. In light of that, I consider what is at stake in calls for the reconstitution of causal inquiry along scientific realist, rather than empiricist, lines. I argue that scientific realists have failed to make a compelling case that what matters is whether researchers are realists. Constructive empiricism and scientific realism differ only on narrow epistemological and metaphysical grounds that carry no clear implications for the conduct of causal inquiry. Yet, insofar as Van Fraassen has reformed empiricism to meet the scientific realist challenge, this has created a striking disjunction between mainstream practices of causal inquiry in International Relations and the vision of scientific practice that scientific realists and contemporary empiricists share, especially regarding the significance of regularities observed in everyday world politics. Although scientific realist calls for a philosophical revolution in International Relations are overstated, this disjunction demands further consideration.


2021 ◽  
pp. 66-102
Author(s):  
Georg Sørensen ◽  
Jørgen Møller ◽  
Robert Jackson

This chapter examines the realist tradition in international relations (IR), which is best seen as a research programme with several approaches using a common starting point. It highlights an important dichotomy in realist thought between classical realism and contemporary realism, including strategic and structural approaches. After describing the elements of realism, the chapter discusses the international thought of three outstanding classical realists of the past: Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. It then analyses the classical realist thought of Hans J. Morgenthau, along with strategic realism, neorealism, and neoclassical realism. Special attention is devoted to the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz and the offensive realism of John Mearsheimer. Furthermore, the chapter looks at the recent theoretical debate among realist IR scholars concerning the relevance of the balance of power concept and it shows that realists often disagree among themselves. The chapter concludes with an overview of how the different realist theories treat international and domestic factors.


Author(s):  
Robert Jackson ◽  
Georg Sørensen

Introduction to International Relations provides a concise introduction to the principal international relations theories, and explores how theory can be used to analyse contemporary issues. Readers are introduced to the most important theories, encompassing both classical and contemporary approaches and debates. Throughout the text, the chapters encourage readers to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the theories presented, and the major points of contention between them. In so doing, the text helps the reader to build a clear understanding of how major theoretical debates link up with each other, and how the structure of the discipline of international relations is established. The book places a strong emphasis throughout on the relationship between theory and practice, carefully explaining how theories organise and shape our view of the world. Topics include realism, liberalism, International Society, International Political Economy, social constructivism, post-positivism in international relations, and foreign policy. A chapter is dedicated to key global issues and how theory can be used as a tool to analyse and interpret these issues. The text is accompanied by an Online Resource Centre, which includes: short case studies, review questions, annotated web links, and a flashcard glossary.


Author(s):  
Sebastian Harnisch

Special relationships are durable and exclusive bilateral relations between autonomous polities that are based on mutual expectations of preferential treatment by its members and outsiders as well as regular entanglement of some (external) governance functions. The concept has become more prominent over the past three decades in part because of recent changes in international relations and foreign policy analysis theory (the constructivist and relational turn) and long-term shifts in the social structure of international relations, that is, decolonization, international criminal and humanitarian law, which have posed questions of solidarity, reconciliation, and responsibility of current and past special relationships. The term special relationship has a long and diverse history. After World War II, it was used mainly to depict the Anglo-American security relationship as special. Today, well over 50 international relationships are deemed special. Despite this trend, no common theoretical framework has been developed to explain their emergence, variation, persistence and demise. Realism interprets special relationships as asymmetrical power relations, in which presupposed counterbalancing behavior does not occur because shared ideas or institutions mitigate autonomy concerns. Liberalism postulates that the special relatedness occurs when policy interdependence due to shared commercial interests or ideas allows deep cooperation and trust building. Social constructivism, in turn, assumes self-assertion but does not presuppose with or against whom the self, usually a polity, identifies itself. It follows that special relations may occur between dyads with positive identification (Germany-Israel after reconciliation) or negative identification, such as in the enduring rivalry between India and Pakistan. As a relational term, special relationships do not sit easily with the first generation of foreign policy analysis focusing on decision making processes rather than the policies themselves. As a consequence, special relationships have been primarily conceptualized either as a tool of foreign policy or as one context factor influencing foreign policy choices. In relational theories, such as social constructivism, special relations, such as solidarity relations, are not causally independent from actors, as these relations also define the actors themselves.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Irwan Irwan

The scientific research in sociology has several paradigms namely positivistic, social constructivism, advocacy, participatory and pragmatic paradigm (Creswell, 2010). Positivistic paradigm considers the social reality that occurs as empirical, observed clearly and can be proven scientifically. In order to study the phenomenon in society that the positivistic paradigm has great contribution. Therefore, a question arises whether the positivistic paradigm has a major influence on the study of society? is it relevant that the positivistic paradigm used in rural sociology research? The positivistic paradigm of social phenomena is understood from an outside perspective based on the understanding of established theories. The Social reality is a phenomenon whose existence is determined by other social phenomena (interrelated variables) and its existence can be described into symbols that have been established in society. The problems in society in particular can not only be explained in constructivist paradigm but there is social phenomenon which surely needs to be explained in other paradigm such as positivistic paradigm. The positivistic paradigm is in the position of answering the problem of seeing the level and influence of social reality. Therefore, the positivistic paradigm is highly relevant to the study of rural sociology, where the phenomena occurring is unlimited and to simplify social phenomena, therefore statistics analysis is needed as a basis for concluding the data obtained from the field. In rural sociological studies, various social phenomena are associated with stratification, education, status, religion and so on. To answer the problems that occur in rural communities need a positivistic paradigm.


2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM BAIN

This article explores Jim George's claim that Hans Morgenthau's notion of political realism is founded upon a spectator theory of knowledge and that it discloses no meaningful distinction between theory and practice. An investigation of Morgenthau's understanding of scientific inquiry, the relation of theory and practice, and his views on American foreign policy suggests that both of these claims may be misplaced. Rather Morgenthau's realism is an authentic moral voice in the discourse of world politics which emphasizes the importance of judgment and the need to locate statecraft in historical, social, and political context. It is a realism that is representative of a rich moral tradition, one which orders, arranges, and prioritizes fundamental human values and which is concerned with how these values might be realized. This conclusion not only emancipates a valuable tradition of scholarship, it also raises important question about how we engage and organize the discipline of international relations and it suggests that some critical thinking spaces may provide a rather limited refuge for those wishing to go beyond Morgenthau and realism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document