Search results

The idea that states can hold common values and standards of conduct as well as some capacity to act in the international arena in collective manners for collective goals is epitomized in the concept of international community. Although the term is widely used by scholars, practitioners, and international political leaders and is an integral part of the common international vocabulary, only few have sought to define it, identify its members, and characterize its ways of actions and sources of legitimacy. This paper asks: Who is the international community? Taking a socio-discursive approach, I argue that the international community is essentially a construct that does not exist beyond the discursive level, namely that it materializes only when political agents talk about it, refer to it, and attribute to it certain values, rules, and virtues. I present here the findings of an automated text analysis of 4264 states' speeches at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that point to the prevalence of the international community in the international discourse and reveal the main topics that are associated with it. These findings illuminate salience patterns in the discursive construction of the international community and shed light on its function as a legitimacy framework for international action

The use of the concept of "global civil society" (GCS) acknowledges the intensifying role of non-state civic actors in world politics and expresses the emergence of a unique social sphere transcending national boundaries. Extensive literatures strive to suggest conceptualizations and assessments of the actual and desired effects of GCS. Nevertheless, relatively little attention has been given to the interplay between the emerging sphere of a GCS and the traditional sphere of international or interstate interactions. This article examines the idea of GCS through an exploration of the conceptual interplay between the notions of GCS and the interstate system. It presents a typology of three possible ideal-type relations: (1) GCS as replacement of statist features of the international system; (2) GCS as opposition to the state system; and (3) GCS as subsidiary organ to the international society. From a perspective informed by the English School of international relations theory, the article argues that the enhanced role of GCS in world politics is a result of international society's attempts to adapt interstate rules and practices to the context of globalization.

The concept of collective memory receives increasing attention in international relations. This burgeoning scholarship, however, mainly centres on its role as a strategic tool in foreign policy, binding it to national context. This research uses collective memory as an analytical framework to gauge identification processes at the international level. Specifically, we examine how states self-present themselves with various collective We's and against multiple others. Contingent upon exclusive biographical narratives, we show how states transform and present collective memories in ways that resonate with their particular identity combination. Using inductive comparative analysis of speeches delivered by heads of state of Germany, the United States, and Israel during United Nations General Assembly sessions (1991–2017), analysis demonstrates how states evoke the past to narrate who they are, as states. Expanding understanding regarding how historical events are utilised in foreign policy, findings illustrate the dynamic juggling process states perform with various elements of self.

ABSTRACTThis article explores the nature of the contemporary "special relationship" between Germany and Israel. Having emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War and the Holocaust, political relations between these two states are widely seen as having successfully undergone a process of reconciliation. A key feature is German support for Israel, usually understood as a constant attempt to pay off a historical debt in exchange for rehabilitation and recognition of Germany as a "good state." The article probes another interpretation by asking whether contemporary German–Israeli relations have reached the stage of friendship, a relationship structured by care rather than guilt. To this end, it presents an original conceptual framework of interstate friendship as a bond of shared memories and visions that enable a common orientation toward the past and the future both sides are committed to invest in. Applied to an interpretive analysis of the "sharedness" of the memory of the Holocaust and the vision of a secure Israel, the paper finds strong evidence for the former yet significant gaps in the latter, concluding that relations between the states of Germany and Israel still fall short of friendship.

This article explores the nature of the contemporary "special relationship" between Germany and Israel. Having emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War and the Holocaust, political relations between these two states are widely seen as having successfully undergone a process of reconciliation. A key feature is German support for Israel, usually understood as a constant attempt to pay off a historical debt in exchange for rehabilitation and recognition of Germany as a "good state." The article probes another interpretation by asking whether contemporary German–Israeli relations have reached the stage of friendship, a relationship structured by care rather than guilt. To this end, it presents an original conceptual framework of interstate friendship as a bond of shared memories and visions that enable a common orientation toward the past and the future both sides are committed to invest in. Applied to an interpretive analysis of the "sharedness" of the memory of the Holocaust and the vision of a secure Israel, the paper finds strong evidence for the former yet significant gaps in the latter, concluding that relations between the states of Germany and Israel still fall short of friendship.

Este artículo representa un intento serio de considerar la cuestión de por qué la disciplina de relaciones internacionales no puede dar cuenta del concepto de "globalización" en el nivel teórico. El trabajo discute el déficit teórico para explicar la globalización planteando las siguientes preguntas: ¿Cómo debemos lidiar con la globalización desde una perspectiva de relaciones internacionales? ¿Por qué no tenemos teorías coherentes de relaciones internacionales sobre la globalización? ¿Qué debemos hacer al respecto? Nuestro argumento principal se enfoca en la necesidad de enfatizar los vínculos políticos que existen entre las relaciones internacionales y la globalización, encarnados en el papel de los Estados como agentes predominantes del cambio en los procesos de globalización.

Este artículo representa un intento serio de considerar la cuestión de por qué la disciplina de relaciones internacionales no puede dar cuenta del concepto de "globalización" en el nivel teórico. El trabajo discute el déficit teórico para explicar la globalización planteando las siguientes preguntas: ¿Cómo debemos lidiar con la globalización desde una perspectiva de relaciones internacionales? ¿Por qué no tenemos teorías coherentes de relaciones internacionales sobre la globalización? ¿Qué debemos hacer al respecto? Nuestro argumento principal se enfoca en la necesidad de enfatizar los vínculos políticos que existen entre las relaciones internacionales y la globalización, encarnados en el papel de los Estados como agentes predominantes del cambio en los procesos de globalización.

PurposeThis paper aims to explore if and how changes in social representations of conflict are designed and constructed in the formal political discourse.Design/methodology/approachTaking a psycho‐sociological approach and by relying on discourse analysis, it explores the discursive patterns used by the political leadership in order to legitimize either war or peace actions. Through the analysis of speeches that were given by Israeli prime ministers in the Knesset and in the context of warfare or peace processes, the paper traces changes in the historical narratives that frame Israel's cluster of societal beliefs in regards to the conflict, and further explores how these are being re‐narrated in light of the process of transition to peace.FindingsThe paper argues that both warfare and peace processes, representing the extreme options available in conflict, require broad public recruitment and immense rhetorical efforts on behalf of the political leadership to reason and legitimatize actions through the formal political discourse. The findings highlight the ways through which the political leadership in Israel justifies its actions and attempts to enlist public support as a prism to trace how societal beliefs have been narrated for the purpose of justifying warfare, and how the same beliefs are re‐narrated to justify conflict resolution.Originality/valueThe paper strives to shed light on the role played by the interplay between political discourse and societal beliefs in the context of transition to peace, and thus advances understandings of the linkage between internal processes and external circumstances, as mitigated by political discourse, in the context of conflict and conflict resolution.

ABSTRACTIn recent years, political scientists increasingly have used data-science tools to research political processes, positions, and behaviors. Because both domestic and international politics are grounded in oral and written texts, computerized text analysis (CTA)—typically based on natural-language processing—has become one of the most notable applications of data-science tools in political research. This article explores the promises and perils of using CTA methods in political research and, specifically, the study of international relations. We highlight fundamental analytical and methodological gaps that hinder application and review processes. Whereas we acknowledge the significant contribution of CTA to political research, we identify a dual "engagement deficit" that may distance those without prior background in data science: (1) the tendency to prioritize methodological innovation over analytical and theoretical insights; and (2) the scholarly and political costs of requiring high proficiency levels and training to comprehend, assess, and use advanced research models.

The idea that states can hold common values and standards of conduct as well as some capacity to act in the international arena in collective manners for collective goals is epitomized in the concept of international community. Although the term is widely used by scholars, practitioners, and international political leaders and is an integral part of the common international vocabulary, only few have sought to define it, identify its members, and characterize its ways of actions and sources of legitimacy. This paper asks: Who is the international community? Taking a socio-discursive approach, I argue that the international community is essentially a construct that does not exist beyond the discursive level, namely that it materializes only when political agents talk about it, refer to it, and attribute to it certain values, rules, and virtues. I present here the findings of an automated text analysis of 4264 states' speeches at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that point to the prevalence of the international community in the international discourse and reveal the main topics that are associated with it. These findings illuminate salience patterns in the discursive construction of the international community and shed light on its function as a legitimacy framework for international action.