Suchergebnisse

"In this revised edition of his 1979 classic Political Theory and International Relations, Charles Beitz rejects two highly influential conceptions of international theory as empirically inaccurate and theoretically misleading. In one, international relations is a Hobbesian state of nature in which moral judgments are entirely inappropriate, and in the other, states are analogous to persons in domestic society in having rights of autonomy that insulate them from external moral assessment and political interference. Beitz postulates that a theory of international politics should include a revised principle of state autonomy based on the justice of a state's domestic institutions, and a principle of international distributive justice to establish a fair division of resources and wealth among persons situated in diverse national societies."--Jacket.

This book is divided up into three sections. The first deals with the problem of the World economy and the most important issues affecting the World economy. The second analyses problem mainly affecting the developed countries. The third analyses the issues in the developing countries particularly in the BRIC countries, International Business and Political Economy is divided up into three sections. The first sections deals with the problem of the World economy and the most important issues affecting the World economy. The second part analyses problem mainly affecting the developed countries. The third part analyses the issues in the developing countries particularly in the BRIC countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China

Cover -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Notes on the Contributors -- List of Abbreviations -- Chapter 1 'Globalizing' the Study of International Political Economy -- Chapter 2 Globalization Studies in International Political Economy -- Chapter 3 The Study of Governance in a Global Political Economy -- Chapter 4 State Debates in International Political Economy -- Chapter 5 Structures, Institutions and Agency in the Models of Capitalism Debate -- Chapter 6 Understanding Financial Globalization in International Political Economy -- Chapter 7 The Transnational Relations Debate -- Chapter 8 Democratization and the Realm of Politics in International Political Economy -- Chapter 9 The International Political Economy of Regionalism -- Chapter 10 Whither IPE? -- References -- Index.

This book collects works by the late Professor Martin Wight (1913-1972), an historian and scholar of international relations. He conducted research on many topics, including British colonial history, European studies, international institutions, and the history and sociology of states-systems. He is nonetheless best known for his teaching about the political philosophy of international relations at the London School of Economics (1949-1961) and the University of Sussex (1961-1972). He is widely regarded as an intellectual ancestor and path-breaker of the 'English School' of international relations, even though this term only gained currency nine years after his death. While there is no generally accepted definition of the 'English School', it is usually construed as signifying an approach to the study of international relations more rooted in historical and humanistic learning than in the social sciences. Wight's achievements are consistent with this broad definition. This volume includes works in four categories: (a) traditions of thinking about international relations since the sixteenth century; (b) the causes and functions of war; (c) international and regime legitimacy; and (d) fortune and irony in international politics. In addition to classic essays such as 'Why Is There No International Theory?' and 'Western Values in International Relations' that complement his posthumous 1991 book International Theory: The Three Traditions, this volume includes previously unpublished works on international legitimacy and the causes of war. Wight's analysis of legitimacy examines the evolution of thinking from dynastic to popular approaches, while his work on the causes of war builds on Thucydides and Hobbes.

The relationship between political theory, including the history of political thought, and International Relations theory, including the history of international thought, has been, and to some extent remains, complex and troubled. On both sides of the Atlantic, the mid-twentieth century founders of International Relations as an academic discipline drew extensively on the canon of political thought, but approached the subject in an uncritical way, while political philosophers largely disdained the international as a focus. This changed in the 1970s and 1980s, with the emergence of the 'justice industry' based on critiques of Rawls' A Theory of Justice and a consequent recovering of the past history of cosmopolitan and communitarian thought. A new discourse emerged in this period – International Political Theory – bridging the gap between political thought and international relations and stimulating a far more creative and scholarly approach to the history of international thought. However, in a social science environment dominated by the methods of economics, that is, formal theory and quantification, the new discourse of International Political Theory occupies a niche rather than existing at the centre of the discipline.

"In this timely book, Benjamin J. Cohen identifies and analyses a range of critical pathologies currently afflicting the field of international political economy (IPE) and offers remedies to restore the field's vitality. The book addresses the purpose of IPE as a field of study, highlighting the key questions posed by scholars since the modern field's inception, and explores how research seeks to engage with politics in practice. Tackling contemporary factionalism in the field, chapters consider IPE's remarkable diversity and fragmentation of research traditions across the globe and draw attention to the lack of clear methods and behavioural assumptions established as 'best practice' internationally. To rejuvenate the field, Cohen argues, reforms are needed that would both encourage more policy engagement by IPE scholars and maximize opportunities to enjoy the benefits of the field's diversity. The book offers a cutting-edge research agenda, emphasising the need for collaboration across scholarly divides and the obligations of leading professional associations and societies to countervail the forces that keep these groups separated. A powerful critique and a rousing call-to-arms, this book is crucial reading for scholars of IPE in search of innovative ways to develop new research and revitalise the field as a whole. It also offers key insights for students who need to understand the challenges facing IPE and its potential research trajectories."

This book addresses energy research from four distinct International Political Economy perspectives: energy security, governance, legal and developmental areas. Energy is too important to be neglected by political scientists. Yet, within the mainstream of the discipline energy research still remains a peripheral area of academic enquiry seeking to plug into the discipline's theoretical debates. The purpose of this book is to assess how existing perspectives fit with our understanding of social science energy research by focusing on the oil and gas dimension.

International Studies is a multidisciplinary field, which includes a long and rich tradition of studying both the political economy conditions of war, peace and security, and the impact of security concerns and war on economic developments. While the fragmentation of International Studies has tended to make the essentially interwoven nature of many processes invisible, over time, a number of important claims and hypotheses have been subjected to various empirical tests, especially during the last few decades. In this chapter, I am asking: what is it that we have learnt on the political economy conditions of war and peace, and of security more generally? What about the impact of security and war on the economy? To what extent has our learning about the political economy of security been cumulative? What should we make of the fact that major disagreements persist? Going through the basic arguments of liberal, nationalist, Marxian, underconsumptionist, Keynesian and Neorealist theories and various recent political economy of security studies, I conclude by arguing that capitalist market economy is not inherently peaceful, but involves mechanisms and processes that can give rise to processes of securitization and enemy-construction. While empirical studies have rendered no unequivocal support for any of the political economy utopias of harmony (liberal, Keynesian, Marxian, or Neorealist), they have stressed the importance of the possibility of resolving conflicts by means of peaceful changes. ; Peer reviewed