Suchergebnisse

AbstractWhile it lags behind the US and China in conventional hard power indicators, Europe is at par with and even ahead of them in some sharp and soft power indicators. Yet it consistently influences below its potential in world affairs. Its ability to leverage its sharp and soft power is hampered by questions of identity, coherence, and leadership, questions that are reflected in the scenario exercise itself. Is Europe defined as the EU, the EMU, or the Council of Europe, and will it continue to include the UK? The answer will be critical to enhancing Europe's power. More effective use of Europe's sharp power will require both political will and more strategic coherence in Brussels, along with some significant institutional modifications. America's abdication from global leadership creates an opportunity for the projection of Europe's soft power. Europe's normative role – both through policy innovation and higher education – is its greatest strength, and its place in the world of 2030 will be determined by how it exercises its potential. It must choose whether it has the will to maintain core elements of the previous order or transform it into new, post‐hegemonic multilateral forms.

Thomas Biersteker took part in 2019 Gerda Henkel Forum: Values and Interests in Communication Between Russia and The West held in MGIMO-University in late April this year and on the margins of the Forum he was kind enough to give an interview to our editor Vadim Belenkov on effectiveness of targeted international sanctions. Professor Biersteker is a renowned expert on this issue, he co-edited a book «Targeted Sanctions» recently published by Cambridge University Press. The interview shows that targeted sanctions involve restrictive measures against a narrowly-defined range of individuals and firms. Professor Biersteker explained in detail the difference between sanctions with the purpose of coercion, constraining and signaling. He reaffirmed his claim that effectiveness of sanctions should be studied separately for each type of purposes. In the interview professor Biersteker updated some of the findings published in his book three years ago. In 2016 constraining and signaling sanctions were effective at the same level, 27 % of the time. Today data reveal that effective constraining fell by 4 % points and effective signaling rose by 2 % points. Effectiveness of coercion remains at 10 %. The average effectiveness of sanctions across three types is about 20 %. Taking into consideration the difficulty of conflicts and issues over which sanctions are applied – North Korea's nuclear program, Iran's potential development of nuclear weapon program, ethnic and religious conflicts in Africa, the Middle East – 20 % should not be considered a small figure. Biersteker also reaffirmed the «sanctions paradox» found in 1999 by Daniel Drezner that very often the countries against which sanctions would be most likely effective are those that are most interdependent whereas sanctions are usually applied in situations when they are less likely to be effective.

Thomas Biersteker evaluates the sources of Third World economic nationalism and assesses the significance of the changes that have taken place between North and South since the early 1970s. Neo-classical and neo-Marxist approaches to international and comparative political economy are explored to develop methods and select criteria for the assessment of major change. Originally published in 1987. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton Univers

Thomas Biersteker evaluates the sources of Third World economic nationalism and assesses the significance of the changes that have taken place between North and South since the early 1970s. Neo-classical and neo-Marxist approaches to international and comparative political economy are explored to develop methods and select criteria for the assessment of major change. Originally published in 1987. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton Univers.

This contribution to a symposium on Karin Fierke's 2022 book, Snapshots from Home, reflects on the dialectical aspects of her analysis, her contribution to Global IR, and the implications of her work for the field of International Relations.

La création d'un espace discursif mondial dans l'enseignement des Relations internationales est confrontée à trois défis majeurs : transcender l'unicité d'une discipline, surmonter les chauvinismes et intégrer les savoirs pratiques. Nous vivons dans un univers d'ordres mondiaux multiples, qui coexistent et s'interpénètrent. Il nous faut, par conséquent, approcher l'enseignement des Relations internationales de façon à comprendre et à transcender ces différences bien réelles. Nous envisageons les façons de parvenir à l'interdisciplinarité (plutôt qu'à la multidisciplinarité), nous identifions et problématisons les différentes formes de chauvinisme et nous explorons les possibilités d'intégrer les savoirs pratiques (de lier la théorie et la pratique). Cet article s'achève sur quelques recommandations dans l'espoir d'atteindre une forme critique de cosmopolitisme dans l'enseignement des Relations internationales.

Barry Buzan & Lene Hansen (2009) have filled an important gap in the literature by writing the first comprehensive survey of international security studies. While their work is systematically organized, their analytical framework could be strengthened by giving greater consideration to the complex interrelationships between theory and practices and by embedding theoretical constructs (and their inherently contradictory developments) within history.