On the Norms and Habits of the European Union as a Meta-organisation

ABSTRACTEU High Representative Federica Mogherini presented her EU Global Strategy (EUGS) in June 2016. Encircled by security crises, it is difficult to think of something more important for Europe than collective action with the aim of weathering the storm. The EUGS, in this respect, seeks to define common ends and identify means. So what do we make of the EUGS? What does the EUGS tell us about the current role of the EU in global affairs? And how will the withdrawal of the UK from the EU affect foreign and security policy? As a way of introduction to the forum, this article notes that the EUGS focuses on the neighbourhood, puts the interests of European citizens first, identifies civilian means, and has created momentum on security policy. The key question, however, remains whether there is any interest in the EUGS beyond the foreign policy elites.

International relations (IR) theory is difficult to define. It is often taught as a theory that seeks both to explain past state behavior and to predict future state behavior. However, even that definition is contested by many theorists. Traditional IR theories can generally be categorized by their focus either on humans, states, or on the state system as the primary source of conflict. Any bibliography of international relations theory is bound to create controversy among its readers. Why did the author choose one theory and not the other? Why did the author choose one source and not the other? Indeed, a wide variety of permutations would be perfectly valid to provide the researcher with an adequate annotated bibliography, so why were these particular entries chosen? This article identifies Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism as the three major branches of IR theory. These three branches have replaced the earlier realism-idealism dichotomy. The “English School” could be considered part of any of the aforementioned three branches, and its placement in the IR theory world is the subject of some debate. It has therefore been given its own section and is not included in any of the other sections. Critical IR theory and Feminist IR theory are often considered part of constructivism; however, there is much debate over whether they constitute their own branches, and so they are included in this article (as well as in their own entries in the OBO series), though the sources are somewhat different. Post–Cold War IR Theory is given its own heading because there are a number of theories that were proposed in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War that are still widely taught and discussed in the field. Perhaps the most controversial inclusion is that of Neoconservatism. Though it is quite possible to mount a case for it to be considered a theory of US foreign policy, it is theoretically distinct from other IR theories (the belief in bandwagoning instead of balancing). The final three sections are included to show how political theory has influenced IR theory, and how history and foreign policy have influenced IR theory (and vice versa). The included sections and citations represent both the mainstream of IR theory and those nonmainstream theories that have just started to break into the mainstream of IR theory. This article provides a starting point for both the beginning and the serious scholar of international relations theory.

Modern international relations science is faced with theoretical and methodological fragmentation, determined by ontological contradictions between theories. Systems theory has the research potential to explain dynamic international political processes. However, in the practice of its application in social sciences, researchers have encountered numerous difficulties and contradictions. The hypothesis is that the tektology of Alexander Bogdanov overcomes these difficulties and allows to consider social systems in dynamics and at different levels. System theories in the social sciences are analyzed, their basic contradictions are identified. The basic concepts of tektology are described, its methodology is applied to the study of modern international relations. It is concluded that tektology provides extensive research tools for the study of international relations, allows to identify the most general patterns of development of this part of the social space, and can become the basis for long-term forecasting of international political processes.

China's political philosophy has its own identity and intellectual tradition. In the science of international relations, China's national developments in the field of theory are gaining popularity. The schools of theories of the People's Republic of China combine traditional national developments with classical theoretical approaches. At the same time, there is a relationship between the growth of China in the international arena and interest in Chinese theories. The author analyzes the main schools of theories of China's international relations. When analyzing theories, the author uses a retrospective approach and compares the main stages of the development of theories with important historical events in the foreign and domestic policy of the People's Republic of China. The author examines the relationship between the dominance of various theoretical approaches of international relations and the foreign policy of the People's Republic of China. The author analyzes the Chinese experience of building national schools of theories of international relations, evaluates theoretical approaches in the context of foreign policy events. The author analyzes the current state of the national school of the theory of international relations in China and the scientific discourse on the assessment of its content in the political science community. The author reveals a pattern between the foreign policy course of the state and research in the field of international relations. The article highlights several reasons for emerging of the active scientific discourse that has developed around the national theory of international relations of China. The experience of Chinese researchers can be used to build theories of international relations in Russia.

Introduction Benjamin Tze Ern Ho (bio) Of late, Chinese scholars have argued for the need to incorporate traditional Chinese ideas into mainstream international relations (IR) theory, which is seen as privileging a Western-centric reading of international affairs. Given the global prominence of China, it behooves scholars and policymakers alike to consider how these ideas are being translated into contemporary Chinese conceptions of international order and influencing China's foreign policy practices. The four essays in this roundtable attempt to do just that. First, Feng Zhang adopts a historical perspective on the study of China's engagement with the international order and examines the implications of the Xi Jinping doctrine for the country's foreign policy. Second, Xiaoyu Pu discusses China's policies and actions in the Indo-Pacific, including its strategic calculations, its perceptions of the U.S. role in the region, and the sources of rising tensions between the United States and China. Using a "status dilemma" framework, Pu argues that Sino-U.S. competition is fueled by concerns in the United States and China that the other side seeks domination and regional hegemony, respectively. Third, Beverley Loke analyzes Chinese and U.S. discourses of great-power management. She examines how each country sees itself as a responsible stakeholder and assesses their respective approaches to a "new model of great-power relations." Finally, Catherine Jones argues that, despite the use of grand political slogans, Beijing's foreign policy practices reflect more modest objectives, not unlike the behavioral strategies of middle powers. Taken together, these essays provide important analytical insights for better understanding China's foreign policy actions and the extent to which Chinese ideas concerning international affairs are playing out in practice. The rest of this introduction provides a brief sketch of Chinese thinking about international relations in light of China's rise and its importance for our understanding of Chinese political worldviews. [End Page 2] China's prominence in international relations has emboldened Chinese IR scholars in recent years to advocate a "Chinese way" of thinking about international relations and incorporate traditional Chinese ideas into mainstream IR scholarship. Qin Yaqing, the president of the China Foreign Affairs University, observes that efforts to develop Chinese IR theory have gathered momentum since the start of the 21st century, given China's growing economic strength and international influence.1 While these concepts have yet to obtain universal traction and are still largely in an embryonic stage, the ability to theorize, as Qin puts it, "is a sign of intellectual maturity."2 Chinese scholars are increasingly using indigenous resources to articulate what they view as a unique Chinese contribution to the wider discipline. The importance of articulating a Chinese approach to IR theory lies in part in the need to establish and present Chinese national interests to the international community. In a study of the relationship between China's global ascendancy and its IR theory, Hung-Jen Wang identifies the three main features of Chinese scholarship as "identity, appropriation, and adaptation."3 In the first phase of scholarship, the identities of Chinese IR scholars were shaped by China's political systems, cultural values, and historical experiences. Such work emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s following China's reintegration into the international system. Chinese scholars next began to appropriate Western IR theories using the Chinese principle of ti-yong (substance-function)—that is, by combining Chinese concerns with the learning of foreign concepts. The third phase saw Chinese scholars adapt these concepts of Western IR scholarship (such as "balance of power" and "nation-state") to analyze events in China. To this end, Wang observes that "repeated cycles of learning and appropriation may ultimately relativize the universal values of those and other concepts found in Western IR theories so as to transform their original Western meanings."4 Similarly, in his survey of the development of IR theory in China, Qin argues that the development of IR as an academic discipline in China has moved from pre-theory to a theory-learning (or theory-deepening) stage. The theory-innovation phase, whereby scholars "seek to explain reality and understand social phenomena from a distinctly Chinese perspective," [End Page 3] has yet to materialize...

This article explores the prospects for the EU’s role as a global leader in a transitional international order, based on the assumption that multilateral principles will remain at the heart of global governance. It focuses in particular upon the EU’s 2016 Global Strategy in the context of three principal trends and challenges for global governance: political and normative challenges, legitimacy challenges, and systemic challenges. It argues that the prospects for the EU’s global role are limited as long as the EU remains committed to traditional forms and norms of global governance, because these are increasingly out of touch with the emerging international order, and the nature of contemporary collective action challenges.

Canada's global health role

European Union Global Strategy: a Constructivist ReflectionThis paper examines the potential of a constructivist approach in analysing the European Union’s security strategy area. It focuses on the new EU Global Strategy (EUGS), which was adopted by the Council at the end of June 2016. First, the methodology is explained, followed by discussing the consequence of using the document’s language for EU identity. The paper then focuses on the new title of the strategy that shows a new approach to security strategies within the European External Action Service’s staff. The consequences of building a narrative about the “threatened” but also “needed” and “influential” European Union are underlined here. Furthermore, the new role of the EU in the international scene is described, focusing on the shift from the EU as a civilian power to the EU as a normal power, with an emphasis on the importance of the preservation of the EU as a normative power. The conclusions from using a constructivist approach to examine the EUGS are then presented, which show that mechanisms of the logics of appropriateness, consequence, and persuasion are observed within the document. Moreover, the language of the EUGS could have an influence on EU identity and role on the global stage. The constructivist approach proves that the EU external actions are continuously under construction, and the EUGS is the next step in achieving a more coherent and effective European foreign and security policy.

It is no exaggeration to say that Yan Xuetong's Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power is a path-breaking project that integrates ancient Chinese philosophy, Pre-Qin history, and contemporary International Relations (IR) theory. Although Yan has not introduced a new grand theory of IR in the book per se, he has paved a fresh theoretical and intellectual path to reforming current, western-philosophy-and-history-based IR theory. If scholars follow Yan's guidance and approach as laid out in the book, it will be no surprise to see developed more than one new IR theory.\n\nThe book is translated from Yan's research on pre-Qin international political philosophy and its implications for the rise of China. It consists of three parts: Yan's three articles on pre-Qin philosophical masters' writings on international politics;1 three critical reviews of Yan's articles by three brilliant Chinese scholars, as well as Yan's responses to his critics; and three useful appendixes giving background information on Yan's research. The book raises three major arguments in the book. They are: (i) norms and morality determine the stability of interstate order, and the hierarchical relation among states is conducive to world peace; (ii) humane authority is a superior model for great powers compared to hegemony and tyranny in international politics; and (iii) political power is the most important element of power compared to economic, military, and soft power. It is obvious that each of these arguments poses fundamental challenges to the major canons of contemporary IR theory.\n\nIn this review article, I first discuss the three significant contributions of Yan's book to the studies of ancient Chinese philosophy, IR theory, and China's foreign policy. I then raise certain questions after a reading of the book. My questions and critiques focus on the definitions of certain key concepts, such as morality and humane authority, the utility of ancient philosophy in advancing IR theory, and the implications for the study of China's foreign policy. I conclude that Yan's book represents an ideal pursuit by a realist.\n\nYan's emphases on morality, norm, humane authority, and political power may turn out as brilliant rhetorically, but as unrealistic in reality. One of the key problems lies in the operationalization of these key concepts in real world politics. Yan's idea of comparing and contrasting Chinese philosophy, Western philosophy, and contemporary IR theory is very creative. Merely focusing on ideational differences in ancient Chinese philosophy, however, is not sufficient to advance contemporary IR theory. Although searching the philosophical and cultural roots of China's foreign policy behaviour is a promising research enterprise, some of Yan's arguments and suggestions about China's foreign policy are normative in nature with difficulties in their practical and empirical verifications.

Purpose This paper aims to examine the hypotheses of main international theories (realism, liberalism and constructivism) and the development of these theories toward the behavior of foreign policy of small states in the developing world. The theories of international relations, especially the realistic theory, face a theoretical debate and a fundamental criticism. The hypotheses of these theories are not able to explain the external behavior of some small states, especially those in the developing world such as Qatar. In particular, these small states do not have the elements of physical power through which they can play this role. However, they are based on the internal determinants (such as political leadership and the variable of perception) and non-physical dimensions of power to play an effective and influential external role. Design/methodology/approach This topic sheds light on the hypotheses of theories of main international relations, which explain the behavior of foreign policy of small states. This is due to the increased number of such states after the disintegration of Soviet Union, the practice of some countries an effective foreign role and the transformation of the concept of power from the hard power to soft power, and then to smart power Findings The theories of international relations, especially the realistic theory, face a theoretical debate and a fundamental criticism. The hypotheses of these theories are not able to explain the external behavior of some small states, especially those in the developing world such as Qatar. In particular, these small states do not have the elements of physical power through which they can play this role. However, they are based on the internal determinants (such as political leadership and the variable of perception) and non-physical dimensions of power to play an effective and influential external role. Originality/value The importance of the study comes from its interest in small countries in general and the Qatar situation in particular. The small country emerged as a player independent of the Gulf Cooperation Council, unlike what prevailed before, which led to the discussion of a regional role for Qatar despite its small power compared to the strength and size of other factions in the region such as Turkey, Israel and Iran.

Over the last 25 years, there has been a noteworthy turn across major International Relations (IR) theories to include domestic politics and decision-making factors. Neoclassical realism and variants of liberalism and constructivism, for example, have incorporated state motives, perceptions, domestic political institutions, public opinion, and political culture. These theoretical developments, however, have largely ignored decades of research in foreign policy analysis (FPA) examining how domestic political and decision-making factors affect actors’ choices and policies. This continues the historical disconnect between FPA and “mainstream” IR, resulting in contemporary IR theories that are considerably underdeveloped. This article revisits the reasons for this separation and demonstrates the gaps between IR theory and FPA research. I argue that a distinct FPA perspective, one that is psychologically-oriented and agent-based, can serve as a complement, a competitor, and an integrating crucible for the cross-theoretical turn toward domestic politics and decision making in IR theory.

International Relations Theory and the India–Pakistan Conflict

The aim of the paper is to use international relations theories to explain the views of Polish elites in the field of foreign policy. The concept of political rationale in foreign policy, introduced by Fred Chernoff, is utilized to achieve this goal. The structure of the text is threefold. The first part introduces the theoretical approach. It is believed that it is possible to derive foreign policy mental maps from leading international relations theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism. The second part describes how foreign policy is understood by three groups of Polish elites. The third part compares decision-makers views identified in the second part with the theoretical models developed in the first part. In conclusion, the theory’s usefulness in explaining Poland’s foreign policy concepts is evaluated. The text presents an attempt to connect the issues of theory with observable political practice on the example of Poland’s foreign policy after the end of the Cold War. As a result, the paper shows the linkages between chosen International Relations (IR) theories and the state’s foreign policy. In this way, it incorporates the mainstream IR theories into the reflection conducted primarily in the Foreign Policy Analysis field.

This article explores the compatibility between the EU’s political conditionality as a policy tool and the EU’s approach to conflict management, guided by the EU Global Strategy. It does so based on the unique case of the EU’s application of political conditionality vis-à-vis Ukraine amidst the war and the reinvigoration of the EU’s enlargement policy in response thereto. We find conditionality to fit the EU’s crisis management toolbox, especially when it comes to the long-term approach and building resilience of state institutions in a target country. Though not yet strongly visible in the case of Ukraine, the application of conditionality may come into contradiction with the principles of societal resilience and local ownership, embedded into the EU’s approach to conflict management and the EU Global Strategy, more broadly.

For over 60 years, scholars of international relations (IR) and foreign policy have focused intermittently on the psychology of leaders and decision-makers in general, but attention has waxed and waned. Within political science, interest in the psychology of foreign policy seems to have peaked in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, but it would be quite mistaken to think of the topic as somehow passé. Since that time, the work of Irving Janis on groupthink (to cite just one instance) has proved repeatedly useful. That approach has focused on the social psychology of foreign policy, although more attention has been directed in recent years toward individual or cognitive psychology. Cognitive consistency theory, schema theory, and analogical reasoning have all particularly influenced the field, and each continues to provide the analyst with vital clues as to why people make the decisions that they do. The methodology of studying foreign policy psychologically has also undergone significant change. Reacting to the strongly positivist focus typified by James Rosenau, a more recent generation of scholars have become rather more eclectic and dynamic in their approach to studying how foreign policy is made. This generation has also produced an extraordinary range of theories, discussed in this article, which depart from or significantly modify the well-known Rational Actor Model (RAM) of state and leadership behavior. Prospect theory, and poliheuristic theory in particular, have come onto the scene in recent years. Most recently, a welcome and much-needed turn toward the study of emotion (as opposed to merely cognition) has been especially evident in the study of the psychology of foreign policy. It has never been clear exactly where foreign policy theory fits within IR theory, and it has often been treated as an addendum to studying IR—and even an element of unnecessary complexity—rather than being absolutely central to what we study. Indeed, the study of foreign policy decision-making (FPDM) has acquired a reputation as a discipline that is merely “marking time.” But this perspective on the psychology of foreign policy is as wrong as it is analytically dangerous. Attempts to create IR and foreign policy theories that conspicuously leave out psychological variables—or that simply “assume away” how real individuals actually behave—have proven repeatedly insufficient and have led to marked changes in the way that psychology is treated within the study of foreign policy. Most notably, the rise of constructivism and the failure of overly systemic theories like neorealism to account for foreign policy outcomes have caused neoclassical realists to deliberately incorporate the psychology of decision-makers into their theories. Within the discipline of psychology, meanwhile, a whole new field called behavioral economics that rejects the simplifying assumptions of a rational choice perspective has sprung up in recent years. In short, knowledge of psychology has proved invaluable to those attempting to understand why leaders make the decisions they do, and the entire approach remains indispensable to those who study foreign policy in general.