Pattern Of International Relations Research Articles

A Brief Discussion on the Status and Role of Cultural Industries in the Pattern of International Relations

A Brief Discussion on the Status and Role of Cultural Industries in the Pattern of International Relations

Free and Open Indo-Pacific in Defense Cooperation between Indonesia and Australia

Indonesia and Australia are two neighboring countries with different cultural characteristics and patterns of international relations. This research aims to formulate a pattern of strategic partnerships between Indonesia and Australia in the field of defense cooperation. Through the symbolic interactional approach, the researcher saw actors' behavior between countries by collecting data from various sources; online newspapers, scientific articles, interviews, and discussions illustrated the pattern of defense cooperation between Indonesia and Australia at three levels. At the multilateral level, the relationship between Australia and Indonesia looks rather difficult to reciprocate. At the regional level, especially in the Southeast Asia region, Indonesia and Australia cooperation in non-binding control, and on the bilateral level Indonesia and Australia as equal partners are equally committed to mutual control. Free and Open Indo-Pacific strengthens Indonesia-Australia cooperation in the trade sector. An agreement has been built and ratified into the Indonesia-Australia Law comprehensive economic partnership agreement (IA-CEPA). Thus the internal politics of the alliance is very dynamic. On the one hand, the United States strengthens its dominance by utilizing regional countries challenging Chinese policies as bilateral partnerships. On the other hand, multilateral allies help each other. Development between border countries in various ways for defense development.

Forum on Pedagogy: The Introductory Course in International Relations: Regional Variations

AbstractThis forum explores how societal contexts affect how instructors teach introductory undergraduate courses in international relations (IR), global politics, and international studies. Contributors teach at universities in China, Ecuador, India, Morocco, South Africa, the United Kingdom–Scotland, and the United States. Because instructors vary the structure, content, and pedagogical approaches in their courses (and perhaps most in their introductory courses) to account for their students’ backgrounds, conditions, and paradigms, the discipline can learn about contemporary global patterns by putting regionally diverse pedagogical approaches in conversation with each other. A concluding essay explores emergent patterns of a global IR and sets up points for further conversation. The authors hope sharing their pedagogical strategies will inspire instructors to devote the creativity necessary to improve how they teach introductory IR courses in their own societal contexts.

Contemporary Machiavellian theses "The strategy of the role of the absurd state as a model"

In the anarchism that governs the nature and patterns of international relations characterized by instability and uncertainty in light of several changes, as well as the information revolution and the resulting developments and qualitative breakthroughs in the field of scientific and advanced technological knowledge and modern technologies. All of these variables pushed toward the information flow and flow tremendously, so rationality became an indispensable matter for the decision maker as he faces these developments and changes. There must be awareness and rationality in any activity or behavior because it includes choosing the best alternative and making the right decision and selecting the information accurately and mental processing Through a mental system based on objectivity, methodology, and accumulated experience away from idealism and imagination, where irrationality and anarchy are a reflection of the fragility of the decision-maker, his lack of awareness of the subject matter, his irresponsibility, and recklessness that inevitably leads to failure by wasting time and Effort and potential. The topic acquires its importance from a search in the strategies of the frivolous state and its characteristics with the ability to influence the regional, and what it revealed is a turning point in how to adapt from the variables and employ them to their advantage and try to prove their existence. Thus, the problem comes in the form of a question about the possibility of the frivolous state in light of the context of various regional and international events and trends. The answer to this question stems from the main hypothesis that (the aim which the frustrating state seeks to prove is that it finds itself compelled to choose several strategies that start from the nature of its characteristics and the goals that aim at it, which are centered in the circle of its interests in the field of its struggle for the sake of its survival and area of influence).

The construction of “post-hegemonic multipolarity” in Eurasia: A comparative perspective

The 2000s witnessed tectonic changes in the pattern of international relations. Central to these changes is the crisis of global governance and the multipolarization of world politics. Against this backdrop, Eurasian regionalism led by China and Russia is rising as a major force in geopolitical multipolarization. Recent research in international relations attests to growing interest in Eurasian regionalism, with case studies focusing on individual regional mechanisms. Almost entirely absent, however, is comparative research as to how alternative initiatives may promote Eurasian cooperation in a post-hegemonic direction. My research seeks to advance both our empirical and theoretical knowledge of this emerging area. How do geopolitical and economic realignments shape Eurasian cooperation and conflicts in a post-hegemonic direction? What are the historical and institutional settings that are helping Eurasian countries to implement a post-hegemonic agenda of regional cooperation? Using incorporated comparison, this article focuses on the cases of the SCO, the CSTO, the EAEU, and the AIIB; these are regarded as the most coherent and inclusive alternative governance initiatives in the Eurasian region. I argue that post-hegemonic multipolarity in Eurasia finds its strongest expression in regional governance focused on security and economic cooperation at the expense of US global hegemony. These governance mechanisms arise from several competing but complementary initiatives led by China and Russia. A striking characteristic of these mechanisms is that their institutional design reflects a nontraditional security approach, combining conventional security governance with efforts at market and financial and academic integration, business community building, and youth mobilization. The post-hegemonic character of Eurasian regionalism mainly lies in how it provides competing, but coalescing and coexisting schemes for regional governance, which redress Sino-Russian competition into a peaceful framework and do not call for a frontal attack on the US. Their prospects are threatened by Russia and China’s current economic challenges.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE: RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

This article presented as a review to the textbook of the Doctor of History Shakhalilov Shamansur, The History of International Relations: Driving Forces, Global Tendencies. Moscow State University Press, 2015. The author focuses readers attention on the regularities of formation, development and peculiarities of legal regulation of international relations, considers these relations as an ongoing, highly controversial and multidirectional developing process of the formation of the world system of States and international relations, explores the driving forces, events and phenomena, who had in his time, and many still have a decisive influence on international policy the leading powers of the world in the framework of nonlinear processes of globalization and the current, seriously flawed by today's standards, world order and system of international law. The article draws readers attention to everything presented in the tutorial main substantial characteristics and patterns of international relations in their historical context. Emphasizes the inadmissibility of violations of principles and norms of functioning of the traditional system of international law; analyses the factors of influence on the world trends of globalization processes is the gradual destruction of the boundaries between national and international levels of government and governance, the increasing role of supranational political actors. Attention is drawn to the increasing importance in international Affairs information and communication technologies and social networks, expanding the access of citizens to discuss government decisions on international issues. Article will help not only students, but all interested in the patterns, principles and features of international practices in different historical periods and in different civilization. Will foster in the reader a holistic view of the system of international relations and diplomatic activities, to learn, to understand the origins, motivations and basic principles of foreign policy in different historical and structural conditions, a deeper understanding of the relevant definitions, concepts, norms and traditions of international relations and the professional culture in diplomacy.

Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations

The problem of political and economic regulation of contemporary global transformations, taken in the context of the New World Order discourse, attracts attention in Russia and abroad alike. Considering this problem, British analysts Ken Booth and Nickolas Wheeler underline three major approaches to security dilemma, namely, fatalist, mitigator, and transcender logics. Followers of the fatalist approach (neo-realists, globalists) believe that world order is a zero-sum game, where interstate interactions are mostly confrontational, and their pattern depends on the current balance of power. Mitigators (neo-liberals, functionalists, constructivists, etc.) insist that the emerging world order is a win-win game, where nations opt for investing some of their sovereignty into newly created international institutions (regimes and organizations), hoping that conventional rules adopted by them would help to decrease international uncertainty, which otherwise might lead to confrontation. Transcenders (neo-Marxists, feminists, anarchists, federalists, etc.) consider the existing world order an archaic one, calling for a new, fair and humane pattern of international relations. According to their logic, the new world order is the end of the game among sovereign states, because it derives from the idea of humankind not divided by national boundaries but united into a global transnational society.

English

This article attempts to look at two currents of thought which both have influences on International Relations study, which is structural realism that proposed by Kenneth Waltz and ideas of the world system from Immanuel Wallerstein. In both perspectives, the patterns of International Relations is presuppose the existence of structure determination and large system which surrounding actor or agent whose the presence is quite important in current International Relations. Through both of critical reviews which are utilizing the constructivist study, both structural realism ideas and world system ideas were neglected the role of agents that have a decisive role in International Relations. The neglect of the agent roles made both ideas are reductionist and tend to attempt global structure as an unit of analysis which deterministic.

The International System in Europe: Westphalian Anarchy or Medieval Chaos?

Outbursts of nationalism and partisan squabbles generated by the current economic and migration crisis in Europe suggest an unraveling of the integration project and a resurgence of the international anarchy associated with the Westphalian system. However, this article will show that the evolving system bears a closer resemblance to the Europe of the Middle Ages than to the Europe that followed the Treaties of Westphalia. In contemporary Europe we have overlapping authority, multiple loyalties and fuzzy borders. Conflicts are primarily about exclusion from the European core and abuse of agreed procedures rather than borders and territorial gains. Institutional forms of collective bargaining have replaced balance of power politics. Order is maintained not by the sword, but by norms cultivated by two imperial powers, the EU and the US. This medieval system is neither conflict free nor stable, but generates a pattern of international relations fundamentally different from the old Westphalian anarchy. This article will try to comprehend the evolving pattern of cooperation and conflict in Europe and assess its implications.

Saudi-Iranian competition in the republics of Central Asia, the Islamic

The disintegration of the Soviet Union leave , a political vacuum and security in the region of Central Asia, at a time when the Islamic republics of the newly independent unprepared for independence, did not have the structures and experiences essential to enable them to shoulder the burdens of the modern state, making it vulnerable to competing countries, a global, regional, sought to attract more or less for influence on its future political and the pattern of international relations, and these competitions implicit competition between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Tstkhaddman the religious factor to attract these republics in Central Asia. Being the vying for the leadership of the Muslim world. And took the Saudi-Iranian rivalry towards the republics of Central Asia, methods, and many activities are focused in working to promote religious and cultural relations as well as economic and political support of these republics.

The Profits of Power: Commercial <I>Realpolitik</I> in Europe and Eurasia

Old-style realpolitik – bilateral, sentiment-free, and organized by great powers – has returned to Europe, thereby wreaking havoc on traditions of solidarism and multilateralism in the European Union. The renaissance of the Russian state and the rise of Gazprom, Russia’s natural gas monopoly, have produced patterns of international politics that seemed almost inconceivable just a few years ago. Three of Europe’s major powers – France, Germany, and Italy – have cultivated bilateral energy relations with Russia at the expense of a common stance on the continent’s dependence on Russian gas, and much to dismay of other EU members.This pattern of international relations carries profound implications for theory and practice. I argue that the obvious theoretical conclusion and conventional practical understanding of these politics are both wrong. The roots of this realpolitik cannot be found in realist theory. Europe’s realpolitik has, instead, fundamentally commercial and ideational origins. Firms have literally conducted this realpolitik. The empirical puzzles presented in this paper imply a theoretical challenge for international political economy, which has, as a field, failed to understand deeply how firms work and what kinds of roles they have come to play in contemporary international relations. In this paper I propose some theoretical foundations for a better understanding of commercial realpolitik: great-power politics based on the profit motives and shared ideas of firms.

NEO-ROOSEVELT, OR, WHY POST-COLONIALISM IS PREMATURE

Taking up Amy Kaplan's warning about reducing the relations of colonizer and colonized to a single universal model, this article acknowledges the diversity of the colonized, but also emphasizes the diversity of colonizers in a re-examination of the particular way that the culture of American imperialism is constructed. The literary retorts of Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, John Dos Passos and Zora Neale Hurston offer interesting counterpoints to a prevailing American neo-colonial ethos inherited from Theodore Roosevelt, yet the most salient points are that, while American exceptionalism is a myth and the United States does indeed perform a neo-colonial global role, it does so following a path embellished by Roosevelt: his problem, he said, was one of orchestrating plurality within the United States while imposing American dominance abroad, as he put it in an address to the English. Roosevelt's notion of the role of the United States follows, but also deviates from, the English imperial model, for the flag of plurality becomes for him a singular rationale and justification. While not an exception to those historic patterns of international relations we name as colonial, American hegemony has emerged from different conditions and been molded by distinctive ideas of Manifest Destiny. While this path to empire progressed from controlling the hemisphere through invocation of the Monroe Doctrine, under Roosevelt it developed from the model of the winning of the West to the domination of other territories through the assimilation and inclusion of the colonized. Imperial multiculturalism thus improves upon Puritanical ethnocentrism without losing a strong sense of a providential mission. This article draws from a number of historians and cultural critics synthetically in gaining an understanding of how the culture of imperialism functions as a successful and appealing ideology that offers a vision of progress that can appear more democratic and more equalitarian than previous colonializing visions.

Editor’s Introduction

This special double ISSUE is brought to readers via generous grants from the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, and the support of Haverford College. The African authors in this double ISSUE were recruited in summer 1992 with the help of many friends of the African Studies Association in USA and Africa. All of them (with the exception of N’Diaye) participated in two panels sponsored by ISSUE at the annual meeting of ASA in Seattle in November 1992. Those not resident at the time in the USA spent almost two weeks traveling and speaking to various groups around the USA in the period surrounding the ASA meetings. This period in November and December 1992 also provided an opportunity to exchange ideas within the group and prepare the final drafts. Consequently, the articles reflect views and events no later than the end of 1992. A year in the making, this ISSUE is an attempt to bring to bear an African perspective on the emerging new African political order of the 1990s. In the past few years we have become familiar—at least on the surface—with the vast political changes sweeping across the Continent. ISSUE’s effort tries to project African voices into the center of the commentary and debate on democratization and new patterns of international relations in Africa.

Yugoslavia—a Peripheral Tragedy

The post-war political economy of Yugoslavia is analysed in terms of an interaction between patterns of international relations which have tended to peripheralise Yugoslavia and stubborn internal problems of centre-periphery relations. It is argued that the tendency for the West to give open-ended financial support to Yugoslavia for political reasons has in the past made it regrettably easy for Yugoslav governments to postpone decisive action on these internal problems. The present civil war situation in Yugoslavia, and the likely dissolution of the Yugoslav state, are explained in terms of a combination of unresolved centre-periphery problems and very poor economic performance over the past two decades or so. The analysis underlines the danger that economic aid may in the long run further destabilise countries suffering from this kind of domestic instability, and that processes of democratisation, highly desirable in themselves, may have similar results in the given circumstances.

On the Changing Pattern of International Relations

On the Changing Pattern of International Relations

The Challenge of Co‑existence: ASEAN´s Relations with Vietnam in the 1990s

The fall of Saigon in April 1975 was both a cause and a reflection of the changes in the pattern of international relations that had prevailed in Southeast Asia since the arrival of the colonial powers in the middle of the nineteenth century. For over a hundred years the region had been almost completely dominated by great power politics, as one extra-regional major actor after another sought, sometimes achieved, but always failed to establish on a permanent basis, its own preferred order or framework for the conduct of international relations in the region. But, with the American failure in Vietnam and the consequent reduction of the Ameri can role and commitments in Southeast Asia, it was clear that while external power involvement would remain a fact of life for Southeast Asians, no single extra regional major actor would be in a position to exert a predominant influence over the region and the pursuit of the regional states' own interests, demands and aspi rations would have a much more significant impact upon international politics. The most important set of relationships among the regional states is that between the members of the non-communist Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the one hand, and the communist Indochinese countries, namely Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea, on the other. In these relationships, the key issue is the one raised by the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea in December 1978. For, at stake is not only the future of Kampuchea itself, but also the question of power distribution both in Indochina and in Southeast Asia as a whole. This so-called Kampuchean conflict was brought about by a combination of trends and forces. At one level, it emanated from a crisis of legitimacy in Kam puchea itself, where the Pol Pot regime between 1975 and 1978 sought to consoli date its power through the use of violence, both internal and external. At another level, the conflict stemmed from historical and ethnic antagonisms, geopolitical rivalries, doctrinal differences, and clashes of aspirations in certain dyadic rela tionships among regional (or quasi-regional) states, namely, between China and Vietnam, Vietnam and Kampuchea, and Vietnam and Thailand. At the third level, the conflict was caused by the triangular relationship between the United States, the Soviet Union and China; all three see the distribution of power in Indochina and Southeast Asia as an important, if not a key, issue affecting their security interests, and consequently each seeks to extend its influence in the region or at least to deny the others the opportunity of doing so.

Western Europe and the October War

The October war disrupted the humdrum pattern of international relations that had been woven around the Arab-Israeli conflict since June 1967. In the past, the European powers had played important roles, either directly as in the 1956 Suez attack, or indirectly by attempting to influence the turn of events, as in 1967. But already at the latter date, the decline of European power in the international arena was conspicuous. The October 1973 war contributed to the acceleration of this decline, as the preponderance of the two suiperpowers relegated Europe to a marginal role. The European powers found themselves in a defensive position, suffering the repercussions of the Middle East war, but for the first time being unable to bring an influence to bear upon it. This article attempts to outline Europe's reaction to the October war and to analyse both the contradictions and similarities between official government positions and their respective public opinions. Emphasis is placed upon the political trends which resulted, for the first time since the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC), in a common political decision on the Middle East problem, and on the part played by the oil factor in this decision's making. On the other hand, the initial disarray, and the semblance of coordination that followed in the Nine's policies, brought to the surface incompatibilities not only in the relations between the European countries themselves, but also in the relations of the United States with Western Europe as a bloc. This raises the following question: at a moment when the EEC has adopted a neutral attitude to the conflict, will this stand endure in face of the internal pressuLres countering it, and will this frail cohesion on the political scale enhance the European ambition to become a mediator between the Arabs and Israel?

Singapore´ s Foreign Policy in the Seventies: The Reconciliation of Global and Regional Interests

Although it is false to assume that a new decade ushers in a new era, in the study of international politics it is in many ways convenient to think in terms of decades, because it allows for a point in time to assess the past, to analyze the present and to point to the future. With this proviso made, it can nevertheless be asserted that the first three years of the 19701 s have marked a watershed in the international affairs of Asia and particularly Southeast Asia. The events which have changed the pattern of international relations in Southeast Asia and will clearly distinguish the present decade from the past include:

Changing patterns of international relations

Changing patterns of international relations

Sun Yat-sen and the Japanese: 1914–16

The First World War changed the pattern of international relations in East Asia. What had previously been another arena for the European power struggle became the cockpit for two regional forces, Japanese expansionism and incipient Chinese nationalism. The confrontation between the two, which was to last for a quarter of a century, began as a most unequal contest. Great power rivalry had enabled China to balance off her enemies and to maintain her status as a sovereign entity. But with Europe distracted, China was helpless, and Japan had a unique opportunity to pursue an independent expansionist policy. Instead of cooperating with England and the other powers in order to get a fair share of the China spoils, after 1914 Japan could make her bid for the grand prize, exclusive access to China's resources. Thus the European powers’ pre-occupation with mutual slaughter exposed China to extreme danger, greater than that which she had faced during the heyday of classical imperialism.1But Japan was not alone in welcoming the European retreat. Japan’s opportunity was also Sun Yat-sen's opportunity.