International Relations Research Research Articles

Analysing Knowledge Diplomacy and Differentiating It from Soft Power and Cultural, Science, Education and Public Diplomacies

Summary The purpose of this article is to explore the contemporary role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in international relations (IR). Using an interdisciplinary and conceptual approach, it examines how diplomacy and higher education scholars understand and label the rationales, strategies and contributions of IHERI to IR. The findings indicate that multiple terms are used, resulting in terminology chaos and confusion. The concept of knowledge diplomacy is proposed, defined and analysed as a comprehensive term to frame the role of IHERI in IR. The similarities and differences between knowledge diplomacy and related terms such as cultural, public, science and education diplomacy and soft power are examined. Issues that require further investigation are identified, with special attention given to the differences between using a knowledge diplomacy approach versus a soft power approach to understand the role of IHERI in IR.

Names from Nowhere? Fictitious Country Names in Survey Vignettes Affect Experimental Results

Abstract Using fictitious country names in hypothetical scenarios is widespread in experimental international relations research. We survey sixty-four peer-reviewed articles to find that it is justified by reference to necessary “neutralization” compared to real-world scenarios. However, this neutralization effect has not been independently tested. Indeed, psychology and toponymy scholarship suggest that names entail implicit cues that can inadvertently bias survey results. We use a survey experiment to test neutralization and naming effects. We find not only limited evidence for neutralization, but also little evidence for systematic naming effects. Instead, we find that respondents were often more willing to support using force against fictitious countries than even adversarial real-world countries. Real-world associations may provide a “deterrent” effect not captured by hypothetical scenarios with fictitious country names. In turn, fictionalization may decrease the stakes as experienced by respondents. Researchers should therefore carefully explain rationales for and expected effects of fictitious country names, and test their fictitious names independently.

(Th)reading Rights and Justice: Women and Girls with Disabilities

ABSTRACT Despite calls for no one to be left behind, women and girls with disabilities continue to face systemic marginalisation and gaps in rights protections that limit their access to education, health, public services, and justice. Research in transnational and international relations offers little to help understand this gendered disability injustice. This article examines how discussions of elements of justice as redistributive, recognition, participative and restorative address people with disabilities as well as how disability rights within the United Nations treaty body system address the four elements of justice. Drawing on both academic and community critiques of both disability rights and justice, the article asks how our understandings of justice and rights perpetuate these exclusions and what transformative changes are required to redress the marginalisation of women and girls with disabilities.

Mimicry and ambivalence in the concept of sovereignty:

In this article, we analyze the concept of sovereignty embodied in the four most-cited authors of the first generation of International Relations (IR) in Brazil, namely: Amado Cervo, Hélio Jaguaribe, José Flávio Sombra Saraiva and Maria Regina Soares de Lima. We evaluate the concept of sovereignty from the perspective of the Brazilian authors mentioned in contrapuntal to the view of this concept in the works of the American author Stephen Krasner. This study is developed in dialogue with the Global International Relations (Global IR) research agenda, which explores new perspectives in the IR discipline, encouraging its diversification. It is essential to explain that, to carry out this analysis, we adopted as a theoretical-methodological framework the concepts of mimicry and ambivalence, both theorized by Homi Bhabha as well as Edward Said’s contrapuntal reading. This way, we seek to establish bridges between different knowledge and discuss the Brazilian view of a fundamental IR concept: sovereignty. We verify that a national thought in IR approaching sovereignty is relatively different from what we observed in Krasner, whose work mostly represents the discipline’s mainstream. We conclude that this difference results from how national ideas of development and autonomy are articulated together with the concept of sovereignty.

The Future of Sino-Russian Relations in the Russian Far East: A Stable but Not Impervious Equilibrium

Abstract This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the nature of Sino-Russian relations by applying a multi-vector framework to examine the tenability of the so-called strategic partnership between Russia and China in the Russian Far East (RFE). Addressing a growing body of literature that seeks to move beyond single-factor evaluations of the dyadic relationship, I embrace the principles of analytic eclecticism, borrowing from Voskressenki's (Alexei D. Voskressenski, Russia and China: A Theory of Inter-State Relations [London, 2003]) multifactor framework to advance an argument for intertwining the three dominant international relations research traditions—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—to conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of the current equilibrium in the RFE, rather than assuming in advance the most pertinent lens. This in turn allows for more effective application of international relations theory to Sino-Russian studies. To accomplish my aim, I incorporate data pertaining to economic, geopolitical, and ideational factors. From these data, I find that the relationship in the RFE is in a state of stable equilibrium, with the most important vectors contributing to the balance for each side at present, geopolitical considerations for Moscow and ideational concerns for Beijing, being conducive to cooperation. The short-term potential for conflict is thus minimal, but a shock in the form of increasing Chinese nationalist hostility toward Russia or continued territorial belligerence by Russia internationally would severely endanger the status quo. By applying a similar approach to other dimensions of the Sino-Russian relationship, scholars can gain greater traction in assessing the robustness of the continually evolving bilateral partnership between these two large and important neighbors.

Dueling Personalities and Leadership Styles: Gül, Erdoğan, and the Parliament in Turkey’s Policymaking during the 2003 Iraq War

Recent research in International Relations pays more attention to the role of individuals in world politics. The subfield of Foreign Policy Analysis, in contrast, has a long-standing record in advancing its explanation of individuals in foreign policy. Specifically, at-a-distance approaches to studying individuals have grown noticeably. New theoretical connections (for example, to role theory), an expansion of its subjects and linguistic capabilities beyond English promise a growing literature in years to come. To continue to exploit the exploratory promise and illustrate these approaches’ability to account for individuals’impact on decision-making, this paper investigates Turkish foreign policymaking into the 2003 Iraq War under the leadership of two prime ministers. It utilizes Leadership Trait Analysis to profile Gul and Erdoğan, reports from multiple elite interviews, and connects the two leaders’profiles with associated behavioral expectations in their engagement with the parliament. Based on its findings in leaders’profiles and case study discussion, the paper argues an individual focused analysis offers much insight to understanding foreign policymaking processes and outcomes.

Sovereignty as an environmental practice: the problem of territoriality and anthropocentrism

The article is a theoretical study of state sovereignty. By looking at the concept in a different way from traditional methods, it tries to discern whether sovereignty is necessarily antithetical to a sustainable world. Emphasis is put on its territoriality and anthropocentrism – both of which make it into a major obstacle when tackling global and transnational environmental problems. State sovereignty is analyzed as an environmental practice of the state, which allows for the control of resources to be used by capital. The analysis is conducted using theoretical and conceptual critique as the main method. It is based on various sources ranging from critical geopolitics and critical geography to political science and political ecology, including the concept of Capitalocene. As long as sovereignty remains utilized by the state in service to capital, it will be used to cement its ability to control space and extract resources. However, a different kind of sovereignty is imaginable and therefore the institution itself is neither friend nor enemy to environmental politics. This new understanding of sovereignty opens up new avenues for theoretical research in political ecology and International Relations, bridging the gap between traditional state-centric approaches and the transboundary nature of ecological problems.

Before the West: The Rise and Fall of Eastern World Orders

International relations (IR) research has increasingly explored non-Eurocentric histories by analyzing, for example, different historical international systems, societies, and orders beyond Europe, as well as the agency of non-Western polities in constituting world politics (see Phillips and Sharman 2015; Hobson 2020; Spruyt 2020). Before the West contributes to this burgeoning literature. Zarakol offers a longue durée “account of the history of Eastern ‘international relations’” (p. 6), focusing on the interactions between Eurasian polities and the rise and fall of Eurasian world orders between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries. The analysis starts with the rise of the Mongols and their conquests across Eurasia, resulting in the establishment of the Mongol Empire in the thirteenth century. This historical event constituted the foundation for three successive Eurasian world orders to emerge: the Chinggisid world order of the Mongol Empire in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; the post-Chinggisid world order, consisting of the Timurid Empire (Iran and Central Asia) and the Ming Dynasty (China) in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; and the “global” post-Timurid world order of the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which incorporated Eurasian and European polities.

The Development and Prospect of Neoliberalism International Relations Theory

Neoliberalism international relations theory occupies a great position in current international relations research and is one of the three existing international relations paradigms.Through a retrospective study on the mainstream branches of neoliberalism international relations theory, this paper summarizes the research starting points, main arguments, and shortcomings of the major schools of neoliberalism international relations theory, and sorts out the development and inheritance relationship between the major theories, comparing the similarities and differences between international theory under the neoliberalism school and other schools such as realist international relations theory. Through the method of literature review, the journals and monographs that are of great significance to various schools of neoliberalism are reviewed. The establishment of neoliberalism international relations theory has gone through a complex process, it is inherited from the traditional liberalism paradigm and has undergone considerable development in the second half of the 20th century. The formulation of neoliberalism international relations theory is a process of compromise between traditional liberal international relations theory and realism. It accepts many theoretical starting points and assumptions from realism and is also influenced by other disciplines such as economics. On this basis, several important branches have been developed. They are related to each other and share many ideological origins and basic assumptions.There is an obvious relationship of inheritance, development and iteration among different branch of theories. Although neoliberalism international relations theory has not completely replaced realist international relations theory, its proposal is still of epoch-making significance as it provides a new perspective to examine international politics and make up for the deficiencies of realist international relations theory.

The Imagination and International Relations

Abstract The imagination is at the heart of what it means to be human. For this reason, it has been the subject of close examination across time and locale. Yet, while international relations (IR) researchers often mobilize the term rhetorically, its character and operations remain underconceptualized in the discipline and disconnected from the rich literatures that explore this vital faculty. This article identifies a commonsense account of the imagination in IR's most pervasive discourse on order and anarchy. Taking its cues from the Hobbesian tradition, here a distinctly monological imagination is fearful and pessimistic, rooted in the overriding dread of a sudden and violent death. We draw out its underlying assumptions by foregrounding the deliberate, systematic, and sustained construction of the imagination in Hobbes’ Leviathan, where it acts as a crucial and animating impetus for the Hobbesian subject, including in the oft-analogized “state of nature” scenario. We argue that this Hobbesian imagination has been superseded by a multidisciplinary contemporary scholarship that presents a markedly different view. Anyone thinking seriously about the imagination today should disagree with the Hobbesian account, reconsider theories of international relations predicated on it, and explore the political possibilities entailed in other approaches.

Challenging anti-Western historical myths in populist discourse: re-visiting Ottoman Empire–Europe interaction during the 19th century

In this article, we conceptualize and demonstrate how historical International Relations (IR) can be employed to critically engage with the populist uses of history at present. In this endeavour, we focus on myths as analytical nodal points. We revisit the rich interdisciplinary literature on myths to conceptually connect historical research that unsettles myths with political critiques of myths in terms of their naturalizing effects at present. We also expand the critical agenda of historical IR research into targeting the prevalent historical myths of Self and Other that are employed to promote antagonism in contemporary politics. We illustrate the potential that historical IR research holds in illuminating and debunking the contemporary populist uses of history through the case of the relations between Europe and the Ottoman Empire and its relationship with present-day anti-Western populism in Turkey. Via the notion of myth, we combine a critical discourse analysis of the ample historical references in Erdoğan’s populist discourse with original historical analysis of the varied interactions between the Ottoman Empire and European states in the period invoked in those references. In doing so, we shed light on the relatively neglected Tanzimat (1839–1877) period in Euro-Ottoman history by drawing on pioneering secondary literature as well as our own analysis of primary sources. We demonstrate how the developments of this period debunk the myths of ‘Eternal Antagonism’ and ‘Europe the Protagonist’ and how they can inform less antagonistic Self/Other relations that are conducive to a more cosmopolitan co-existence in contemporary Turkey–Europe relations.

관광과 커먼즈

In this age of global 'public crisis,' social science is actively employing the concept of 'commons,' which refers to “everyone's property, not anyone's,” in research to solve social problems. However, few studies in tourism academics have examined the tourism phenomenon through the lens of the commons theory. Given this reality, this study attempted to review how to incorporate the theory of the commons into tourism research. To that end, research on commons in international academic circles and related research achievements in domestic academia are reviewed from Hardin to Ostrom. Second, previous research on tourism commons was reviewed and synthesized. As a result, it was determined that there was confusion from the conceptual definition, which serves as the foundation of academic research, and thus subtractability and excludability based on physical attributes, and monopoly legitimacy and rivarly based on social attributes, were applied. Tourism commons are defined as “natural, social, cultural, and artificial tourism resources that cannot be difficult to physically exclude users and that are not justified to monopolize from a social standpoint,” and tourism CPRs are defined as “tourism commons that decrease as they are physically used and are socially rivalry.” Based on conceptualization, this study proposes a future research direction for tourism commons, with the goal of resolving social dilemmas such as the “tourism paradox.”

Understanding of democracy and peace Gershon H.Gordon Faculty of Social Sciences, Tel Aviv University

One of the great changes in the world situation after World War II was the long period of peace without war between democracies and even great powers. However, the world is not easy in the halo of peace. The smoke of local wars such as the Iraq war has not yet dissipated, and frequent terrorist groups is worrying. In Asia, Japan's military influence, which is second only to the United States, cannot be underestimated. Its defense strategy changes from specialized defense to outward defense. This situation brings a new threat to the security of all countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The problem of the "security dilemma" remains one of the major issues in international politics today. In this regard, realism puts forward the theory of potential equalization and deterrence, while liberalism puts forward the theory of world government, collective security, economic interdependence, and democratic peace. Among them, democratic peace theory, as a popular theory in the field of western international relations research, has aroused wide controversy in the academic circles. "Democratic peace theory" believes that there is no or little war between democratic countries, and "non-democratic countries" are the root cause of war, and expanding democracy is the inevitable requirement for maintaining peace. "Democratic peace theory" does not conform with historical facts, it is the theoretical basis for neo-interventionism in promoting human rights diplomacy. The relationship between democracy and peace is complex: peace between international society and international relations requires not only a domestic democracy, but also in international life; democracy is only one of the many reasons affecting international peace, It has limited impact on peace; the "democracy peace theory" advocates established peace is essentially local peace between western countries based on unreasonable international political and economic order, the consolidation of overall world peace and the establishment of just and reasonable new international order call for new democracy.

Rethinking the Multilateral Order Between Liberal Internationalism and Neoliberalism/Neoliberalisation Processes

Discourses on multilateralism and liberal internationalism are replete with warnings about crises. However, theories often only address crises in pragmatic terms, as if they were discreet and isolated phenomena that have little to do with globalized structural tendencies and the specific limitations of knowledge production within the field of international relations (IR). This article initiates a process of reflection on the nature of the crisis of liberal internationalism and the multilateral world order with the help of the pedagogy of crises framework. It identifies the biases contained within IR research and knowledge production as integral to the crises themselves because of the limitations of their engagement with crises solely at the crisis management level. Acknowledging and situating these biases allows us to build a perspective around the notion of<em> crisis of crisis management</em>. This perspective entails a combination of the study of liberal internationalism and neoliberalism to better explain the nature and dynamics of the multilateral world order. This endeavour can offer a fresh take on analysing case studies related to developing countries and outlines a critical focus to inform further research. A brief review of the Chilean example is featured to support this argument, as it shows how the processes that unfold within the multilateral world order are articulated within a local context, and also points to the intimate relations between knowledge production and policy implementation. The article demonstrates the impossibility of understanding the multilateral world order without due consideration of the dialectical relationship between neoliberalism and liberal internationalism. Historically, analyses have focused on neoliberalism as something embedded within liberal internationalism while, in fact, processes of neoliberalisation have become a framework of reference in themselves. That is to say, liberal internationalism, and the study of it, are but a few of the elements that comprise contemporary neoliberalism. Given this, it is argued that systematic academic engagement with neoliberalism/neoliberalisation is essential for a proper understanding of the multilateral world order.

Issue-Areas, Sovereignty Costs, and North Americans’ Attitudes Toward Regional Cooperation

Abstract Studies of public opinion toward regionalism tend to rely on questions regarding trade integration and specific regional organizations. This narrow focus overlooks dimensions of regionalism that sit at the heart of international relations research on regions today. Instead, we argue that research should explore public preferences with respect to regional cooperation in different issue-areas. We find that people's views of regional cooperation in North America diverge from their attitudes toward trade integration alone. Using data from Rethinking North America, an untapped public opinion survey conducted in Mexico, Canada, and the United States in 2013, we show that although country-level attitudes toward trade integration in North America were similar, preferences for regional cooperation varied by country depending on the issue at hand. We propose that attitudes are shaped by citizens’ perceptions of the asymmetric patterns of national-level benefits and vulnerabilities created by regional cooperation. Generally, respondents favor cooperation where their state stands to gain greater capacity benefits and oppose it where cooperation imposes greater costs on national autonomy. For policymakers, this multifaceted approach to regionalism sheds light on areas where public preferences for regional cooperation might converge. Future research that disaggregates various aspects of support for regional cooperation should help integrate the study of public opinion with “new” and comparative regional approaches that emphasize the aspects of regionalism beyond trade and formal institutions.

State of The Art Para-Diplomacy: A Systematic Mapping Studies and a Bibliometric Analysis VOS Viewer in Scopus Database

Purpose: This article examines state of the art or the most recent achievements of Para-diplomacy research in international relations. For this reason, the systematic mapping studies (SMS) and the bibliometric analysis VOS Viewer carried out stared at articles from 1984 to 2020, as comparison bibliographic articles from countries in the Scopus database. Methods: Preliminary analysis was conducted from systematic mapping studies followed by bibliometrics of publication content in the Scopus database. A total of 175 documents met the criteria for inclusion, starting in 1984, and the dominant author from Europe in journal Scopus Q1 and other well-known international journals. The data from the search results are then descriptively analyzed based on the journal-title, author, co-author, year of publication country, affiliation, keywords, journal /publication name. Results: Researchers from American countries were more productive than Europe and fewer in Asia from 1984 to 2021. As far as paper European document quality is concerned, American governments have significantly more author quality than Asian countries. Conclusion: Although fewer Para-diplomacy articles are published by researchers from Asian countries than Europe and America, this is a challenge for Asian researchers. The increase in the number of publications over the last ten years has shown that the turmoil of sub-state actors in Asian countries has begun to consider implementing regional Para-diplomacy. This is due to a strong push for regional progress to open wide-ranging cooperation, either directly or indirectly, with other countries/regions to strengthen the objectives of state sovereignty.
 
 Received: 16 June 2021 / Accepted: 20 January 2022 / Published: 5 March 2022

QCA in International Relations: A Review of Strengths, Pitfalls, and Empirical Applications

Abstract Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a rapidly emerging method in the field of International Relations (IR). This raises questions about the strengths and pitfalls of QCA in IR research, established good practices, how IR performs against those standards, and which areas require further attention. After a general introduction to the method, we address these questions based on a review of all empirical QCA studies published in IR journals between 1987 and 2020. Results show that QCA has been employed on a wide range of issue areas and is most common in the study of peace and conflict, global environmental politics, foreign policy, and compliance with international regulations. The utilization of QCA offers IR scholars four distinct advantages: the identification of complex causal patterns, the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, a middle ground between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and the reinforcement of the strengths of other methods. We find that albeit a few exceptions, IR researchers conduct high-quality QCA research when compared against established standards. However, the field should urgently pay more attention to three issues: the potential of using QCA in combination with other methods, increasing the robustness of QCA results, and strengthening research transparency in QCA applications. Throughout the article, we formulate strategies for improved QCA research in IR.

Globalizing IR: Can Regionalism offer a path for other Sub-Disciplines?

Global International Relations (IR) research promotes more spaces for a broader spectrum of histories, insights, and theoretical perspectives beyond the conventional dominant Western ones in the IR discipline. The primary goal of this paper is to highlight that the study of Regionalism has a significant role in supporting the initiative of ‘globalizing IR’ by representing a sub-discipline that is open to new ideas, theories and methods, especially those emanating from non-Western contexts. As such, Regionalism is one of the sub-disciplines of IR and International Political Economy (IPE) with a tremendous potential to showcase global-IR trends. This article utilizes a bibliometric analysis as a proxy for mapping out the diverse and complex intellectual structure of Regionalism as a sub-discipline of IR. Our findings indicate that the remarkable rise in the total number of contributions from non-Western scholars to the Regionalism literature in the last decade suggests that unlike the theory generating mainstream studies Regionalism studies have become dominated by non-European/non-Western contexts.

Contributions and Blind Spots of Constructivist Norms Research in International Relations, 1980–2018: A Systematic Evidence and Gap Analysis

Abstract The study of international norms from a social constructivist perspective has been one of the major conceptual innovations to the discipline of international relations (IR) over the past forty years. However, despite the concept's ubiquity, there is only a limited understanding of the large-scale trends in research associated with its rise. This analytic essay interrogates conventional wisdom, using a dataset of 7,795 mainstream, English-language journal articles from the Teaching, Research and International Policy Journal Article Database, supplemented with data from Web of Science. How have international norms been studied substantively and methodologically, what are major contributions and blind spots, and which opportunities for future innovation might exist? Although norms research has historically helped expand the scope of issues covered in IR (e.g., gender issues and public health), others have evidence gaps relative to the broader discipline of IR (e.g., terrorism and public opinion). Over the years, the proportion of empirical studies has increased, while purely theoretical, epistemological, and methodological work and innovation have decreased. Despite calls for methodological pluralism, norms research is significantly more qualitative and conceptual than mainstream IR in general and far less multi-method. While more international and less US-based than IR in general, norms research in mainstream journals seems to be no closer to a “Global IR,” measured by regional focus and author affiliation. This suggests three promising avenues for future innovation: greater attention to specific substantive blind spots, more multi-method research, and increased attention to the agenda of Global IR. Beyond these individual insights, this review illustrates the general utility of complementing narrative literature reviews with ones based on quantitative data. It also provides a case study on conceptual proliferation and innovation in IR.

Democracy and cyberconflict: how regime type affects state-sponsored cyberattacks

ABSTRACT A large body of research in international relations has focused on the relationship between regime type (i.e., the degree a nation is democratic or authoritarian) and traditional military conflict between states. However, to date, no research has examined how regime type affects conflict in the cyber domain. Thus, we attempt to analyze the effect regime type has on the initiation of state-sponsored cyberattacks. We examine 143 states from 2005 - 2013 utilizing cyber data on known state-sponsored cyberattacks taken from the Council on Foreign Relations Cyber Operations Tracker dataset (CFR-COTD) and economic, political, military, and social data collected by the authors. In conducting a cross-sectional, time series analysis we find that democratic institutions have a pacifying effect on the initiation of state-sponsored cyberattacks.