tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-212149432012-01-22T18:10:49.358-05:00Probing the philosophical underpinnings of the international system and anything else of interest.Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.comBlogger1061100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1149521083764165912006-09-11T11:02:00.000-04:002006-09-11T07:20:20.026-04:00

I wrote this during the summer, but i forgot to post it so here goes. I think recent developments have given my ideas some credibility.This is an interesting article. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/05/somalia.fighting.ap/index.html A militia group has taken control of Mogadishu. The author implies that this somehow means that the fighting for Somalia is over, that the end to the war

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com56tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1154375403084032162006-07-31T15:47:00.000-04:002006-07-31T15:50:03.103-04:00

My article on net neutrality has finally been published on the website. It discusses the current political controversy surrounding net neutrality, the policy that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally.I hope you all enjoy it.

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1153030835371548042006-07-16T02:17:00.000-04:002006-07-16T02:20:35.383-04:00

I finally got my first article out for the Globalization101.org Project with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This article is on the 2006 World Cup and how it relates to globalization. Enjoy it here on the website. (Comments Warmly Appreciated)

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1150281254090043232006-06-14T06:31:00.000-04:002006-06-14T06:34:14.116-04:00

I've gotten an internship at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where I am writing articles for their website on globalization. I have few articles in the works and the first one should be on the website soon. It is on the World Cup. My next one should be on net neutrality.

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1148409300849319792006-05-23T14:32:00.000-04:002006-05-24T11:38:01.923-04:00

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/23/amnesty.report.ap/index.htmlAn interesting article about Amnesty International's human rights efforts, simply because it basically identifies structural realism as a main cause of human rights abuses.

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1148243544930343992006-05-21T15:28:00.000-04:002006-05-21T16:33:46.700-04:00

Well I needed a little break but I'm back and ready for more IR. I read a book review of Madeleine Albright's The Mighty and the Almighty by Noah Feldman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101323.html In it, he takes aim at the inadequacies of realism in addressing the modern world system. While Alrbright writes in her book that realism caused US foreign

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146897260830957032006-05-06T02:33:00.000-04:002006-05-06T02:43:41.610-04:00

On Friday, May 5th the most amazing thing happened to me. I got off the metro in Dupont Circle to wait for Jackie to meet me. While waiting, a man in a brown shirt came up to me asking where Pentagon City was. I told him it was on the yellow line. It was clear the man, who looked to be in his early 30's, was a foreigner, I just couldn't say from where.He sheepishly told me that he didn't

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146714855515642252006-05-03T23:50:00.000-04:002006-05-03T23:54:15.530-04:00

Take this as you will, but I love blogging about this stuff. I love debating IR. I mean I think about becoming an academic and making this my career so I better love it. But seriously. If anyone is interested in continuing this blog or starting a new one where we would casually post about IR and hopefully have some debates let me know. I think it could be a lot of fun and a little more

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146681220711069332006-05-03T14:33:00.000-04:002006-05-03T23:11:10.160-04:00

I think that one problem we tend to have (and by we I mean our class and probably US IR theory people in general) is that when we think of realism, we think of it in terms of US state interest. We don't think of state interests in broader terms. My realist argument for a moon base would be that the periphery countries (I must say I like some of the WST terminology and ideas, minus Marxism) should

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146601648893695832006-05-02T16:25:00.000-04:002006-05-02T16:27:28.943-04:00

I had hoped to make a realist argument for blowing up the moon, but was (un)fortunately dissuaded by my teammate. I would like to present a brief argument here.In 2001, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization issued its report (avaliable here) which made it clear that the US dominance in space was threatened, and that the US should take steps to

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146531451794038972006-05-01T20:55:00.000-04:002006-05-01T20:57:31.813-04:00

Dear all,When you click on the link to the left that has all of your blog posts only one post may show up. This is fine. Either click on the link that reads "More results from Debating IR" or click on the link that says Atom 100 results or RSS 100 results towards the bottom. All of your posts should be there.Jonathan

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146593307587352582006-05-01T00:41:00.000-04:002006-05-02T21:55:05.266-04:00

As Jackson said, it really was appropriate that the class ended on a chaotic note. (The Marxists made my day with their hostile takeover.) Although I've evolved from a realist into a poststructuralist, I have to say... realism wins everything all the time.Referring back to John's post after the second debate, I read: "You claim to have invited us into dialogue but this was simply not the case.

Katnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146188955166321302006-04-27T21:30:00.000-04:002006-04-27T21:49:15.180-04:00

I went to the museum in Katzen today to check out the The Art of Engagement, which is worth checking out if you have some time to kill. Here is a piece from the exhibition that amused me because of our class a few weeks ago where we discussed Dr. Rice's wardrobe.Also, old but good, Condoleeza hairdo alert system

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145687586748027082006-04-23T02:22:00.000-04:002006-04-22T02:35:06.986-04:00

Dear Phuong,I wasn't talking about morality in my piece, Jonathan Berman Fought the Law and the Law Won. What I'm saying is that Butler is trying to tell us that the US is doing something illegal when its not. When I say law and justice shouldn't be confused I mean that when we hear something is law we shouldn't automatically assume it is just. There are many laws that are injust in the world.

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145121087252555292006-04-22T12:30:00.000-04:002006-04-22T02:11:31.570-04:00

I've started to read To Seek Out New Worlds: Exploring Links between Science Fiction and World Politics which is edited by Jutta Weldes. It's a fun book to read because each chapter talks about popular works of science fiction and how they relate to international relations. Thus, the writers got to watch hours upon hours of Star Trek and other assorted works of science fiction for "research

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146579377849339062006-04-21T11:00:00.000-04:002006-05-02T10:17:16.490-04:00

I'm speaking, of course, of the line of dehumanization that we discussed in class today. Somehow, we went from talking about Guantanamo Bay to whether or not Professor Jackson had dehumanized Christa by making a comment about her hair, and then to when exactly disrespect for someone turns into dehumanizing them. Although I can see the need to have a working definition of dehumanization to

Katnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145550565875536322006-04-20T12:18:00.000-04:002006-04-20T12:29:25.893-04:00

For the last few classes, I've left with the feeling that our debates have been missing something. That something is the big picture. We are very good at discussing meanings and definitions. We are good at discussing the merits of various arguments, but ever since our shift from the Big 3 into the feminism, Marxism, and post-structuralism, its seems that we are constantly missing the big picture

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146582402093464302006-04-20T09:40:00.000-04:002006-05-02T13:40:29.126-04:00

Butler's chapter on indefinite detention was fundamentally disturbing. When I recited the section on the incident between the Department of Defense Counsel and the reporter (described on p. 74-75) to my roommate, she ground her teeth a little and cheerily sang "I hate the U.S.!" a couple times. (She's a Justice major, so the absolute mockery Guantanamo has made of our legal system actually

Katnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145538844618385552006-04-20T08:50:00.000-04:002006-04-20T09:14:04.743-04:00

I must admit that before reading Butler's chapter 3 and 5, I read some of the initial blog posts about it. This was probably a good thing in retrospect because (I thought) I was prepared to deal with the difficulty and confusion of her writing style. I was wrongI honestly don't know what I just spent an hour reading. Chapter 3 is next to incomprehensible. Butler makes an argument fasts forward to

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145511433098325452006-04-20T01:34:00.000-04:002006-04-30T17:22:35.263-04:00

Judith Butler has a reputation as a poor writer, and having struggled through the third chapter of the text I can see why. I found it very difficult to understand what she was saying about sovereignty, governmentality and camp delta.I tried to find out about governmentality elsewhere, because I am not at all familiar with this area of Foucault's work. I found (hooray) there are lots of competing

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145508698174855312006-04-20T00:45:00.000-04:002006-04-20T00:57:07.503-04:00

I enjoyed the map we had up last class where Africa was huge. Here is another paradigm-shifting map. You can find more here.

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145480266702293562006-04-19T16:36:00.000-04:002006-04-21T10:47:29.486-04:00

The more I read Butler the more confused I get by her arguments. I think her problem is that she just assumes readers agree with her claims. However, that's never a good way to argue because everyone has different ideas of it is true and what is fact. You need to take each claim and justify it with evidence. Butler doesn't do this and go on to link her arguments to a number of unsubstantiated

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145383180742034382006-04-18T13:55:00.000-04:002006-04-18T13:59:40.760-04:00

That's an interesting question you pose NW. Is international law 'law'? Personally, I agree with you that its not like our domestic law since there is really no central executive power to enforce it.However, I think it does have importance. The US spends and has spent a lot of time developing international law (post-WW2). Also, the US always says it follows international law. Yet, what I

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145254315942724912006-04-17T01:41:00.000-04:002006-04-17T02:15:25.076-04:00

Judith Butler, in Precarious Life, writes that the US, "breaks its international contracts, and then asks whether other countries are with America or against it. It expresses its willingness to act consistently with the Geneva Conventions, but it refuses to be bound to that accord, as is stipulated by its signatory status (40).This part stuck out to me because I had just listened to a guest

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1145244762853887702006-04-16T22:59:00.000-04:002006-04-16T23:32:42.980-04:00

So I've been perusing the various blogs that our class has been keeping and it dawned on me; we don't have any liberals. Maybe we have liberal constructivists or even liberal realists (I know that I like to talk about cooperation a lot. Maybe that makes me a realist.) But it appears that there are few ardent supporters of liberalism. The realists like Matt, Kat, and I are fairly easy to spot, as

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146577147199075032006-04-13T21:38:00.000-04:002006-05-02T09:41:51.803-04:00

I found this article on the U.S. as an empire quite interesting in light of our discussions of historical materialism. Usually, we debate whether empire is morally good or bad, not whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous to have one. This article takes the stance that our imperial ambitions have shot us in the foot, as in this statement: "The Bush administration stands guilty of an

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144940827783389162006-04-13T10:52:00.000-04:002006-04-15T14:03:06.683-04:00

One thing we have all discovered about Professor Jackson is that he loves to discuss the meaning of things. What does empire mean? What does sovereignty mean? What are "human rights"? and so on. He can't be faulted for this. He is after all a constructivist. But it is still important to ask, is this constant discussion of meaning necessary? What does it matter?Today for instance we discussed

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144880041422630692006-04-12T23:54:00.000-04:002006-04-12T23:57:59.930-04:00

At times throughout this semester, Jesse's voice has piped up from the back of the room to say "the inevitable one-world government" or something fairly similar. Now that I finally have time to think, I wonder if he's right. More importantly if he is, which theory would agree with him? There is something to be said for the growht of international organizations. Everyone wants to be a part of the

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144801007532419902006-04-12T22:27:00.000-04:002006-04-12T22:29:11.376-04:00

Let's face it, money can't buy you happiness and, if you think about it, it won’t get you enlightenment either. What I’m getting at is that economics isn’t responsible for everything that goes on in the world. I think historical materialists (Marxists) and world system theorists put so much emphasis on economics as the root cause of events in IR that they forget that there are other factors

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144892878761298672006-04-12T21:47:00.000-04:002006-04-12T21:47:58.763-04:00

The historical materialism piece is quite similar to the world-systems piece in that it looks at the way in which the war in Kosovo advances capitalist interests. What is different is that the capitalist interests maintain a strong nationalist component. Yugoslavia is seen as the battleground for the competing capitalisms of the US and the EU. Given the growth of multinational corporations (and

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144892837611840522006-04-12T21:46:00.000-04:002006-04-12T21:47:17.636-04:00

Coming from both neo-Marxism and dependency theory, World systems theory uses the notion of a highly developed geographical core of capitalist countries supported by a less developed periphery. The periphery provides the raw materials for the use in manufacturing in the core countries. This approach comes from a historical account of the development of capitalism in Europe, and it is therefore

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146575643901828182006-04-12T09:12:00.000-04:002006-05-02T09:22:51.780-04:00

...that the United States would use the rhetoric of human rights to shield its true ambitions of power and empire? Gasp. I like historical materialism. It seems like a hybrid of realism and public goods liberalism, but from the criticism angle. It combines the theory that countries -- well, basically the U.S. -- act the way they do in order to get power (realism) and reap rewards specific to

Katnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144810855473029382006-04-11T22:45:00.000-04:002006-04-11T23:00:55.506-04:00

I am not a great fan of dependency theory. I have had a chance to read Prebisch and Bhagwati who were main proponents of the theory way back when. Their theories were good but they were based on faulty assumptions. Namely, that manufacturing and technology would not spread to the low-income countries no matter what they did. In part, this view came from a belief that the prices of primary

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144510135262894642006-04-08T11:15:00.000-04:002006-04-08T18:52:14.490-04:00

Mertus asks the question, “[h]ow do seemingly neutral norms and behaviors exclude or disadvantage women?” (Sterling-Folker 264). According to Mertus, many institutions we take for granted in society do not address the needs of women. I wonder if IR is one of those institutions? As Sterling-Folker writes in her introduction to feminism, there is a “notion that feminist IR theory is not

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146432068981442672006-04-07T17:19:00.000-04:002006-04-30T17:21:08.993-04:00

In our in class discussion of feminism there was some problem determining exactly where it fit into international relations. This is because feminism, unlike say realism, didn't really come out of international relations. Feminism is much broader and it has an interest not just across the social sciences, but also in say biology and related fields.Because it is so broad, there is often a great

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146572911340166482006-04-06T13:02:00.000-04:002006-05-02T08:29:36.506-04:00

Our discussion of feminism today focused, as I've come to expect, on difference feminism. As might be noted from my response in class, I hate difference feminism. This might be because I'm enough of a postmodern feminist to challenge the language used by difference feminists, or it might be because I feel personally oppressed by the roles it constructs. I suspect it's the latter, but it's

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144301867495951822006-04-06T01:21:00.000-04:002006-04-06T01:37:47.510-04:00

After reading 8.1, Sterling-Folker's summary of IR feminism, I'm going to have to say that as a self-identified realist, I'm going to have to agree with critics of feminism and say that I just don't see how it is relevant. My critique is one of the critiques she addresses but her explanations don't satisfy me. Realism and liberalism are based on the state. Therefore individuals, except those who

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146550925565132022006-04-06T00:45:00.000-04:002006-05-02T08:30:09.950-04:00

Earlier this semester, a professor in another of my IR classes assigned us a reading on feminism, which was a bit of a shock. What does international relations have to do with the oppression of women? International relations oppresses everyone. In the weeks that have followed, however, I have learned much about the interplay of socially constructed gender roles and their importance to IR. One

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1144296225700580082006-04-05T22:08:00.000-04:002006-04-08T18:46:20.706-04:00

In encouraging a young man to take up an academic life Weber would tell him that he might have to bear being passed over and spend an entire career without recognition. On the other hand, to a Jew he would tell him "lasciate ogni speranza" which translates in English to read, "abandon all hope". This is an interesting reflection on German society in the early 20th century and makes me glad

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142276947167472802006-04-03T16:32:00.000-04:002006-04-08T18:39:16.313-04:00

Foreign Affairs has an interesting article on Saddam's regime leading up to the 2003 Iraq War. Not suprisingly, Saddam instilled such a level of fear that many within his regime spent a lot of time appeasing Saddam by feeding him the information he wanted to hear rather than the information he needed to hear. Thus, the Iraqi regime made dumb moves like giving military equipment to the Fedayeen

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146429203522930652006-04-02T16:32:00.000-04:002006-04-30T16:33:23.540-04:00

I am currently enrolled in an SIS class called "Issues in American Intelligence" taught by Dr. Michael Warner, a historian from the CIA. It is interesting to compare his version of events with the article Jesse has selected for us: "Timeline of CIA Atrocities" by Steve Kangas.In general terms, the CIA prefers to use the word "embarrassment" instead of "atrocity," and would say that the

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146600508857078402006-03-30T16:07:00.000-05:002006-05-02T16:09:17.773-04:00

In my last post I mentioned a sociology paper that used what is essentially a Weberian method to look at the function of universities. The piece was focused on students, where as this weeks reading focuses on the teachers.It is important to remember that there are demands placed upon academics that really have little to do with their professed task. If one considers that academics must publish a

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146583520572371782006-03-30T10:00:00.000-05:002006-05-02T11:25:20.590-04:00

I didn't particularly like the Weber article, or understand its relevance, but I suppose that how relevant you find Weber depends on how much you view international relations as a science. I tend to think of science as something precise, a search to discover objective facts, and IR is anything but that. IR is about state interactions that are determined primarily by the intents of whatever

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1146590476459542832006-03-29T13:19:00.000-05:002006-05-02T13:22:19.156-04:00

After our debate, I was interested in the ONE Campaign, so I checked out the official website and perused its blog. As it turns out, there was a recent Senate victory that "added hundreds of millions of dollars to the budget to help beat AIDS and extreme poverty." Sounds great, right? However, this happened to coincide with the timing of my World Politics class discussing AIDS and extreme

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1143593909432431242006-03-28T19:50:00.000-05:002006-03-29T23:16:14.750-05:00

As a member of the liberal constructivist team, I must defend our actions. First off, I do not believe that we got off theory. Liberal constructivism is not as concerned with power structures as realist constructivism. As a result we accepted the power structure which created the system, because we saw that it was being used to promote the common good. Advocating for the common good based on

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1143587136096122942006-03-28T18:02:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:37:13.156-04:00

Adam,I think we can both agree that we're smart people. However, even smart people can be wrong. And in this case especially, I believe that you misinterpreted liberal constructivism which is nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone's wrong on occasion and I don't think you'll suffer for it materially, socially, or grade-wise.My interpretation of liberal constructivism is that its roots in

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1143517972856478552006-03-27T22:52:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:33:14.400-04:00

Dear Adam, (I had a feeling I'd have to start a letter like that...)The only people I accused of acting outside of the boundaries set by their theory were the liberal constructivists. I can understand the liberals going along with a majority consensus since they are more interest driven and tend to accept institutions at their face value. In addition, I hungered to take a stab at the realist

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1143237317424659802006-03-24T16:46:00.000-05:002006-03-24T16:55:17.446-05:00

The concept of defining the West is certainly interesting. Constructivists spend plenty of time searching for implicit ways in which leaders define concepts and it is rare for such an explicit statement to be made. However, in the context of a Clash "about" Civilizations, it is really inconsequential.If the struggle between Islam and the West is about civilization then what is important is how

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1143006450293693582006-03-22T00:29:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:28:19.843-04:00

Tony Blair on Tuesday said that the war on terror is a "global war of 'values and ideas'." He said, "that the struggle against terrorism was not a clash of civilizations but "a clash about civilization."I think it is amazing how powerful Huntington's work has become. It looks like the "Clash of Civilizations" has taken an important position within the cultural lexicon representing conflict

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142234532094920392006-03-13T02:19:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:26:18.640-04:00

I was looking at Youtube.com when I found this semi-funny video on international relations. It claims to explain IR in one minute, however, it forgot constructivism. Although to explain constructivism the video would have to be an hour long in order to explain each actors identity and how it influenced their interests.

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142224331212560212006-03-12T10:32:00.000-05:002006-03-12T23:37:29.113-05:00

I was disappointed by Thursday's discussion on postmodernism. We didn't get much of a chance to talk about the reading (mostly because people were understandably preoccupied with midterms), which was a shame because I think it was one of the more interesting pieces we have had so far.Instead we had a discussion along the lines of "why are you getting a degree" which is more of a sociological

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142146545726018492006-03-12T01:31:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:25:17.103-04:00

Since the class readings focus on what went on in Yugoslavia during the late 90's I thought this might be of interest. Apparently, Slobodan Milosevic died of natural causes earlier in the day. It looks as if Milosevic was "tried" to death.This is a huge embarassment for the tribunal and NATO which botched the war from the very beginning. How could NATO think that spending $200 million dollars

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142093076601167442006-03-11T10:58:00.000-05:002006-03-11T11:04:36.616-05:00

I thoroughly enjoyed class on Thursday. The discussion of Post-Modernism is what I wish every class was like. Students who didn't speak were speaking which was amazing. And the discussion reiterated for me what I enjoy about post-modernism. Post-modernism is great because it provides a vehicle for questioning everything. Without a given objective, such as human rights standards, post-modernism

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142017105289474682006-03-10T13:32:00.000-05:002006-03-10T13:58:25.360-05:00

Looking over the posts I've made over the semester, I have a history of saying "This theory seems to explain state actions pretty well" about multiple, often conflicting theories. I'm not sure if this is caused by a really loose understanding of state actions in general, or if each theory just has a grain of truth that allows elements of it to be seen in many actions. For example: nearly every

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142013168614416352006-03-10T12:35:00.000-05:002006-03-10T13:23:02.913-05:00

Postmodernism contends that events have no meaning in themselves; instead, their only meaning lies in the values we ascribe to them. As such, it's a really intriguing theory and completely unlike the things we've studied so far.Like several other articles, it chooses the Kosovo conflict for illustration. According to postmodernism, the nineteen nations intervened because "they recognized the

Katnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141941741962295012006-03-09T16:55:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:22:17.873-04:00

I think from our most recent class there was general agreement that we cannot assume away a state's interests. I think this is an important realization because it throws a wrench in a lot of realist thinking. Realists claim that states are worried primarily about security is much too vague to be of any use. Realists simply leave the question hanging, secure from what? In the US we are

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141888909249642682006-03-09T02:09:00.000-05:002006-03-09T02:21:49.263-05:00

I loved Shinko's article. The author seems to summarize everything I have thought about world politics, and to a degree life, for some time now. The idea that everything in life is subjective is certainly powerful. We often like to think that there are just certain things that are good and bad. Good causes, good countries. It is scary to think that the values we hold most dear are not necessarily

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141882909527561282006-03-09T00:41:00.000-05:002006-03-09T00:41:49.540-05:00

I must confess that I find postmodernism both fascinating and infuriating. I find it difficult to wrap my head around the ideas that it presents.The postmodern take on the intervention by NATO in Kosovo is centered around the relationship between power and truth. For the Postmodernist, truth and power are linked together very tightly, each essentially supporting the other. The case of Kosovo

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141785642108783502006-03-07T20:57:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:12:21.036-04:00

As a matter of personal preference I like Shinko's article a lot more than Lynch's piece. I am primarily interested in IR because I am curious as the mechanisms through which states exert power. Lynch's piece was more of a moral condemnation of the current state of international relations which, in his opinion, relies on strategic consensus, where actors use their relative power to get their

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142011620528613452006-03-04T11:26:00.000-05:002006-03-10T12:27:00.530-05:00

After the class discussion on whether or not people who committed crimes -- genocide, for example -- could be included in a discussion to reach a consensus on morality, and the general conclusion that they can't, it seems obvious that this implies a social contract in which members can only participate as long as they follows the rules. However, it appears that it would become increasingly

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141501946269366602006-03-04T11:02:00.000-05:002006-03-04T14:56:42.196-05:00

The discussion on the Lynch reading didn't go where I thought it would. Unfortunately, we seem to be skipping the postmodernism section and just going for the critical theory. The interesting thing about critical theory is that there is an assumption that if everyone sort of gives up their interests while making decisions, it is sort of implied that then everyone will reach the same conclusion (

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141460465893953202006-03-04T03:03:00.000-05:002006-03-04T03:21:05.906-05:00

After reading and discussing Lynch's article, I must agree with Jonathon that he certainly provides a different and interesting perspective on international relations. I'm not convinced that what he does is a separate theory, but it is a fascinating line of thought. Questioning the motives, causes, and effects of everything in international relations is important (even if you believe as I do that

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141318206288589162006-03-02T11:29:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:10:42.340-04:00

The interesting thing about Lynch's piece is how different it is from the other things we've read. The articles on liberalism, realism, and constructivism all try to be predictive and find the true causes of events in international relations. This is known as a positive approach and this approach goes along with the assumption that there are objective facts out in the world that we can know.

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142010300621990862006-03-02T08:02:00.000-05:002006-03-10T12:05:00.656-05:00

Lynch opens up his article by saying that "critical theory locates legitimacy within an emerging international public sphere of world citizens" (182). In other words, actions are legitimate when they benefit those citizens, and illegitimate when they don't. This seems fair enough, with the growing emphasis on human rights. However, he complicates things by saying that "legitimacy can only be

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141271509313939042006-03-01T22:29:00.000-05:002006-03-01T22:51:49.326-05:00

Jennifer Sterling-Folkers says in her article "Postmodern and Critical Theory Approaches" that postmodern and critical theory reject notions of objectivity. In Marc Lynch's "Critical Thoery: Dialogue, Legitimacy, and Justifications of War" I fail to see evidence of this claim. In my mind, critical theory wants to be based on subjectivity, but it isn't. It is based on idealist notions of

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141182580874107382006-02-28T21:02:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:05:33.953-04:00

I think the most fascinating thing I picked up from the readings was the concept of normative space. Although not real in any positive sense, normative space contains all of the beliefs, ideas, and norms that make up a given society's social world. Contained in normative space are all the standards of appropriate behavior, ideas, values, and beliefs produced by a society. However, normative

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141014771142353262006-02-26T23:11:00.000-05:002006-02-26T23:32:51.166-05:00

I hate reading something and having one word echo in my head the whole time. As I read "Social Deconstruction" such was the case. The one word I heard constantly was "Huntington, Huntington, Huntington." And when you think about it, that word coming to mind is not very strange. After all, the entire piece is about Slavic or nationalist identity. First, I must admit, I like Huntington. I don't

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141014651941622882006-02-26T23:08:00.000-05:002006-02-26T23:30:52.036-05:00

Social (De)Construction by Matthew Hoffmann introduces the concept of the Norm Life Cycle and applies it to Yugoslavia. The Norm Life Cycle consists of three stages: Emergence, cascade and internalization. During the Emergence phase, an entrepreneur tries to gain acceptance for a new idea. Once a critical mass has been achieved, ( ie enough people accept the idea) the norm enters the cascade

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142005750291076762006-02-24T09:36:00.000-05:002006-03-10T10:49:10.410-05:00

After my blog-rant on Sunday night, and after reading Jonathan's and Nick's posts, I have come to the conclusion that constructivism might not be so bad after all. Or rather, I still don't like it, but I think it's pretty accurate.A quote in Jonathan's post made me think: "As I contended in class I think it is clear that there is physical, objective reality. The question then is how do human

Katnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1140730912768093112006-02-23T16:12:00.000-05:002006-04-08T18:02:16.153-04:00

It's clear that NW and I disagree whether interests or identity is more important. This is a welcome occurence considering the blogs are supposed to be an opportunity to debate each other. If I have it right I believe NW feels that interests transcend identity. If this is so then I will proceed to lay down an intellectual smackdown. First, allow me to respond to his example of the individual

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1140704759631075922006-02-23T09:05:00.000-05:002006-02-23T09:25:59.930-05:00

After reading over Sterling-Folker 5.1, Bridging the Gap, and Wendt's article, I find myselft questioning one basic tenet of constructivism. What comes first identity or interests? According to constructivism, identity is first. All of our interets follow from there. We have interests because we have an identity and want to practice our identity. But I'm not sure this is true. Earlier in this

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com32tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1140675894305965822006-02-23T01:24:00.000-05:002006-03-12T23:05:29.756-05:00

The article by Alexander Wendt examines the social basis for realism. It is particularly critical of realist assumptions that their description of the international system arose through some kind of evolutionary process. "Self-help and power politics are institutions, not essential features of anarchy." Sounds sort of like the claim that realism is self-fulfilling because if one player believes

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1140574680458046912006-02-21T20:28:00.000-05:002006-04-08T17:57:51.873-04:00

I'll admit I've been a fan of constructivism since I took Persaud's Human and Global Security class last semester. Especially enlightening was reading David Campbell's WRITING SECURITY which analyzed the Cold War from a constructivist point of view. Instead of talking about US foreign policy and its concern with things like second-strike capability, the tank gap, or even the missile gap that

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1142004599124961842006-02-19T22:11:00.000-05:002006-03-10T10:29:59.176-05:00

When I took Cross-Cultural Comm last spring, I was a fan of constructivism. It made sense that identity and perceptions of other individuals/cultures/etc. would govern interpersonal communications, and even moreso I was interested in the connection between an individual or culture's identity and what it felt compelled to do (as has come up in class several times). However, after reading the

Katnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1140124359421268182006-02-16T16:10:00.000-05:002006-04-06T02:18:24.916-04:00

I saw this store on Yahoo! News. Apparently, the Iranians have decided to rename the danish (the pastry) to the "roses of Muhammed." It is just amazing how similar the situation is to when Congress decided to rename french fries to freedom fries a year or two ago.I guess Americans and Iranians aren't so different after all.

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139799396171022782006-02-12T21:51:00.000-05:002006-02-12T21:58:08.666-05:00

We don't have to post this week but honestly I don't think we can have a blog and not mention this story. This is hilarious.http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney.ap/index.html Our Vice President actually shot someone. I must admit I have a little trouble believing it is a complete accident. Honestly, have you ever looked at Cheney? The man doesn't smile. He doesn't. He always looks like he

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139702698824960232006-02-11T11:33:00.000-05:002006-03-10T11:03:49.543-05:00

Since finding out about the Danish cartoons/burning embassies while a little out of the loop and sincerely believing that my roommate was just joking around, I've been very interested in the goings-on surrounding the controversy.Someone remarked in class that the reactions illustrate the cooperation favored by liberalism. Regardless of country, offended Muslims are uniting to express their

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139585956593262152006-02-10T10:31:00.000-05:002006-04-06T02:14:55.330-04:00

Well, perhaps I'm the victim of too many economics courses. I like economics and economic theory so I'm open to what Public Goods Liberalism has to say. Clearly, the public good problem is a serious one in economics though it is usually overcome by the state. International relations isn't so lucky though. Having no central state to organize the distribution of public goods, leaves states with

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139495135438756172006-02-09T09:11:00.000-05:002006-02-09T09:25:37.733-05:00

Shep and Kat adequately explained Public Goods Liberalism, so I feel no need to do so here. What I do feel the need for is asking the question, "Is this really its own theory?" The way Butler and Boyer present Public Goods Liberalism made me feel that it was more of an explanation of general realism, than its own special theory. I have always seen Liberalism as states' pursuit of a larger public

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139471929126025772006-02-09T02:34:00.000-05:002006-02-09T03:02:05.966-05:00

Public goods liberalism, as the name implies, concerns providing public goods for other nations. To explain it, Sterling-Folker uses the example of Kosovo, where NATO intervened to provide the humanitarian goods of security, well-being, and justice. Originally, NATO was unable to agree on whether raw power or soft power should be used to achieve its goals, but it ultimately to adopt a more "

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139466537390947772006-02-09T01:28:00.000-05:002006-02-09T01:28:57.400-05:00

Public Goods Liberalism examines the dynamics of group decision making. At the international level, this type of liberalism is interested in things like security and pollution that are positives or negatives for everyone. It is important who will bear the costs of both public goods and public bads.Public Goods Liberalism is also concerned with the private gains that each party can expect to

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139382403026346522006-02-08T02:06:00.000-05:002006-02-08T02:43:20.170-05:00

I've been thinking a lot about my last comment in class on Monday. For reference, I basically stated the liberal position that the burning of the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria could possibly be explained by an information/communication breakdown where Danish and other Western officials have been unable to properly inform many Middle Eastern people about freedom of the press and the fact

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139172054676426942006-02-05T14:58:00.001-05:002006-04-06T02:09:21.326-04:00

I have to disagree with you Kat that the definition of anarchy is just "being able to do what you want without fear of punishment." In international relations today there is anarchy but that doesn't mean states just go around and do what they want.When we define the term punishment it simply means a negative consequence imposed for a wrongdoing. Nothing in the defintion implies that the

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1141503312064150702006-02-04T10:13:00.000-05:002006-03-04T15:16:33.413-05:00

During Thursday's discussion there was some difficulty in reaching a definition for the opposite of anarchy. I decided to see what Google had to say about it.I found that pretty much every conceivable form of government was mentioned as the opposite of anarchy, including hierarchy (which we eventually decided upon in class), laissez-faire capitalism and communism. one group of anarchists used the

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139127593469515642006-02-04T00:01:00.000-05:002006-02-05T03:21:36.776-05:00

On Thursday, the class discussed anarchy and what conditions it required to exist. It was a hard definition to nail down, because anarchy has always meant "being able to do what you want without fear of punishment" to me. However, applying this to the international system made me think more seriously about anarchy, as did Matt and Nate's comments about whether anarchy could ever disappear as long

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138996711270545742006-02-03T14:45:00.000-05:002006-02-03T14:58:33.786-05:00

Sometimes I wonder what I truly believe. A person can read different articles, watch different TV shows or news coverage, and participate in arguments and feel certain that they have a specific view of the world. I know that I personally feel this way most of the time. I am sure that I believe in one thing or another. I am sure that certain ideologies are crazy and others make perfect sense. And

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138983290014888712006-02-03T10:50:00.000-05:002006-04-06T01:55:23.123-04:00

In class we had an interesting discussion on anarchy. In past IR classes anarchy has always gotten a mention but I have never really discussed it. I think the ongoing debate in IR on whether structure (anarchy and the distribution of material capabilities) or process (interaction and learning) is an interesting one. I never realized that some realists believe that anarchy is a permissive cause

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138981822610118622006-02-03T10:47:00.000-05:002006-02-03T10:50:22.610-05:00

NOTE: Before I begin let me take the time to let everyone know that I have added links to the other group's blogs. This should facilitate communication between our disparate groups and hopefully unite our ramblings into one cohesive whole. I hope the other groups add links to their blogs too. The instructions to add links to a blog are here:http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=110

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1139473879161548962006-02-02T03:03:00.000-05:002006-02-09T03:31:19.420-05:00

Neoclassical realism, according to Sterling-Folker, argues that relative power distribution and perceptions of this relative power profoundly impact, if not define, foreign policy. She applies neoclassical realism to the situation in Kosovo during the Clinton Administration, and also (briefly) to the Iraq war.Neoclassical realism appears to me to be the most realistic (no pun intended) theory of

Katnoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138862220229478892006-02-02T01:35:00.000-05:002006-02-02T01:37:00.236-05:00

Thursday's reading examines the US intervention in Kosovo from a neoclassical realist perspective. This perspective builds on structural realism by focusing on state strategies, and by including notions of elite perceptions. Thus neoclassical realism seems to move closer towards a bureaucratic or role based model. When applied to the situation in Kosovo, the neoclassical realist model suggests

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138859544019610952006-02-02T00:18:00.000-05:002006-02-02T00:52:24.133-05:00

You know how you read something and sometimes it just feels like something is missing? That was how I felt after reading Taliaferro's article on Neoclassical realism. And, after reading Jonathon's post, I think I figured out the missing link. Rationality. If neoclassical realism, at least Taliaferro's, is based on loss of prestige as a motivating factor, I find a problem with his three

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138851617006196342006-02-01T21:37:00.000-05:002006-04-06T01:47:41.386-04:00

Taliaferro, in MAKING SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY, defines neoclassical realism as a theory that identifies the relative distribution of material power as the main influence of a nation's foriegn policy (38). Yet, what differentiates neoclassical realism from other realisms is that the neoclassical theory believes a leader's perceptions and beliefs about the distribution of power and

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138665296090692062006-01-30T18:39:00.000-05:002006-01-30T18:54:56.200-05:00

This post may not be necessary, but I felt the urge to write it anyway. After going through the structural realism exercise, I began to wonder if it was necessary. The basic summarization of structural realism we used was that, "the strong do what they can; the weak do what they must". And in this anarchic world view that generally translates to an awareness and tendency for military conflict. In

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138484950820019322006-01-28T16:35:00.000-05:002006-01-28T16:49:10.833-05:00

Sorry this post is late. I've become increasingly sick all week (I think I might be getting Strep) and I could barely get out of bed until now. But anyway.I don't really think there is much left to say in this debate. I am inclined to agree with Shep and Jon about the importance of Hamas to a realist. It doesn't seem to matter who is in power in a state, because it is still the state most

NWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06518835717732656838noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138465651342276382006-01-28T11:09:00.000-05:002006-01-28T11:29:25.443-05:00

I have to agree with Jon, I also don't see why realists would care about the election in Palestine. Any claims Hamas has about being an Islamic party would appear to a realist as some kind of cover. The intrests of the state would remain essentially the same, regardless of who is in charge (ie Power Power Power). Realists would probably not expect Hamas to do anything too crazy, as such actions

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138465769477112862006-01-28T10:52:00.000-05:002006-01-28T11:30:05.216-05:00

In class, we discussed the elections that unseated the Fatah party in favor of Hamas, and the inevitable or not-so-inevitable changes.I think it's fair to say that most Palestinians have much more conviction about political events than most Americans do. The average American can't even name his senators, might make it out to vote for the president, and accepts the presidential election results

Katnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138293415132857952006-01-26T11:17:00.000-05:002006-04-06T01:42:16.880-04:00

As I mentioned in class today, I thought that from a realist perspective the election of Hamas was not a very significant event. That is because from a foreign policy perspective, according to realists, nation's have perennial interests that stay the same no matter who is in power.I used the similar foreign policies of the Czar, the USSR, and Putin's government in regard to its neighbors as an

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138298896781052322006-01-26T07:30:00.000-05:002006-01-26T13:12:46.573-05:00

On the second day of class, the professor noted that by using the term "realism," realists are implying that theirs is not a particular subset of IR theories, but a way of looking at the facts; in other words, the connotation of the word "realism" is "looking at things realistically." Sterling-Folker notes that realists have a "pessimistic conviction that there are severe limitations on human

Katnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138250475625017312006-01-25T23:35:00.000-05:002006-01-25T23:41:15.640-05:00

I have a number of issues with the Moravcsik reading. First, I would like to point out a conflict between Moracvsik's claim that "The fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups.."(pg 516) and the claim in MSIRT of "[liberalism's] focus on the nation state as the central actor in contemporary world politics." (pg 55) I am personally sympathetic to the view,

Shephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06653010739174063477noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21214943.post-1138164772254703352006-01-24T22:31:00.000-05:002006-04-06T01:37:06.220-04:00

"Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics" by Andrew Moravcisk is an attempt by Moravcisk to make liberalism a worthy method of inquiry. He attempts to remove the normative mess that is often confounded with liberalism to highlight the parts of the theory that make it useful to IR scholars. According to Moravcisk, liberalism has three basic assumptions. They are

Johnny B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16413659213985188193noreply@blogger.com26