News Update on International Politics Research: Jan – 2020

Power in International Politics

The concept of power is central to diplomacy . Yet disciplinary discussions tend to privilege just one , albeit important, form: an actor controlling another to try to to what that other wouldn’t otherwise do. By showing conceptual favoritism, the discipline not only overlooks the various sorts of power in international politics, but also fails to develop sophisticated understandings of how global outcomes are produced and the way actors are differentially enabled and constrained to work out their fates. We argue that students of diplomacy should employ multiple conceptions of power and develop a conceptual framework that encourages rigorous attention to power in its different forms. We first begin by producing a taxonomy of power. Power is that the production, in and thru social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to work out their circumstances and fate. [1]

Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics

What motivates states to follow international norms, rules, and commitments? All social systems must confront what we’d call the matter of social control—that is, the way to get actors to suits society’s rules—but the matter is especially acute for diplomacy , because the international social organization doesn’t possess an overarching center of political power to enforce rules. Yet, taken in balance with other values, a measure of order may be a valued good. Some take this absence of centralized power to mean that the Systeme International d’Unites is sort of a Hobbesian state of nature, where only material power matters; others see it as evidence that international rules have force only they’re within the self-interest of every state. I show that these two conclusions are premature due to their shallow reading of international society and misinterpretation of the ways during which authority works in domestic society. [2]

Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics

The theory of “securitization” developed by the Copenhagen School provides one among the foremost innovative, productive, and yet controversial avenues of research in contemporary security studies. this text provides an assessment of the foundations of this approach and its limitations, also as its significance for broader areas of diplomacy theory. Locating securitization theory within the context of both classical Realism influenced by Carl Schmitt, and current work on constructivist ethics, it argues that while the Copenhagen School is essentially immune from the foremost common criticisms leveled against it, the increasing impact of televisual communication in security relations provides a fundamental challenge for understanding the processes and institutions involved in securitization, and for the political ethics advocated by the Copenhagen School. [3]

The Background of International Relations: Our World Horizons, National and International

AN excellent compendium of world politics viewed from a common-sense angle, this book illustrates the purpose that international politics should be everybody’s business. the essential principles of politics are the refined results of the crowding of the world and therefore the struggle for elbow-room and racial survival. So business has become the drive in politics; and economic hunger drives nations to hunt commercial supremacy backed by the facility of the State. Yet enlightened self-interest forces these nations into world co-operation through political or non-political means. Yesterdays isolation of countries has gone: states-manship has now to affect news-minded nations. The author believes that knowledge alone can control the destiny of peoples, which world-forces don’t yield to emotions. [4]

International Politics of Oil Monomania and Food Security: The Nigerian Case

Food security has assumed a prominent role in international politics not just for traditional state actors but also of giant multinationals starting from large scale Western farming, agro-allied corporations to pharmaceuticals and global food supply and retail channels. This study seeks to look at Nigeria’s oil dependency and its negative effects on food security. It considers the impact of Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) in Nigeria as compared to Norway and other countries operating SWF. Data were generated using secondary sources. The paper argues that the continual reliance of Nigeria on oil is essentially related to increased poverty rate resulting from boom burst cycle which accompanies it. It argues that in Nigeria, the SWF has not achieved the aim for its adoption. [5]

Reference

[1] Barnett, M. and Duvall, R., 2005. Power in international politics. International organization, 59(1), (Web Link)

[2] Hurd, I., 1999. Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International organization, 53(2), (Web Link)

[3] Williams, M.C., 2003. Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International studies quarterly, 47(4), (Web Link)

[4] The Background of International Relations: Our World Horizons, National and International
T. G.
Nature volume 131, (Web Link)

[5] Eyo Etim, E., Joseph Ogbinyi Jr, O. and O. Duke, O. (2017) “International Politics of Oil Monomania and Food Security: The Nigerian Case”, Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 3(4), (Web Link)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *