International Relations

We should theorize about international relations (IR) exclusively on the basis of systemic variables because the whole cannot be known ‘through the study of its parts’. This injunction is familiar and pervasive across our discipline. Yet, IR theorists who seek to explain international outcomes by focusing exclusively on systemic variables are increasingly engaging in a sort of unilateral disarmament. Despite all its shortcomings, foreign policy analysis (FPA) gets us much further than systemic IR theory in understanding the real world of international politics. While much depends on precisely what ‘slice’ of international political life we are seeking to explain, FPA captures how international outcomes are increasingly determined by factors that are sourced at the level of domestic politics. The argument here draws on close empirical investigation of US-European relations, as well as contributions to this journal by Mearsheimer and Gilpin, and other recent works in the research literature.

The year 2004 marked the bicentenary of Immanuel Kant’s death. This article evaluates the main arguments of Kant’s essay on perpetual peace in the light of developments in world politics since his time. How well have his ideas stood the test of time? Kant’s essay is placed in the context of his philosophy as a whole and through a close textual analysis the value of his propositions is assessed. The article looks at the Provisional and Definitive Articles in their mutual relation and places a good deal more emphasis than is usual upon the two supplements and appendix. Finally the article takes the complex circumstances of Kant’s home city, Kaliningrad, as a brief test case for his own theories.

It is sometimes necessary in serious interstate disputes for a party to unilaterally accommodate an opponent’s demands or claims. Such unreciprocated or one-sided accommodation, however, does not only pose political and psychological risks, it also seems to conflict with the basic bargaining norm of reciprocity. Yet the imperative of ending deadlocks that can degenerate into belligerent conflicts demands such unreciprocated accommodation. This imperative also calls for a positive and principled concept for understanding unreciprocated accommodation. With the perhaps unjustified and continuing discrediting of appeasement as a legitimate accommodative bargaining strategy, this article highlights the notion of concession as a valuable, non-pejorative concept of accommodation. The article offers a framework of concession that helps determine when/why a strong state would undertake the unreciprocated accommodation of an opponent. The argument is empirically illustrated using the Anglo-American conflict over Venezuela at the end of the nineteenth century.

This article adopts an interdisciplinary approach to the ongoing ‘transformation of war’ debate in an age of globalisation. It suggests that careful scrutiny of recent Anglo-American campaigns, from Kosovo to Iraq, reveals a shared underlying concern: the management of globalised systemic risks. This implies an interesting continuity where one might expect discontinuity, given the different US administrations and strategic contexts involved. Policymakers, for instance, have consistently prioritised anticipatory proactive stances to avert probabilistic scenarios. Underpinning the analysis presented here is what sociologist Ulrich Beck terms the ‘world risk society’. Social sciences, notably sociology, have fruitfully incorporated risk theories into their research agendas. International relations, however, has largely not done so in a concerted fashion, despite its cross-disciplinary nature. This article demonstrates that Beck’s ideas in fact have great relevance to understanding the impetus, ethos and outcomes of contemporary war.

The United Nations Security Council is central to the application of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This article examines the role of the Council in the circumstances of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and questions the secrecy of its decision making. It outlines the similarities between response to genocide in Rwanda and the mass human rights abuses in Darfur, Sudan. It questions the failure of the western press to provide adequate and timely information about both these tragedies.