The Cod Wars: a re-analysis

A dominant presupposition of many writers on international relations and international law is that the world's legal order is essentially a reflection of the structure of the international system and the interests of the main actors in that system (see, for example, Coplin, 1960, 1965: 615-634; Falk, 1966: 172-187; Hoffmann, 1966: 134-166; Kaplan and Katzenbach, 1961; Lissitzyn, 1963). This paper will attempt to assess empirically the extent to which this presupposition of traditional verbal theory is congruent with an analysis of decisionmaking in one international arena (the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly) devoted to shaping legal norms for the world community. In so doing, this paper is intended as a modest contribution to the efforts of those international law scholars who are seeking to make the study of international law a science of observation (Alger, 1963: 37). In order to make any headway in this direction, a first requirement is that the concepts indicated in traditional verbal theory have clear empirical referents. Although international relations literature is copiously strewn with references to the ''structure of the international system, the meaning of this

U.S. Space Policy and Theories of International Relations: The Case for Analytical Eclecticism

‘Anarchy is one of the most vague and ambiguous words in language.’ George Coreewall Lewis, 1832.In much current theorizing, anarchy has once again been declared to be the fundamental assumption about international politics. Over the last decade, numerous scholars, especially those in the neo-realist tradition, have posited anarchy as the single most important characteristic underlying international relations. This article explores implications of such an assumption. In doing so, it reopens older debates about the nature of international politics. First, I examine various concepts of ‘anarchy’ employed in the international relations literature. Second, I probe the sharp dichotomy between domestic and international politics that is associated with this assumption. As others have, I question the validity and utility of such a dichotomy. Finally, this article suggests that a more fruitful way to understand the international system is one that combines anarchy and interdependence.

As outlined in the Introduction, a central premise of this study is that existing approaches to understanding the relationship between technology and power in international relations (IR) are struggling to deal with the complexities introduced by the information age. While the discipline of IR has a range of theories about power, it does not have an equivalent framework for understanding technology and this is proving to be a limitation for developing a deeper understanding of the relationship between power and new technology. As this chapter reveals, assumptions are made in IR literature about technology without an adequate critical analysis of how scholars and practitioners arrive at those assumptions. Furthermore, existing theories for understanding power in IR were developed within the context of industrial technology and do not take into account the distinctive features of information and communications technology (ICT) which can render the nature and expression of power more complex. This book demonstrates that by engaging with social theories of technology, IR can be better equipped to pursue answers to questions which have thus far proven difficult to grapple with including how we understand the relationship between new technology like the Internet and state power.

In the context of intensifying geopolitical rivalry, China’s transition from rule-taker to rule-maker in technical standard-setting has generated deep contention with established stakeholders in the Global North. This article analyses how China, as a latecomer to global technical standardization, has navigated this increasingly contested arena of global economic governance. Building on the ‘practice turn’ literature in International Relations and a conceptualization of standard-setting processes as shaped by ‘communities of practice’, this article argues that ‘practice diffusion’ is of crucial significance for China’s rising standards power. Just as it sees mastery of global standardization practice as a key dimension of increasing its influence in established standards developing organizations, China has also begun to diffuse its standardization practice abroad in the effort to lay the foundations of a China-centric standardization regime. The article develops this argument by identifying four specific mechanisms of practice diffusion – learning the basics, learning to lead, learning within the region, learning to build – and by illustrating the role that each has played in Chinese stakeholders’ evolving engagement in global technical standard-setting.

The article examines theoretical concepts of the definitions of “international system”, “great powers”, and “great power competition”. It is noted that the Russian aggression in Ukraine has become an impetus for reconfiguring the international system with new actors in world politics. One of the key features of a “great power” is its ability to influence other countries and shape international relations. This influence can take various forms, including: military power; economic power; political influence; and cultural influence.In general, the systemic view of international relations concludes that a common feature of all international systems is their oligopolistic nature. This nature of international relations fits in with the realist view of international relations.The purpose of the publication is to provide a historical analysis of the competition of the “great powers” as a reason for changing the configuration of the international system and to identify the forms of influence of the “great powers” on world politics.Thetwenty-first century was a time when all conditions (political, economic, and informational) seemed to have been created for the impossibility of a hegemonic war. Globalization and the information revolution have strengthened political and economic ties and reduced the importance of geographic distance. The growth of international trade is generally a factor of peace, which is a normal situation in a market economy. It is noted that neoliberalism is becoming hegemonic, formalizing the theoretical and ideological basis of existence in the form of the theory of democratic peace, which has acquired the status of an axiom in US foreign policy. It is emphasized that in reality, the laws of development of the international system take precedence over the theoretical ideas of the global liberal intellectual elite. We are now witnessing not only competition between the great powers, but something significant - an economic, military, and ideological conflict between the Collective West and the Global South.

Perhaps the most enduring question in the study of international politics is: What are the conditions for establishment of cooperation? In an attempt to answer this question, the international relations literature has traditionally taken two approaches: the realist approach and the liberal approach. However, during the last three decades, scholars have departed from this traditional differentiation and have studied international politics through the international political economy (IPE) approach, which points to "the reciprocal and dynamic interaction in the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of power."2 In opposition to the realist school's concept of "security," the IPE approach draws on the concept of "interdependence," which argues that there is no hierarchy among issues on the international agenda. Instead, agenda setting and issue linkage become important parts of international relations; and, more importantly, military force is irrelevant to the solution of many important international problems. For the international political economy, the crucial relations are those between societal forces ("transnational relations").

Bölgesinde istikrarın sağlanması, ekonomik, siyasi ve kültürel alanlarda işbirliklerinin geliştirilmesihedefiyle kurulan ASEAN, kendine özgü bir bölgeselleşme biçimi olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Özellikle1997 Asya Krizi’nden sonra ekonomik karşılıklı bağımlılıkların güçlendirilmesine önem veren bölgeülkeleri iktisadi entegrasyonun yanında normatif ve fikirsel bütünleşme faaliyetlerini arttırmışlardır.Hem bölgenin oluşumunda hem de faaliyetlerin sürdürülmesinde bağımsızlık, müdahalesizlik,egemenliğe saygı, kültür ve tarihe yapılan vurgu ortak normları oluşturmakta, örgütün uluslararasızirve ve platformlarda izlediği politikalar normatif ve fikirsel bölgeselleşmesinin tamamlayıcısı olarakgörülebilmektedir.Koloni geçmişleri bulunan ülkelerin oluşturduğu ASEAN’ın bölgeselleşmesinin bir motivasyonunuda Karl Deutsch’un benzer değerleri paylaşan ülkelerin meydana getirebileceği ve “güvenliktoplumları” olarak kavramsallaştırılan tehditlere karşı ortak hareket etme düşüncesi oluşturmaktadır.Farklılıklarının bulunmasıyla beraber birçok ortak norma da sahip Güneydoğu Asya ülkelerininbir araya gelmeleri hem bu benzer değerlerden kaynaklanmış hem de örgüt, bu normları olası dıştehditlerden korunmanın bir yolu olarak görmüş ve uluslararası platformlarda savunucusu olmuştur.ASEAN, diğer birçok organizasyon gibi yapısını Avrupa bütünleşmesinden modellemiştir. Ancak,bölgenin kendi kültürel özellik ve değerlerini de bu sürece dahil etmesiyle örgütün yerelin, bölgeselinve küreselin birleşimi olan normatif bir aktör olarak faaliyet gösterdiği ileri sürülebilmektedir.Fikirsel ve normatif bölgeselleşme literatürüne katkı sağlamak amacıyla hazırlanan çalışma,bölgeselleşme araştırmalarının ekonomik ve güvenlikten farklı olarak üçüncü bir boyutuna dikkatçekmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bununla beraber her ne kadar son dönemlerde Avrupa dışı bölgeselleşmearaştırmalarına yönelik artan bir ilgi gözlemlense de uluslararası ilişkilerin bölgesel analizlerindeAvrupa merkezlilik hala hakim konumda olmakta, diğer bölgelerin kendi yapı ve özelliklerinin gözardı edilmesine neden olmaktadır.Araştırmanın birinci bölümünde bölgeselleşmenin fikirsel ve normatif boyutu çerçevesinde uluslararasıilişkiler literatüründeki eski, yeni ve karşılaştırmalı bölgeselleşme çalışmaları ile ekonomik, politik vegüvenlikten farklı olarak bölgelerin inşasında fikir ve normların etkisi ele alınacaktır. Bu bağlamda inşacıteori ve İngiliz Okulu’nun norm, ortak değer, kültür ve tarih temelli çalışmalarından yararlanılacaktır.İkinci bölümde tarihsel süreçte ASEAN incelenerek Güneydoğu Asya bölgesindeki bölgeselleşmeçalışmalarına değinilecektir. Dekolonizasyon dönemi sonrası bölge ülkelerinin geliştirdikleri ilişkilerin siyasi, ekonomik ve güvenlik boyutlarının olduğu ortaya koyulacaktır. Son bölümde ise, ASEAN’ınönceki bölümde ele alınan başlıklardan farklı olarak organizasyonun temelinde ASEAN tarzı olarakadlandırılan fikirsel ve normatif bir bölgeselleşmesinin de bulunduğu açıklanacak, örgütün geliştirdiğinorm ve kuralların bölge inşası ve uluslararası girişimlere etki ettiği sonucuna ulaşılacaktır.

The Suez Crisis of 1956 is a perfect case for crisis research in the domain of international relations: the events leading to an Israeli attack on Egypt and an Anglo-French military invasion in the Suez Canal area seriously endangered regional and global peace and security. It also had major long-lasting consequences, notably the end of British influence in the Middle East, the expansion of the Cold War into that region, severe damage to the Western alliance, and, related to that, the acceleration of European integration as well as the development of the French nuclear bomb. An analysis of the Suez Crisis allows for a useful comparison of objectivistic and subjectivistic conceptualizations of the notion of crisis. This bears out that different actors attached, and still attach, different meanings to the events of 1956. Consequently, they look back on, and evaluate, the crisis in different terms. Also, Suez invites a confrontation of rationalist and constructivist approaches to the crisis phenomenon in the international relations literature. Furthermore, it invites an assessment of different approaches to foreign policy crisis decision-making, as they are employed in the comparative foreign policy analysis literature. In addition, the crisis serves to dissect important methodological issues regarding crisis research, particularly regarding causality and the issue of the decision unit. Finally, Suez offers insights into the specific legal and normative constraints faced by democracies seeking to go to war.

There has been a lively debate in the international relations literature about the weakening or strengthening of sovereignty.One of the areas in which sovereignty has been increasingly discussed is the process of European integration.European integration is increasingly referenced in terms of its impact on sovereignty and has become an area in which national authorities seek to assert their sovereignty.This has become important as accession to the EU has been perceived as a weakening of national sovereignty.This article engages with the strand of literature that examines the tension between supranational governance and national sovereignty, focusing on how integration processes impact perceptions and claims of sovereignty among nation-states.The main research question is: How has European integration influenced perceptions of sovereignty in Albania?The hypothesis tested is that while European integration is often perceived as a threat to national sovereignty, it simultaneously enables states to reclaim sovereignty through enhanced international linkages and institutional reforms.Enlargement Continuity and Change in European Governance countries have established institutions that transcend national governance institutions and processes of change within the nation-states.As international linkages are being established in this area, sovereignty is being reclaimed from the nation-states.The region best suited to observe these developments is Europe's periphery.In this light, the proposed paper seeks to analyse European integration and how it has affected the perception of sovereignty in contemporary Albania.Using a mixed-methods approach, the study combines qualitative analysis of policy documents and public discourse with process tracing approach involving major events and developments.Data includes official reports, government publications, and media sources.The findings reveal that European integration has not unilaterally weakened Albanian sovereignty; instead, it has fostered a dual dynamic.On the one hand, the alignment with EU norms and the establishment of supranational institutions necessitate some sovereignty transfers.On the other hand, these changes empower Albania to enhance its international standing and reclaim sovereignty in areas previously limited by domestic inefficiencies.The added value of this article lies in its contribution to the broader debates in international relations by providing empirical evidence that challenges binary narratives of sovereignty erosion, highlighting instead a complex and context-dependent reconfiguration of sovereignty in the European periphery.

This article examines the extent to which the academic disciplines of political science and international relations (IR) are incorporating foresight or futures thinking into their work. The disciplines of political science and IR grapple with important issues that affect lives across the world and have the potential to influence the future in ways that reduce conflict, enhance allocation of resources, and improve processes in general. This article offers a review of the political science and IR literature and course content that incorporates foresight, concluding that only a handful of journals appear to be publishing research that applies foresight. Some academic institutions on the other hand are encouraging a more multidisciplinary approach to resolving global challenges with an eye toward the future in their course content. The article concludes with several recommendations on how political science and IR scholars can incorporate foresight’s best practices to ensure the disciplines are more forward looking and effective at shaping a better future.

Neorealism “fetishizes” material capabilities in the sense that it embues them with meanings and powers that can only correctly be attributable to human beings. Alexander Wendt Constitutive relations cannot be reduced to the attributes, actions, or interactions of pregiven actors. Power, accordingly, is irreducibly social. In other words, constitutive arguments examine how particular social relations are responsible for producing particular kinds of actors. Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall The study of power relations lies at the heart of the modern academic discipline of political science. Yet power relations have been oddly understudied in the literature on international political economy and particularly in the literature arising in the North American academy. In large measure this has been because of the manner in which international political economy has developed in attempting to extricate itself from the state-centric North American “canonical” texts in international relations as they have emerged from structural realism and neoliberal institutionalism. In the North American debates scholars were required to struggle to develop the power of market actors and the forces they bring to bear on outcomes in the international economic realm as autonomous actors in international politics. A large measure of the reasons why the study of power relations in international political economy has not heretofore come to develop a sustained discussion of the forms of power relations with which the present work is concerned stems from the focus of the literature in international relations on the direct power effects resulting from the interaction of autonomous actors in an “anarchic” international system.

Unprecedented economic interdependence and the extensive legalization of international commerce have created unique opportunities for states to exercise power in world politics. Yet, while international relations (IR) scholars have revealed much about how interdependence conditions the ability of states to leverage economic relationships to influence other actors, the equivalent role of law has received less systematic attention. This article explains the logic and dynamics that inform how, why, and under what conditions states may use law as a sword or shield in the realm of international commerce. Drawing upon the IR literature on economic statecraft and the international law literature on lawfare, the article conceptualizes “economic lawfare” and uses it to elucidate how law may shape the use of economic power. It outlines a typology of pathways through which economic lawfare can be employed and their associated opportunities and constraints, before presenting a simple model of key dynamics that shape their use. That model's plausibility is probed and the pathways are empirically illustrated in two case studies of recent episodes in which the Chinese government has sought to manipulate international commerce for strategic purposes. The article clarifies the distinction between legal and nonlegal instruments of economic statecraft, offers a theoretically explicit account of key mechanisms through which law may condition the use of economic power, and provides new conceptual foundations for emerging research on how institutions shape the ability of states to intervene in markets to achieve strategic objectives.

Will the growth of economic interdependence since the Second World War help to maintain the peace that we have seen for more than fifty years among the great powers? Some argue that the benefits that come from being integrated into today's world economy make it unlikely that countries will pursue aggressive policies. Others are not so sanguine, arguing that international economic ties have little effect on the making of national security strategies.Power Ties contradicts both arguments. Analyzing the history of the great-power system since the late nineteenth century, Paul Papayoanou shows that international economic relations have a significant impact on states's security strategies. A great power's economic ties generate powerful domestic economic interests that influence a leader's ability to mobilize support and resources for credibly opposing threatening powers in the international system. This accounts for the strength or weakness of alliance commitments and defense expenditures, and in turn, the likelihood that aspiring revisionist powers will be deterred from initiating a military offensive that upsets the territorial status quo. Power Ties also revises much of the conventional wisdom about the pacifying effects of economic interdependence, for it demonstrates that extensive economic ties are not necessarily associated with peace and can make war more likely.Papayoanou's union of theory and history provides a bold new interpretation of the most significant developments in international politics over the past century. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of political science, history, and international relations.Paul Papayoanou is Assistant Professor of Political Science and Assistant Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego.

Against a background of ongoing public and academic debate about how to best address the legacies of colonialism and slavery, there is now an ever-expanding body of International Relations (IR) literature that makes use of the concept of ‘coloniality’. Indeed, coloniality, which attempts to make sense of past and ongoing colonial oppression in global terms, seems a particularly apt concept for IR, which, after all, is interested in understanding the nature of global power. This article is critical of the way that coloniality is increasingly used in a unitary ‘catch-all’ manner to describe global colonial domination in often unspecific ways. It argues, based on an in-depth exegesis of key Latin American decolonial texts, that the way the concept has been developed makes certain colonial violence, and the resistance against it, invisible; with the violence of (global) settler colonialism being a prominent example. Using and further developing Jodi Byrd’s concepts of transit and settler imperialism, in dialogue with Latin American settler colonial literature and radical Black thought, this article aims to bring this violence to the forefront of IR debate. I will conclude by elaborating on the concrete consequences that understanding ongoing colonial violence with the help of these concepts has for thinking about decolonisation in IR. La violence de l’impérialisme colonial, et pourquoi le concept de colonialité ne peut l’appréhender