The Making of Global International Relations

Acharya, Amitav; Buzan, Barry

doi:10.1017/9781108647670

Cited by 210 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 341 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, Karin Fierke and Vivienne Jabri have shown how the idea of a 'global dialogue' 80 between diverse subjects in IR has tended to treat the newly integrated cultures or regions 'as the property of discrete cultural identities, and representatives of these cultures as the bearers of these properties', hence fixing instead of complicating a particular perspective on 'the world'. 81 In sum, the proposed Global IR canon that progresses through inclusion rather than confrontation circumvents an open debate about what actually counts as good IR knowledge while establishing global applicability as an unquestioned benchmark for defining the value of knowledge.…”

Section: The Imagined Global Ir Canonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Problematising the Global in Global IR

Anderl

Witt

2020

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International Relations (IR) has long been criticised for taking a particular (Western) experience as basis for formulating theories with claim to universal validity. ‘Non-Western’, ‘post-Western’, and postcolonial theories have been criticising the problem of Western parochialism and have developed specific strategies of changing IR. Global IR has taken up some of these concerns and aims at changing the discipline by theorising international politics as multiplex, taking different experiences, histories, and agencies into account. Yet, we argue that this agenda rests on a partial reading of IR’s critics, failing to take seriously the epistemological and methodological critiques of IR and therefore perpetuating some of the discipline’s ‘globalisms’. Therefore, first, Global IR reifies the idea of a truly universal body of knowledge. The global is logically prior to this as an imagined space of politics and knowledge. Second, Global IR assumes that scholars around the world aspire and are able to contribute to a single body of knowledge. While reifying these globalisms, Global IR fails to ask where this global imaginary comes from and what its effects are on the distribution of power and wealth. We argue that instead of assuming ‘the global’ as descriptive category, a more substantial and reflexive critique of IR’s exclusionary biases should start from reconstructing these globalisms and their effects. Problématiser le « mondial » dans les RI mondiales

show abstract

Section: The Imagined Global Ir Canonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…73 This is also the declared difference and 'advantage' vis-à-vis Global IR's postcolonial predecessors, whose explicit critique and attempted disruption of the mainstream Global IR seeks to replace with an attempt to 'draw in the broadest group of scholars'. 74 In other words, 'Global IR has a place for all theories [. .…”

Section: The Imagined Global Ir Canonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problematising the Global in Global IR

Anderl

Witt

2020

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those of us educated in the American or British mainstreams, and who still see the basic roots of IPE in the field of international relations, have been encouraged for many years now to open our research and teaching to non-Western perspectives (e.g. Blyth 2009, Helleiner 2014, Acharya 2016, Acharya and Buzan 2019, Getachew 2019. That movement is advancing, and it is reinforcing our innate sense of skepticism.…”

Section: Skepticism and Its Promisementioning

confidence: 99%

Darkness and Light in a Global Political Economy

Pauly

2020

New Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If we make reasonable guesses about where blind spots might exist in IPE, we might be able to shine a little light in their direction. A disciplinary blind spot is suggested whenever our innate scholarly skepticism gives way to assertions of certainty. A conceptual blind spot seems indicated whenever we take the idea of political 'structure' to be more than a metaphor for the status quo and its impermanent routines. An empirical blind spot is to be suspected when the ideology of intergovernmentalism encourages us to exaggerate the limiting effect of organisational innovations in the mid-1940s, to avert our gaze from complex and ambiguous developments eight decades later, and to discount the probability of fundamental transformation in global governing practices over time. KEYWORDS Attend any meeting where IPE colleagues gather, and it is common to hear many bemoaning the narrowness of some of our major journals. Highly specialised articles proliferate, whether rationalist, behavioural, or constructivist. We find it difficult to recall the big questions that once brought us together. We have built an expansive literature, but it seems increasingly to be organised around gated communities.

show abstract

“…11 Against this backdrop, critique of Western dominance in IR has led to calls for non-Western IR, post-Western IR, or global IR. 12 However, many of these new introductions remain limited to the BRICS, East Asia, or ''large'' states.…”

Section: Oil Wealth Status and Reading Power In Non-western Placesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading entrepreneurial power in small Gulf states: Qatar and the UAE

Ennis

2018

International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have become crucial players in the Middle East North Africa regional order. Few would have expected such a transformation even 20 years ago. This paper examines the constitution of Qatari and Emirati power. It demonstrates how understanding the entrepreneurial power of states is central to explanations of growth, strength, and position in regional and global orders. The analysis argues that the entrepreneurial powerhood of Qatar and the UAE is constituted by their development narrative and pursuit of status, which is facilitated by their material capabilities and their governance style characterized by flexible autocracy.Even as recently as 20 years ago, few would have expected the small states of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to be looked at as crucial players in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) regional order. Fewer still would have predicted their prominence and visibility on the global stage. How have these commodity producers been able to extend their voice beyond their niche as energy suppliers? In this article, I explore the puzzle of small, oil-wealthy, rentier states exerting entrepreneurial power in regional and global affairs. I demonstrate how entrepreneurial power in Qatar and the UAE has been facilitated by the pursuit of status, the construction of compelling development narratives, effective branding, and flexible autocratic governing. 1

show abstract

The Making of Global International Relations

Cited by 210 publications

References 341 publications

Problematising the Global in Global IR

Problematising the Global in Global IR

Darkness and Light in a Global Political Economy

Reading entrepreneurial power in small Gulf states: Qatar and the UAE

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About