The study of international relations in Japan: towards a more international discipline

Inoguchi, Takashi; Bacon, Paul

doi:10.1093/irap/1.1.1

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 32 Cf. Katzenstein et al ., 1999, 658; Inoguchi and Bacon 2001, 5; Hoddie and Hartzell 2005, 22; Lentner 2006, 103; Holmes 2011, 291; Vucetic 2011, 29; Polat 2012, 1. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The discourse of anarchy in IR

Donnelly

2015

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary International Relations (IR) typically treats anarchy as a fundamental, defining, and analytically central feature of international relations. Furthermore, it is usually held that IR since its inception has been structured around a discourse of anarchy. In fact, however, until the 1980s anarchy was rarely employed as a central analytical concept, as I show by examining 145 books published between 1895 and 1978. The conceptual and analytic centrality of anarchy is not imposed on us by international reality. Rather, it is a recent and contingent construction. Given the shortcomings of standard uses of ‘anarchy’ – especially the facts that there is no clear, generally agreed upon definition, that ‘the effects of anarchy’ are not effects of anarchy (alone), and that anarchy is not the structural ordering principle of international systems – I argue for returning to earlier practice and putting anarchy back in the background of IR.

show abstract

“… 32 Cf. Katzenstein et al ., 1999, 658; Inoguchi and Bacon 2001, 5; Hoddie and Hartzell 2005, 22; Lentner 2006, 103; Holmes 2011, 291; Vucetic 2011, 29; Polat 2012, 1. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The discourse of anarchy in IR

Donnelly

2015

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While it is often the case that many national IR communities seem to be susceptible to embracing American theories, trends, and debates, IR, as Waever notes, "is quite different in different places" (1998: 723). Although limitations of space prevent me from commenting on the history of IR in every country in the world, and much of what follows focuses on developments in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is essential to acknowledge the burgeoning country-specific and comparative studies of the development of IR (Breitenbauch and Wivel, 2004;Chan, 1994;Friedrichs, 2001;Groom, 1994;Inoguchi and Bacon, 2001;Jorgensen, 2000;Jorgensen and Knudsen, 2006;Lebedeva, 2004, Makinda, 2000Tickner and Waever, 2009). The case studies that have examined the history of IR from within a specific country such as Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Russia have revealed that the history of the field is not synonymous with its development in the United States.…”

Section: International Relations As An Academic Field Of Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the History and Historiography of International Relations

Schmidt¹

2013

Handbook of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…5 5 Takashi Inoguchi and Paul Bacon, “The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline,” International Relations of the Asia‐Pacific , 1 (2001), pp. 1–20. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pyongyang and the World: North Korean Perspectives on International Relations under Kim Jong‐il*

Woo

2011

Pacific Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the strategic importance of North Korea, we know relatively little about how Pyongyang perceives international relations. This paper represents an effort to remedy that paucity. I seek to construct Pyongyang's perspectives on international relations under Chairman Kim Jong‐il through analysis of primary texts produced by the DPRK and additional secondary materials. North Korea's international relations theory includes perspectives that: see the state as a basic unit, focus on military capability and conflict, value the importance of ideology, and seek to disclose the unfair nature of the current world order and to build a new world order. The DPRK demands a democratization of international relations that will secure peace and stability and pave the way toward independence of member states and a world economic order that will guarantee a just distribution of wealth among them. The core of Pyongyang's perception of Northeast Asian politics is the dichotomy between the land powers and sea powers. The North identifies itself as a land power along with China and Russia. South Korea belongs to the group of sea powers, siding with Japan and the USA. It is difficult to anticipate a dramatic rewriting of Pyongyang's international relations theory under the current leadership. For the rise of a new theory of international relations more bent on harmony and interdependence, we might have to wait till the arrival of a new leadership in Pyongyang.

show abstract

The study of international relations in Japan: towards a more international discipline

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

The discourse of anarchy in IR

The discourse of anarchy in IR

On the History and Historiography of International Relations

Pyongyang and the World: North Korean Perspectives on International Relations under Kim Jong‐il*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About