Palgrave Studies in International Relations

This volume concerns the role and nature of translation in global politics. Through the establishment of trade routes, the encounter with the ‘New World’, and the circulation of concepts and norms across global space, meaning making and social connections have unfolded through practices of translating. While translation is core to international relations it has been relatively neglected in the discipline of International Relations. The Politics of Translation in International Relations remedies this neglect to suggest an understanding of translation that transcends language to encompass a broad range of recurrent social and political practices. The volume provides a wide variety of case studies, including financial regulation, gender training programs, and grassroot movements. Contributors situate the politics of translation in the theoretical and methodological landscape of International Relations, encompassing feminist theory, de- and post-colonial theory, hermeneutics, post-structuralism, critical constructivism, semiotics, conceptual history, actor-network theory and translation studies. The Politics of Translation in International Relations furthers and intensifies a cross-disciplinary dialogue on how translation makes international relations.

This book seeks to reposition international relations (IR) theory by providing insights into non-Western concepts and theories. By engaging with understandings of power, identity, the state and the individual from a range of states outside of the Western hemisphere, the contributors to this book introduce new methods for understanding aspects of IR in context considerate ways. Engagements with Western theories and cases highlight how we need to reposition traditional understandings to allow non-Western approaches to IR develop alongside and inform their Western counterparts. Moreover, the book reinforces the need to move beyond the traditionally used Western-centric lenses without removing them completely, instead it advocates a harmonisation between them to reduce generalisations across the local, state and regional levels.

Why is it so difficult for a great power or a hegemon to retrench its overseas military power? Specifically, why are U.S. military bases and troops still largely where they were five years ago, twenty years ago, or even seventy years ago? Through developing a theory of great-power persistence, this book offers an explanation. Closely aligned with neoclassical realism, the theory argues that the murkiness of the anarchic international system combines with specific psychological inclinations of individuals to produce “better-safe-than-sorry” policies. In the United States, decisions on troop deployments are powerfully influenced by the broader foreign-policy community. Its members tend to be risk-averse and highly sensitive to the possibility that even minor troop withdrawals might set off harmful geopolitical chain reactions. Preferring the status quo over any uncertain alternative, they want their country to continue to maximize its influence and project its military power abroad in order to steady wobbling geopolitical “dominoes.” The theory is put to the empirical test through a systematic analysis of U.S. overseas troop deployments, withdrawal attempts, and retrenchment resistance during the presidency of Donald Trump, which represents an ideal test case for these mechanisms. Even if U.S. voters elected a retrenchment advocate as president, and despite that the United States is a gradually declining power, the period saw very little change in U.S. overseas troop deployments. The book concludes that, barring any dramatic, unforeseeable international event, the vast network of overseas U.S. military bases and troops is likely to persist for a long time to come.

This book highlights important parallels between Carr and three influential figures in the first wave of post-colonialism—DuBois, Césaire and Fanon—on the analysis of imperialism and the causes of war. Specifically, Carr’s analysis of imperialism and war parallels the first wave post-colonial thinkers in two respects. First, Carr’s work historically situates imperialism in the context of the social question in Western democracies. Second, Carr’s work provides an ideology critique to Enlightenment rationalism, which postulates that ‘reason could determine what [are] the universally valid moral laws’ and thus ‘by the voice of reason men could be persuaded both to save their own immoral souls and to move along the path of political enlightenment and progress’ (Carr 1984, 22 and 24). Carr’s ideology critique exposes the Enlightenment’s pretences of reason and universality as a deceptive plea that legitimates imperialism. These parallels, the book argues, reveal that Carr did not only recognise global hierarchy, but also theorised the role of what Julian Go refers to as the ‘episteme of empire’—that is, ‘the meanings and modalities of seeing and knowing that … accompanied empire and made it possible in the first place’ (Go 2017, 19–20). Carr’s IR theory, in short, was much closer to post-colonial thinking than previously appreciated in the discipline.

This book covers selected topics on contemporary Turkish Foreign Policy to understand and critically analyze the ideas, discourses, actors, processes and structures in the foreign policymaking. It provides the readers with a compilation of chapters on the critical analysis of Turkey’s changing positionality and foreign policy identity. In doing so, it draws on the tools and perspectives offered by the critical theories and approaches in International Relations and relevant disciplines. Most of the chapters included in this project deal with the dramatic metamorphoses that took place in Turkish Foreign Policy during the period when the Justice and Development Party ruled and their ongoing consequences. 

Strategic Narratives, Ontological Security and Global Policy provides a pathbreaking account of why some states successfully convince others to join their policy initiatives, and why others fail. Examining China’s Belt and Road Initiative and COVID-19, Thomas Colley and Carolijn van Noort argue that strategic narratives can help persuade states to join global policy initiatives if they convincingly promise audiences material gain while avoiding undermining their ontological security. They make their case by analysing eight diverse countries: India, Italy, Kazakhstan, Mexico, the Maldives, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. 

Theoretically novel and global in scope, this book provides a compelling explanation of how strategic narratives can help achieve the global policy coordination needed to confront vital challenges in contemporary international relations. The proposed strategic narrative buy-in framework is applicable to many global policy issues, be it promoting trade and infrastructure projects, mitigating climate change or managing pandemics.

The ‘Liberal World Order’ (LWO) is today in crisis. But what explains this crisis? Whereas its critics see it as the unmasking of Western hypocrisy, its longstanding proponents argue it is under threat by competing illiberal projects. This book takes a different stance: neither internal hypocrisy, nor external attacks explain the decline of the LWO – a deviation from its original lane does. Emerged as a project aiming to harmonize state sovereignty and the market, through the promotion of liberal democracy domestically, and free trade and economic cooperation internationally, the LWO was hijacked in the 1980s: market forces overshadowed democratic forces, thus disfiguring the LWO into a Neoliberal Global Order. The book advocates for a revival of its original intellectual premises, that in the aftermath of World War II marked the zenith of political modernity.

This book examines the ongoing power transition and its ramifications for world order from an international society perspective. In that perspective, the outcome of big changes in the distribution of power is a matter of socialization rather than structural determination or the resilience of the so-called Liberal world order. Consequently, the key question of this book is how the ongoing power transition affects, and is affected by, the social institutions of world order including sovereignty, the balance of power, international law, diplomacy, trade, humanitarian intervention, national self-determination, and environmental stewardship. The guiding theoretical assumption of the book is that power transition stimulates fundamental institutional change rather than major conflict or a breakdown of international order, while international organizations are key arenas for the realization and negotiation of such changes, not the victims of hegemonic retreat. The argument is pursued in sections on rising and declining powers (Anglo-America, Russia, China and the EU, among others), consequences for the fundamental social institutions and changes in international organizations, globally and regionally. In combination, the chapters reveal the contours of the coming world order.

This book traces the development of the international society tradition from its origins in Grotius’ On the Law of War and Peace to its crystallization in Bull’s The Anarchical Society. It follows the idea of sociability among peoples as it was presented by Grotius and substantiated by Pufendorf, through the skepticism of Voltaire and Kant, to emerge as humanitarian warfare and human rights in the international liberal movement, ‘world society’ in the 20th century Catholic revival, and common practices and social understandings in the English School in the period of disciplinary development in international relations after the Second World War.

This book investigates the UK’s nuclear weapon policy, focusing in particular on how consecutive governments have managed to maintain the Trident weapon system. The question of why states maintain nuclear weapons typically receives short shrift: its security, of course. The international is a perilous place, and nuclear weapons represent the ultimate self-help device. This book seeks to unsettle this complacency by re-conceptualizing nuclear weapon-armed states as nuclear regimes of truth and refocusing on the processes through which governments produce and maintain country-specific discourses that enable their continued possession of nuclear weapons. Illustrating the value of studying nuclear regimes of truth, the book conducts a discourse analysis of the UK’s nuclear weapons policy between 1980 and 2010. In so doing, it documents the sheer imagination and discursive labour required to sustain the positive value of nuclear weapons within British politics, as well as providing grounds for optimism regarding the value of the recent treaty banning nuclear weapons.

This book offers an assessment of the ongoing transformation of hegemonic order and its domestic and international politics. The current international order is in crisis. Under the Trump administration, the USA has ceased to unequivocally support the institutions it helped to foster. China’s power surge, contestation by smaller states, and the West’s internal struggle with populism and economic discontent have undermined the liberal order from outside and from within. While the diagnosis of a crisis is hardly new, its sources, scope, and underlying politics are still up for debate. Our reading of hegemony diverges from a static concept, toward a focus on the dynamic politics of hegemonic ordering. This perspective includes the domestic support and demand for specific hegemonic goods, the contestation and backing by other actors within distinct layers of hegemonic orders, and the underlying bargaining between the hegemon and subordinate actors. The case studies in this book thus investigate hegemonic politics across regimes (e.g., trade and security), regions (e.g., Asia, Europe, and Global South), and actors (e.g., major powers and smaller states).

This book analyzes Russian and Chinese revisionism in the face of US and Western post-Cold War liberal international order building and asks why both powers have turned revisionist in the late 2000s. The study develops a neoclassical realist model of international order building and contestation and posits to view revisionism as a strategic choice. States go revisionist if the status quo international order threatens their vital security needs (broadly defined not only as territorial security, but also political, economic, normative and ontological) and if they have the means to challenge the undesirable status quo. Russia and China were both unhappy with the post-Cold War international order of American designs, but had to opt for accommodation in the 1990s and early 2000s (“strategic accommodation” in the Chinese case, “resentful accommodation” in the Russian case), before revisionism became even more of a necessity and a real policy option from the late 2000s onward (“constructive revisionism” in the Chinese case, “destructive revisionism” in the Russian case). The author calls for a policy of neo-containment to counter Moscow’s and Beijing’s efforts to game and erode the international order.

This book presents conjuncture, marked by capitalist crisis and a fracturing international order, urgently calls for critical perspectives capable of clarifying the state of global affairs and the emancipatory struggles within it. Critical Theory in International Relations should be well placed to provide answers to this demand, yet it finds itself today in a state of decline. Its prevailing form – that of a universalist cosmopolitan project – reflects a narrow Eurocentric perspective and the concerns of a time now past, while the Frankfurt School tradition as a whole struggles to develop new modes of analysis and new political imaginaries that are appropriate to the current historical situation. This book addresses the ‘crisis of critique’ of Frankfurt School Critical Theory in International Relations and puts forward a proposal for how it can be overcome. It does so by providing a comprehensive account of the development of Critical Theory in International Relations and the ways in which it has applied Frankfurt School thought to the study of international politics. It then makes a provocative case as to the exhaustion of the cosmopolitan and Habermasian paradigm of critique that has guided Frankfurt School research on international politics for the past thirty years. Finally, it puts forward a proposal for the revitalization of Critical Theory in IR through a renewed emphasis on the critique of political economy and sketches a research agenda which can make the tradition relevant again to contemporary political questions.

This book shows that identity studies in the discipline of International Relations (IR) generally cohere around two discrete understandings of being, substantialism and correlationism, and that their analytical, theoretical, and epistemological orientations are split along those lines. This binary opposition makes it difficult for identity scholarship to meet the internal validity standard of coherence while unnecessarily narrowing the theoretical lenses of constructivism in IR. The author argues that the best way to step outside that binary is to re-ground identity in ontology of immanence. The book shows that immanent ontological thinking enables us to have a pluralist epistemology and methodology for the study of identity, including both positivist and interpretivist orientations, without yielding a logically inconsistent alignment.

This book investigates the phenomenon of overbalancing through an analysis of Japan’s foreign policy during the interbellum. In the mid-1930s, Japan withdrew from a naval arms control framework that had restrained military buildup on both sides of the Pacific Ocean since the early 1920s. By doing so, Japan not only triggered a naval arms race with the United States that exhausted its economy, it also destroyed the last institutionalized structure regulating the relationship between the two Pacific powers. Japan and the United States became caught in a spiral of tensions that culminated with the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Puzzling is the fact that the international environment in the Asia-Pacific was relatively stable in the mid-1930s, while Washington was pursuing a policy of accommodation toward Tokyo. By rejecting arms control and engaging in unfettered naval expansion, Japan overbalanced against the United States and began its rush to the Pacific War.

The Global IR research programme promulgates a borderless ecology of cultures that has only an inside without an outside. This borderless ecology of cultures reinvents the human condition (including the condition of ‘the international’) as perpetually interconnected at the level of consciousness. While Western-centric IR theories depend on (neo-)Kantian philosophies to emphasize the time-space bounded identities of human beings living in visibly divided phenomenal worlds, the de-Kantian philosophies of the Global IR research programme – exemplified by the Tianxia, Advaita, and Nishida Kitaro’s Buddhism-inspired theories – recuperate the temporally-spatially indivisible phenomenal-noumenal flow of human life, thereby facilitating back-and-forth movement between the Westdominated ‘one world’ and the non-West-embodied ‘many worlds’. The central objective of the book is to demonstrate how this back-and-forth movement offers opportunities to conceive of and found a new world order that recognizes the temporally-spatially indivisible human condition on earth. The book delineates a set of guiding principles to promote an innovative practice of theory-building and policy-making that transcends the geo-centric limitations of knowledge-production and knowledge-application, thereby establishing the futuristic foundation of the Global IR research programme.

Military alliances are a constant feature in international politics, and a better understanding of them can directly impact world affairs. This book examines why alliances endure or collapse. As a distinctive feature, it analyses asymmetric alliances focusing on the junior allies’ decision to continue or terminate a military agreement. It deepens our knowledge of alliance cohesion and erosion, investigating the relevance of the weaker side’s preferences and behavior in alliance politics. The author examines the literature on alliance persistence and termination and puts forward a theoretical model that helps interpret historical and contemporary cases in a way that is useful for expert researchers and non-expert readers alike.

While proxy relationships can be an effective means international actors use to transfer risk and lower their costs to compete, they also enable actors to circumvent international norms as well as create moral hazards that can make the practice self-defeating if not simply unethical. Applying the framework of the Just War Tradition, this book highlights some of these ethical gaps and addresses how proxy relationships introduce additional obligations for both sponsor and proxy. The author examines specific examples of how current precedents set a very high bar for accountability, and perversely incentivizes sponsors to employ proxies while discouraging any effort to moderate proxy behavior since that could imply effective control. In light of this, the book offers policy recommendations on how to best manage these relationships while maintaining certain moral commitments.