Palgrave Studies in International Relations

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 inorder 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 didnot 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 itpromoting 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 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 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 starts from the premise that the present 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. The book diagnosesthis situation of intellectual and political crisis and seeks to trace a way out. 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 revitalisation 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.

This book weaves theoretical-empirical threads beyond pragmatic philosophy, quantum cosmology and world affairs. It offers a “quantum-social” approach to inquire solidarity configurations among transnational movements. The first part of the book develops an integrative framework to foreground “quantum-type” features of social fields, virtual movements, and complex encounters. Quantum conceptual keys open new gates for macro-theorizing of “non-locality” and comprehending fields around cognate disciplines like psychology and sociology as well as international studies. Accordingly, emotional “indeterminacy” is found fundamental for understanding mesoscopic dynamics of virtual mobilizations. All along micro-layers, phenomena of “entanglement” mold multiple pathways for transversal solidarities. The empirical second part looks at how transnational solidarity springs emerge under “quantum-like” contexts of liberation/revolution-redemption/resistance movements. Emotional memories and affective imageries dynamically co-mingle across flowing fields and moving habitats of “1968-71” and “2008-11.” Affective waves and sentimental circulations shape sanctified-secularized constellations of altruisms and sacrifices through which solidarities spin.

This book argues that not only has the present international relations (IR) paradigm failed to preserve global peace in our time, it has also proved to be an obstacle in this regard, and for this reason a paradigm shift is urgently required. With a view to demonstrating the IR paradigm’s failure to secure global peace, moreover, a Foucauldian-inspired discourse analysis is used here to flesh out an archaeology of what I call knowledge relations within IR studies.

This analysis reveals that within IR’s paradigmatic corridors of knowledge the theoretical/analytical category of war has been privileged, i.e., elevated to the level of chief subject and object of analysis vis-à-vis peace. In order to show how this is the case, moreover, this book examines the paradigm’s mainstream debates, e.g., those on human nature, power, and the state of nature, and by implication state sovereignty and nationalism, in addition to its authoritative subfields, in particular peace studies, international relations theory, global governance, and security studies. Each of these works reproduces, indeed glorifies, war to the exclusion of a lasting global peace, and in large part by promoting certain knowledges that are racial, colonial, gendered, and consequently bellicose.

All this connotes that the IR paradigm is grounded in a regime of knowledge that tells us everything about the dynamics of war and nothing substantive about realizing peace—hence the pressing need for a paradigm shift. Put differently, under the auspices of IR studies, contemplating peace is fruitless, a mere scholarly mirage, and precisely because achieving it under this paradigmatic status quo is not, and will never be, a condition of possibility. If anything, this book demonstrates that we have not even begun to speak truth to knowledge in the cause of global peace.

This project seeks to demonstrate how multiple sites of discursive production (political elite, media, and popular culture) interact to construct truths about a conflict that condition political possibility. Through breaking down the interaction between multiple sites of production within moments of discursive stability and by tracing major themes across multiple sites of discursive production this work will illuminate the processes by which the ‘truth’ for a conflict is produced, sustained, and challenged. Specifically, this project will be contesting two historical moments of ‘naturalness’ wherein a dominant discourse established a representational stability within American foreign policy in order to display how multiple sites of production work to produce, sustain, and challenge the political realities of military interventions. In doing so, the processes which impact the production of policy and public acceptance/condemnation for military interventions will be demonstrated.

When and how do great and middle powers moderately challenge the status quo? These compelling questions have largely been overlooked in International Relations literature, which typically views the cyclical rise of revolutionary revisionist great powers as an unchanging aspect of international politics. Conventional thinking suggests that after peace or major agreements are established, a new international status quo emerges, provoking major dissatisfied states to challenge it. Sometimes, these challenges escalate to full-scale wars or intense competitions with the status quo powers—those committed to defending and maintaining current conditions. Yet, revisionism does not always manifest as great power war or outright competition; it can take more moderate forms. This book addresses this neglected puzzle with two key aims. The first is explicative, seeking to provide a solid and novel causal explanation of this recurring phenomenon in international politics. The second aim is typological: to construct a more nuanced and precise typology of revisionism that focuses on foreign policy means. To validate its new theoretical framework, the book examines three case studies—the United States, Italy, and China—spanning three distinct regions and historical contexts and featuring diverse political regimes: the late 19th century, the interwar period, and the Cold War.

According to a pervasive view in the discipline of International Relations (IR): a) realism is a historical tradition, stretching all the way back to Thucydides; b) despite the important theoretical differences among themselves, realists uphold the same set of core beliefs about the workings of international politics. Together, these two claims amount to the perspective that realism is a sui generis scholarly tradition with ancient origins. The author critiques both aspects of this view by illustrating that realism is both a relatively recent tradition and a disarrayed one. He shows that the realist tradition entails conscious membership and participation in a common “realist” discourse that has produced fundamentally different, even opposing, methodologies and theories about the same or related phenomena in international politics. In illustrating this argument, the author critically explores a variety of seminal statements of, and debates about, realism. This exploration reveals that the conceptual and theoretical shortcomings of the major statements of realism significantly explain why realism evolved as a disarrayed tradition. Overall, this book makes an important contribution to the understanding of realism in particular and IR in general. The comprehensive and critical analysis of many facets of realism this book offers also yields many didactic elements.

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of American grand strategy during the Obama administration and its impact on the Middle East. It explores the concept of grand strategy, examining how national objectives and security priorities influence foreign policy decisions. The text compares Obama’s approach to those of his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, highlighting key decisions and their consequences. The book focuses especially on issues such as the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Arab uprisings, nuclear negotiations with Iran, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. The book also examines the long-term effects of Obama’s policies on U.S. foreign relations, offering insights into the successes and challenges faced in the Middle East. Lastly, it considers the evolution of the American grand strategy under the subsequent administrations of Trump and Biden, shedding light on the continuity and shifts in America's foreign policy direction. This work is essential for anyone interested in U.S. foreign policy, Middle East politics, and grand strategy.