Search

The main argument of this paper is that the so-called 'Paris School' of security studies cannot account for practices of resistance because of the way it conceptualizes the 'everyday' as the arena of un-intentional actions. After briefly reviewing some of the main arguments of the 'Paris School', the paper engages in a discussion about oppositional agency to security practices. I suggest that resistance to security has a specificity of its own when compared to general practices of resistance. Further on, the paper traces the main theoretical 'roots' of the 'Paris School', analysing how Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, Michel de Certeau and James Scott conceptualize the 'everyday', and how this is translated into a vision about agency that leaves out intentionality. Such a vision, I argue, is bound to remain incomplete, and is unable to constitute a coherent theoretical vision about resistance. As a substitute, I suggest the critique of the everyday as developed by Henri Lefebvre, with its emphasis on the transformation of everyday life and its focus on the festival. For Lefebvre, the festival is the ultimate expression of oppositional agency, since it is able to substitute for the alienation of everyday life. I contribute to this theoretical discussion by bringing two examples of such transformations of everyday life: tactical frivolity and 'temporary autonomous zones'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the multiple disconnects separating neorealist international relations theory and the practice of foreign policy. Below, several of these that have already received great attention by scholars in the field are very briefly summarized. For example, neorealists carefully separate IR theory from foreign policy analysis. One cannot say much about the behavior of a single state, they repeatedly warn, based on a systemic IR theory. Foreign policy, neorealists acknowledge, is likely to reflect elements of domestic politics as well as international constraints. Then, much greater scrutiny is directed at an important disconnect that has not received close examination ? the divergence between the neorealist theory of international politics and the real world practice of American neorealists who often assume prominent roles in academic and policy debates about US foreign relations. Based on neorealist participation in these academic and policy debates, as well as the scholars? own explanation of their role in these controversies, the paper concludes that these neorealists arguably embrace reflective, communicative, and emancipatory notions of foreign policy decision-making. These are, of course, foundational theoretical concerns of constructivist and critical international relations theorists and are often disparaged by neorealists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyzes the impact of the Western system of values on the post-communist identity change process that has taken place in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) during the last 15 years. The main point is that an extended set of values has to be taken into consideration. To the classical democracy- and capitalism-related values it should be added a security-related set of principles originating in the Helsinki Final Act?s Decalogue. The paper starts by putting the CEE process of identity change in relation to the creation and functioning of a security regime. The origin and structure of the system of values associated with this regime are described. This is followed by a quantitative evaluation of its diffusion in former communist countries. Then, the causes of this uneven geographical distribution are analyzed. Finally, the concluding remarks summarize the main findings of the paper emphasizing the hegemonic role (in a Gramscian sense) of the Western system of values in CEE. All these steps use an approach inspired by Wendt?s identity-based constructivism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decades constructivism has moved from the margins to the centre of IR/IPE. Therefore the contentious issue is no longer whether or not one can use constructivism in IPE. Rather, the question is how to make the best possible use of constructivism in IR/IPE. This paper makes an argument in favour of a sociological version of constructivism (drawing heavily on the work of Pierre Bourdieu) which is particularly well suited to develop questions and answers for empirical studies in IR/IPE. The reason is that, although this approach cannot overcome and resolve the central dichotomies in social theory, it suggests ways which make it possible to argue in parallel and to keep both sides of the dichotomies within the analysis. The paper provides three illustrations of this. The first is that the approach focuses both on power entailed by the social construction of meaning both at the level of the level of the ideas expressed by policy maker and/or observer in the public realm and at the level of the private, material action. The second is that it suggests a way of keeping an explicit link between the instrumental use of ideas and the taken for granted dimension of social reality. The third is that the approach stresses the significance of reflexivity both for critical knowledge and for the reproduction of social hierarchies. The focus on power, agency and reflexivity is not fortuitous. It is around these issues that the critique of constructivists, from outsiders and insiders alike, tends to focus and therefore when discussing how to make the best possible use of constructivism, it is from these issues that one has to depart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the applicability of foreign policy analysis (FPA) to studying the European Union’s global policy. It argues that problem-based globalism (PBG) can bridge the concerns of FPA and the study of the EU’s external relations. The two basic theses of PBG are: the structuration and course of international politics already predominantly is and in the future will decisively be determined by the aggravation of global problems, and that the IR discipline is developing towards new cohesion, resulting from the increasing attraction of the globalist problem orientation. Based on constructivism the paper emphasizes that the foreign policy does not exist independently of human action and cognition but, rather, the world of IR is a social world whose rules and practices are made and reproduced by human interactions. Thus, ideas and knowledge play a significant role in explaining the evolution of global policy. Global threats are giving rise to a new kind of mental orientation to life and politics. This new thinking culture is generally characterised by high attention and priority given to global problems and action, as contrasted with traditional nationalist and regional ways of thinking. This paper challenges the state-centricity assumption of foreign policy analysis. While recognizing the multiplicity of global actors, this paper pays special attention to the globalization of the foreign policies of states, groupings of states and integration communities (EU) as presumably the main precondition for essential improvement of global policy-making. The EU seems to be even more capable of acting in world politics than most states ? at least some issue areas. Rationality assumption is also challenged, because the EU does not always know how they should act. Under the conditions of aggravated global problems, it is especially receptive to learn why we are in trouble and what would be an appropriate strategy to manage the global problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivism in IR, moderate and radical versions alike, suffers from a superficial understanding of language: Looking only at argumentation and content (what is being said), it overlooks that reality is also being constructed below the surface of texts: it does make a difference, how I say something. Style matters! The proposed paper will point to the crucial role metaphors play in this regard: Metaphors create reality by projecting everyday life-worlds onto international relations. They make sense of and give meaning to strange material phenomena such as the fall of the Berlin wall or the WTC-towers. My paper will come up with a method of analysing metaphors that builds on two strands of literature: post-structuralist theories of discourse on the one hand and sociology of knowledge on the other. In order to illustrate how the method works on the empirical ground, it will be applied to the discourse on EU-enlargement, showing that and how enlargement-metaphors construct European identity. Against this background the paper will finally reflect upon linguistic mechanisms of identity construction more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes the elements that a structurationist theory in international relations should include. A structurationist theory incorporates both constructivism and historical sociology. The virtue of a structurationist approach is that it is conscious of the need to avoid ontological primacy of either agents or structures. Both agents and structures should be composed of explicit constitutive rules. Rules can only be instantiated by agents, individually or in combination. Thus all the rules of a structure must be distributed among agents. Outside the medium of agents, structures can have no rules. Agents, or subjects, should be built to construct situations, generate actions, and update memories. Subjects' memories may be intersubjective or exclusive. Memories can consist of identities, recently advocated norms, or descriptions with history-sensitive confidence levels. Structures should be defined as combinations of practices and rules that reproduce themselves. Wendt's 1992 diagram of the codetermination of institutions and processes is a helpful illustration of how subjects and structures can be modeled. Four constructivist empirical analyses are shown to contain the requisite elements of structurationist models and to fit Wendt's diagram. The paper concludes with three methodological imperatives. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that IR has tended to mischaracterise the 'social' basis of international society. States and other actors orient their behaviour towards shared understandings of cooperation not because of a prior common identity but because the provision of public goods provides a high value pay-off in terms of status. In the early part of the paper, we draw on Wittgenstein's ideas on rule indeterminacy to critique the idea of the causal power of norms, a view which animates a great deal of mainstream constructivism. Working with an alternative sociology of norms, it becomes possible to view the international social system as being produced through 'recognition games' played on many different boards. The goal of international social action is recognition of rightful membership of institutions and alliances, an argument familiar to English school writings in IR. China's struggle for status in contemporary international society provides an illustrative case study, one which avoids the stark choice between managing China's imminent threat (realism) or liberal socialization (constructivism). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a preliminary conceptualization of a theory of nonhegemonic international orders (NHIO). To varying degrees, IR theories, including realism, liberalism, constructivism, and Gramscian critical theory have privileged hegemonic power and socialization in international order-building. Nonhegemonic international order theory (NHIOT) holds that international order is not simply a function of the power and preferences of hegemonic actors (or powerful states). A nonhegemonic order may be defined as a relative stable pattern of interactions without the individual or collective hegemony of great powers. NHIOT makes the following assumptions: (a) the main actors/agents in international relations are states, social groups, and international organizations; (b) the international system is an anarchy but hegemony is not a natural or inevitable solution to anarchy; resistance to hegemony may be a more a natural tendency; (c) the structure of the international system is both material and ideational and hence resistance to hegemony can be both material and ideational; (d) international cooperation is possible not only to organize resistance to, but also the socialization of, hegemony-seeking actors; and (e) nonhegemonic actors are not just passive recipients of universal ideas or collective goods, but active borrowers and exporters. The paper offers some examples of nonhegemonic international orders such as the diffusion of Indian political ideas in precolonial Asia, the Chinese tributary system, European Union’s security community, and Indonesia’s postcolonial role within Southeast Asia. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the formation of women's rights institutions in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). It challenges the tacit assumption found in most studies that reforms towards democratization and state-building in BiH are invariably imposed by the international community. I argue in this paper that this rationalist assumption presents us with a biased view on policy-making in BiH, impeding a more comprehensive understanding of how policy-making works in states that are subject to an international post-war intervention. The analysis of the formation of women's rights institutions in BiH reveals agency structures and leverage mechanisms that have largely been neglected in explanations of innovative policy change in BiH. The case supports a constructivist argument emphasising the power of domestic norm entrepreneurs as well as less hierarchical mechanisms of persuasion, capacity-building and cooperation. However, these domestic norm entrepreneurs also relied on external allies that helped them access relevant decision-makers and institutional processes by providing necessary resources and advice. The findings of this study do not only point to alternative strategies for international organizations beyond enforcement and withdrawal, they also introduce constructivist thinking into explanations of policy change under conditions of an international post-war intervention such as in BiH. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a paper on how to study international norms. The notion of norms is quite common in the work of the English School, yet only a few scholars offer an explicit definition of an international norm and even fewer an operationalisation. Using English School theory on norms as well as insight from constructivism, this paper offers a theoretical and methodological account of the study of international norms. Hence, the paper answers questions such as "what is an international norm", "do norms matter at all in international politics", "how do international norms work", and finally but equally important "how do one measure international norms" Thus, this paper is a first attempt to make a sound, explicit research design on how to study international norms. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The agent-structure debate was a debate entered into in the 80s and 90s, but has now silenced. This is largely the case also within constructivism, despite it being the approach that introduced the concept of the mutual constitution of agents and structures. This paper claims that the lack of attention to this fundamental theoretical aspect is diminishing the potential contributions the so-called "bridge building project" between rationalism and constructivism can make to contemporary IR. Today, the project has no metatheoretical fundaments common to both approaches, and is based largely on methodological inventions and theoretical pragmatism. Thus, there exist no theoretical bridge building, and the pragmatic-methodological approach leads to theoretical inconsistencies. Taking as the substantial point of departure the recent International Organization special issue "International Institutions and Socialization in Europe", this paper identifies four concrete problems arising form the lack of theoretical clarity. These are the problem of combining an exclusive use of positivism with constructivism, the conceptualization of mechanisms, the exclusion of interpretative approaches and the rationalist dominance. These problems contribute to the notion of the project as a bridge over troubled theoretical waters. The paper shows how one could approach these problems through revisiting the insights from the agent-structure debate. Values and facts could be reconceptualized as mutually sustaining, mechanisms could be seen as processes and not one-time influences and structures consist of both material and ideational aspects. This new approach might open the ground for a more theoretical coherent and resilient bridge building project. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1990s constructivism has played an important role in the theoretical debate between IR-scholars. This debate not only concerns systemic theory, but has extended to the FPA-field as well. However, empirical research to buttress constructivist theoretical claims is less profound.Although some empirical work has been done, mostly using quantitative discourse and content analysis, it is important to note that constructivists themselves seem to agree on this point. Someone like Maja Zehfuss is very critical of the social constructivists’ empirical efforts, which in her view remain “abstract”, “leave(s) off before getting to the practicalities” and provide “little to work with for those wishing to analyze what is construed as the political reality of international politics” (Zehfuss 2002: 33). A prominent constructivist like Jeffrey Checkel, in his review of Zehfuss’ book, agrees that “this seems an accurate assessment” (2003: 8). This paper discusses the usefulness of combining ‘new’ constructivist theoretical concepts with more ‘traditional’ qualitative case study research in the diplomatic history tradition, even though constructivist seem to dislike investigating ‘hard’ primary sources and dismiss it as too ‘rationalist’ and too ‘elitist’. Applying constructivist concepts of ‘critical junctures’ (Risse 1999: 155-156) and ‘moral entrepreneurs’ (Finnemore 1996: 24-28) to the development of West German ‘Ostpolitik’ under Chancellor Willy Brandt, the paper takes an absolute ‘most likely case’ (Eckstein 1975) to investigate their empirical foundations. Doing so not only contributes to reducing the gap between constructivist theory and empirical IR-research but also brings IR theory and diplomatic history closer together. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is part of a larger project that compares three anti-racist campaigns - that of Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE), that of the American Ad Council, and that of the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA). The project was motivated by the observation that all three campaigns were initiated in relative haste, with little or no planning, and were devised to respond to perceived crises. They also were just a few examples of a number of anti-racist campaigns that have become increasingly prominent features of contemporary international relations. Therefore, the central question of the project is "Why anti-racist campaigning?" If these initiatives are launched in a hurry, with hardly any similar precedence in international relations, and little idea of their chances of success, why then are so much money, time and other resources invested in them? In short, what are the cultural politics of these antiracist campaigns? The project theorizes this relatively new phenomenon in international relations in order to understand: (a) the wider historical and political context; (b) the agency of all those involved; and (c) the meaning of this practice to contemporary international relations. This paper is a discreet comparison of two of the three cases - FARE and the AD Council. It shows that the Constructivist paradigm is particularly helpful in arriving at a more sophisticated understanding of these two phenomena. Textual analysis is used to show how anti-racism in the two cases is part of wider discourses on nationalism. The anti-racist campaigns are, therefore, important artifacts in pantomimes of identity politics, not by people, but by a state (the United States, in the case of the "War on Terror") and a regional body (UEFA, in the case of FARE). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International Relations' constructivist approaches seem to have reached a consensus on the fact that looking at national interests and identities as constructed is important for understanding international politics' dynamics. Gaps remain, however, on explaining how such interests/identities are actually defined and what is the link between the national and international dimensions. The paper argues that the process through which the national actors' understanding of the world translates into political change at the international level cannot be explained by looking at state actors alone. Applying a multidisciplinary perspective, combining international relations with the methodological tools of political communications and discourse analysis, the study attempts at providing an empirical account of the mechanisms explaining political interests' construction at the international level. More specifically, by drawing on the case study of the War on Terrorism, the paper argues that: 1) the media have an impact on political discourses' development, i.e. the media play a role in how political interests are constructed 2) there is an interaction between/among political and media discourses at transnational level: i.e. the construction of international politics is the result of complex cross-national discoursive exchanges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A principal area in which mainstream constructivists have advanced our knowledge of international relations is by addressing normative diffusion. Principles flow outward from a core of normative consensus to a periphery that, over time, comes to accept and endorse the norms. While constructivists anticipate resistance to normative diffusion, the implicit story they tell is a teleological one, and the outcome is normative convergence and the long-term resolution of normative conflicts. Moreover, while careful to point out that constructivism (as a body of theory) is neutral as to whether good or bad norms prevail, in practice constructivists have disproportionately focused on consensus around progressive norms, and more often than not they endorse the normative changes in question. In this paper, we challenge constructivists by arguing that conflict over some of the most fundamental norms of international society is likely to remain entrenched and irreconcilable over time, perhaps indefinitely. We take as our theoretical point of departure John Rawls’s writings on domestic and international political liberalism. Rawls provides a useful analytic framework with which to engage the problem of normative convergence, in two ways. First, he presents a compelling account of human psychology, showing how and why free institutions generate an irreconcilable multiplicity of moral, philosophical, and theological doctrines (what he calls ?comprehensive doctrines?). Thus, Rawls clearly defines a conceptual boundary that must be overcome if we are to be convinced that anything beyond the very thin normative convergence he envisions is possible. Second, when he extends his political liberalism to the international level, he has to make some heroic assumptions in order to make even a thin conception of normative convergence possible, assumptions that we do not find compelling. Therefore, we have reason to believe that normative conflict will be even more problematic at the international level than at the domestic level. In sum, we accept the basic terms of Rawls? political and moral psychology but argue that even his narrow account of convergence is implausible. Normative conflict will remain a problem at the international level. Therefore, the primary question is: How do we learn to live in a world where others do not share our values? We argue that realism provides an answer to this question. Just as liberal theorists resort to checks and balances at the domestic level to mitigate conflict, realists have consistently argued against over-reaching at the international level, however normatively driven, because of the violence that could follow. Because they anticipate resistance, realists warn against privileging moral considerations in foreign policy and the aggressive foreign policies that result. Again, live and let live is the best the world can do. This, we think more reasonable, set of assumptions about normative change allows us to recover the non-utopian liberal potential inherent in realist theories of international politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A primary indicator of a fair and legitimate process is whether those most affected are afforded meaningful opportunities for participation. Indeed, the right to participation in decision-making is a core principle of human rights law. Organizations holding a privileged role in the development of human rights ? including intergovernmental bodies such as the UN and non-governmental such as Human Rights Watch ? are increasingly subjected to scrutiny by reference to principles of legitimacy and are called to account for what they say and the locus of their authority for saying it. While constructivism has usefully examined questions of legitimacy and accountability in relation to core segments of human rights practice, IR offers little in the way of empirical research regarding the actual development of human rights law. This paper extends constructivist analysis to explore whether and how NGO power holders in UN human rights treaty processes apply principles of legitimacy and accountability in their leadership. It provides a case study of the newest UN human rights treaty initiative regarding disabled persons and identifies factors that facilitate or impede meaningful NGO participation, assesses the role of the UN in shaping NGO influence and suggests how such issues ultimately bear upon treaty implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dialogue of civilizations may have significant practical and theoretical implications for international relations at different levels including ontological, epistemological, sociological, and normative. It is, however, theoretically underdeveloped. This idea can hardly be incorporated into the realist paradigm of international relations due to its dialogical, non-statist, and non-power-political aspects. It seems, however, that the English School, constructivism, and critical international theory can be the best theoretical contexts for understanding and conceptualizing the theoretical contribution of dialogue of civilizations. This paper attempts to clarify this contribution. On the basis of its emphasis on civilization and its characteristics, the idea of dialogue of civilizations can alter the state-centric conception of international relations. It may also function as a basis for non Euro-centric approaches to international relations both as the social context in which the interactions among actors take place and as the discipline in which these interactions are to be conceptualized, interpreted, and explained. Its dialogical character represents a multi-layered mechanism for setting international agenda and resolving international conflicts. It can also be seen as a way towards the formation of a new worldwide moral community based on a worldwide dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars increasingly represent Anglo-American international relations theory as a three-cornered fight between realism, liberalism, and constructivism, describing each as paradigms or research programs. Although the three paradigms understanding of international relations theory has some heuristic value, that value is outweighed by the costs for cumulative knowledge in the field. Whatever else they may be, realism, liberalism, and constructivism should not be understood through post-positivist models of scientific evolution. In this paper we propose an alternative heuristic for mapping general approaches to international politics. First, to what degree do theories and approaches hold that anarchy is a fixed constraint on actors in the international system? Second, to what degree do theories and approaches hold that power can be transcended in international politics? Re-mapping the discipline as we suggests reveals some strange bedfellows. Specifically, it shows that the ‘three-cornered’ debate between realism, liberalism, and constructivism is, at minimum, a ‘four-cornered’ fight in which variants of constructivism share at least as much in common with realist theories as with liberal and other constructivist approaches. This realist constructivism is characterized by a focus on the ongoing role of power understood in a relational sense in producing outcomes in world politics. We flesh out this fourth contender, with a special emphasis on the methodological strategies utilized by realist constructivism to produce knowledge that is qualitatively distinct from that produced by any of the other three contenders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why has there been no confrontation or conflict among big powers after the Cold War? Neither structural realism nor constructivism can offer satisfactory answer. This paper attempts to find an answer to this puzzle by going back to the unit level to explo ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a two-tiered, constructivist theoretical and methodological framework for analysing how international law influences specific (foreign policy) decision-making processes. Taking the linguistic turn seriously, the first tier explores h ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses four related questions: why do norms of military practice develop, spread, gain acceptance, and become internalized? Why are accepted norms sometimes abandoned in favour of contradictory norms? Why did many state leaders become convin ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I develop a realist-constructivist theory to explain the limited nature of European social policy when significant efficiencies could be achieved through a significant transfer from the national to the European level. To explain how European social policy has been institutionalized in this way, the re-launch of social policy by interstate negotiations in Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. I seek to combine rational and sociological approaches by synthesizing realist intergovernmentalism and social constructivism. The initial genesis of the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaty can be explained by an intergovernmental explanation. Because of their favorable balance of power within the European Council, the most powerful member states determine the direction of the integration process. Additionally, the integration process has been marked by relative gains concerns. The intergovernmental nature of the integration process, with states calculating the relative gains, has becomes a reified, unquestioned part of the European integration. The state interests for social policy integration were socially constructed through phenomenological and symbolic interactions. Intersubjective structural processes have generated both European and national identities, which promote interests for continued cooperation that allows for national autonomy. The routinized, habitual interactions among the national elites, as agents, reproduce the European social policy as an intersubjective structure. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a constructivist and discourse-analytic study of 'postnational identity', though positing Michel Foucault's category of 'subject-position' to be a better analytical tool than 'identity'. By deploying this analytical approach, I problematize both national and postnational conceptions of identity as essentialist discursive constructions. To the contrary, I argue that the constitution of the self is not structurally-defined, either by a national or postnational sociocultural context. Instead, individuals continue to have significant capacity to constitute themselves through the articulation of subject-positions that they choose to adopt. The second key component of my analysis is to demonstrate that different levels of analysis can be deployed to analyse such issues, especially for purposes of methodological triangulation and hypothesis testing. However, the nation-state level of analysis is not a sufficient starting-point for hypothesizing about the construction of a new, postnational constitution of the self. The latter also is an insufficient basis for asserting essentialist generalizations about contemporary practices of the self. The individual-self level must be considered the core focus of analysis in this context, though it is important to consider exogenous, material influences on self-constitution. This is where studies conducted at other levels of analysis are useful. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the contested process of Asian regionalism with a specific focus on the question of why East Asia has not succeeded in establishing a formally institutionalized regional scheme. To answer this question, I seek to establish a 'bridge-building enterprise' between realism and constructivism. Unlike other regions, increasing economic interdependence has not developed into formal regional institutionalization in East Asia because political factors including power relations (for example, hegemonic competition between China and Japan, the unresolved historical legacy of Japan, and the region's economic and political dependence on the US) have prevailed over economic logic in the region. Although Asia-only regionalism has emerged since the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s in the form of ASEAN + 3 or the East Asian Summit, the progress of it has been very slow in part because major powers in the region have not been able to agree to the boundary of the region or the membership of a new regional initiative. In other words, political struggles in the region have developed into identity struggles. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of my paper is to understand the transformation in security management with the case study of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) of the European Union. I want to suggest another way of understanding ESDP beyond analysis of discourses and official documents. From my point of view, combining critical constructivist and sociological approaches present the most relevant path of thought for my study. If ESDP enters officially in an intergovernmental logic, in fact, it is no longer the exclusive field of the member States, but rather the result of social interactions between a broad variety of public and private actors at the national, transnational and European levels. So, we must look at the interactions, roles, aims and means of these actors which give indications on new security practices, processes and issues, the heuristic value is higher. I am looking at the practices of security with framework of critical security studies and with theoretical and methodological means of the political sociology which permit the analysis of sociology, socio-professional trajectories, taking role, struggles of position, inter-institutional games and process of identity construction of European actors, suggesting emergence at European level of a new socio-political space. At the moment, critical security studies focus of immigration policy and political sociology on social matters. I want to demonstrate that we can combine these two approaches to understand security and defence making process too, with the case of ESDP. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carl Schmitt's writings grapple with the perennial issues of world politics: war, nationalism, identity, and the nature of the international system. Yet, few contemporary international relations scholars engage with his work. This paper aims to stoke interest in Schmitt by posing two questions: What is Schmitt's theory of IR, and how might it further debates within the field? I argue that Schmitt's thinking contains elements of classical realism, structural realism, and constructivism. Yet Schmitt should be categorized as a "political identity realist" because his underlying assumption of a hardwired human need for political identity drives his story about international relations. The "value-added" of Schmitt's work arises from its ability to engage Wendtian constructivism and highlight the flaws in Wendt's understanding of identity. Whereas Wendt's inclusion-based view of identity implies it could help transform the international system into a better world, Schmitt's exclusion-based perspective reveals it to be an inescapable curse. Schmitt's work therefore upholds realist assertions that continuity, not change, best characterizes world politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conference paper "Foreign Policy Role from the Constructivist and Power Cycle Perspectives" prepared for delivery at the "46th Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association" held in Honolulu, Hawaii on March 3, 2005. It argues that the power cycle model of Charles Doran provides a springboard to a neorealist and constructivist synthesis that is said to be needed if international relations theory is to have relevance for policy makers.

The article presents the conference paper titled "Constructivist Ethics as Oxymoron" prepared for the annual meeting of the International Studies Association held in Honolulu, Hawaii in March 2005. It examines the role of ethics in social constructivism within the realm of international relations theory. It discusses the three ethical prescriptions of how constructivist analysts must behave in world politics.

The time has come to stop advancing specious arguments about a pervasive economism supposedly plaguing certain critical approaches within International Political Economy (ipe). This paper argues that such accusations commonly stem from a lack of understanding of, or even direct engagement with, the method of historical materialism prevalent within critical ipe. By outlining the contributions an historical materialist mode of enquiry can offer to understanding ideas as material social processes, through which signs become part of the socially created world, the paper surpasses the deficits of discourse analysis and social constructivism alike. Primary among such deficits is both an inability to appreciate the internal relation of ideas as material social processes and an inability to disclose antagonistic identities embedded in the very process of economic exploitation, leaving one to surmise whether the aim is to actually erase them as a viable focus in the first place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addresses the intentional exclusion of the U.S. from Asian regionalism in the 21st century. Information on the constructivist approach of theorizing regionalism; Evolution of Asian regional cooperation; Difference of emphasis on the main institutional purpose of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference between the U.S. and Asian member states.

I present a theoretical synthesis of constructivist IR theory with dialectical theory of the Hegelian tradition to illuminate systems theories of international relations. I critique debates among Frankfurt School dialecticians and positivists, and demonstrate that when stripped of Marxist epistemological and ontological commitments attending the notion of the concrete reality in which Marxist proponents argue dialectical analysis must be situated, Frankfurt School dialectical theory largely mirrors social constructivist arguments in IR theory, and helps explain constitutive and transformative processes in historical international systems. I draw upon a recent constructivist work and employ a recent constructivist study of sovereignty to argue that dialectical analysis may be employed to explain macro-historical transformation in international systems as constitutive process, even while causal processes may be traced at the micro-historical level. By eradicating Marxist assumptions we can benefit and learn from the insights of Hegel without embracing the materialist ontology of Marx. The article concludes by demonstrating the utility of the predictive inference of a reconstituted dialectics, coupled with the Weberian heuristic device of the ideal type, to generate systems theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution offers an attempt to conceptualize ‘friendship’ as a phenomenon of international politics. The aim is to provide an ontological rationale for why states form friendships, to outline some of the core features of such a perspective and situate it the universe of IR theorising. The paper begins by defining friendship as an intimate relationship among states. It suggests that the Hobbesian assumption of survival and the state as an autonomy-seeking entity has prevented IR scholars of accounting for intimate relations and puts forward an alternative reading of the human condition through Heidegger’s notion of anxiety and of states as temporal beings. It is argued that due to its preoccupation with ‘the enemy’ and ‘group membership’ the paradigm most sympathetic to this ontology, constructivism (in both ‘mainstream’ and ‘critical’ versions), has failed to account for ‘the friend’ as the significant other capable of controlling anxiety. Against this backdrop, the paper suggests that states seek ‘intimate’ relations because these satisfy both the desire for belonging and recognition and the desire for authenticity, understood as the maintenance of a coherent biography. It is argued that in their attempt to reconcile these two desires, friendships between states must be seen as negotiated and, thus, political phenomena which contain significant power potentials. The paper concludes by suggesting that these unfold their greatest effect when friends turn into strangers. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivism underscores the significance of identity in international relations. Scholars from this theoretical tradition have pointed out how identity, interests, and action are interlaced. This paper starts at that point, and seeks to examine whether great power behavior is shaped by a pursuit of interests (as emphasized by the Realists) while at the same time also being influenced by a pursuit of its identity â€" that of a great power. The paper will consider the characteristics of such an identity in the case of two states: United States and Great Britain. These two cases will be explored to determine the extent to which their identities as great powers can also help us understand the actions undertaken by these states. In other words, were their actions driven by interests alone, or are they better understood as being motivated by interests plus by their identities as great powers? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of Turkey?s accession to the European Union reintroduces into the ever ongoing attempts to divide the world into culturally defined blocks the task of determining whether the Turkish nation is European enough topartake in the formation of a European identity. This paper compares and examines this possibility through two diametrically opposed theoretical frameworks, essentialism and constructivism, and attempts to bridge the gapbetween the two with reference to the particular case study.The main purpose of this paper is to examine the issues involved in reconciling the European with the Turkish identity and to determine, to the extent to which it is possible, whether it is indeed feasible for the Turkish people to constitute part of the European demos and for the emerging European identity to include the Turkish nation.The paper begins by briefly explaining how the idea of Europe has evolved throughout time, in such a manner as to render the formation of a European polity, a European ?demos? and, therefore, a European identity continuallymore likely and necessary. In accordance to theories of collective identity building a nation?s belonging to Europe, and thus its potential to embrace a European identity, is a combination of two main factors: its historical links with Europe and its will to be part of its present and future, or in the words of Anthony Smith, to hold a ?collective belief in the common destiny of [Europe] ?.Both a historical and a contemporary perspective should be taken into consideration, as is advocated respectively by the two main schools of thought on European identity building, essentialism and constitutionalism.Accordingly Turkey?s European orientation is examined under two angles. In a first section there is a critical overview of the extent to which the Turkish nation has been historically linked to Europe. This sectionexplores Turkish efforts to Europeanise from the catalytic Tanzimat reforms of the Ottoman Empire, to the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 by Kemal Ataturk and the attempt to reform and change the notion of the nation and identity in Turkey towards a more western prototype. On a second level the paper assesses the existence or non-existence of the belief among the Turkish people in a common destiny of Turkey and Europe. This part draws on contemporary press releases in Turkey, commentaries in Journals regarding European attitudes towards the expansion, work on Turkish nationalism, interviews, and finally attitude surveys and opinion polls carried out in Turkey. The extent to which they identify with Europe as a cultural unit, and not only as a set of civic institutions, is the main point addressed in order to assess the whether and how far essentialism or constructivismapplies.The findings of this case study (2003) pointed towards the constructivist paradigm being more likely to apply. The notion of ?common heritage? between Turkey and Europe is used more often by the Turkish media within the context of the attack on the EU for rendering the process of Turkish accession painful and time-consuming, than it is experienced in Turkish national feeling. Though there may be a willingness to form a common political and economic destiny, there is little belief in the potential for the integration of cultures and the formation of an inclusive culturalidentity, in spite of the admittedly intense historical interaction between the two parties (as the new approaches in historiography are pointing out)... ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I apply Friedrich Kratochwil?s rule-based constructivism as presented in his book ?Rules, Norms, and Decisions? as a theoretical framework to better understand why private creditors rejected the creation of a formal mechanism for the restructuring of sovereign debt ? the so called Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM). The SDRM was proposed in the end of 2001 by Anne Krueger, deputy manager director of the International Monetary Fund, with the purpose of making sovereign debt restructuring more predictable, orderly and fast. The private creditors rejection becomes particularly interesting if we consider their subsequent acceptance of the incorporation of new clauses and new wording in the bonds issued after 2003 ? which became known as Collective Action Clauses (CACs) ?, with objectives similar to those of the SDRM. The paper shows that there was a significant contradiction between the SDRM?s proposed objectives and the content of its norms. Despite the IMF?s staff insistence on the idea that the SDRM?s role was to provide incentives to the market so that creditors and debtors could voluntarily come together and restructure the latter?s debt in a timely and efficient way, the SDRM in fact would have a profound impact on the creditor-debtor relationship. My research suggests therefore that debtors and creditors operate in a decentralized international space ? the international capital market ? that is comprised by norms. The SDRM may be understood in this context as an attempt by the IMF to further institutionalize this space, to reset the content of its norms and finally to radically limit the creditors? agency during debt renegotiations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Hamdan v. Rumfeld, the US Supreme Court was presented with a panoply of issues relating to the current applicability of the laws of war to the challenges posed in the Global War on Terror. This paper will explore the problems posed by the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and other rules established by customary international law, as the Court seeks to resolve questions relating to the manner in which detainees are being treated by the United States. To do this, the paper will apply both classical legal positivism and constructivism. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the role of affect in the legitimation of human rights norms. I suggest that institutionalist and constructivist research on international norms understates the affective processes through which norms acquire legitimacy. The paper focuses specifically on norms concerning torture. I begin by revisiting the role of affective mobilization in early Amnesty International campaigns against torture; I then consider the affective conditions that made early human rights discourse successful in the United States during the mid-1970s; finally, I assess recent concerns about the violation of torture norms by the United States. Through this case study on torture, I argue that affective processes contribute to normative change in several ways: sparking visceral concern for human suffering; attaching seemingly disparate historical events to new norms; mobilizing popular support in situations where cognitive awareness and agreement are not widespread; and provoking outrage in contexts where strongly internalized norms have created habitual expectations of trust. Emotions interact with intellectual processes, and, contrary to common assumptions, their influence is often more dynamic and creative than it is impulsive. I conclude that understanding the affective legitimation of norms requires re-assessing the plurality of norms that shape behavior in international politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Common theoretical explanations of international institution-building ? including rational institutionalism, liberalism, and constructivist theories of norm dynamics ? are characterized by a focus on states? issue-specific interests. This paper sheds light on the limitations of the predominant paradigm of purposeful issue-specific design, by exploring different ways in which institution-building can be ?politicized?, that is, influenced by state interests pertaining not to the issue at stake, but to the overall relationship among states involved in the process.In developing hypotheses about the politicization of institution-building, the paper draws on realist arguments about power-related interests, but goes beyond realism by including constructivist arguments on world order and diplomatic norms, as well as bilateral political dynamics among sub-groups of states, as sources of politicization. It argues that different types of political interests can inhibit as well as facilitate institutional agreements. By systematizing different sources and effects of politicization which can ?bias? state decisions about institutions under certain conditions, the paper seeks to map the political space within which purposeful issue-specific institutional design is actually possible.Hypotheses about politicization are illustrated in a study of transatlantic conflicts about multilateral institution-building in various issue-areas, with a particular focus on explaining European reactions to US stances. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will establish whether the military cultures of mercenary groups and their opponents have influenced the military performance of mercenary groups and, if so, in what ways and to what extent. It will develop and test a constructivist military culture theory of military performance against the empirical record of the six modern mercenary groups introduced above. This theory hypothesizes that each adversary?s military cultural norms influence its military behaviour (its military effectiveness), which, in turn, influences its battlefield military performance. A military force which strongly upholds less constraining behavioural norms should be able to perform a wider range of military behaviour and, through this, be better able to exploit the weaknesses and counter the strengths of their opponents and defeat them. However, given that warfare is an interactive activity, it is the interaction of both adversaries? military behaviour that determines which side will win. Consequently, this theory hypothesizes that the materially weaker party in a military conflict, which, again, numerically small mercenary groups consistently are, should defeat its materially stronger opponent when the weaker party is highly militarily effective and the stronger party is not. It is only in these scenarios that a mercenary group could plausibly utilize an advantage in the range of military behaviour it can perform to compensate for gross material inferiority. In all other combinations of the adversaries? military effectiveness, the mercenaries would not be at a behavioral advantage and, as a result, the balance of materially resources should allow the materially stronger side to prevail. This paper will compare this original theory to neorealist-offence defence theory and asymmetric strategic interaction theory to determine which best explains the uneven performance of mercenary groups. In other words, it will determine whether differences in the interplay of the adversaries? military cultures, their material resources, or their military strategies best explain mercenaries? variable degree of military success and failure. In so doing, this paper will demonstrate that the military culture theory provides a more powerful explanation of mercenaries? military performance. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of the paper is to look at the process of regionalisation in the Mediterranean area through the framework of the New Regionalism Approach (NRA). Meta-theoretically the conceptualisation is reflectivist and theoretical approach to IR is social constructivism. Author offers an upgrade of NRA, initiated by Hettne and Söderbaum, and applys it to the Mediterranean area. After a time-space sensitive analysis of the regionalisation process in the area, author turns more attention to the recent (i.e. post Cold War) perspective of this process and offers understanding an explanation of the state of the Mediterranean regionness as it has been developing since then. This analysis considers different regionalising actors: a) governmental (state) and non-governmental actors, but also historically rooted and rather region-specific ones, b) domestic and external actors of which one of the latter (the EU is in focus). The main argument of the paper is that due to (historical) European Community/Union (and other external state actors) meddling in the area with their own regionalism projects, domestic state actors can not raise the Mediterranean regionness to a higher level (sustain their proper ideas and practices of regionalisation/regionalism). Hence, non-governmental actors (Mediterranean civil society) are becoming important actors in raising the Mediterranean regionness, co-operating with global and regional governmental and non-governmental actors. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of culture in security studies has been reinvigorated in recent years by two separate strands of political science literature: constructivism and organizational theory. The methodologic rigor that these two approaches display represents an important improvement on earlier generations of scholarship on culture in strategic affairs. However, it is important to recognize that these new more rigorous literatures speak to particular roles of culture in strategic studies-and not those studied in the strategic culture literature. This paper examines these various categories of cultural studies in security studies. It summarizes the important achievements of the constructivist literature on national interests and the literature on the effects of military organizational culture on doctrine and tactics. It also, however, highlights the limited support for arguments regarding particular national strategic cultures that shape the way countries fight wars. The paper concludes with explaining why we should expect such variation in the importance of ideas across these different levels of cultural analysis, and warns policymakers against expecting too much from strategic culture. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does a partnership between constructivists and rationalists contribute to policy deliberation? If so, in what sense? I argue in this paper that their partnership in principle contributes to policy deliberation. Eclecticism is the most basic attempt to achieve mutual complementarity between constructivism and rationalism. This kind of approach enables scholars to offer comprehensive policy advice based on multiple perspectives, identifying multiple factors relevant to the issue in question. In addition, a sophisticated strand of eclecticism, the temporal sequencing approach, may also be useful in terms of policy deliberation. This approach enables scholars to offer policy advice from a long-term viewpoint. A few caveats should be made, however. I mention three points in this paper, which scholars should note when trying to make policy contributions on the basis of a constructivist-rationalist partnership. First, different IR theories may sometimes offer contradictory policy advice, thereby confusing policy deliberation. Second, some arrangements for a constructivist-rationalist partnership would not lead to any policy contributions. Finally, a constructivist-rationalist partnership does not guarantee significant social contributions, in that it does not serve as a normative guideline for important social issues. For example, on the basis of a partnership between them, scholars may consider policies concerning the debate over the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - whether it can be seen as an embodiment of a "security community." However, such an attempt does not necessarily leads to a significant social contribution because the ASEAN-security-community debate overlooks a set of human security issues rampant in Southeast Asia. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivism has become a fairly accepted theoretical approach within International Relations during the last decades. It is now firmly integrated in the theoretical canon, although mostly in a moderate form which tries to bridge an ontology of constructivism with a loosely positivist stance as regards methodological and epistemological matters. On the other hand, the various debates on constructivist thinking have also built some inroads into International Political Economy. Nevertheless, ambivalence on behalf of much IPE scholars prevails with regard to constructivism. The paper starts by exploring some contours of this ambivalence, engaging the notions of an alleged vagueness and naïve voluntarism, respectively. It then goes on to describe what constructivism in IR stands for as well as what it might stand for. The main section analyzes several ‘constructivist inroads’ into IPE, either in the form of tacit assumptions or explicitly under the label ‘constructivism’; building on that, potentials for constructivism in IPE are explored.The final question tackled relates to eventual implications of the ideas put forth in this paper with regard to scholarly responsibility. I argue that from a discursive constructivist perspective (which inherently requires reflexivity on behalf of the researcher) responsibility above all means to avoid the trap of voluntary constructionism. To use constructivism responsibly also means to show that constructivism is not about inserting some vague concepts and lofty ideas, but is instead at the core of what constitutes IPE. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with revealing the differences between the Realist and Constructivist understandings of how ethnic security dilemmas occur, and what this means for the solutions proposed to mitigate or escape it. The paper begins by explaining the importance of distinguishing between Jervis's deterrence and spiral model because an action-reaction cycle of moves undertaken by the actors does not in itself provide evidence of a security dilemma. The security dilemma operates only in the spiral model and this has implications for offensive Realism. This becomes important once the paper turns to the Realist use of the security dilemma to explain ethnic conflict, because although not made explicit these scholars are adopting an offensive Realist position. This first part of the paper also clarifies that while anarchy is important for both Realist and Constructivist understandings of the security dilemma the importance they attach to anarchy is different; for one it is a cause and for the other it is a necessary condition.In the second part of the paper the Realist and Constructivist differences are highlighted over the solutions proffered for mitigating/escaping the security dilemma. Here the solutions the Realists reject, because they do nothing to affect the severity of the security dilemma, are precisely the means favoured by the Constructivists. Finally, the paper examines shortcomings with both positions highlighting that escape or even mitigation of the security dilemma is extremely difficult. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, the academic study of EU-Russia relationship has remained a woefully atheoretical exercise. The same can be said also about the scholarly work concerning both actors individually. They both have been objects of the proliferation of specialised fields of theorising, be it integration theories in the case of the EU or (post-)sovietology in the case of Russia. This paper discusses this highly unsatisfactory state of affairs and seeks to remedy it by linking the EU-Russia interaction into some of the key issues in mainstream International Relations (IR) theorising. This is done by conceptualising the EU-Russia relationship as an international institution, which enables us to link the recurring political problems between the parties into one of the key paradigms in the field today in the form of neoliberal institutionalism. The theoretical starting point is the work of Robert O. Keohane. According to him the level of institutionalisation can be measured along three dimensions: autonomy, spesificity and commonality. Of the three especially the commonality variable has, however, remained under-conceptualised. This has been largely due to the strict rationality assumptions typical to neoliberal institutionalism which have made the question of the emergence of cooperation at the international level ("why states cooperate?") an issue of first rank significance in its own right leaving much less room to the study of how they in fact cooperate. The paper seeks to draw our attention to the latter set of questions by conceptually developing the commonality variable further. This requires, however, that some of the strictest rationality assumptions of neoliberal institutionalism are relaxed by embracing some ideational factors more akin to the constructivist reasoning. By doing so the paper seeks to make its contribution both to the theoretical debates about the role of international institutions as well as to the more specific issue concerning the current state of affairs in the EU-Russia interaction. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the early 1990s Colombia has seen a steady and progressive deterioration of its internal armed conflict. As the fighting among the parties and the number of and extent of the abuses perpetrated against civilians have intensified, the negative externalities of the war (i.e., the creation of refugee flows, arms smuggling, armed parties cross-border raids) have ostensibly threatened to internationalize Colombia?s conflict. This pattern has been reinforced by intervention of the United States, which has provided important military aid to the Colombian government since the inception of Plan Colombia (1997). Contradicting the general argument brought forward in the literature on armed conflict; however, in the case of Colombia a direct intervention of neighboring countries including Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador and Panama has been conspicuously absent. Based on constructivist theory, this paper argues that neighboring states have refrained from intervening as a result of widely shared norms, most prominently non- intervention in the internal affairs of bordering states, a practice that has gradually been internalized by Latin American states since World War II. As an alternative explanation, the paper posits that neighboring states have steered clear from meddling in Colombia?s internal quagmire to avoid antagonizing the region?s Hegemon, the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the following question : Why and under which conditions do international actors intervene militarily in a humanitarian crisis? According to Foreign Policy Analysis, in order to answer this question, one should analyse the factors which influence political leaders, structures and bureaucracies. These factors can either be found in the domestic or in the international environment. They include cultural, societal and material (i.e. capabilities) factors.It develops a ?sequencing approach?, whereby, in a first step, constructivism and rational choice respectively help us to determine which good and bad norms, and which strategic and economic interests format a decision. In a second step, rational choice helps in understanding how this decision is taken, i.e. leaders make a cost/benefit analysis of factors before a decision is made.This paper incorporates elements of realism and constructivism, and examines the impact of ?good? norms such as legality, ?bad? norms such as selfishness, lack of interest, and prestige, and the impact of economic and security interests on decisions. It studies a leader?s own identity and interest, and his/her organisation?s identity and interest.It will attempt to create a framework for a theory of European military intervention. It will be divided into two parts. The first part will focus on establishing a typology of a leader?s and his/her organisation?s interests and norms. The second part will focus on a two-level analysis of decisions taken at the EU level for an EU intervention, and at the state level for a bilateral intervention. At each level, the paper will study the impact of the leader?s and his/her organisation?s interests and norms on decisions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses from a modern systems theoretical perspective political discourses of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East. The specific regional focus of the paper are the Mashreq countries (Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon) and Israel in the period 1991-2005. The paper argues that the constructivist perspective of modern systems theory is particularly well suited to study both conflict and cooperation structures in the Middle East, thereby overcoming some of the shortcomings of more rationalist approaches which tend to conceptualise the Middle East as a regional ?container of conflict?. In contrast to such arguments, the paper argues that in spite of the prominence of political conflicts on the interstate and intrastate levels, the Middle Eastern region is also characterised by formal and informal structures of cooperation that limit the overall societal reach of conflict. By combining IR-approaches on ?regional security complexes? with insights from modern systems theory, the paper looks in particular at the relationship between collective identity constructions in the Middle East, on the one hand, and regional conflict and cooperation structures, on the other. The first part of the paper takes a closer look at the processes of collective identity constructions in the aforementioned countries. On this basis, it proposes a model of Self/Other distinctions that allows to conceptualise both conflictive and cooperative identity relations in the region. The second part of the paper then relates these discourses of identity to the regional structures of conflict and cooperation. Here, the paper is particularly interested in how these patterns of identity relations shape concrete political structures in the Middle East. It hence addresses in particular the role of political, military, religious, media and economic structures. The paper argues that the ubiquitous structures of conflict in the Middle East are balanced by manifold, but often more informal structures of cooperation that limit the overall societal reach of conflict. Such an argument questions the usefulness of conceptualising the Middle East primarily in terms of ?conflict? without an adequate analysis of discourses and structures of cooperation. Moreover, these arguments challenge all those approaches that assume a distinct conflict-inclination of societies and cultures in the Middle East. Rejecting these approaches, the final section of this paper hence puts the study of conflict and cooperation patterns in the Middle East into a world societal perspective. It argues that such a focus on structural developments in world society ? such as functional differentiation, inclusion/exclusion, (de-)bordering ? is better suited to describe patterns of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East, than rationalist, actor-centred or area-specific foci on this region. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparative accounts on the political economy of EU enlargement tend to privilege the Europeanization of the economies of Central and East European candidate countries over the Europeanization (or lack thereof) of their understandings of social citizenship. Moreover, even when social citizenship issues are addressed, most of the mainstream scholarship is overwhelmingly anchored in neoinstitutionalism and its empirical focus is almost completely focused on comparative corporatism. While acknowledging that institutionalism has a considerable analytical leverage and that corporatism is a crucial component of both the continental and of the Scandinavian social models and is an integral part of the social acquis, this paper argues that the institutionalist approaches fail to specify the remarkable degree of convergence between cultural, policy and political elites on an ?Anglo-Saxon? or neoliberal definition of social citizenship. Given the relevance of an emerging model of East European capitalism for the ideological map of EU-27, the neglect of this topic is puzzling.Taking evidence from countries as different as Poland, Hungary and Romania and using the analytical tools of constructivism, this paper argues that this outcome can be explained by the relational dynamics among three variables: the intellectual prominence of neoliberalism and right-wing libertarianism among cultural elites, the ideological mainstreaming of communist successor parties, and the weak commitment of the EU to a transnational social rights agenda. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]