Search

This highly individual study is the first-ever attempt to describe Polish Sinology, Polish Sinologists and their individual choices, both vocational and social or political. The author, as an insider, uses interviews with some of the most important representatives of Polish Sinology (mainly of the older generation). He proposes individual systematization, fragmenting the history of the “real socialism” era (1950-1989) and after the democratic breakthrough of 1989 in many chapters, consisting of both collective and individual. Among the major findings is that the initial small circle of highly specialized individuals has recently been quickly growing, and so has the diversification within it. While until 1989 the career choices in this field were limited, basically an official (diplomatic or state bureaucratic) career was the only option, but after this threshold many new windows of opportunities were opened, which included for example personal choices like studying in Mainland China or Taiwan,, opening a business there, creating a website or even opening up a study center.Mongolian Journal of International Affairs Vol.19 2014: 87-115

REVIEW ESSAY: CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE CATACLYSM Lieutenant Abdul Joshua Ruzibiza. Rwanda: L'histoire secrete. Paris: Editions du Panama, 2005. 494 pp. Maps. euro22. Paper. Pierre Pean. Noires fureurs, blancs menteurs. Paris: Mille et Une Nuits, 2005. 544 pp. 2 Maps. euro22. Paper. On the ever-expanding shelf-space occupied by books on Rwanda, those two clearly belong to the revisionist section. Both are decidedly out of joint with the commonly accepted Gourevitchian vision of ethnically defined bad guys sending the good guys to their graves in an orgy of genocidal killings. They each call into question such conventional pieties and point to the heavy responsibility of President Paul Kagame in creating the conditions that led to the ghasdy carnage. Their shared revisionist agenda notwitiistanding, it is difficult to imagine a more striking contrast than between Lt. Abdul Ruzibiza, a former officer and defector from Kagame's Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF)-a member of the crack unit known as the Network Commando and assigned to the Department of Military Intelligence (DMI)-and Pierre Pean, a French journalist noted for the quality of his investigations of various and sundry scandals relating to the French presence in Gabon (in Affaires Africaines) and more recently for a devastating inquest into the inner circles and professional failings of Le Monde (in La face cachee du Monde, 2004). Their radically different backgrounds and personalities are palpably mirrored in the very different tone and format of their narratives. Ruzibiza's book is an extraordinarily detailed, sometimes day-by-day personal account of the author's participation in the RPF's military operations since the 1990 invasion, including the tactical maneuvers leading to, and preparing the ground for, the shooting down of President Habyalimana's plane on April 6. Pean's book reads like nodiing so much as a settling of scores. He glories in personal stabs at a broad range of political and academic personalities (such as the historian Jean-Pierre Chretien, excoriated for an entire chapter), journalists (Colette Braeckman of LeSoir and Marie-France Cros of La Libre Belgique), human rights activists (the late Xavier Verschave), philosophers (Andre Glucksman), and NGOs. Their alleged pro-FPR sympathies or pro-Tutsi biases are presumably sufficient grounds for indictment. To describe the book as polemical is the least that can be said of a diatribe that has been denounced as a scandal (most notably by Francois Soudan in "Le scadale Pean"). Yet, as we shall see, to dismiss it out of hand is unwarranted. Of the two, Ruzibiza's story is by far the more significant. His narrative-sandwiched between an illuminating preface by Claudine Vidal and a post-face by Andre Guichaoua-leaves few doubts in the reader's mind that Kagame bears a direct responsibility in the crash of the presidential plane. The author is meticulous in reporting on his battlefield experiences; he shows intimate familiarity with the RPF's operational code; and he is precise in his information about who did what, where, and when-and with surprisingly few scruples about naming names, places, and dates. All this produces a crushing body of evidence in support of his central argument: that the crimes committed by the FPR are no less horrendous than those attributed to the Hutu genocidaires. This was already made clear in 1995 by S. Desouter and F. Reyntjens' book Rwanda: Les violations des droits de I'homme (1995). Two years later a report by Physicians for Human Rights prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives International Relations Committee denounced the "widespread atrocities against civilian populations in eastern Congo" by Kagame's army (but failed to note that similar atrocities had been committed in Rwanda, according to a 1997 article by Thomas Lippman in the International Herald Tribune.) But Ruzibiza goes further, making his case in meticulous detail. …

Denis Herbstein. White Lies: Canon Collins and the Secret War against Apartheid. Cape Town: HSRC Press/Oxford: James Currey Publishers, 2004. xxi + 386 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £14.95. Paper. Roger Fieldhouse. Anti-Apartheid: A History of the Movement in Britain. A Study in Pressure Group Politics. London: The Merlin Press Ltd., 2005. xiv + 546 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £20.00. Paper. £50.00. Cloth. These two accounts of the overseas humanitarian and solidarity groups that were founded in response to the increasing institutionalization of white minority rule, primarily in South Africa, can certainly be regarded as examples of what Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink have labeled "activists beyond borders" (Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Cornell University Press, 1998). Mark Israel, in his scholarly treatise South African Political Exile in the United Kingdom (St. Martin's Press, 1999) uses the felicitous term "international solidarity lobbyists" (82). What characterized both the International Defense and Aid Fund (IDAF) and the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) was that they attracted the attention of both British and South African exile activists, on the one hand, and South African government operatives and agents, on the other hand. Denis Herbstein is a South African-born journalist who wrote for The Cape Times and later moved to Britain, where he is on the staff of the The Financial Times. He began his biography of the Rev. Lewis John Collins, one of the four canons of St. Paul's Cathedral in London, as researcher for a Channel Four British television show on this topic produced by Paul Yule in 1993. Collins was a key British figure in the development and operation of the IDAF, which traced its origin to the Treason Trial Defense Fund in South Africa. IDAF's original aim was to provide funds to secure defense attorneys for those Africans who were charged with a wide array of infractions against the prevailing and increasingly remorseless internal security legislation that became an integral part of the apartheid system after 1948. Not unsurprisingly, the Pretoria regime served a banning order on the IDAF in 1966 which remained in force until 1990, so that South African defense attorneys would be subject to as much as ten years in prison if they were funded overtly by the IDAF. The title "White lies," which was also the title of the Channel Four documentary, refers to the plausible deniability of any IDAF funds reaching South African defense attorneys in these internal security trials. Neville Rubin, an exile South African lawyer whose late father, Leslie, was active in the South African Liberal Party before he immigrated to the United States, was the architect of a system of cutouts which hid the funding pipeline from the IDAF to the defense attorneys by using two layers of British legal firms and basically phantom trust funds sponsored by eminent left-leaning members of the British establishment who had a profound distaste for the apartheid judicial system. This James Bond-type of enterprise was never cracked by the South African regime, although suspicions existed about the system. Yet the IDAF was more than simply a well-camouflaged legal aid society. One of its two other tasks concerned welfare work for those near-destitute dependents of incarcerated Africans with whom a vast range of IDAF members in several Western European nations corresponded. Financial requests for aid were carefully vetted. The other task for which it was perhaps better known was as a fount of data on the status of white rule in Anglophone southern Africa. Indeed there is now a huge, indexed microfiche data bank of IDAF newspaper clippings at certain research libraries as a legacy of its information and research staff. …

POLITICS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND GLOBALIZATION Cherry I Walker. Land-Marked: Land Claims and Land Restitution in South Africa. Johannesburg: Jacana Media; Athens: Ohio University Press, 2008. xii + 292 pp. Abbreviations. Maps. Photographs. Tables. Appendixes. Endnotes. Bibliography. Index. $26.95. Paper. Aninka Claassens and Ben Cousins, eds. Land, Power and Custom: Controversies Generated by South Africa's Communal Land Rights Act. Published for the Legal Resources Centre. Cape Town: UCT Press; Athens: Ohio University Press, 2008. xv + 392 pp. DVD. Maps. Abbreviations, Contributors. Notes. Tables. References. Index. $34.95. Paper. These two books are indispensable additions to the core literature on land reform in South Africa. In their different approaches and structures, they both offer a creative mix of academic insights and the entrenched experience of activists, and of local case studies with a wealth of concrete sociological detail alongside broad discourses on modes of analysis on a national and continental scale. They each concentrate on one element of what Cherryl Walker refers to as "the three-legged cooking pot" of land reform policy initiated in 1994: the Restitution Programme and the attempt to reform land tenure in the former Ban tus tans, respectively. Neither covers the third leg of redistribution (the transfer of former white-owned farmland to black occupants), which is the leg that has received most attention and funding - although some of Cherryl Walker's general evaluations do extend to cover it. Indeed, her somewhat skeptical and cautious overall conclusions about the future of land reform apply to both redistribution and restitution plans. Walker's account of restitution provides a look back to the origins of today's problem in previous decades when the injustices of forced removals occurred. Her study is enriched by personal accounts from this period, when she was a "participant observer" working to resist the removals. She supplies a similar insider's account of the first stage of the restitution program, but this time from a position within the new state as the commissioner for land claims in Kwazulu-Natal. Since moving into academia after 2000, her work has continued to benefit from a third perspective, that of academic researcher. The book thus juxtaposes and interrelates the three elements and perspectives: emotive personal memories and indelible images of dispossession; a planner's account of the mechanisms and frustrations of restitution; and the evaluation of the record. The memories from long ago of a litde girl lost in a removal suggest the ways in which such incidents became the currency of a historical narrative at the heart of the rhetoric of national liberation; at the same time, they provide a measure of success or failure and serve to remind us of the complex reality covered up by the national myth. The approach embodied in this fusion of perspectives serves in turn as an explanation of why the restitution program failed. Over and above the occasional lack of political will, the over-bureaucratization and inefficiency, and the mistaken policy formulations (all of which are acknowledged in the account), Walker sees inherent conflicts in the dual goals of reversing injustice and stimulating rural development oriented toward the poor: limits to what can be achieved and how quickly these goals can be achieved via restitution. …

POLITICS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND GLOBALIZATION Ian Scoones, Nelson M a ron g we, Biasio Mavedzenge, Jacob Mahenehene, Felix Murimbarimba and Crispen Sukume. Zimbabwe's Land Reform: Myths and Realities. Woodbridge, Suffolk: James Currey; Harare: Weaver Press; Auckland Park, South Africa: Jacana Media, 2010. xv + 288 pp. Bibliography. Index, f 16.99, $29.95, R1 75.00. Paper. One of the clear aims of this interesting and controversial book by Scoones et al. is to challenge five somewhat overstated myths that have dominated representations of Zimbabwe's post-2000 land reform. These are (1) that the land reform has been a total failure; (2) that the beneficiaries of this reform have been largely political "cronies" of the former ruling party, Zanu PF; (3) that there has been no investment in the new resetdement areas; (4) that agriculture in general is in complete ruins and has created chronic food insecurity; and (5) that the rural economy has collapsed. Challenges are made on the basis of detailed empirical research conducted over the past decade on "what has happened in the new resettiements" in Zimbabwe since 2000, and specifically in Masvingo Province in the country's dry southeast. The book's overall emphasis is explicidy on the "changing livelihoods of people who gained land" (31) - notably, not on those who didn't - and according to the authors, their data represent the "ground-level, field realities" that most others have failed to examine or acknowledge. These realities (in the Masvingo area, which differs markedly from many other parts of the country) are revealed through a combination of thematic lenses and linked sets of empirically oriented questions addressed in nine of the book's eleven chapters. (The other two are an introductory chapter that discusses debates on land reform and agrarian paths more generally, and a concluding chapter that revisits the five myths and explores "lessons" and policy priorities for supporting developments in the new resetdements.) Among other things, our attention is drawn to the varied origins and motivations of new setders and forms of land occupation across different sites, and the fragmented nature of the newly emerging agrarian structures (chapter 2). We learn of significant differentiation among households, substantial mobility on and off the schemes, including cross-border migration, and multiple livelihood strategies, which together have resulted in both "successes" and "failures" (chapters 3 and 8). Claims are made of unexpected if uneven levels of investment in plots, some production successes, the emergence of various agriculture-related enterprises, and new dynamics of "accumulation from below" (chapters 4, 5, and 10). This is despite a climate of sustained economic crisis and what is referred to as a "vacuum in policy thinking" (235) - here, the authors carefully side-step naming a highly party-politicized if not militarized policy sphere since 2000. In addition, we learn about the "highly complex rural labour market" (139) in the new resetdements (chapter 6), which the authors argue counters an over-emphasis by others on displacement and job losses. We also discover how land reform has altered the way in which "real markets" operate (chapter 7), with new commodity chains "opening opportunities for some and closing options for others" (149). Finally, the research reveals the complex struggles over territory, structure, and authority occurring in the new resetdements, and the surfacing of "hybrid" forms of governance that pose key challenges for state-making as well as for agricultural development (chapter 9). …

POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE STATE OF THE FIELD By Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, David G. Victor, and Yonatan Lupu* The discipline of political science has developed an active research program on the devel- opment, operation, spread, and impact of international legal norms, agreements, and institu- tions. Meanwhile, a growing number of public international lawyers have developed an interest in political science research and methods. 1 For more than two decades, scholars have been call- ing for international lawyers and political scientists to collaborate, and have suggested possible * Emilie M. Hafner-Burton and David G. Victor are Co-directors of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation and Professors at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Yonatan Lupu is a lawyer and a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science at UCSD. We thank participants in the “mapping the field” project at the laboratory for detailed research on what political science has learned in various issue areas—including Karl Kruse, Mihaela Papa, Michael Plouffe, and Hallie Stohler. For com- ments on earlier drafts, we thank participants at the UCLA Law School faculty seminar and participants at a review meeting on December 10, 2010, at UCSD—including Kenneth Abbott, Tim Bu¨the, Peter Cowhey, Peter Goure- vitch, Stephan Haggard, Miles Kahler, Robert Keohane, Daniel Klerman, Barbara Koremenos, David Lake, Kat- erina Linos, Edward Mansfield, Lisa Martin, Helen Milner, Jon Pevehouse, Eric Posner, Tonya Putnam, Duncan Snidal, Alan Sykes, and Michael Tomz. Thanks also to Nicole Deitelhoff, Martha Finnemore, and Ann Towns for comments on our second draft, to Linda Wong for editorial assistance, and to Greg Shaffer and Tom Ginsburg for sharing an early draft of their related article, which appears in this same issue of the Journal. Some of these legal works that draw, in part, on political science methods and concepts look across many sub- stantive areas of law and focus on topics such as the role of law in managing economic relations, the effectiveness of law, legitimacy, and game-theoretic perspectives. See, e.g., Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Joel P. Trachtman, Economic Anal- ysis of International Law, 24 Y ALE J. I NT ’ L L. 1, 3 (1999); J ACK L. G OLDSMITH & E RIC A. P OSNER , T HE L IMITS OF I NTERNATIONAL L AW (2005); Jack Goldsmith, Sovereignty, International Relations Theory, and International Law, 52 S TAN . L. R EV . 959 (2000) (book review); Claire R. Kelly, Realist Theory and Real Constraints, 44 V A . J. I NT ’ L L. 545 (2004); Richard A. Falk, The Relevance of Political Context to the Nature and Functioning of Inter- national Law: An Intermediate View, in T HE R ELEVANCE OF I NTERNATIONAL L AW : E SSAYS IN H ONOR OF L EO G ROSS 133 (Karl W. Deutsch & Stanley Hoffmann eds., 1968); J UTTA B RUNN E ´ E & S TEPHEN J. T OOPE , L EGIT - IMACY AND L EGALITY IN I NTERNATIONAL L AW : A N I NTERACTIONAL A CCOUNT (2010); John K. Setear, An Iterative Perspective on Treaties: A Synthesis of International Relations Theory and International Law, 37 H ARV . I NT ’ L L.J. 139 (1996); Jens David Ohlin, Nash Equilibrium and International Law, 96 C ORNELL L. R EV . 869 (2011). Some legal studies, drawing on political science methods and concepts, examine the functioning of legal machinery. See, e.g., John K. Setear, Responses to Breach of a Treaty and Rationalist International Relations Theory: The Rules of Release and Remediation in the Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility, 83 V A . L. R EV . 1 (1997). A large and growing body of legal literature, drawing from political science, focuses on particular issue areas, most notably human rights. See, e.g., Oona A. Hathaway, Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, 111 Y ALE L.J. 1935 (2002); Laurence R. Helfer, Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes, 102 C OLUM . L. R EV . 1832 (2002). In addition, a large literature addresses the environment. See, e.g., Jutta Brunne´e & Stephen J. Toope, The Chang- ing Nile Basin Regime: Does Law Matter?, 43 H ARV . I NT ’ L L.J. 105 (2002); Eyal Benvenisti, Collective Action in the Utilization of Shared Freshwater: The Challenges of International Water Resources Law, 90 AJIL 384 (1996); Jonathan Baert Wiener, Global Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context, 108 Y ALE L.J. 677 (1999). Trade law is one among various other areas drawing on political science scholarship. See, e.g., G. Richard Shell, Trade Legalism and International Relations Theory: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization, 44 D UKE L.J. This article is reproduced with permission from the January 2012 issue of the American Journal of International Law © 2012 American Society of International Law. All rights reserved

The editors of Bridges and Boundaries asked contributors—nine political scientists and eight historians, all of them North American—to reflect on their respective disciplines and the way they go about “the study of international events” (p. 1). We should notice a positivist disposition here. While contributors “share an interest…in the state, politics and war” (p. 2), events are the stuff of international relations. That the state, politics, and war are complex institutional phenomena perhaps not reducible to events points to conceptual issues that this volume fails generally to address. Instead, contributors discuss the many problems attending generalized explanation and empirical fit—theory and science—as if their shared interests imply a common stock of core concepts.

Academics and activists who have followed the discussions of globalization in the World Social Forum literature and in progressive publications will readily agree with Soederberg that globalization does not simply signify an “inevitable and unstoppable” (26) process. In focusing on the concept of global governance, she contributes to the critical problematization of an international economic regime which all too frequently is treated as benevolent in its consequences and independent of politics. Soederberg strongly resists mythological descriptions of global (and regional) financial and other economic regimes, by pursuing an historical - materialist analysis of the emergence of the relevant organizations and institutions, always identifying the role of power, political influence and political planning in their construction. She nimbly walks the reader through a plethora of institutions which even the informed lay-person and political activist will not know how to distinguish. She obviously possesses enormous knowledge of their workings and their history. In this sense this is a very useful book to read, particularly for those who are not specialists in the fields of international relations, Third World development or the politics of international financial institutions.

Early accounts of the development of the discipline of international relations (IR) attribute causal significance to changes in the “real” world. In this respect, historigraphy was a reflection in history's looking glass, such that World War I created idealism, and World War II prompted the revival of realism. The editors of International Relations—Still and American Social Science? remind us that the identity of the discipline is also a reflection of geopolitical and cultural circumstances. The sixteen essays seek to reawaken the question of the identity of the discipline and how this has been transmitted and contested. There is no doubt that the book will be widely read and is likely to find its way onto many postgraduate course lists. It is also likely to find critics and supporters in fairly equal number, which is reason alone to applaud the labors of the editors.

One of the sharpest and most consequential divisions in international relations lies between those who believe that international politics is a realm unto its own and those who see the lines between domestic and international politics as both permeable and pertinent. For the former group, the consequences of anarchy swamp any potential for politics to be ordered at the international level as it is within states. In this view, the dynamics of domestic political life, such as the rule of law, norms of trust, or the independent effects of institutions, are foreign to the international system.

The emerging relationship between China and Russia is perhaps the most important force redefining international relations in post-Cold War Asia. In the past five years, Russia and China have built a ""strategic partnership aimed at the 21st century,"" a development that deeply worries some Western observers and puzzles others. In this first comprehensive study of Russian-Chinese relations, Sherman Garnett and a team of 15 U.S., Russian, and Chinese scholars analyze the most important issues posed by the relationship, including cross-border trade, the impact of Russia's center-periphery politics, migration, arms sales, and (mis)perceptions of one another. The book assesses what will be one of the most important relationships, economically and strategically, in the dynamic region stretching from Central Asia to the Far East. It also weighs the prospects for real cooperation between Russia, a severely weakened power, and China, a power on the rise. Contributing authors include Stephen Blank, Sherman Garnett, Vilya Gel'bras, Harry Gelman, Li Jingjie, Michael McFaul, Lu Nanquan, Martha Olcott, Gilbert Rozman, Judith Thornton, Dmitri Trenin, Tamara Troyakova, Galina Vitkovskaya, Alexei Voskressenski, Elizabeth Wishnick, and Zhanna Zayonchkovskaya.

This complex, ambitious, and large book seeks to question, reformulate, and enhance the scope (and methods) of inter- national relations theories, particularly those formulated within a realist framework. The authors question that frame- work, the Westphalian model of putatively unitary nation- states, quantitative methods of empirical investigation, and the levels-of-analysis paradigm. The breadth of their critique is extensive and, consequently, highly ambitious. Rather than approach international relations as a system of unitary nation-states inspired by realist principles, which is arguably a partial and simplified portrayal of contemporary research, the authors favor a complex system of "overlapping, layered, and linked polities" that have both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The latter dimension is particularly important, as it concerns patterns of authority, identity (including ethnic- ity), and institutions that compete for the loyalty of individ- uals.

Part 1 Cosmopolitan and communitarian international relations theory: cosmopolitan theory communitarian theory the intellectual context of contemporary international political philosophy. Part 2 Contemporary theory - force and justice: the moral basis of state autonomy the ethics of force international justice. Part 3 New challenges: critical and post-modern international theory.

PrefaceIn 1919 the world's first Chair in International Politics was establishednat the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. This was a notablenevent in the history of the College, but even more so in the history ofnthe subject. International Politics, or International Relations, is now,nthroughout the world, a fully developed branch of university learning,nwith its own body of literature and its own corps of specialist teachers.nAnd in this development Aberystwyth has played a distinctive part,nlargely through the work of some of the neminent scholars who havenoccupied its Woodrow Wilson Chair.In 1969, therefore, it was thought fitting to commemorate thenfiftieth anniversary of the founding, by David Davies and his sisters,nof the Chair and Department. The commemoration took two forms:nthe commissioning of a series of Papers by distinguished scholars in thenfield, and a conference to which were invited leading specialists in thenstudy and teaching of the subject.The conference was held from 13 to 17 December 1969 at GregynognHall, Montgomeryshire, once the home of the Misses Gwendoline andnMargaret Davies, co-founders of the Chair. The Chancellor of thenUniversity of Wales, H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh, expressednhis interest in the meeting and sent his best wishes for its success.The object of the Gregynog Conference was to hear and discussnpreliminary drafts of some of the Papers' to be contributed to thencommemorative volume. In the event, Dr. William Olson, ProfessornSeton-Watson, Professor Goodwin, Professor Morgenthau, Sir HerbertnButterfield, Professor Manning, and Professor Hinsley, read drafts ofntheir Papers. The audience included other distinguished academics fromnBritish and overseas universities, together with the President andnPrincipal of the University College of Wales, and the Wilson Professor,nstaff, and senior students from the Department o f International Politics.nIt was particularly gratifying to be able to bring together in suchnagreeable surroundings three great scholars whose pioneering work hadndone so much to shape the subject: E. H. Carr, C. A. W. Manning,nand Hans J. Morgenthau.Most of the Papers were completed during the course of 1970. Thenbook they now form was designed to illuminate different aspects ofnboth the subject and the subject-matter of International Politics over thenprevious half-century. In consequence, first the titles of the Papersnwere drawn up, and then scholars were approached who were especiallynwell fitted to write upon them. Within the unifying theme of the volumenexpressed in the sub-title, and the necessary limits placed upon length,ncontributors were free to treat their subjects exactly as they wished. n