Search

Observers of the current world scene reach strikingly divergent conclusions when characterizing today?s world order. Although there is much talk of a unipolar power structure, many are not convinced identifying a multitude of power centers, which is only temporarily and superficially veiled by the extraordinary superiority of the U.S. military. Some perceive the United States as ?the New Rome,? while others see a hegemon in ongoing decline. In a more normative vein, some depict the unmatched power of the U.S., and the high-handedness that comes with it, as a threat to world peace and an obstacle to the solution of common problems such as the management of climate change; others argue just the opposite describing the U.S. as the ?indispensable nation? and U.S. power, and the willingness to use it, as the decisive factor for order and stability in the international system. These opposing views are not only a matter of factual and evaluative differences, i.e. differing opinions on what is the case or what states of affairs are desirable; rather, they are firmly rooted in the existence of a multitude of concepts of hegemony in International Relations ? conceptualizations and definitions of which many who employ them are hardly aware of. The aim of this paper is to develop a first an idea about how to make. use of this multitude of conceptualizations via a metatheoretically guided conceptual analysis in general. What should follow from this analysis is a systematic overview and categorization of the most influential approaches to the phenomenon of power concentration, or hegemony, in world politics. The literature on the topic will be analyzed using a set of guiding questions as for example ?Which conditions have to be met for a state to be considered a hegemon?? or ?How do hegemons behave and why??. The goal of the paper is not confined to unearthing the divergent theoretical ideas that are present in the current scholarly and journalistic discourse on hegemony and power asymmetry. By clarifying, reconstructing, and systematically comparing the concept of hegemony, the paper ultimately seeks to contribute to a better understanding of hegemony itself. Eventually, a reformulated and multidimensional concept of hegemony will be presented in order to provide coming research with a clear idea about its descriptive and normative connotations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates in security studies in the U.S. and Europe have drifted almost completely apart. In Europe it is common to present the theoretical landscape in terms of, say, critical security studies, the Copenhagen School, traditionalism and feminism. In the U.S. it is more common to see the major debate within security studies as being the one between offensive realism and defensive realism! Previously, almost all theoretical inventions in IR were made in the U.S. Currently, distinct theories are widely associated with places like Aberystwyth (Critical Security Studies), Paris (Bigo’s Bourdieu-inspired work) and Copenhagen (securitization). The new European approaches differ not only from security studies in the US, they also stand apart from most work done in other parts of the world. Are these theories peculiarly ‘European’ and if so, why? The paper aims at explaining the emergence of these European security theories. The explanation draws partly on the political context in the different regions, and partly on features of the intellectual fields, International Relations and Security Studies. The theories are also assessed briefly as to their relevance and usefulness. To what extent are they bound to local, European problems or relevant to the issues that are addressed elsewhere and vice-versa for the theories that flourish in the U.S. and the periphery respectively? Can they travel to the other parts of the world in a helpful role? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

none ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature on conflict and oppression generally advocates nonviolent resistance for its normative value or from historical accounts of its effectiveness. Citing the examples of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., authors claim that nonviolence is the most effective, and only justified, means to protest and publicize oppression. However, this literature fails to elucidate the conditions under which nonviolent resistance will be effective. I argue that game theoretic analysis can play a critical role in clarifying those conditions. The ruling group may be uncertain whether the oppressed group is nonviolent or retributive, and the oppressed group may be uncertain whether the ruling group is moderate or violent. Due to this uncertainty, the attempt to overcome oppression is here modeled as a game with two-sided incomplete information, and the game’s equilibria are determined using a perfect Bayesian equilibrium solution concept. The analysis reveals that only a moderate ruling group and a nonviolent oppressed group can establish a peaceful power sharing arrangement. However, such an arrangement is impeded by the ruling group’s fear that the oppressed group will retributively use that power. Therefore, to achieve a power sharing equilibrium, the oppressed group must prove its nonviolent, non-retributive character to the ruling group. To signal this character, two conditions are necessary. First, the moderate ruling group, despite its character, must respond to any nonviolent resistance with severity. Second, the oppressed group must continue to resist this severe and violent response while eschewing any violent action of its own. The results of this model are then applied for confirmation to the Civil Rights movement in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]