Search

Copyright of Leviathan: Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 1995, the UN Commission on Global Governance published their "Our Global Neighbourhood" report and the academic journal "Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations" was launched. Both events in retrospect play a significant role in the emergence of global governance thinking and practice in world politics. Despite inherent ambiguities, this idea since then gained massive traction and became both a modality and a heuristic of world politics. Advancing a pragmatist framework, we unpack global governance in terms of the beliefs which underline and guide it. These beliefs are important since they, as rules for action, define the scope of global governance as a theoretical and a political concept. Reconstructing these beliefs directly from the 1995 report, the article highlights the inherent conflations of normative and analytical commitments indicative of global governance. As a projection surface of all kinds, we believe such a reconsideration of global governance is important to (a) reveal the baselines of its thinking and practice, (b) indicate how its normative and analytical ambitions overlap and conflate, and (c) contribute to a more reflective discussion on the idea which explicitly considers its inherent normativity. At the same time, we hope to show the value of a pragmatist framework on beliefs for the study of world politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By championing certain actors over others, International Relations (IR) theory conventionally avoids questions of agency and does not, at least in theoretical terms, discuss which entities can develop capacities needed to act in world politics. Whether it is states, institutions, or individuals, we simply "locate" agency in particular entities, which then exist and act as global governors qua definition. In other words, agency is determined by a priori claims and we rarely reflect the dispositions needed to be(come) an actor in the first place. Even global governance, despite its impetus to consider agency beyond the state, has not engaged in such a discussion, at least not in theoretical terms. In order to initiate such a discussion, the paper draws on the distinction between substantialism and relationalism. After reviewing how agency has been framed in IR, the paper outlines three general dispositions of agency and relates those to the two ontological perspectives. Based on this theorization, the paper contents that IR's lack of reflection and its substantialized notions of agency, whether in rationalist or constructivist appearance, remain problematic. As such, there is potential to conceptualize agency in world politics not as an inherent disposition of entities but rather as emerging from social relations between them. Such a framework compels researchers to not just assume discrete actors but to focus on relational processes through which their agency emerges in the first place and sustains over time. Reconstructing these processes reveals their political nature and allows us to consider who should govern the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their attempt to explain change in international politics, an emerging group of scholars in the 1990s emphasised the importance of 'non-material factors'. Questions about the creation, evolution, and impact of norms obtained a prominent place in their theorising. Cast in a constructivist frame, this norm research promised to be a viable alternative to established approaches and while it has indeed broadened the perspective on state behaviour in International Relations, we argue that at the same time it entailed major conceptual and methodological problems which have not yet been spelled out comprehensively. Mainly, the insight that norms are constantly renegotiated in social interaction has been lost in the translation of social-theoretical claims of early constructivism into empirical research agendas. The ensuing research is best characterised as a cultural-determinist framework which is ultimately ill-equipped for the initial proposition of explaining change. We develop this critique by reconstructing the theoretical and methodological decisions of constructivist norm research. We then propose to re-conceptualise the connection between norms and action and suggest an interpretive methodology that allows delivering on the ambitious promise to explain processes of normative change in international politics. We illustrate this claim by reviewing constructivist norm research on 'humanitarian interventions' and by outlining a relational-processualist perspective on this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]