This thesis argues that Hobson's approach to international relations coheres around his use of the biological analogy of society to an organism. An aspect of this 'organic analogy' - the theory of surplus value - is central to Hobson's modification of liberal thinking on international relations and his reformulated 'new liberal internationalism'. The first part outlines a theoretical framework for Hobson's discussion of international relations. His theory of surplus value posits cooperation as a factor in the production of value understood as human welfare. The organic analogy links this theory of surplus value to Hobson's holistic 'sociology'. Hobson's new liberal internationalism is an extension of his organic theory of surplus value. This approach is contrasted to the domestic analogy and economism as bases of liberal internationalist thought. The second part examines Hobson's 'sociology' of international relations. Hobson's theory of imperialism is placed in the context of his theory of surplus value. Imperialism is sectionalism in the international system. For Hobson, internationalism advances from the isolation of the pre-industrial era, through the noninterventionism of Cobden, to positive internationalism, including some international economic management. Hobson's proposals for international government rely on the domestic analogy. A broader vision of world society, however, emerges from the extension of the organic analogy to international relations. The third part locates Hobson in international relations scholarship. Hobson's work is not straightforwardly idealist. His new liberal internationalism modifies liberal thought towards institutional solutions to international problems. It is concluded that some aspects of his analysis remain of interest to the contemporary international relations theorist.

This thesis presents an alternative tradition of classical Marxism capable of understanding what appears to be a shift in power from states to markets over the last two decades. It provides a theory of international political economy which explains both state ownership and control of the economy and its relinquishment, as aspects of 'actually existing capitalism' on a global scale. It is argued that this approach is superior to both Weberian-influenced International Political Economy (IPE), and the current tradition of classical Marxism in International Relations (IR), in that it has the potential to provide a deeper understanding of the apparent 'retreat of the state' as an aspect of so-called 'globalization'. The core contribution of the thesis is a critique of the current classical Marxist approach in International Relations and the proposal of an alternative which differs in its analysis of the space, time and motion of capitalism. It is argued, through a rereading of Capital volumes 1 to 3, that this alternative is truer to Marx's intentions. It is further argued that this more nuanced understanding of capitalism is well-represented through the writings of Hilferding, Bukharin, and Lenin, and is identifiable, though underdeveloped, in the work of contemporary Marxists influenced by these theorists. This alternative tradition of classical Marxism provides an understanding of capitalism in phases of both 'nationalization' and 'privatization', deepening our understanding of capitalism as it 'actually exists'. The thesis has two main tasks. The first is to show that both Weberian-influenced IPE and classical Marxism in IR have an inadequate model of capitalism, a theoretical limitation that has become evident in the globalization debate over 'the retreat of the state'. The second is to suggest an alternative theory of capitalism based on a rereading of Capital volumes 1-3. This theory of 'actually existing capitalism' is better able to capture the complexity of changing state market-relations including what is superficially described as the 'retreat of the state'.

No description available.

This PhD dissertation aims to inform theories of conflict and International Relations (IR) by using modified social psychological models of identification and leadership in which needs fulfilment plays a central role. The main hypothesis is that identification with groups and leaders is flexible on the lower needs levels and more lasting on the higher needs levels, and that leadership, to be adaptive, must on the lower needs levels be action-oriented and on the higher levels be relations-oriented. This hypothesis is used to inform group and system level theories. On the group level, the hypothesis reads that due to this pattern of individual identification, cohesive collective action and violence in physiological deprivation requires coercive leadership to make up for the absence of unity, while on the higher needs levels collective violence necessitates manipulative leadership to make up for the absence of real deprivation. On the system level, the hypothesis reads that since the dynamics of collective action depend on the level of needs fulfilment and identification, change in the system can only be understood by examining all three levels of analysis. The first two hypotheses (on the individual and group level) are developed and demonstrated through qualitative case studies on the conflicts of the Sudan/South Sudan and between the former Yugoslav republics. These hypotheses are then used to reconcile the various conflicting theories on each level of analysis as well as to create a comprehensive framework through which the various theories and concepts of IR can be seen as connected to a certain level of needs security/development, and thus as historically and regionally specific.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In an increasingly interdependent world, the scope and effectiveness of states' authority are being contested. A key question is posed: to what extent does the state remain fundamental in the provision of institutional mechanisms through which individuals constitute themselves as morally motivated agents and interact with otherness in a self-assured and meaningful way. A critical review of the contemporary literature of justice finds no satisfactory answers to this question. By assuming universal rationality and the state's instrumental role in individuals' moral formation, cosmopolitans derive far-reaching international just principles that will preserve individuals' integrity and regulate their interactions. They fail, however, to recognize that states influence the way individuals interpret and identify with the values underlying these principles, condemning them to unfeasibility. Communitarians and theorists of nationality understand individuals' ethical formation to be conditional on their common sense of belonging. By doing so, they end by constructing undesirable international principles that restrain individuals' exercise of critical thinking and links to the outside world. A neo-Hegelian framework, which does not disentangle individuals' development of independently thinking capacities from the construction of a historically situated system of rights, is in a better position to answer the question. Its success however depends on a deeper comprehension of a state's ability to provide the sought-after mechanisms at two levels. First, citizens must not only mutually recognize each other as equally valid sources of independent claims but must also make use of similar basic values and motivational skills to fairly interact with non-compatriots, exchanging viewpoints in the construction of their distinct personalities. Second, the states increasingly need to agree on forms of regulation (international principles of justice) that, though based on the mutual recognition and support of their self-determining ethical capacities, do not alienate the inputs from other actors of the international society (e.g. international civil society and states contesting ethical values). The incorporation and interaction of these two levels is the way to establish the legitimacy and applicability of international just principles. The originality of this thesis resides in the development of a new interpretation of familiar Neo-Hegelian arguments to address the overlooked issue of the sources of ethical motivation underpinning regulation in an increasingly interdependent world.

This thesis uses regime theory and the English School of International Relations (and particularly the social constructivist reformulation by Buzan in From International to World Society: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation 2004) to address the question: Why have actors decided to cooperate on outer space issues, and what does that cooperation tell us about wider international politics and international society. Rational actors have at times determined that it is in their interest to coordinate activity for outer space. This coordination has led (either intentionally or unintentionally) to the creation of international regimes, and those regimes have conversely come to exert influence over actors' interests and behavior over time. Processes within international society (such as the rise, evolution, and decline of international society institutions, and shifts between pluralism and solidarism) also influence - and are influenced by - outer space politics. The thesis focuses on five case studies: geosynchronous orbit, the International Space Station, Global Navigational Satellite Systems, the company Sea Launch, and comets and asteroids. Pre-existing outer space treaties ("diffuse regimes") have established basic understandings between states about governance over outer space, and implicit or explicit regimes have also evolved to facilitate coordination amongst actors on the specific issue-areas of each case study. The tools used by regime theorists help explain the development of these various regimes and the relationship between them; however, because of regime theory's relatively narrow focus (on actors' rational interests in specific issue-areas) it provides few insights into how outer space politics are embedded in wider world politics and international society. An English School approach expands the analysis and puts into perspective how the Space Race was mutually constitutive of Cold War pluralist international society, and how space cooperation and commercialization over time also reflected and reinforced globalization and cooperative international society. However it is extremely difficult to operationalize the English School in order to draw more specific explanatory conclusions about individual case studies. It is necessary to use both approaches together to develop a thorough explanation of actors' behavior with regards to outer space politics, as well as an understanding of how outer space politics relate to wider world politics.

This thesis provides a critique of, and an alternative to, the Realist school of International Relations theory. Rejecting the Realist starting point of the condition of anarchy among states, it argues instead for the importance of wider social structures in determining the social form of geopolitical systems. The method used is the historical materialism of Marx - in particular his injunction to examine how 'the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers' underlies the form of the state. Following an opening interrogation of Realism, this method is used to explore several premodern geopolitical systems. In each case, attention is drawn to the correspondence between the form of the geopolitical system and the character of the societies composing it. This correspondence is then used to mount historical explanations which contrast strongly with those supplied by a Realist treatment. The tools forged in these historical explorations are next turned onto the contemporary international system. Two main conclusions result. First, the distinctive properties of the sovereign states-system are to be understood by examining their correspondence to 'the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers' in the leading capitalist societies which dominate the system. This argument includes a formal redefinition of the two core categories of Realist theory. 'Sovereignty' is redefined as the abstracted political form of the state under capitalism, while 'anarchy' is rediscovered as the form of social connectedness peculiar to capitalism which Marx describes as 'personal independence based on dependence mediated by things'. The second conclusion is that the history of the emergence of the modern international system is to be found in those historical processes of social change which generalized the capital-labour relation - processes focussed above all on the expropriation of the direct producer.