The thesis sets out to critique recent accounts dealing with the notion and role of ontology in IR theorising as it can be found, for instance, in Alexander Wendt and more recently in the writings of critical realists. The main aim of these treatises on ontology is to provide a new perspective for IR theory that is in line with a more general critique of epistemological foundationalism and strict empiricism. Thereby these accounts rely upon an interpretation of scientific realism as it can be found in the Philosophy of Science. The thesis shows how these approaches to ontology on the one hand overcome epistemological foundationalism but, on the other hand, reaffirm a form of ontological foundationalism through the apodictic positing of ‘intransitive objects’ that exist outside and independent of the human mind. Such an approach, rather than leading to a new and better conception of ontology, reifies the same biases of Cartesian subjectivity, the designative nature of language, a correspondence theory of truth and the problem-laden concept of freedom as it was conceived in Kant’s third antinomy. In response to these approaches whose general aim at reconceptualising ontology must be welcomed, the thesis develops a new approach that does not recreate the same problems in a different fashion but tries to overcome them through a reconceptualisation of the term ontology itself. The basis for the thesis is to be found in post-Husserlian phenomenology, a body of literature that has so far been widely ignored in IR theorising. By explicating the main tenets in the thought of such eminent philosophers as Heidegger, Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty and Ricoeur the thesis reconstructs the notion of ontology on the basis of an enquiry into the meaning of being in general and human being in particular. From this perspective a new approach to the notions of agency, language, truth and freedom becomes possible without recreating the rifts and foundationalisms that characterises many approaches to social and political relations.

This study aims to explain the Stuxnet-attack against Iran in 2009-2010 by using the IR-theory of structural realism. By doing so the theory also faces the challenge of the impact of the information revolution on security and international relations. The structural realism that is at hand is that of Kenneth Waltz and his Theory of International Politics from 1979.The study reaches the conclusion that Waltzs focus on the structure of the international system and the distribution of capabilities applies well to the case of Stuxnet as a cyber attack. The creators of the sophisticated Stuxnet, USA and Israel, also indicates that when it comes to this certain aspect of the information revolution and IR, states seem to still be the main actor. Finally the character of one of the major features of the Stuxnet-attack; the internet, is shown to have an anarchic structure that fits well as an extension of the realist view of the international system.

The discipline of International Relations is frequently depicted as an American dominated discipline. This disciplinary self-image has become so entrenched that it is rarely questioned and operates as a ‘quasi-fact’ within the field. However, the manner in which this widespread claim has been put forth is largely speculative. There is a surprising lack of data verifying the prominent notion, and indeed the ‘evidence’ that does exist is largely out-dated and methodologically problematic. As such, this thesis attempts to remedy this dearth of data by systematically investigating if and how the United States dominates the discipline of IR. Rather than speaking of a generic and ambiguous form of dominance this thesis begins by disaggregating the concept of dominance and stating the ways in which an actor can potentially dominate and how this can be measured. What this crucially means is that the US may dominate in some ways and not others. Through exploring twelve of discipline’s international journals over a ten-year period from 1999-2009, and four international conferences from 2005-2011 it becomes clear that the central issue is not whether the United States dominates the discipline but the degree and manner in which it does. Through demonstrating the numerous current trends and inclinations in the discipline a complex image of the IR emerges; an image that challenges a number of prevalent assertions about the disciplinary character of IR. The findings presented illustrate how the discipline of IR is more international and more diverse than is commonly perceived, and yet how the discipline of IR still experiences certain forms of American dominance. This thesis aims to highlight the importance of perspective and consequently how we need to be more nuanced and reflective in the ways we characterize the discipline’s dominance claims. Overall this thesis aims to highlight the many dynamics occurring at different levels of the discipline, all of which shape the contours of the field and IR’s relationship with the American academy.

Today, especially after various critical evaluations of mainstream theories of International Relations (IR), it is common place to observe that IR discipline is Eurocentric. Natural outcome of this Eurocentric character of IR discipline has been the privileging of modern identity (and thus, modernity) and the marginalization of different cultures and identities as &quot / others&quot / . This thesis analyzes the relationship between the concepts of modern identity, national interest and difference within the framework of IR theory. The thesis asserts that IR discipline should solve the problem of exclusion of the &quot / other&quot / or suppression of differences since International Relations means first and foremost interaction with the &quot / Other&quot / . In order to solve this contradiction, I argue that IR theory should be deconstructed on the basis of a treatment of differences and heterogeneity. However, criticizing the creation of the &quot / others&quot / necessitates also the critique of modern identity since &quot / heterophobia&quot / is the result of the homogenizing character of European identity. Therefore, a deconstruction of the hegemony of modern identity in IR is the main concern of this thesis. The thesis finally argues that &ldquo / other worlds&rdquo / which leave room for different identities and other &quot / truths&quot / are also possible.

The thesis deals with one of the international relations theories - realism. It examines the presence of realism in discussions about the German foreign policy on the ground of the parliament of Germany. Key concepts of realism and liberalism are defined in the introduction. The aim is to evaluate the presence of the realistic rhethoric used by particular political parties. The situation is described on three cases of the German foreign policy - discussions about China, Georgia and Turkey. The thesis is based on stenographic protocols of parliamentary debates covering the proper period.

The purpose of this thesis is to, through media, observe and map the political controversies during the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi and once the games have finished summarize and analyze them in order to close in on a comprehensive understanding of them. In addition to being tinged by the hermeneutics and inductive reasoning the study uses a methodology referred to as a qualitative explanatory case study with an intensive approach. In applying IR-theory, and more specifically the theoretical perspectives of realism, liberalism and social constructivism, the study manage to shy away from mainstream Olympic research. The thesis finds that the political controversies during the Games in Sochi were fewer than anticipated and offers various understandings of why that is, including the realist notion of the triumph of the principle of sovereignty over human rights, the within liberalism found belief of the good nature of mankind, and the social constructivist idea of actions being constrained by social structures.

This thesis investigates in three parts the role played by metatheory in the discipline of International Relations (IR). Part one defines metatheory as 'systematic discourse about theory' and classifies it in a typology combining elements internal or external to the discipline with intellectual or contextual aspects of theorising. Each combination has particular functions. They also add to the roles played by several modes of metatheoretical inquiry (hermeneutical, evaluative, corrective, critical and historical). The typology offered in part one clarifies the general roles of metatheory as a constraining and enabling discursive mechanism. This is also discussed in part two, addressing how IR scholars portray metatheory's role in the discipline. Arguments against and in favour of metatheory are scrutinised, leading to a qualified defence of metatheoretical research in IR. Some of the negative impact of metatheorising in IR is acknowledged, but ultimately a stronger case attempting to eliminate it from the field cannot be sustained for analytical reasons. The merits of metatheory, therefore, will depend on how it operates in particular instances. A selection of illustration cases in part three further develops the argument. The first case stresses how metatheoretical directives shaped 17th century views of the Holy Roman Empire. It indicates that metatheory can frame theoretical claims even in a weak disciplinary context. A stronger disciplinary environment frames the second case, analysing a number of IR theories on the impact of the Peace of Westphalia in the European states-system. This discussion often alludes to the notion of hierarchy. The third case examines the interaction between metatheoretical directives and theories of hierarchy. These arguments are not necessarily compatible with the metatheoretical principles argued by their authors. As a mechanism, therefore, metatheory does not relate to theory in a deterministic way. Part three itself is, of course, a metatheoretical study that further illustrates the thesis.

No description available.

人類安全自其概念提出以來至今已逾十年，始終沒有獲得安全研究領域的重視。冷戰結束後，雖有非傳統安全在研究上對傳統安全侷限於軍事問題的缺漏進行修補，但依舊忽略「個人」對於安全研究的價值。本文認為，目前既有的安全研究已不能迎合全球化時代國際關係的發展趨勢，而把「個人」排除在安全研究的討論之外或是予以邊緣化，則為一種理解上的疏失。實際上，無論傳統安全所強調的軍事領域，或是非傳統安全所關注的貧窮、發展、疾病等問題，其核心與基礎的安全價值均構築在每一個「個人」身上，這歸因於安全概念就像一道不可分割的光譜，儘管歸結出許多不同面向，但當其中一個安全面向受到影響時，其他面向也會受到波及；互賴現象不只適用於經濟關係，也同樣適用安全領域。對此，本研究論證了何以人類安全具備在判斷安全是否落實、因應全球化的國際局勢，以及回應「內部」威脅來源等三方面的優勢，用以彰顯安全研究宜從「國家」到「個人」之必要性。 此外，本文建議以建構主義來詮釋人類安全，認為人類安全的形塑過程，就是一種建構主義的觀點。儘管國際關係中的建構主義目前在安全所涉及的範疇，只著力於安全社群或安全文化論點，但建構主義是探索人類意識與國家認同與利益的形成，如果透過建構主義來解釋國際社會現象，尤其是人類安全，那將使人類安全觀點更趨意義，爰本論文在釐清人類安全概念與回顧建構主義理論基礎後，同時說明了建構主義與人類安全的關連，並勾勒起兩者間之對話。 / Even though the concept of Human Security first emerged more than a decade ago, it never gained much attention in the field of security study. In the post-Cold War era, non-traditional security study somehow rectifies the defect of traditional security study, which focuses simply on military affairs, but it is not comprehensive enough to understand the crucial role which ‘People’ play in security study. From authors’ view, the present comprehension of security study can no longer catch up with the main development trend of international relations in the age of globalization. To exclude ‘People’ from discussing or to marginalize it is a definite miscalculation of what ‘security’ really is. Either traditional security, which pays mainly attention to territorial matters, or non-traditional security, which cares more about poverty, development, disease and so on, its core and essential value of security is no doubt based on ‘People’. Actually, the concept of security is a spectrum which cannot be divided; also, the spectrum has considerable inter links and overlaps. An effect to one dimension of security is likely to travel to all forms of security. The phenomenon of interdependency on economic dimension is also relevant to security studies. This article demonstrates that the study of human security can help resolve threats from both internal and external forces, respond to the challenges of globalization, and achieve true security. It manifests the necessity of the study of security from focusing on “state” to the “people”. Besides, the main purpose of this article is exploring human security by constructivism. The emergence of human security also can be seen as a view of constructivism. This article argues that although the orthodox of security study on constructivism focus on security community or security culture, the constructivism also explores the issues of human consciousness and national identity and interest formation. Hence, the contents of human security will be more meaningful if through applying constructivism to explaining phenomena of international society. In the light of this analysis, three specific issues will be examined: the emergence of the concept of human security, review of the theory of constructivism, and enabling a dialogic interaction between constructivism and human security.

How do states perceive threats? Why are material forces sometimes more prominent in shaping threat perception, whereas ideational ones are key in other instances? This study aims to move beyond the task of determining whether material or ideational factors offer a more plausible explanation by arguing that threat perception is a function of the interplay between material factors and state identity, the influence of which can run both ways. Based on ‘analytical eclecticism’, I develop a two-layered conception of security as both physical and ontological, in which the interaction of ideational and material forces can be analysed. Ontological security is intimately connected with identity; its pursuit, therefore, requires distinctiveness and differentiation from the ‘Other’ as well as a coherent and consistent identity narrative at the domestic level. Physical security, on the other hand, involves the identification of threats that constitute a danger to the survival of the state. While ontological and physical security spheres have distinct dynamics and processes, they constitute two interrelated layers. Accordingly, I argue that states can suffer from ontological insecurity while their physical security remains intact, and vice versa. In some instances, physical security and its corresponding material forces condition identity narratives while in other instances the causal arrow points in the other direction. To illustrate these processes, I present a ‘structured, focused’ comparison of Syrian and Saudi threat perceptions during three major wars in the region: the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the 2006 Lebanon War, and the 2009 Gaza War. While providing novel insights for explaining the dynamics of threat perception in the Middle East, this study contributes to the broader IR literature by proposing a conceptual framework that links the literature on Self/Other relations, ontological security, and realism in IR theory. This study thus demonstrates the potential utility of bringing IR theory and the Middle East as an area study into closer dialogue.