international affairs
Recently Published Documents

The article tackles the question, how to provide students with a comparative orientation to public administration. We eschew the older tradition of comparing major systems such British parliamentary system or French bureaucratic approaches to organizations’ structure. Rather, we seek to understand public administration in countries with different cultures, histories, and political regimes by focusing on international development. Our students are drawn from the Master of Public Administration degree program and the Master of International Affairs degree program. What unites them is an interest in international affairs and the desire to work internationally; international students take what they learn and apply it in their home countries. We ground the course on a model of international development with a strong focus on development in governance. We spend the first third of the class creating a development lens for understanding global practices in public management in which they use what they learned in the first part of the course to analyze a range of public management issues within governmental institutions and/or in working in the nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organization sectors. We use detailed case studies drawn from several case data banks to apply some of the core concepts of public administration such as leadership, stakeholder analysis, complexity, and implementation to development challenges such as fiscal issues, poverty alleviation, interorganizational collaboration, and human rights. We do this with a range of in-class exercises and assignments that students do out of class. One goal we have is to provide students with knowledge and skills to enhance their ability to work internationally since many have gone on to work for donor and various implementing organizations in international development. We believe that this is a reasonable measure of success of the approach we have taken to comparative public administration.

Abstract This article argues that Disciplinary International Relations (DIR) does not only explain international affairs, but it also socializes and hegemonizes publics and professionals into an ideological worldview consistent with the interest of states that underwrite the world economic and security order based on hegemonic liberalism. Considerable emphasis is placed on tracing the continuities between the early theorization of IR in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the contemporary academic/foreign policy/security ‘complex’ dedicated to the maintenance of a hegemonic world order. The article demonstrates that the call for a greater theory–policy nexus in international affairs is redundant because leading American scholars double up as policy-makers, either directly or through other avenues such as consultancies. Some of the most prominent IR scholars, such as Michael Doyle, John Lewis Gaddis, Samuel Huntington, G. John Ikenberry, Stephen Krasner, Theodore H. Moran, Joseph Nye and Anne-Marie Slaughter, among others, have served in high-level positions in the United States foreign policy and security apparatus. The article also shows the ways in which in the early days of IR theorizing in the UK, scholars such as Lionel Curtis, Alfred Zimmern and Norman Angell doubled as staunch defenders of the British Empire, albeit in the language of liberal internationalism.

2022 marks International Affairs' 100th year. This editorial reflects on the journal's history and outlines plans and goals for its second century, not least ensuring that International Affairs becomes a truly global and inclusive journal.

Abstract Before 1914 scholars of international thought frequently relied on racist arguments, yet the ways that race was used varied widely from author to author. This article charts the way that race was used by two groups of Anglophone writers. The warriors used biological arguments to construct views of international affairs that relied on racist analysis. Pacifists might have used racist language that relied more on cultural prejudices, and would often base their more progressive views of international affairs on the idea of a civilizing mission. Using A. T. Mahan and Brooks Adams as exemplars of the warrior approach, and Norman Angell and H. N. Brailsford for the pacifists, I argue that race and racism play an important part in international thought before the First World War. This racism was directed at the colonized in the global South, Indigenous peoples in settler colonial states, and Jews in the global North. This use of race and racism in pre-First World War international thought has implications for how we view the development of International Relations today. It is not just statues and stately homes that require a thorough reassessment of attitudes to race, but also our understanding of the progression of ideas in international thought.

Helen Clark is interviewed by Robert Yates for the first in a new series of ‘Centenary conversations’, celebrating 100 years of International Affairs. They discussed the COVID-19 crisis and reflect on whether the world is doing a better job than it did 100 years ago during the Spanish flu epidemic.

.

In this essay Wight explained why there is no set of classic works regarding relations among states—what Wight terms ‘international theory’— analogous to the rich political theory literature concerning the state. In addition to works on international law, four categories of effort have populated the field: (a) those of ‘irenists’ advocating mechanisms to promote peace; (b) those of Machiavellians examining raison d’état; (c) incidental works by great philosophers and historians; and (d) noteworthy speeches and other writings by statesmen and officials. International theory works have been ‘marked, not only by paucity but also by intellectual and moral poverty’, because of the focus since the sixteenth century on the modern sovereign state, with the states-system neglected. Moreover, while there has been material and organizational progress within states in recent centuries, international relations have remained ‘incompatible with progressivist theory’. People who recoil from analyses implying that progress in international affairs is doubtful sometimes prefer a Kantian ‘argument from desperation’ asserting the feasibility of improvements and ‘perpetual peace’. Wight concluded that ‘historical interpretation’ is for international relations the counterpart of political theory for the state.

International relations encompass three aspects: international anarchy, with sovereign states recognizing no political superior; routine interactions in diplomatic, legal, and commercial institutions; and moral solidarity, with cultural and psychological links more profound than those of politics and economics. Thinkers who underscore international anarchy regard the idea of international society as fictional. Hobbes, for example, maintains that the only remedy for anarchical competition is to make a contract for a ruler or an assembly to take power and act to ensure security. Grotius and other thinkers who emphasize the extensive informal, legal, and customary interactions in international affairs highlight humanity’s sociability and its potential for constitutionalism and the rule of law. Kant and others anticipate the vindication of humanity’s potential for peace through the deepening of the material and moral interdependence of people around the world. This may come about through uniformity of independent states in standards of virtue and legitimacy or through the political and moral unification of humanity.

Limited capability and political will have caused the great powers to fail to demonstrate their global leadership in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created greater room to manoeuvre for other countries to influence international affairs. Preliminary achievements in the fight against the COVID-19 crisis have buttressed the rising global status of small and medium-sized states, including Vietnam. Although Vietnam has recently been recognised as an emerging middle power, scepticism looms regarding whether this higher international status is beyond its capacity. We argue that the pandemic may act as a catalyst for Vietnam to further elevate its strategic role as a middle power on the international stage in the medium and long term.

This contribution analyses the diplomacy of religion carried out by the European External Action Service (EEAS), and questions its autonomy and distinctiveness vis-à-vis other diplomacies. Several dimensions are studied: how foreign policy is dealing with the ‘return’ of religion in international affairs; the practices of the EEAS regarding religion against the general background of what Member States, third countries, and international organizations do in this respect; how the EEAS balances the interests of Member States, the requirements of the geopolitical contexts and field realities; the EEAS’s advocacy for specific causes such as the freedom of religion and belief (FoRB) and the establishment of religion as a standard diplomatic issue. The conclusion characterizes the EU’s external strategy on religion as the outcome of both its political and institutional logic and Europe’s societal secularization in a world that is still highly religious.