Search results: "jarrod hayes" (page 1 of 2)

Jarrod Hayes on “Bridging the Gap”

Across the GapEditor’s Note: This is a guest blog by Jarrod Hayes, who is is an assistant professor of International Relations at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His research broadly focuses on the social construction of foreign and security policy. It deals with the International Policy Summer Institute, which has also received coverage at The Monkey Cage.

I have had the great pleasure and honor to attend the Bridging the Gap/International Policy Summer Institute hosted by (the very impressive) American University School of International Service.  The experience has been a rich one, with an amazing cohort and substantial depth and scope from the speakers.  Out of that depth and scope, a point really caught my attention.  A few of the speakers have anecdotally noted that policymakers often think using the concepts and logics of theory, but they are unaware that is what they are doing.  This is a really fascinating point, and potentially one of the ways that scholars might be able to ‘bridge the gap’ between academics an policymakers without writing explicitly policy oriented scholarship (although we should do that too).

Continue reading

Share

Minding Climate Change: Presidential Power and the US National Interest

This is a guest post by Manjana Milkoreit, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. Her research integrates international relations scholarship and cognitive theory to study actor motivations and policy design in global climate change politics. She is the author of Mindmade Politics: the Cognitive Roots of International Climate Governance (The MIT Press 2017).

If Harvey’s unprecedented battering of Houston can even partly be linked to climate change, you might wonder if the President’s visit to Texas this week made him rethink his current foreign (and domestic) policies. President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and his apparent misunderstanding of its content stand in stark contrast to his predecessor’s sustained diplomatic effort to create the agreement, join it, and ensure that the US would get global leadership credit for its diplomatic efforts to “save the planet.” How is possible for one President to oppose the agreement and for another to support it if both – presumably – acted in “the national interest?”

An objective, rationally determined national interest would have to be independent of the individual holding the presidency. Any person with the relevant information would end up making the same determination concerning the policy choice that is most beneficial for the survival and success of the US, weighing the costs and benefits of the available options. If that is the nature of the national interest – objective, rational, calculable – either Trump or Obama must be wrong. Alternatively, we might have to rethink the notion of the national interest. From a social constructivist position, the national interest is not objective, but ‘intersubjective’: the constantly changing result of social interactions and contestation among different political actors, who can assign different meanings to the same set of facts.

Integrating the rational-choice approach and social constructivist accounts of the national interest with a little bit of cognitive theory, I argue that two Presidents of the United States can take opposing policy positions on a specific issue, and both act in the national interest. When it comes to foreign policy, the US President holds the prerogative over the interpretation of the national interest. As the vocal responses to President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement have demonstrated, his definition of the national interest can be out of sync with the majority of the American voters, major states and cities and a large portion of the business community and academic observes (“a major unforced error”). As Jarrod Hayes writes, these sub-national actors challenge Trump’s foreign policy on climate change and potentially undermine the authority (and credibility, influence and effectiveness) of the US government in international affairs. Yet, they cannot change the President’s mind or foreign policy. Hence, when it comes to the national interest, much depends on what individual presidents believe, and who or what influences those beliefs (see Elizabeth Saunder’s post on Trump’s decision-making process and Steve Saideman’s comments on the Great Men theory IR scholarship). In essence, the national interest comes down to one person’s brain functions. Continue reading

Share

We Have Studied the World. President Trump Should Too.

This is an open letter signed by US international affairs scholars to their fellow citizens. If you hold a PhD in international relations or an extant field and wish to add your name to the list, please tweet #StudytheWorld with your name and institutional affiliation or send this information in an email to ir.scholars.openletter@gmail.com.

Dear Fellow Americans,

Recently, President Trump tweeted that people should “Study the world!” to understand his foreign policy. As scholars of international relations, we have studied the world, and we are concerned that the actions of the President undermine rather than enhance America’s national security.

We agree it is important for any President to protect US citizens from extremist violence, ensure America is respected abroad, and prioritize American interests. But our knowledge of global affairs, based on history, scientific fact and experience, tells us that many of the policies Trump has undertaken thus far do not advance these goals. Instead, they have made Americans less safe.

First, the President presented his temporary travel ban on citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations (and all refugees) as a measure to protect the US homeland from terrorist attacks. Yet this move will make our country less safe, not more. First, the vast majority of terrorist attacks on US citizens come from “home-grown” terrorism and are carried out by non-Muslims: the ban does nothing to address this. Second, countering transnational terrorism requires transnational coordination, and this ban impedes our ability to coordinate with our allies abroad. Finally, studies show terrorists are strengthened when governments over-react: indiscriminate intolerance feeds radicalization by driving moderates into the arms of radicals. We are confident the travel ban will likely reinforce anti-American sentiment and strengthen terror networks while weakening US intelligence capacity.

Trump also indicates he wants America to be more respected by the world. But fear is not the same as respect. The President’s “go-it-alone” policy and disregard for international law and diplomatic relationships have confused and frightened those allies upon whose cooperation we rely to bolster our national security. Trump’s contradictory, ambiguous, and vague statements – about the U.S.’s commitment to NATO, arms control treaties, and friendly relations with Mexico, Australia, and other important partners – mean that foreign governments are now more likely to misperceive U.S. intentions. Unable to rely on us, our current friends might start looking for other allies – a situation that rival powers like Russia and China could easily exploit. This weakens our position in the global order.

The President has stated that he wishes to prioritize the home-front and reduce entangling commitments abroad. Yet America already spends only a tiny fraction of a fraction of our budget on foreign aid, and international economic cooperation benefits us far more than it costs. Global engagement has solved many other problems that threaten Americans, like stemming epidemics and closing the cancer-causing hole in the ozone layer. By contrast, periods of great power isolationism have led to global financial upheaval, instability, and war. When Americans ignore global economic, environmental, or social forces, they often entangle us in precisely the way Trump hopes to avoid.

Trump claims America should stay out of reckless wars. Yet several of his actions make war more likely, not less. Since the establishment of United Nations, the world has seen the lowest incidence of major war between states in centuries. On the other hand, research has shown nations that disregard the rights of women, minorities, political dissidents, and journalists are more likely to end up at war with their neighbors. By de-funding global organizations that keep the peace and weakening the domestic rule of law, Americans are far likelier to see catastrophic war at home during our children’s lifetimes.

We agree it is imperative that American citizens and leaders study the world and pay attention to facts, history, and scientific evidence. We have been heartened to see our fellow Americans – even many who voted for Trump – opposing these policies on fact-based grounds. New research shows that nonviolent resistance of this type works: when as few as 3.5% of a domestic population actively resist, it is possible to keep democracies strong and leaders in check. We strongly encourage our fellow citizens to hold our government accountable for creating evidence-based foreign policies that will promote rather than threaten America’s security.

This means pressing our leaders to avoid unnecessary wars and create the conditions for stability by supporting and improving institutions like the United Nations. We should encourage them to protect us by addressing extremist violence by all actors – including white supremacist terrorists, who have carried out a significant percentage of all attacks against Americans in recent decades. We should encourage leaders to study the world as the President enjoins, and consider the advice and knowledge of experts and scientists who understand global history, risk analysis, and national security processes. And, because history has shown it is in our national interest, we should urge the Trump administration to support global engagement where it is likely to reinforce our alliances, strengthen global institutions, and promote world peace.

Signed (in alphabetical order)

Deborah Avant, University of Denver
Gordon Adams, American University
Fiona Adamson, University of London
Rachel Anderson Paul, Western Washington University
Peter Andreas, Brown University
Bentley Allan, John Hopkins University
William Ayres, Wright State University
Michael Barnett, George Washington University
Taylor Benjamin-Britton, Lehigh University
Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University
Nora Bensahel, American University
Michele Betsill, Colorado State University
Phillipp Bleek, Middlebury Institute of International Studies
Mia Bloom, Georgia State University
Matthew Bolton, Pace University
Daniel Braaten, Texas Lutheran University
AC Budabin, University of Dayton
Joshua Busby, University of Texas-Austin
Sarah Bush, Temple University
Daniel Byman, Georgetown University
Ami Carpenter, University of San Diego
Charli Carpenter, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Austin Carson, University of Chicago
Ralph Carter, Texas Christian University
Chuck Call, American University
Rosella Capella, Boston University
Daniel Chong, Rollins College
Erica Chenoweth, University of Denver
Jeff Colgan, Brown University
Patrick Cottrell, Linfield College
Mark Copelovitch, University of Wisconsin
Jesse Crane-Seeber, North Carolina State University
Timothy Crawford, Boston College
Renee De Nevers, Syracuse University
Thomas Doyle, Texas State University
Brent Durbin, Smith College
Daniel Drezner, Tufts University
Thomas Doyle II, Texas State University
Amy Eckert, Metropolitan State University
Ali Erol, American University
Tanisha Fazal, Notre Dame University
Laura Field, American University
Martha Finnemore, George Washington University
Page Fortna, Columbia University
Rosemary Kelanic, Williams College
Volker Franke, Kennesaw State University
Louis Furmaski, University of Central Oklahoma
Chip Gagnon, Ithaca College
Nick Garcia, Otterbein University
Stacie Goddard, Wellesley College
James Goldgeier, American University
Ryan Grauer, University of Pittsburgh
Ryan Griffiths, University of Sydney
Alan Gross, New York University
Tamar Gutner, American University
Maia Hallward, Kennesaw State University
Ron Krebs, University of Minnesota
Jarrod Hayes, Georgia Institute of Technology
Virginia Haufler, University of Maryland
Denise Horn, Simmons College
Natalie Hudson, University of Dayton
Glenn Hunter, Pennsylvania State University
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, American University
Robert Jervis, Columbia University
Juliet Johnson, McGill University
Sean Kay, Ohio Wesleyan University
Margaret Keck, Johns Hopkins University
Khavita Khory, Mt. Holyoke College
Sarah Kreps, Cornell University
David Kinsella, Portland State University
Barbara Elias Klenner, Bowdoin College
Sarah Cleveland Knight, American University
Ari Kohen, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
James Lebovic, George Washington University
Ned Lebow, University of Minnesota
Daniel Levine, University of Alabama
Meredith Loken, University of Denver
Tom Long, University of Reading
Andrea Lopez,  International Studies Susquehanna University
Julia MacDonald, University of Denver
Paul MacDonald, Wellesley College
Joseph Mahoney, Seton Hall University
Daniel McIntosh, Slippery Rock University
Marijana Milkoreit, Purdue University
Katherine Millar, London School of Economics
Ronald Mitchell, University of Oregon
Alexander Montgomery, Reed College
Sara Bjerg Moller, Seton Hall University
Layne Mosley, UNC Chapel Hill
Will Moore, Arizona State University
Daniel Nexon, Georgetown University
Julie Norman, American University
Joel Oestreich, Drexel University
Joseph Parent, University of Notre Dame
Susan Peterson, College of William and Mary
MJ Peterson, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Maggie Peters, University of California-LA
Evan Perkoski, University of Denver
Manuela Picq, Amherst College
Michael Pozansky, University of Pittsburgh
Susan Raines, Kennesaw State University
Andy Reiter, Mt. Holyoke College
Laura Reed, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Hilde Restad, Bjorkes College
Maria Rost-Rublee, Monash University
Molly Ruhlman, Towson University
Heather Roff, Arizona State University
Joseph Roberts, Roger Williams University
Stephen Saideman, Carleton University
Thania Sanchez, Yale University
Wayne Sandholtz, University of Southern California
Brent Sasley, UT Arlington
Todd Sechser, University of Virginia
Cathy Schneider, American University
Ami Shah, Pacific Lutheran University
Jack Snyder, Columbia University
Jelena Subotic, Georgia State University
Megan Stewart, American University
Jennifer Sterling-Folker, University of Connectict
Sarah Stroup, Middlebury College
Michael Struett, North Carolina State University
Brian Taylor, Syracuse University
Peter Trumbore, Oakland University
Stephen Walt, Harvard University
Barbara Walter, University of California-San Diego
Jason Weidner, Universidad de Monterey
Jon Western, Mt. Holyoke College
Meredith Wilf, University of Pittsburgh
Robert Williams, Pepperdine University
Wendy Wong, University of Toronto
Amanda Wooden, Bucknell University
Brandon Valeriano, Niskanen Center

To sign this letter, tweet this link to @charlicarpenter #StudytheWorld with your name and institutional affiliation or send that information in an email to ir.scholars.openletter@gmail.com.

Share

Some New and Old Guests and Permanent Ducks

We’re happy to announce some new guest Ducks, some old guests staying on, and additions to our permanent contributors.

In reverse order, Jarrod Hayes and Heather Roff-Perkins have joined us as permanent contributors. They have brought keen insights on a range of topics so we’re happy they have agreed to stay on in a permanent capacity!

Maryam Deloffre, Jeffrey Stacey, and William Kindred Winecoff continue on as guests with important insights on global health, security, and IPE respectively. Our thanks to our guests from last year — Annick, Cai, Seth, Tom, and Wendy — for their valuable contributions to the blog.

We’re pleased to announce that Lisa Gaufman, Alexis Henshaw, Charlie Martel, Akanksha Mehta, Raul Pacheco-Vega, Mira Sucharov, Lauren B. Wilcox, and Jeremy Youde are joining us as new guest bloggers.

Elizaveta Gaufman is a post-doctoral fellow at the Institute for Intercultural and International Studies (InIIS) at the University of Bremen. She is the author of “Security Threats and Public Perception: Digital Russia and the Ukraine Crisis”.

Alexis Henshaw is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor in Political Science at Miami University (Ohio). She was previously a Visiting Assistant Professor at Bucknell University and Sweet Briar College, and received a Ph.D. from the University of Arizona. Her work on women in rebel groups and women and sexual violence has appeared in Journal of Global Security Studies, International Feminist Journal of Politics, Sexuality and Culture, and the Journal of Human Security Studies. Her booka book, Why Women Rebel, will be coming out with Routledge in 2017. Follow her on Twitter at @Prof_Henshaw

Charles Martel has an LLM in international human rights law from the London School of Economics, where he wrote a dissertation on the political impact legal opinions on the Israeli separation barrier had on the Israel/Palestine conflict. He also has a law degree from Washington and Lee University. He served in lead roles in Senate investigations as counsel to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. He has previously contributed to Just Security and Opinio Juris.

Akanksha Mehta is a Lecturer in International Relations and Gender at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex. She has submitted her PhD in Gender Studies at the Centre for Gender Studies, SOAS. Her PhD research examines the ‘everyday’ politics and violence of women in right-wing movements, specifically looking at Hindu Nationalism in India and Israeli Zionist settlers in the West Bank, Palestine. She is broadly interested in the intersections of international relations, critical geography, political violence, war, and conflict, and gender,  feminism, and sexuality. She is also a documentary photographer and can be reached on Twitter at @SahibanInExile

Raul Pacheco-Vega is an Assistant Professor in the Public Administration Division of the Centre for Economic Research and Teaching, CIDE (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas, CIDE, AC) in Aguascalientes, Mexico. His major research focus is the study of cooperative resource governance, especially water, wastewater and sanitation, domestically and across borders. He is also the founder of the #ScholarSunday hashtag on Twitter. Follow him at @raulpacheco

Mira Sucharov is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Carleton University. She is the author of The International Self: Psychoanalysis and the Search for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (SUNY Press, 2005), and articles on Israeli-Palestinian relations and Diaspora Jewish relations, emotions and IR, pedagogy, and reflections on the craft of being a scholar-blogger. She is a frequent columnist in Haaretz and Jewish Daily Forward. Follow her on Twitter @sucharov

Lauren B. Wilcox is a University Lecturer in Gender Studies and the Deputy Director of the Centre for Gender Studies at the University of Cambridge. Her work is located at the intersections of international relations, political theory, and feminist theory in investigating the consequences of thinking about bodies and embodiment in the study of international practices of violence and security. Her main research project is a book entitled, Bodies of Violence: Theorizing Embodied Subjects in International Relations, published by Oxford University Press, 2015.

Jeremy Youde is a Fellow/Senior Lecturer at Australian National University. His research focuses on questions of global health governance and global health politics. He is the author of three books and co-editor of two recently edited volumes. He has published more than 30 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters in a wide variety of outlets and is a member of the editorial board of Global Health Governance. Follow him on Twitter at @jeremyoude

Share

Securitization Forum: End, or Beginning?

Cai’s post brings to an end our two week exploration of securitization theory and its scholarly audience in the United States and elsewhere.  We thank all of the distinguished contributors for generously donating their time and energy to this project.  This has been an extraordinary experience for us and we hope the Duck community has benefited as much as we have from the result.  We also thank the powers that be at the Duck for allowing us to run this experiment.  While the forum comes to a close, we hope that it lives on: through discussions in comment sections of the various posts; in classrooms and PhD seminars as a pedagogical tool; and in discussions between scholars in Europe, the United States, and beyond.  And perhaps, as Cai suggests, American scholars will reconsider securitization theory and their engagement with it.

Many thanks for reading.

 

Eric Van Rythoven and Jarrod Hayes

Share

Securitization Forum: Geopolitics of Securitization Theory

This is the eleventh contribution to our securitization forum. Can E. Mutlu is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the Bilkent University. His research interests are located at the intersection of technology, security, and political sociology of global mobility regimes with a particular focus on practices, technologies, and materialities of border security and mobility. His recent research appears in Comparative European Politics, European Journal of Social Theory, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, the Review of International Studies, Millennium Journal of International Studies. He is the co-editor of Critical Methods in Security Studies: An Introduction. He writes for the Disorder of Things blog as a regular contributor.

When Jarrod Hayes and Eric Van Rythoven approached us to answer a set of questions on related to the “why Securitization Theory has had so little traction in the United States, and why it has been so valued elsewhere,” I was unsure what I was supposed to say. I believe that while these are thought-provoking questions, they are a bit confusing. Continue reading

Share

Securitization Forum: Why Does American IR Ignore Securitization Theory?

This is the fourth contribution in our forum on securitization theory in the U.S.  Ido Oren is associate professor and chair of the department of political science at the University of Florida and can be reached at oren@ufl.edu. Ty Solomon is Lecturer in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Glasgow and can be reached at ty.solomon@glasgow.ac.uk.

Eric Van Rythoven and Jarrod Hayes ask the timely question of why securitization theory has gained so little traction in American IR. They suggest that we should be puzzled by the absence of securitization theory from American IR given the high citation counts for the theory’s seminal works, its growing attractiveness to scholars in other disciplines, and the thirst for a power-oriented constructivism as an alternative to the liberal idealism that pervades American constructivist scholarship. We wish to make two inter-related points regarding the politics of securitization theory. First, somewhat in contrast to Eric and Jarrod, we argue that the absence of securitization theory from American IR should hardly be puzzling given the embeddedness of American IR in American political science, which is dominated by a neopositivist orthodoxy. Second, we want to sharpen Eric and Jarrod’s characterization of the geography of securitization theory. We suggest that the divide is not merely between the US and Europe, but that securitization theory has begun to take root wherever IR enjoys greater autonomy from political science, and/or wherever political science is not strongly attached to neopositivism, including Australia and Canada. Continue reading

Share

Securitization Forum: Introduction and Setting the Scene

The following is a lead piece for a forum discussing why securitization theory has had so little traction in American IR.  Drawing on established and emerging scholars from around the world, the forum will run from September 16th – 30th and feature guest posts every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

Two years ago Dan Nexon approached Eric, a petulant graduate student, about organizing such a forum with the support of Patrick T. Jackson.  Dan and Patrick soon had to leave Duck of Minerva for International Studies Quarterly.  The project was put on hold until Eric met Jarrod at ISA in New Orleans.  What follows is almost certainly different from Dan’s vision, but if anything good comes of it, then it is in no small part due to Dan and Patrick’s early entrepreneurship.  Finally, both Eric and Jarrod are immensely grateful to the contributors for their time and their insight.

Eric Van Rythoven and Jarrod Hayes

Foreign ideas don’t always go the distance. As Amitav Acharya (2004) has argued, outsider ideas always undergo a process of localisation when they spread. Local forces determine to what extent – if any – an idea can be adapted to domestic circumstances. When looking at the sociology of knowledge in IR finding an idea resonates with a particular region can be revealing, but equally revealing is when an idea is ignored or passed over. While these observations are as old as human society, when it comes to IR theory, they introduce implications that are ill at ease with the conception of IR as a social scientific enterprise. At least in the U.S., the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of IR as a discipline hold that theories are measured not by their foreignness but rather by their ability to explain the world. If that is the case, rejection of foreign theories is deeply problematic. Unless of course the claim is that the theory is invalid, but that begs the question why is it invalid in one place, but not in others?  Continue reading

Share

What is a terrorist group? Concepts and measurement

This is a guest post from Brian J. Phillips who is a research professor at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE) in Mexico City.

A number of studies in recent years have systematically examined terrorist groups, exploring lethality, longevity, and other outcomes. However, much of this research does not explicitly indicate what it means by a “terrorist group.” When definitions are offered, they differ considerably. These differences have empirical implications and matter for how we think about terrorism. Continue reading

Share

Welcome Ducklings!

ducksOur periodic rotation of guest bloggers is underway. This season’s newcomers:

1) Jarrod Hayes is Assistant Professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and is the author of Constructing National Security: US Relations With India and China.  You may have seen his IO article on securitization, and his guest posts on nuclear policy, Crimea, the Arab Spring and other topics; and you probably know him as a long-time Duck reader and commenter as well. Jarrod is keen to blog on security, US / Asian foreign policy and climate change in between hiking, kayaking, and working on his house.

2) Tim Luecke is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University and the managing editor for International Theory. Tim’s current research focuses on the concept of ‘political generations’ and its applications and explanatory value in International Relations. Other areas of expertise include German foreign policy, qualitative methods, and raising nine-year-old daughters. In his free time, he rock-climbs and is a Reggae and Drum and Bass DJ under the pseudonym “Troublemaka.”

3) Heather Roff-Perkins is Visiting Associate Professor at the Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies and the author of Global Justice, Kant and the Responsibility to Protect. She specializes in just war theory, military technology, and has a particular interest in cyber-warfare. She blogs at Kantemplation and is a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post. She also has expertise in raising toddlers and training dolphins for the US Navy.

4) Cynthia Weber is Professor of International Relations at University of Sussex in the UK and author of numerous book including Simulating Sovereignty and Faking It: US Hegemony in a Post Phallic Era.  She has written for OpenDemocracy and readers may recall her popular “PoliSciJobRumors” guest post at the Duck. She also directs.

Please issue them a warm welcome. Continue reading

Share

Crimea is not a Realist story

[Note:  This is a guest post by Jarrod Hayes, assistant professor of international relations at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  His first book, Constructing National Relations: US Relations with India and China was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013.]

Jeffrey Stacey has already discussed the issue in Crimea with alacrity, as have his interlocutors in the comments section.  My agenda here is to argue that what is going on in Crimea is not a story about which Realist theory in international relations has much to say.  My specific foil here (probably at some professional peril) is John Mearsheimer.  Mearsheimer is perhaps most known for his forceful support of Realist IR theory (there is that Israel thing too), specifically a variant called offensive realism.  According to that theory, great powers are constantly predatory, seeking to boost their power (military capability and economic capability that boosts military capability) whenever benefits exceed the costs.  It is a materialist and rationalist approach to international security, grounded in a logic of power and appealing in its simplicity.  And Mearsheimer has not been shy about commenting on the crisis in Crimea, arguing that Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons after the end of the Cold War and that Russia’s annexation of Crimea makes perfect sense as the actions of an insecure state seeking to prevent immediate neighbors from falling into the orbit of the West.

The story is an appealing one, and on the surface it looks compelling.  Continue reading

Share

Monday Morning Linkage

sitting ducksGood morning…

Continue reading

Share

Replacing Nuclear Weapons

B2This is a guest post by Jarrod Hayes. He is Assistant Professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. He received his PhD in Politics and International Relations from the University of Southern California in 2009. His research broadly focuses on the social construction of foreign and security policy. 

They are complex weapons.  They are expensive.  They require high levels of engineering expertise to develop, maintain and operate.  They are the purview of the most advanced developed economies in the world.  Nuclear weapons?  Nope, modern major conventional weapons systems.

The title of this post exaggerates of course, but I think there might be something to it.  My thinking on this subject is prompted by a recent story on quiet pressure being applied by policymakers the United States to their colleagues in the United Kingdom.  The Americans want the Brits to scrap their submarine deployed nuclear weapons in favor, one assumes, of more conventional military capabilities.

Continue reading

Share

The Arab Spring and Securitization Theory

Arab Spring

This is a guest post by Jarrod Hayes.  Jarrod is Assistant Professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. He received his PhD in Politics and International Relations from the University of Southern California in 2009. His research broadly focuses on the social construction of foreign and security policy. He is currently trying to determine what should be on the cover of his forthcoming book from Cambridge University Press while trying to reconcile that with the maxim that books should not be judged by their covers.

One of the important areas of debate in securitization theory is the applicability of the approach outside the West.  It is pretty clear that Ole Wæver and Barry Buzan wrote from a Western European perspective.  Their view of normal or ideal politics is Arentian at its core, and really only fits well with modern Western or Western-style democracies.  Lene Hansen and Cai Wilkenson have, among others, written trenchantly on this, but my thinking in this post is more directly driven by Monika Barthwal-Datta’s thought provoking piece in a 2009 issue of Review of International Studies.

In that article, Barthwal-Datta argues that the basic state-centrist nature of securitization theory means that it cannot account for securitizing moves made by non-state actors and—perhaps more problematically—does not provide any basis for understanding the exceptional measures that comprise security when securitizing moves are mounted by non-state actors.  This is especially the case in weak or mismanaged states, where the state is either unable or unwilling (because it is the source of threat) to undertake the extraordinary measures that accompany securitization.

Continue reading

Share

Dispatch from Hong Kong: Asian Values?

This is a guest post by Jarrod Hayes. Jarrod is Assistant Professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. He received his PhD in Politics and International Relations from the University of Southern California in 2009. From 2009 to 2010, he was the ConocoPhillips Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Oklahoma, a joint appointment between the Department of Political Science and the School of International and Area Studies.

Last week, my wife and I were hiking with a local day hiking group in Hong Kong.  We were discussing Hong Kong’s pollution and the surprising fact that recycling does not appear to be a priority here.  One of the women, an Australian expat who has been in Hong Kong for a number of years, made the observation that it is difficult to get the citizens of Hong Kong and Chinese generally to act for the sake of the community.  I was immediately struck by the comment.  Specifically, it brought to mind the ‘Asian Values’ argument—part of which argues that Asian societies value the community over the individual—that had a high profile in the 1990s and continues to pop up with varying degrees of frequency.

Usually (almost always?) the argument is deployed by China and other authoritarian states in the region to justify the denial of individual rights.  I had always assumed there was probably something to the argument, if for no other reason than I did not want to be guilty of cultural imperialism.  But the expat’s comment gave me reason to reflect on the last six months or so that my wife and I have spent in East and Southeast Asia.  In doing so I have found there does not seem to be much evidence to support the ‘Asian Values’ claim.  Certainly economic norms are as individualistic as they are in the West, perhaps even more so.  It seems to me that the major cities of East and Southeast Asia have come close to perfecting consumerist capitalism  (or are working hard at it), with its emphasis on the needs and wants of the individual.  The social safety nets (i.e. community oriented economic provisions) here are also minimal, as the widespread and active panhandling in Chinese cities suggests.  In terms of economic norms, individualism rules the day.

Continue reading

Share

Contributors

The Permanent Contributors to the Duck of Minerva

(⚑home/⚐blogs)

Joshua Busby 
Charli Carpenter
Elizaveta Gaufman 
Jarrod Hayes 
Amanda Murdie 
Rodger Payne //
Steve Saideman ///

The Current Guest Contributors to the Duck of Minerva

Bridging the Gap
Meg K. Guliford
Anne Harrington ⚑ 
Cullen Hendrix
Peter Henne 
Luke Perez 
Alexandra Stark
Ajay Verghese

Former Permanent

Maia Gemmill
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson /
Robert Kelly /
Megan MacKenzie 
Dan Nexon
Brian Rathbun
Bill Petti
Patrick Porter /
Heather Roff-Perkins 
Laura Sjoberg
Jon Western 
Vikash Yadav

Share

Podcasts

A new podcast series, Duckcalls, was revived in 2019. The original Duck of Minerva Podcast ran from 2012-2013. You can find episodes of both series here.

2019-2020 Duckcalls Podcast 

The new podcast series can be found on Podbean here

  • Episode 3: Luke Perez interviews Catherine Sanger, “Teaching Online in a Time of Coronavirus,” March 2020
  • Episode 2: Jarrod Hayes interviews Dan Nexon, “On Editing and Publishing a Major IR Journal,” November 2019
  • Episode 1: Jarrod Hayes interviews Jelena Subotic, “On Yellow Star, Read Star: Holocaust Remembrance After Communism,” October 2019

2012-2013 Podcast Series

The podcast feed for the 2012-2013 podcast is available here.  In iTunes select “advanced” from the toolbar, then “subscribe to podcast,” then paste the URL of one of the feeds into the window that appears. An older version of the podcast blog is called “Minerva Cast.” You can subscribe to its podcasts either via that blog’s Feedburner feed or its original atom feed. iTunes behavior is the same.

This page will contain direct links to podcast audio files. Unless specifically noted, the files are m4a, with an mp3 alternative in parentheses.

Share

Constructing the Democratic Peace

Democratic peace theory is featured prominently in the latest issues of two different major IR journals. First, in International Studies Perspectives, Jameson Lee Ungerer tells us that the democratic peace exemplifies in three respects the Lakatosian ideal of a progressive research program, and provides an overview of the research agenda from 1970s to the present. He describes many (though not all) of the key causal arguments claiming to explain the democratic peace, concluding that:

Of all the theories examines, two [are] the most progressive: the economic norms explanation, which proposed contract-intensive markets as a confounding variable that leads to both peace and democracy… and the reverse causality explanation based on the resolultion of territorial disputes… with limited resources available, scholars would be advised to address these areas.

He’s right that the new work by Mousseau on the “capitalist peace” and Gilber and Tir on settled borders and regime type is pretty interesting. But Ungerer’s implication that there’s not much left unexplored among earlier explanations rests on the fact that he declines to discuss constructivist work at all under his review of the “normative explanation.” In fact, it’s still unsettled precisely how this explanation (what Ungerer calls “T2”) works – whether through elite preference construction and international socialization or public restraint. And Ungerer discusses only the portion of the normative explanation that focuses on norm externalization. He omits constructivist scholarship that focuses on shared identity and perception. In fact, too few constructivist accounts exist that take seriously how precisely democratic “states” come to view others as part of a security community, and the jury is certainly out on precisely how this process works to constrain belligerency among democracies.

To examine this further, Jarrod Hayes‘ new article in International Organization explores a single “hard case” in depth. Hayes examines why Nixon and Kissinger were unable to persuasively cast India as a national security threat in the 1971 crisis despite the fact that they very much saw India as a threat. Nonetheless Hayes shows Nixon and Kissinger were limited in their ability to “securitize” the dispute. Hayes argues therefore that it is not elites’ own perceptions of democracies that lead to dyadic peace: it is the way in which they are constrained by the perceptions of their constituents and the cognitive dissonance that arises from appearing to pick fights with members of a putative “in-group.” Hayes’ article is based on a discourse analysis of the contrast between Nixon’s/Kissinger’s private meetings and their public statements about the crisis.

I think Hayes’ piece is a great example of where the DP literature needs to go. We know a lot about the quantitative correlation between regime type and dyadic peace, but to the extent that the “normative explanation provides a causal process for the empirical observation” as Ungerer claims, we need process-tracing of specific militarized disputes to build a qualitative understanding of how this works and why. In emphasizing that this “us-ness” is reproduced through the public imaginary rather than by elites, Hayes’ argument represents a helpful advance.

Yet I think Hayes analysis would also be stronger if he drew more directly on the constructivist emphasis on perceptions (Risse 1995, 30). Arguably, it’s not how democratic countries actually are, but rather how democratic they are perceived to be (apparently by the public in other democracies rather than elites themselves) that constraints elites in those democracies. Hayes’ mentions the constructivist literature on dyadic identities only briefly and almost as an aside on p. 71, but surely his work has a bearing on precisely the dynamic authors like Risse and Williams are describing: the maintenance of a shared sense of “in-group-ness” between democratic dyads. And constructivists would argue this is about perceptions not facts.

How are these perceptions created and sustained? Hayes’ case doesn’t answer this question. In fact Hayes himself skirts it: he writes about “democracies” rather than “perceptions of democracy” as if a certain package of attributes constitutes “shared democratic identity” – rule of law, human rights, a capitalist economy, etc. But if it’s not the attributes themselves but others’ perception of them that matters in social identity analysis, then we need more careful research on how such attributes are conceptualized, measured and communicated and how they take root in the public imaginary to really foreground the analysis he provides.

Indeed, Hayes’ data suggests an interesting way to reconcile the “normative” and “economic norms” explanations: political leaders (Nixon and Kissinger) saw India as a threat primarily because they saw India as possessing different economic norms (a tendency toward socialism and affinity for the USSR) and thus their preference construction, while inconsistent with the “democratic peace” is consistent with the “capitalist peace.” However the “capitalist peace” research agenda hasn’t (yet) been about perceptions or shared identities, but rather domestic-level social processes. Future work in Hayes’ tradition focusing on social identity analysis could clarify whose perceptions matter, and how different perceptions of different pieces of the “liberal identity” manifest and play out in different historical cases. In fact, Hayes is calling for just such a research agenda in his new review essay in EJIR.

I also think we need to give consideration to how much room elites have to maneuver in terms of reconstructing these perceptions in given crises. Clearly, Nixon and Kissinger were not effective at doing so, but based on the data Hayes’ presents, they also didn’t really try. The diplomatic record suggests they were constrained by the understanding of the public’s understanding of Pakistan and of India despite their own perceptions and preferences. But Hayes’ analysis doesn’t suggest that they gave much thought to how they might re-frame these understandings to pursue their own interess. This might mean that elites don’t really have the ability to do so; but it might also simply mean that these two particular actors simply weren’t as clever at wielding soft power as they were at blustering around angrily behind the scenes. To examine this further, we need a different kind of “hard case” – a case where public figures are actually good at this and made an effort at it, and failed anyway.

Share

Friday Anti-Nerd Blogging Early: When Sports and International Relations Meet, the Dumbest Things Happen

I am headed out to Coachella this Thursday for three days of music in the desert. Well, two days. I am too old to make it all the way through, and I have to teach on Monday. In any case, I thought I would offer this Friday anti-nerd blogging column a little early in the week. For those of you teaching or taking classes on the semester system, it is that time of year that you are very, very tired. You need the break a bit in advance.

The MLB team, the Marlins, just suspended their manager, Ozzie Guillen, for complimentary comments he made about Fidel Castro. The Marlins play in Miami where they have this little minority constituency that seems to gets its way from time to time. Or every time.

Please do not look to this man for foreign policy insight. This should be self-evident

I am going to go out on a limb and say that anything that a professional baseball player, or even coach, says about politics does not matter whatsoever. Ozzie Guillen is clearly something of an idiot, but this is something that we should expect of our athletes. Even cherish. Let’s apply that same rule to every sport. In general there should be no penalty for what people who know nothing about politics say about politics, even if they are in the public eye. So we can forgive the Dixie Chicks, Kanye West, and even Ted Nugent. We can make fun of them, call them ignorant. Indeed we should. But for them to lose their job over it, even if just for a few days, is very, very dumb. The guy should not even have to apologize. If everyone had to say sorry for being an idiot, there would not be much time left over. I have now just satisfied my lifelong ambition to mention Ted Nugent in a blog.

Guillen isn’t a leftist, communist revolutionary, or an apologist for dictatorial regimes. He simply admires, he says, Castro for his amazing staying power. Despite being an international and domestic pariah he has held on to power for decades (Castro, not Guillen). In other words, Guillen appreciates that Castro is a tough and stubborn son-of-a-bitch. I think we can all agree that, even if we not quite call it a merit, Castro is indeed a tough and stubborn son-of-a-bitch. I find this whole event somewhat funny in that it has transpired at a moment in American politics in which the greatest asset for a political figure, at least voters claim, is principled conviction and an unwillingness to back down.

In general, I think that the American public needs to take a really big collective breath and chill the f*ck out about what people say. It is far more important what people do. Does Ozzie Guillen diddle little boys? Not that we know of? Then let’s all just shut the f*ck up.

The same goes for politics. If Rick Santorum calls Mitt Romney “the worst possible candidate,” it should not be news because it does not matter. It does not tell us anything about either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney except that they probably don’t like each other. Duh. It just seems to me that we all are all on the constant look-out for something that offends us. We want to be outraged. What does that say about us? What’s with the axe to grind? I say let the offense come to us. And let’s wait for something really offensive.We can blame it on the news media, but my guess is the first thing we all tweet, facebook, etc., is dumb shit like this. They only do it because we watch it.

In other words, the public needs to be more like IR scholars, who don’t give two shits about rhetoric and talk. I think this is actually a big, big problem, and it is something that some are trying to correct like Ron Krebs, Stacie Goddard, Jennifer Mitzen, Jarrod Hayes and Patrick T. Jackson. But for our own domestic politics, we would do well to heed the lesson that so much of this is unimportant fluff.

OK, off to hang out with the hipster doofi. Lates.

Share

The Rhino in the Room

Somehow I managed to delete my mediocre post on peer review. The gist: peer review is arbitrary and capricious; summary rejections offer a cosmetic fix; we need to reduce our reliance on counting peer-review journal articles as a basis for evaluating scholarly worth.

Jarrod Hayes commented:

I am struck by the arbitrariness of peer-review. I have at least once asked to come in as a reviewer when two reviews reached polar opposite conclusions about a manuscript. Both reviews were careful and conscientious, and I found merit in both when I saw them in the decision letter to the author. How could they both be right?

To which I respond: at least they were both conscientious! I sometimes play a game with a friend called “guess which review was mine?” It isn’t much of a game, to tell the truth. Both of us tend to produce long reviews, often with full references and explanations for why citing particular omitted work matters, and that seldom use denigrating language like “this is obviously a seminar paper.”

But Jarrod raises an absolutely crucial point: publish or perish depends a great deal on luck of the draw. Many of the “top journals” in our field engage in a form of “peer-review triage” in which all of the reviews have to be at least fairly strong R&Rs (“revise and resubmit”) to avoid rejection. This means that it is quite possible for a manuscript to accumulate more “accepts” than “rejects” and never see the light of day–at least as at a “prestigious” journal. Is that evidence of a functional system for allocating status and success?

Share
« Older posts

© 2021 Duck of Minerva

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑