Kirjahaku

This book is among the first to address the issues raised by the International Criminal Court (ICC) from an International Relations perspective. By clearly outlining a theoretical framework to interpret these issues, Ralph makes a significant contribution to the English School's study of international society. More specifically, he offers a concise definition of 'world society' and thus helps to resolve a longstanding problem in international theory. This groundbreaking conceptual work is supported by an in-depth empirical analysis of American opposition to the ICC. Ralph goes beyond the familiar arguments related to national interests and argues that the Court has exposed the extent to which American notions of accountability are tied to the nation-state. Where other democracies are willing to renegotiate their social contract because they see themselves as part of world society, the US protects its particular contract with 'the people' because it offers a means of distinguishing America and its democracy from the rest of the world. This 'sovereigntist', or more accurately 'Americanist', influence is further illustrated in chapters on the sources of law, universal jurisdiction, transatlantic relations and US policy on international humanitarian law in the war on terror. The book concludes by evoking E.H. Carr's criticism of those great powers who claim that a harmony exists between their particular interests and those of wider society. It also recalls his argument that great powers sometimes need to compromise and in this context, Ralph argues that support for the ICC is a more effective means of fulfilling America's purpose and a less costly sacrifice than that demanded by the 'Americanist' policy of nation-building.

Following 9/11 the United States faced a situation of exceptional insecurity. In that period the Bush administration argued that certain international norms did not apply to US conduct. Its argument was underpinned by the claim that the United States was in a state of armed conflict or war with a new kind of enemy. The purpose of this book is to examine whether this approach outlasted the moment of insecurity that gave rise to it. More than a decade on from those attacks, and following a change of administration, what influence do these arguments have on American policy? To answer this question it focuses on four areas of policy: the use of force and the prosecution, detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists. It demonstrates how the Bush policy programme was contested by liberals and realists from the outset. Any expectation that the war on terror would end following the election of President Obama has, however, proven unfounded. Obama consolidated the liberal pushback against aspects of the Bush programme but the US has continued to argue a state of armed conflict exists. The scope of the battlefield and the definition of the enemy has been a source of intense debate but the fact that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility remained open long after the President promised to close it is indicative of the underlying continuity. It is argued that this is driven in part by domestic politics and in part by an understanding of how the terrorist threat is evolving.

Global security, climate and health challenges have all created a deep-seated unease about international society's capacity to cope with change. International Relations should help practitioners develop appropriate responses, but Jason Ralph argues that IR would be better positioned to do so if it drew more explicitly on the insights of classical Pragmatism. By bringing this tradition in from the margins, Ralph comprehensively engages norm, practice, realist and global IR theory to extend the 'new constructivist' research agenda in a normative direction. He develops a 'Pragmatic Constructivist' approach to assess how well communities of practice facilitate the learning that mitigates emergent social problems and improves lived experiences. This normative assessment focuses on the extent to which communities of practice are characterized by inclusive reflexivity and deliberative practical judgment. These two tests are then applied to critique existing communities of practice, including the UN Security Council, the UNFCCC and the WHO.

Global security, climate and health challenges have all created a deep-seated unease about international society's capacity to cope with change. International Relations should help practitioners develop appropriate responses, but Jason Ralph argues that IR would be better positioned to do so if it drew more explicitly on the insights of classical Pragmatism. By bringing this tradition in from the margins, Ralph comprehensively engages norm, practice, realist and global IR theory to extend the 'new constructivist' research agenda in a normative direction. He develops a 'Pragmatic Constructivist' approach to assess how well communities of practice facilitate the learning that mitigates emergent social problems and improves lived experiences. This normative assessment focuses on the extent to which communities of practice are characterized by inclusive reflexivity and deliberative practical judgment. These two tests are then applied to critique existing communities of practice, including the UN Security Council, the UNFCCC and the WHO.

This title was first published in 2001. The security dilemma has long been at the heart of the security studies discipline. Moving beyond this, this book attacks the assumptions of the traditional concept and redefines the security dilemma in a way more useful for examining security policy. By exposing the historical and social contingency of the traditional concept, the book argues that the security dilemma is an important though not a permanently operating feature of international politics. An examination of US policy towards the Soviet Union demonstrates the limits of perceiving the Cold War and challenges the role that American security policy has played in the process of constructing a transatlantic security community.

This title was first published in 2001. The security dilemma has long been at the heart of the security studies discipline. Moving beyond this, this book attacks the assumptions of the traditional concept and redefines the security dilemma in a way more useful for examining security policy. By exposing the historical and social contingency of the traditional concept, the book argues that the security dilemma is an important though not a permanently operating feature of international politics. An examination of US policy towards the Soviet Union demonstrates the limits of perceiving the Cold War and challenges the role that American security policy has played in the process of constructing a transatlantic security community.