What are the key differences between the ‘International’, the ‘Global’ and the ‘Planetary’? Why are these important?
Introduction
The “International”, the “Global”, and the “Planetary” represent the stages of evolution of the discipline of International Relations, which was shaped by theories diverging on “the relationship between agency, process, and social structure” (Wendt, 1992, p422). This essay will attempt to identify, critique and reflect upon the most fundamental differences between the three. I identified their key differences to be: the conceptualisations of the international arena, types of politics, driving motivation behind their politics, types of actors, quality of dynamics, identities and interests, and security. In the subsequent sections, I will critically expose each of these concepts in the framework of the “International”, the “Global”, and the “Planetary”, and speculate on their relevance.
The International Paradigm
The discipline of International Relations, also known as IR, has always been divided by many theories on how to theorise the world, and whether or not elements such as history, philosophy, morals and politics played a significant role in it. The many theories which scatter across IR give to the aforementioned elements different grounds of importance, or no importance at all. In the realm of the discipline of IR, Realism is the Queen theory. The other approaches mostly had the merit of adding elements which the discipline acquired and assimilated through its evolution over the centuries. Nonetheless, the school of thought of Realism is the theory which provided the discipline with its foundation, structure and precise conceptualisation of the actors who rule the discipline of International Relations.
Realism states that the ground stage on which the international actors interact is within a timeless sphere of anarchy, in which States base their relations on Realpolitik, power politics. As a result, the quality of the elapsing exchanges is permeated by overbearingness and selfishness, prevarication of interests of the “stronger” State upon the “weaker” State, distrust, disloyalty, and so on. IR, according to Realism, conceptualises the international arena within Realpolitik, which means applying the original concept of Realpolitik to the international system. Realpolitik is a concept which was coined in Germany in the Nineteenth Century to indicate the pursuit of pragmatic politics, without taking much into account morals and ethics when making a policy decision. Applying the concept of Realpolitik to the international arena meant conceptualising an international system of relations which is more concerned with the pursuit of pragmatic objectives, of selfish politics which would benefit the single State who is pursuing it, rather than the international system. Therefore, the quality of the exchanges happening between States, in turn, did not offer fertile soil for the establishment of international cooperation between States or leagues of States.
It is an international system founded on, and functioning through, power politics. Because of the assumption that Anarchy governs the international system, the only possible actor who is strong enough to survive and interact with the system to pursue and defend its interests, is the State. Therefore, there is only space for State-based politics and the conception of the “International” is an inter-State system exclusively. This is the State-based paradigm of International Relations, and, as the only actors in the international system, they are depicted as rational and autonomous, acting in a static, and consequences-less anarchy. States come into the international arena already equipped with an identity and a set of interests. Therefore, a conception of pre-made identities and interests characterises the international arena, and the only objective of their interactions is power, to gain more and to protect what amount of power one has.
The Origins of The Discipline
To genuinely comprehend the discipline of IR and its mission, one must dive into its origins and subsequent evolution. Different philosophical beliefs and paradigms oppositely approached international relations through conceptualisations of study, politics, dynamics and instruments. IR finds its roots in historical, theoretical, philosophical, political frameworks which, once combined, coined the discipline, whose development culminated with its sudden fall after the end of the Cold War.
To further explain the historical, theoretical, philosophical, political origins of my previous statement I will refer to the work of International Relations scholar, Martin Wight, who was a professor at the London School of Economics.
Wight started studying International Relations when the discipline was gaining momentum and celebrity status in the United States in the 1950s, under the denomination of “A Theory of International Relations”. The scientific or behaviourist movement of the United States developed the belief that if you were to study behaviours attentively enough, one could explain the events that have intersected the faiths of countries in the past, present, and even predict future political intersections between States. This belief gave birth to Modern International Relations, as a rejection of “old” Realist views on the matters of International Politics. Therefore, this wave of Neo-Realism tried to move past the “obsolete methodology of existing general works about International Relations, especially those of Realist writers such as E. H. Carr, George F. Kennan and Hans Morgenthau, which formed the staple academic diet of the time” (Bull, 1976, p 103).
It is imperative to take in mind the element of history if one wants to genuinely understand why the theory of Neo-Realism, which undoubtedly represents an oversimplified framework of the exchanges between States, gained such relevance. This view on International Relations was developed right after the end of World War II, in a post-war world that had lost many things to a conflict which many, if not most, deemed useless, and, above all, evitable. Even the mere idea of a discipline which could avoid the repeating of such events, through the detailed analysis of everyday political events and politicians national and international behaviours, was sufficient justification or motivation for a world that had starved many years for hope.
Wight argued that “it is no accident that international relations have never been the subject of any great theoretical work, that there is “a kind of disharmony between international theory and diplomatic practice, a kind of recalcitrance of international politics to being theorised about” (Bull, 1976, p 114). Therefore, in an effort to alleviate this disharmony, he developed his vision to contribute to the debate, and he based it on the commingling of history, philosophy, morals, and politics. Wight “saw the Theory of International Relations […] as a study in political philosophy or political speculation pursued by way of an examination of the main traditions of thought about International Relations in the past” (Bull, 1976, p 103).
He initially decided to divide it into three main categories, each one representing a great thinker of the past. Later on, he identified a possible fourth category, the Inverted Revolutionists, based on a pacifist current inspired by Christianism, Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi.
The three main categories are the Machiavellians, from Niccolò Machiavelli’s ideals; Grotians, from Hugo Grotius’s; and the Kantians’, from the work of Immanuel Kant. Each one of them ideated their interpretations on the conception of human nature, the critical units of analysis of the international system, its dynamics and instruments, and the definition of political space and its characteristics.
Machiavelli theorised that the human nature is only driven by self-interest and permeated with greediness. He identified that the critical unit of analysis for understanding the international arena is the recognition of its state of anarchy, which is dominated by dynamics of warfare, power, security and gathering of resources. The political space, exactly like the human nature, is filled only with self-interest and no morality. Machiavelli provided the base on which Realist theories laid their foundations.
Grotius, unlike Machiavelli and the subsequent most fervent Realists, considers the human a rational being who operates within the State, which subsequently engages in international relations in an international system which, like men, runs on rationality. Everything about Grotius’s theory is permeated with rationality, and the quality of the dynamics of the international arena is a reflection of such. Indeed, he believed that the dynamics of the international arena are ruled by diplomacy, negotiations, institutions and norms because the political space is dominated by institutions and by order. Grotius represents moderation and the voice of reason for the successful establishment of an international system based on rationality and cooperation, not on violence and distrust like the system painted by Machiavelli in his most famous works, The Prince and Discourses in the First Decade of Titus Livy. Grotius speculates on the doctrine of an international system based on a society of states working together towards common goals, he dreams of an international society, in direct opposition with the sharp, realist concept of national societies above all. It is “the idea […] that international politics is not just a matter of relations between states, but also a matter of so-called “transnational” relations among the individuals and groups that states compose” (Bull, 1976, p112).
Kant theories that the human nature is good, peaceful, a supporter of solidarity and cooperation. He believed in a global community and in an ideal man who would contribute to its flourishment. The dynamics revolve around policies for cooperation, international trade and exchange, and they would eventually enable the development of a political space represented by a cosmopolitan society. In one of his works, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”, he goes as far as developing a plan for governments of the world to follow to establish peace for the world, because peace has to come above all. He dreams of a political space which is characterised by the emancipation from State and by an international confederation and the disruption of geographical boundaries.
Moreover, Wight believed that “the truth about international politics had to be sought not in any one of these patterns of thought but in the debate among them” (Bull, 1976, p 110). Machiavelli’s theory is also most notoriously known as Realism. Grotius represents Rationalism, and Kant is Revolutionism, and each one is a founding brick of the discipline of International Relations. Each theory went through transformative changes over the decades. For example, Machiavelli’s Realism turned into Neo-Realism in the 1970s and 1980s and turned into Modernist or Positivist in the 1990s. Grotius’s Rationalism found a new key of interpretation in the English School, between the 1940s and 1960s. Kant’s Revolutionism went from Idealism in the 1920s – 1930s to Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Institutionalism in 1970s and 1980s .
The State-Based Approach to Security
I end this excursus on the origins of the discipline of international relations here, and I catch this occasion to list another key aspect which sets the International paradigm apart from the global and the planetary. And it is its State-based approach to security, which meant that only the State was in charge of taking the necessary measurements aimed at safety, preservation and survival of a country. This implied a severe limit at the protection of one’s nation because “weak” nations did not possess a force of power tantamount to the one of a “strong” country. Therefore, a “weak” state was in the thrall of the anarchic international system, and if a nation wanted to exercise its power to gain more resources, it could attack it, without an international community which would defend it or even dissuade a predator country from invading it.
Methodological Nationalism
The theory of Methodological Nationalism offered a base to understand and organise the life and cycles of IR. It provided the discipline with a source of legitimacy. “Methodological Nationalism […] equates societies with nation-state societies, and sees states and their governments as the cornerstones of social-scientific analysis. It assumes that humanity is naturally divided into a limited number of nations, which internally organise themselves as nation-states and externally set boundaries to distinguish themselves from other nation-states” (Beck, 2003, p 453). It’s the perfect theory to justify the Realist approach to IR. It combined realist accents with the belief that there is only one-world World, everything else merely points at other ways to look at the same one-world world. Methodological nationalism is founded on six core beliefs: a plurality of Societies; Societies are subordinated to the Nation-State; States run on territorial “State-constructed” boundaries (Beck, 2003, p454); State and Society both determinate themselves through a circular belief: the nation is creator and protector of Society’s plethora of rights, and the individuals of the Society organize themselves in movements to influence the actions of the Nation-State, which, in turn, also legitimises the State again; “both States and Societies are located within the dichotomy of national and international” (Beck, 2003, p454); the state is the provider of social order and provides the scholars of multiple disciplines with the data about the country necessary to them. (Beck, 2003). Moreover, the core elements of this theory engage in constant activities which result in continuous determination and further legitimisation of one and the other, without leaving any room for the introduction of new elements.
The Decline of legitimacy of the Discipline
The international paradigm of the discipline experienced a major setback after the end of the Cold War, which left everyone baffled. Also, it left everyone unprepared for the events which followed it. The discipline of IR lost credibility as a predictor of events because all of the academics and IR contemporary theorists indeed failed at predicting one of the most history-shaping events of last century. Moreover, even the assumptions of State-based politics faltered, especially after the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers of September 11th, 2001. The discipline was built upon the framework of conceiving the world from the point of view of a State, indeed a State-based approach, preferably a white, Western one.
The end of the Cold War put into question the sounding of the reasoning behind the discipline, and the terrorist attack struck the final hit. It forced scholars, and politicians alike, to recognise the existence of worlds beyond the “Western World”. I am not here to speculate on whether or not the terrorist attack would have happened if the united states had not imposed their ways in the Middle East for years on end. But I am here to point out that the terrorist attack lifted the veil and it made it impossible for the discipline to ever go back to its original frameworks.
I believe that, at this Realist stage, the discipline used to run on such limited territorial lines that its failure had always been around the corner. Proof of this is that it only took a major event such as the abrupt end of the Cold War for it to crumble and for the scholars to put its frameworks into question altogether. Nonetheless, I do believe that the ultimate cause for the failure of the discipline has to be found on the terrorist attack, which slashed the core beliefs of many, terrorised an entire world, and scarred a whole generation forever. The fear that came afterwards paralysed the world for a moment. Somehow, the introduction of an undefinable enemy turned the discipline of IR on its head. State-based politics, as flawed as they were, were easily graspable and easily manageable: they played alongside the rules of an accepted framework. But 9/11? What was that? Under what category would it fall in the limited structures “allowed” by the discipline? A terrorist attack from an undefinable actor was inconceivable; it did not fit even in the corner of the discipline. The discipline was lacking something. The discipline was wrong.
A Critique of IR, and The Rise of the Global
Eventually, what were the core beliefs of the discipline of International Relations, turned out to be their very own self-limiting beliefs which did not allow the discipline to evolve with time into a comprehensive and complete discipline which provides an adequate understanding of the world and the exchanges which elapse within it.
“The fact that worlds of power politics are socially constructed […] does not guarantee they are malleable”, which is one of the flaws which contributed to the fall of IR, and “through practice agents are continuously producing and reproducing (the same) identities and interests. (Wendt, 1992, p411).
It’s a discipline based on seeing, experiences and conceptualising the world from a State-based only perspective, which results into the provision of a partial and meagre framework of understanding of the exchanges occurring in the world. It is a very limited perspective which lent a voice only to the white, Western Elite.
At the break of the new century, people started looking for other outlooks to replace entirely the failure that the “International” represented. In this time of international (relations) crisis, talks about what will come to be known as the ‘Global’ sprung everywhere. They will bring into the conversation a mixture of concepts which classical IR theories did not cover: Constructivism, gender issues, the need for Morals, Critical Discourses, Post-colonialism, and subsequently, the rise of the Anthropocene.
The Main Paradigms of the “Global”: Social Constructivism and Critical Thinking
“The cosmopolitan perspective dismisses the either-or principle of realism: either the State exists, albeit only as an essential core, or it does not exist at all; either there is national sovereignty – a zero-sum game between national and international competence – or there is no sovereignty at all. From a cosmopolitan perspective, “Realism” is a kind of political irrealism because it neglects the possibility and reality of a second “Great Transformation” of the global power game” (Beck, 2003, p457).
These words from Ulrich Beck, one of the most significant theorists of the Global, summarise the stark contraposition between the “International” and the “Global”. In the 1990s, debates about the Global came in to dismantle the limiting beliefs at the core of the discipline, which flawed for its lack of inclusiveness and overbearingness. The arrival of the global represented the fall of the exclusive domain of binary Left and Right politics as well.
The opening of the discipline of IR to a Global Era brings a new opportunity to engage with the world from a non-State-based position, through the development of many, pluriversal approaches: Constructivist, Critical and Cosmopolitan approaches. The Global Era represents a commingling of these new approaches, and the final result portrays how “the cosmopolitan perspective opens up negotiation spaces and strategies which the national viewpoint precludes. […] The negotiation space the cosmopolitan viewpoint opens up contradicts the absence of alternatives.” (Beck,2003, p466).
They introduce new ways of seeing and thinking about politics, global interests, and global concerns. The Global aims at creating a universal vision to build a liberal and global community, in which the States are not the centre of IR speculation anymore. The international arena is also positively shaken up by the appearance of new international actors which are not states: it’s the rise of the global civil society and Non-Governmental Agencies (Kaldor, 2003). Moreover, through the development of new international dynamics, Nation-States become the product, not the subjects, of the international arena (Jackson, 1990; Krasner, 1999).
Two paradigms of thought especially shaped this evolutionary period of IR: the social constructive/liberal and the critical/deconstructive.
The maintenance of the inter-State system, alongside the rise in popularity of theories of Global sovereignty, characterise the new international order. The emergence of the Global requires a new understanding of the mechanisms of the international arena because “It is the collective meanings that constitute the structures which organise our actions” (Wendt, 1992, p397). Therefore, with the evolutionary passage towards a new stage of the discipline of IR, scholars and citizens alike require a new framework of concepts. Social Constructivism achieves just that by providing a sociological understanding of interactions which challenge previous IR thinking. Alexander Wendt, a leading Constructivist theorist, explains how Constructivists believe that the international system and its frameworks are socials constructs, not beliefs that should be taken as “a given” (Wendt, 1992). Therefore, the significance of everything regarding IR comes “out of interaction” (Wendt, 1992, p403). According to Realism, States come into the international arena already equipped with an identity and a set of interests. Alexander Wendt, in direct opposition to Realism, speculates on “how knowledgeable practices constitute subjects”, and how Constructivism can contribute to “identity and interest formation” (Wendt, 1992, p394). They elaborate on the idea that the creation of an identity and set of interests happen through the elapsing exchanges between States in the international arena. “Actors acquire identities by participating in such collective meanings” (Wendt, 1992, p397). Therefore, actors do not enter the international arena with pre-formed identities, but they create one during their contacts with other states. And the same goes for their interests, which are formed while experiences these exchanges. Different exchanges will show how countries can have a variegated set of interests, depending on the circumstances (Wendt, 1992). Therefore, identities and interests are not a given, and their establishment happens during the socialisation process.
The paradigm of the Critical thinking supported the rise of the global because it opened the door for the emancipation of security from the state-based approach. (Booth, 1991). Critical theorists, alongside Constructivists, discuss the treatment of human security and how the obstacles to human security are constructed. The particular interests of States are a barrier to a universalist liberal approach to global rights and justice. Instead, supporters of Foucauldian critics see the rise of the global as a negative shift. The pursuit of global liberal “governmentality” and “biopolitics” are a negative aspiration for the security of States, which will end up having to rely on the international community. “The undermining of the politics of state-based representation and the globalisation of regulatory power has become the starting assumption for the postructuralist “scaling up” of Foucault in critiques of global governmentality” (Chandler, 2009, p536). Lemke (2001) shows how Foucault used concepts regarding governmentality in a way closer to realism than constructivism, which indicates a critique of the doctrine and its “obsession” with subjectification.
Another fundamental difference of the Global, in opposition with the International, is highlighted attention on Morals and Ethics, which have to have a more profound impact on the decisions of the Nation-State. Indeed, the rise of humanitarian aid actions and acts of global cooperation are proof of that. The global perspective introduces a new critical theory of social inequalities which shines a light on the need to provide aid to nations, minorities or whoever is in considerable need (Beck, 2003). Beck (2003) critics how the original IR used methodological nationalism to remove from its agenda the tackling of global inequalities. “Thus, the bigger blind spots – and sources of error- of methodological nationalism linked to research on inequality will only be recognisable by means of a systemic switch from the national to the cosmopolitan perspective. It is only within the framework of such a new critical theory of social inequality that the fundamental asymmetry of inequality perception […] can be unravelled” (Beck, 2003, p459). Nonetheless, he highlights also how the shift to a global perspective is still not enough to put a real fight against inequalities. Until “there is no global jurisdiction and reporting institution to survey global inequalities, these will remain disintegrated into a motley pattern of national-state inequalities” (Beck, 2003, p461).
International cooperation also brings a Decentring of State-based approaches to security, which in turn, produces more equilibrium and guarantees more safety to “weak” nations. The global brings about the creation of a “cooperative security system, in which states identify positively with one another so that the security of each is perceived as the responsibility of all” (Wendt, 1992, p400).
A Critique of Methodological Nationalism
Globalisation theorists deeply criticise Methodological Nationalism, a stream of thought which profoundly shaped the direction of the original discipline of IR, through the definition of its narrow frameworks. Ulrich Beck, one of the most famous theorists of the cosmopolitan approach, offers a brilliant critique of it. Methodological nationalism only manages to produce a continuous cycle of self-limiting beliefs which do not allow room for adaptation to new contemporary challenges. It is tiring and continuous contraposition between them or us, north or south, weak or strong. Its concepts are not appropriate anymore in the rise of the global age. He calls for a “paradigmatic reconstruction and redefinition of social science from a national to a cosmopolitan perspective [which] can be understood as […] a broadening of horizons for social science research” (Beck, 2003, p456). “Social science must be re-established as a transnational science of the reality of denationalisation, transnationalisation, and “re-ethnification” in a global age – and this is on the levels of concepts. Theories, and methodologies as well as organizationally. This entails a re-examination of the fundamental concepts of “modern society” (Beck, 2003, p458).
The cosmopolitan age requires a redefinition of the understanding of sovereignty in both the national and international context (Beck, 2003). Therefore, he states that “traditional conceptualisations of terms and the construction of borders between the “national” and the “international”, domestic and foreign politics, or Society and the State are less and less appropriate to tackling the challenges linked to the global age” (Beck, 2003, p456). Therefore, the main focus on the debate of globalisation has to be “on gaining a new cosmopolitan perspective on the global power field, pushing new actors and actors’ networks, power potentials, strategies. And forms of organisation of debonded politics into the field of vision” (Beck, 2003, p 467). Nonetheless, Beck (2003), stresses the importance of not mistaking the critique of this theory for the end of the nation-state theory: nation-state will always exist or will evolve into a new concept close to a possible transnational states theory.
The new Era of Planetary Politics of the Anthropocene
From the 2010s, discussions about a new concept called Anthropocene replaced the Global, which had declined in popularity because the translation of the global theories into reality did not appear to focus on achieving global forms of liberal governments anymore, nor did its original aim seemed to carry a positive connotation anymore. Furthermore, “the lack of strategic engagement […] (was) fundamental to the appeal of the Global Ideology” (Chandler, 2009, p540). Therefore, the rise of depreciative theories of the global made the world of scholars look for another direction. The crisis of the global did not produce a return to the past of IR, but rather a perspective of the problematics of IR.
The rise of the Anthropocene is strictly connected with the development of theories on pluriversalism, multiple universes. Blaney and Tickner (2017) discuss how an ontological turn of IR could exorcise “singular world logics introduced by colonial modernity” and allow the discipline to interact with the conception of pluriversalism. By studying on various sources, they develop “the potentials of a politics of ontology for unmaking the colonial universe, cultivating the pluriverse, and crafting a de-colonial science.” (Blaney and Tickner, 2017, p293). They suggest the presence of alternative world realities, which could produce “multiple and hybrid “reals”” (Blaney and Tickner, 2017, p295).
Both Global and Planetary do not see the world in terms of State-based theories of strategy and interests. Therefore, there is no intern-national theory. The predominant discussions of these two theories are about the how we understand and see the world beyond the strict assumptions of the discipline of IR.
Bruno Latour (1993) goes as far as to say that the modern society is stuck in “great divides”, mainly in the frameworks of nature/culture, human/non-human, facts/values, mind/body. These separations allow Western society “to claim to represent a singular reality in a unified science untainted by political interest, power or culture. […] Nature and culture are not discrete categories but intertwined in a multiplicity of hybrid assemblages […] modernity’s particular mode of representing reality is not universally shared. […] many communities do not sharply distinguish humans and other entities, so that animals, plants, and spirits are as much “people” (with consciousness, culture and language) as “we” are” (Blaney and Ticker, 2017, p296). The western societies start paying attention the profoundly original ways of seeing the world, which come from cultures that they had ignored. From them they take new eyes to look at the world: they discern how human activities never separated themselves from the earth’s ecosystem. It is the explosion of a real global conscience with the birth a planetary community, who is aware of the environment and the consequences of humanity’s actions on the planet. This also brought the awareness of agencies that had always been ignored by western society in the international arena: the equal presence of Human and non-human actors; nature declined in many agencies: water, air, etc., and cosmos.
The Planetary is aware that humankind with its actions has changed the planet we live in: the ecosystem, flora and fauna. And the planetary politics have started addressing these problems and, thanks to the rise of a planetary sense of community, governments of many countries have started doing something about it.
The era of the Anthropocene in IR is still relatively new; therefore, there is not as much debate about is as there has been for the International and the Global, but it is visible how planetary seems to have taken away the biggest concern of original IR, which is the gain of power. The race for power which has theorised the first conception of the discipline has come very close to destroying our world and the most recent “update” on IR now works on how to “fix” the unfixable. Planetary politics can be regarded as the least optimistic era of our history, and the only stream of thought which has offered a possible way to save our planet comes from the cultures the western society had tried to crash and integrate within it for centuries.
Conclusion
I will conclude by stating that identifying the key differences between the international, global and planetary is crucial because they show the development of the frameworks within which humankind moved and evolved, over the centuries, the conflicts and the scientific developments. Therefore, these differences provide the world with a reflection of the changing times and the world’s rejection of a one-world World, hegemony and lack of representation of multiple identities, interests, and beliefs. We have only recently entered the phase of planetary politics, although 8 years in IR provide a discreet amount of material; therefore, it is too soon to speculate on whether or not the attempts operated by the Anthropocene of preserving our planet will be fruitful, but it is definitely an improvement from the “International” paradigm of IR.
Bibliography
- Beck, U. (2003). Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent. Constellations, 10 (4), 453-468. Available from https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1351-0487.2003.00347.x [Accessed 3 February 2018].
- Blaney, D. L. and Tickner, A. B. (2017). Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR, Millennium, 45 (3), 293-311. Available from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305829817702446 [Accessed 15 March 2018].
- Booth, K. (1991). Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies, 17 (4), 313-327. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500112033 [Accessed 8 April 2018].
- Bull, H. (1976). Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations: The Second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture. British Journal of International Studies, 2 (2), 101-116. Available from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/martin-wight-and-the-theory-of-international-relations-the-second-martin-wight-memorial-lecture/9F12B04B0143159BE8D44C6BCABE7FF8 [Accessed 26 January 2018].
- Chandler, D. (2009). The Global Ideology: Rethinking the Politics of the “Global Turn” in IR, International Relations, 23 (4), 530-547. Available from DOI: 10.1177/0047117809350989 [Accessed 6 April 2018].
- Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research, 6 (3), 167-191. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/422690 [Accessed 18 February 2018].
- Jackson, R. H. (1991). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kaldor, M. (2003). Global Civil Society: An Answer to War, 1st ed. London: Polity.
- Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, 1st ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Latour, B. (2004). Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics?, Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck, Common Knowledge , 10 (3), 450-462. Available from http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/92-BECK_GB.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2018].
- Lemke, T. (2001). The Birth of Bio-Politics: Michel Foucault’s Lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30 (2), 190-207. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140120042271 [Accessed 5 March 2018].
- Morghenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, 7th ed. New York City: McGraw-Hill.
- North, D. C. (1991). Institutions, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 97-112. Available from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.5.1.97 [Accessed 11 March 2018].
- Peltonen, H. (2017). Planet Politics and International Relations. Duck of Minerva, 12 November. Available from http://duckofminerva.com/2017/11/planet-politics-and-international-relations.html [Accessed 8 April 2018].
- Rothe, D. (2017). Global Security in a Posthuman Age? IR and the Anthropocene Challenge. E-International Relations, 13 October. Available from http://www.e-ir.info/2017/10/13/global-security-in-a-posthuman-age-ir-and-the-anthropocene-challenge/ [Accessed 8 April 2018].
- Torrent, I. (2018). Week 2: What was the ‘international’ paradigm of IR? Notes taken in class. Beyond International Relations: The Politics of the International, the Global and the Planetary. Notes taken in class 30 January 2018.
- Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States Make of It, International Organization, 46 (2), 394-419. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858 [Accessed 13 February 2018].
- Wight, M. (1991). International Theory: The Three Traditions, 1st ed. London: Leicester University Press, a division of Pinter Publishers.
2018-4-12-1523522615