KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Foregrounding the Complexities of a Dialogic Approach to Global International Relations

Deepshikha SHAHI
Sayfa
163–176
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

This paper sets out to shed light on these unsettled contestations in an endeavour to intellectually improve the prospects of a dialogic approach to Global IR.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The ever more global character of today’s International Relations (IR) is no longer satisfied with one-sided stories about how things have gone with either the West or the non-West.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Rather, the ongoing discussions on Global IR persuade both the West and the non-West to squarely unfold their own narratives.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This paper sets out to shed light on these unsettled contestations in an endeavour to intellectually improve the prospects of a dialogic approach to Global IR.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

The ever more global character of today’s International Relations (IR) is no longer satisfied with one-sided stories about how things have gone with either the West or the non-West. Rather, the ongoing discussions on Global IR persuade both the West and the non-West to squarely unfold their own narratives. As the theories and practices of contemporary international relations have remarkably acquired a ‘Global’ impetus, a lot of premium is being put on a ‘dialogic approach’ – that is, an approach to Global IR that insists upon a deeper two-way communicative-action between the West and the non-West. Although the dialogic approach to Global IR seeks to resolve a wide range of cognitive differences between the West and the non-West, it more often than not remains thwarted by a few unsettled contestations: (i) History vs. Philosophy, (ii) Chronology vs. Covariance, (iii) Language vs. Concept, (iv) Culture vs. Economy, and (v) Single vs. Plural. This paper sets out to shed light on these unsettled contestations in an endeavour to intellectually improve the prospects of a dialogic approach to Global IR.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SHAHI, D. (2022). Foregrounding the Complexities of a Dialogic Approach to Global International Relations. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 163–176. https://ajindex.com/articles/434978

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–37. –––. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647–59.
  2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. The Making of Global International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
  3. Alker, Hayward R. “The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue.” The American Political Science Review 82, no. 3 (1988): 805–20.
  4. Anievas, Alexander. “On Habermas, Marx and the Critical Theory Tradition: Theoretical Mastery or Drift?” In International Relations Theory and Philosophy: Interpretive Dialogues, edited by C. Moore and C. Farrands, 144–56. London: Routledge, 2010.
  5. Balci. Ali. “Knowledge, Repetition and Power in Ibn al-’Arabi’s Thought: Some Preliminary Comments on Methodology.” All Azimuth 4, no. 1 (2015): 39–50.
  6. Banchoff, Thomas. “Religion and the Global Politics of Human Dignity.” In Human Dignity and the Future of Global Institutions, edited by Mark P. Lagon and Anthony Clark Arend, 257–76. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 2014.
  7. Behr, Hartmut, and Michael C. Williams. “Interlocuting Classical Realism and Critical Theory: Negotiating ‘Divides’ in International Relations Theory.” Journal of International Political Theory 13, no. 1 (2017): 3–17.
  8. Bhambra, Gurminder K. “Talking Among Themselves? Weberian and Marxist Historical Sociologies as Dialogues Without ‘Others’.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 667–81.
  9. Biebuyck, William, and Judith Meltzer. “Cultural Political Economy.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  10. Biersteker, Thomas J. “Eroding Boundaries, Contested Terrain.” International Studies Review 1 (1999): 3–9.
  11. Blanshard, Brand. The Nature of Thought (2 volumes). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1939.
  12. Bohm, David. On Dialogue. London: Routledge, 1996.
  13. Capan, Zeynep G. “Decolonising International Relations?” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 1 (2017): 1–15.
  14. Chatterjee, Partha. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse. London: Zed Books, 1986.
  15. Curtis, Simon, and Marjo Koivisto. “Towards a Second ‘Second Debate’? Rethinking the Relationship between Science and History in International Theory.” International Relations 24, no. 4 (2010): 433–55.
  16. Der Derian, Jame