Explore the vast range of titles available.

International Security Studies (ISS) has changed and diversified in many ways since 1945. This book provides the first intellectual history of the development of the subject in that period. It explains how ISS evolved from an initial concern with the strategic consequences of superpower rivalry and nuclear weapons, to its current diversity in which environmental, economic, human and other securities sit alongside military security, and in which approaches ranging from traditional Realist analysis to Feminism and Post-colonialism are in play. It sets out the driving forces that shaped debates in ISS, shows what makes ISS a single conversation across its diversity, and gives an authoritative account of debates on all the main topics within ISS. This is an unparalleled survey of the literature and institutions of ISS that will be an invaluable guide for all students and scholars of ISS, whether traditionalist, 'new agenda' or critical.

The Copenhagen school's theory of securitisation has mainly focused on the middle level of world politics in which collective political units, often but not always states, construct relationships of amity or enmity with each other. Its argument has been that this middle level would be the most active both because of the facility with which collective political units can construct each other as threats, and the difficulty of finding audiences for the kinds of securitisations and referent objects that are available at the individual and system levels. This article focuses on the gap between the middle and system levels, and asks whether there is not more of substance there than the existing Copenhagen school analyses suggests. It revisits the under-discussed concept of security constellations in Copenhagen school theory, and adds to it the idea of macrosecuritisations as ways of getting an analytical grip on what happens above the middle level. It then suggests how applying these concepts adds not just a missing sense of scale, but also a useful insight into underlying political logics, to how one understands the patterns of securitisation historical, and contemporary.

\"Bringing together some of the most innovative scholars in both the English School of International Relations and East Asian Studies, this volume investigates whether or not significant and distinct international social structures exist at the regional level represented by 'East Asia', and what this can tell us about international society both regionally and globally\"-- Provided by publisher.

Given that the world has moved well beyond the period of Western colonialism, and clearly into a durable period in which non-Western cultures have gained their political autonomy, it is long past time that non-Western voices had a higher profile in debates about international relations, not just as disciples of Western schools of thought, but as inventors of their own approaches. Western IR theory has had the advantage of being the first in the field, and has developed many valuable insights, but few would defend the position that it captures everything we need to know about world politics. In this book, Acharya and Buzan introduce non-Western IR traditions to a Western IR audience, and challenge the dominance of Western theory. An international team of experts reinforce existing criticisms that IR theory is Western-focused and therefore misrepresents and misunderstands much of world history by introducing the reader to non-Western traditions, literature and histories relevant to how IR is conceptualised. Including case studies on Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, Southeast Asian, Indian and Islamic IR this book redresses the imbalance and opens up a cross-cultural comparative perspective on how and why thinking about IR has developed in the way it has. As such, it will be invaluable reading for both Western and Asian audiences interested in international relations theory. Amitav Acharya is Professor of International Politics at American University, USA. Barry Buzan is Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics, UK. 1. Why is there no Non-Western International Relations Theory: An Introduction Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan 2. Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory? Yaqing Qin 3. Why Are There No Non-Western Theories of International Relations? The Case of Japan Takashi Inoguchi 4. Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? Reflections on and from Korea Chaesung Chun 5. Re-Imagining IR in India, Navnita Chadha Behera 6. Southeast Asia: Theory between Modernization and Tradition? Alan Chong 7. Perceiving Indonesian Approaches to International Relations Theory Irman G. Lanti and Leonard C. Sebastian 8. International Relations Theory and the Islamic Worldview Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh 9. World History and the Development of Non-Western IR Theory Barry Buzan and Richard Little 10. Conclusion: On the Possibility of a Non-Western International Relations Theory Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan \"This book adds a critically needed voice that specifies areas of deficiency and methods which may allow for alternative and reasonable disciplinary guidance that can finally address the historical inequity within the study of IR. The authors provide key insights to a problematic theme regarding how to overcome “colonization of the mind” by the limiting and framing scopes of inquiry so as to essentially set an agenda with regard to an entire disciplinary field of academia and its requisite effects.\" - William J. Jones, Mahidol University International College; Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 4, Number 1, (November 2012).

\"International Security Studies (ISS) has changed and diversified in many ways since 1945. This book provides the first intellectual history of the development of the subject in that period. It explains how ISS evolved from an initial concern with the strategic consequences of superpower rivalry and nuclear weapons, to its current diversity in which environmental, economic, human and other securities sit alongside military security, and in which approaches ranging from traditional Realist analysis to Feminism and Post-colonialism are in play. It sets out the driving forces that shaped debates in ISS, shows what makes ISS a single conversation across its diversity, and gives an authoritative account of debates on all the main topics within ISS. This is an unparalleled survey of the literature and institutions of ISS which will be an invaluable guide for all students and scholars of ISS, whether traditionalist, 'new agenda' or critical\"--Provided by publisher.

This paper argues for cold war as a general concept for IR that is necessary to understanding the twenty-first century world order. It distinguishes between hot and cold wars as types of war. It rejects the view that the term should be reserved for the 1947–89 event, and it argues that we are already in a Second Cold War. Its definition of cold war ties it to weapons of mass destruction, which means that cold wars did not exist before the twentieth century. Cold wars risk escalation into hot ones, but can also be fought to win/lose outcomes as happened with the First Cold War, or to some form of settlement. The Second Cold war will be fought differently from the First, with cyberwar playing a big role. And it will be influenced by the shared-fate threat of climate change in a way that the First Cold War was not. The most likely scenario is that it will be long and have no winner.

\"The 'long nineteeenth century' (1776-1914) was a period of political, economic, military and cultural revolutions that re-forged both domestic and international societies. Neither existing international histories nor International Relations texts sufficiently register the scale and impact of this 'global transformation', yet it is the consequences of these multiple revolutions that provide the material and ideational foundations of modern international relations\"-- Provided by publisher.

A decade ago in 2007 we published a forum in International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (IRAP) on 'Why there is no non-Western IR theory?'. Now we revisit this project ten years on, and assess the current state of play. What we do in this article is first, to survey and assess the relevant literature that has come out since then; second, to set out four ways in which our own understanding of this issue has evolved since 2007; third to reflect on some ways in which Asian IR might contribute to the emergence of what we call 'Global IR'; and fourth to look specifically at hierarchy as an issue on which East Asian IR scholars might have a comparative advantage. Our aim is to renew, and perhaps refocus, the challenge to Asian IR scholars, and our hope is that this will contribute to the building of Global IR.