Helena Rytövuori-Apunen

Forget ‘Post-Positivist’ IR! The Legacy of IR Theory as the Locus for a Pragmatist Turn

The relationship between critical international relations (IR) and the conventional mainstream or alleged ‘orthodoxy’ needs to be better articulated. Without connecting to previous theory it cannot logically seek to introduce new ‘turns’ for disciplinary development, and intellectual movement remains isolated choreography contributing to a field that is global only in the scope of its dispersion. Proceeding from this argument, the article undertakes some of the ‘groundwork’ so often neglected in the interests of coming up with new theory and approaches or of presenting the ‘next stage’ for disciplinary discussion. A reexamination of ‘post-positivism’ as a corporate self-definition of critical IR produces an identification of the disciplinary mainstream that highlights the legacy of IR theory in theory-centred approaches and universal taxonomy, thereby providing a locus for a pragmatist turn in the study of IR. Although pragmatist approaches have already won a place in the field, the challenge remains of transcending the dichotomies of the episteme that leaves this research at the margins of the mainstream. Pragmatism is a way of inquiry opposed to dogmatism and can facilitate communication through which a more global discipline can be created. The way proposed by the author combines Deweyan ethics with C. S. Peirce’s logic of the sign.

The regional security puzzle around Afghanistan : bordering practices in Central Asia and beyond

Nutzungsbedingungen: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine Weiterverbreitung keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an. Terms of use: This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Redistribution no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, nontransferable, individual and limited right to using this document. This document is solely intended for your personal, noncommercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain all copyright information and other information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use the document in public. By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated conditions of use.

Regulatory Convergence and Global Partnership: Another Phase in EU-Russian Relations

Regulatory dialogue is a key policy instrument of the ‘Road Maps’ shaping the EU-Russia partnership. Guidelines for establishing a set of dialogues in relevant fields include: setting up a formal framework, determining the areas and sectors for the harmonization of legislation and practices, determining priorities, and identifying procedures for conformity assessment, including systems of quality assessment. Regulatory convergence of policies and strategies is the instructive principle and expected outcome. The four spaces provide horizons of action, and long-term goals are defined by the ‘single’ areas — among these a free trade area and visa freedom — outlining a vision of ‘Europe without dividing lines’.1

The Depth of Borders Beyond the State: Analytical, Normative and Epistemic Challenges of Study

Borders, with reference to the dividing lines between different states, are one of the most heavily institutionalized concepts in the practice of international relations. A whole range of other borders escape our attention if we frame questions with conceptual a priori such as the state-centered view of the world and its norm ative parallels in the b/ordering principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. This chapter reflects on three interrelated aspects of this problem. First, it discusses analytical perspectives for examining how the bordering practices of non-state actors, internationally unrecognized but internally functioning de facto states, as well as state agencies, challenge and consolidate internationally recognized borders. Second, it argues that the erosion of international law relating to state borders has made these principles susceptible to political uses and that these discus sions have left in their shadow the dynamic social processes in which borders are contested, created and confirmed in international relations. The third argument is that inquiries into the reality of borders in relation to the concepts that define them with practical implications must have a place in research in order to address this problem and to be able to proactively contribute to the prevention of destructive outbursts of border-related conflicts. The chapter proposes a pragmatist interpretation of reality for unfolding the depth of borders beyond the state.

Russia’s Karabakh policy: new momentum in regional perspective

ABSTRACT This article asks what opportunities are available to start untying the persistent deadlock in the Nagorny Karabakh (NK) conflict when we take into account not only the positions of the conflict parties but also the fact that Russia’s strategic interests define its stance on the negotiation process and promote certain conditions for settlement. These conditions recognize Russia’s existing military presence in the region as well as the political and economic influence embedded in its Eurasian integration projects. The article does not advocate any parties’ interests, and it does not claim to present conditions which are acceptable to any of the parties. Instead, it examines how Russia’s interests in the wider region, which includes Turkey and Iran, relate to the basic elements of settlement which have been identified in the Minsk Process as the elaboration of the “Basic Principles”. We argue that understanding how these two action frames are interconnected in the Russian policy argumentation is the key to understanding its approach to conflict settlement in NK. Our main analytical point of departure is to unfold strategic perspectives by examining immediate and strategic goals in the policy argumentation. Empirically, the article concentrates on analysing the policy discourse connected with the major incidents of ceasefire violations in July–August 2014 and April 2016.