Vocabularies Of International Relations After The Crisis In Ukraine

The conflict in Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea has undoubtedly been a pivotal moment for policy makers and military planners in Europe and beyond. Many analysts see an unexpected character in the conflict and expect negative reverberations and a long-lasting period of turbulence and uncertainty, the de-legitimation of international institutions and a declining role for global norms and rules. Did these events bring substantial correctives and modifications to the extant conceptualization of International Relations? Does the conflict significantly alter previous assumptions and foster a new academic vocabulary, or, does it confirm the validity of well-established schools of thought in international relations? Has the crisis in Ukraine confirmed the vitality and academic vigour of conventional concepts? These questions are the starting points for this book covering conceptualisations from rationalist to reflectivist, and from quantitative to qualitative. Most contributors agree that many of the old concepts, such as multi-polarity, spheres of influence, sovereignty, or even containment, are still cognitively valid, yet believe the eruption of the crisis means that they are now used in different contexts and thus infused with different meanings. It is these multiple, conceptual languages that the volume puts at the centre of its analysis. This text will be of great interest to students and scholars studying international relations, politics, and Russian and Ukrainian studies.

In his book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century the historian Yuval Noah Harrari wrote that man had the possibility to conquer the world precisely because he could create fictional stories and believe in them. People created more and more complex stories about themselves that served and continue to serve, according to the professor of the University of Jerusalem, building unity, social harmony and gaining power. A narrative about past, in which memory fragmentation and victimisation play a large role, may be a temptation to instrumentalise the past. This is especially true in relation to the events of the twentieth century, when a series of bloody war conflicts occurred. As shown in the following post-conference volume, today the wars of the past (World War I and World War II, Indian-Pakistani war) and current conflicts (Russo-Ukrainian war, war in Sudan or Nagorno-Karabakh) are also a catalyst for the process of instrumentalisation. This process can be analysed both at the level of the evolution of the language of conflict, including the erosion of the values of democratic dialogue, and the use of specific means of commemorating the past (monuments, museums, the Internet).

This volume analyzes crises in International Relations (IR) in an innovative way. Rather than conceptualizing a crisis as something unexpected that has to be managed, the contributors argue that a crisis needs to be analyzed within a wider context of change: when new discourses are formed, communities are (re)built, and new identities emerge. Focusing on Ukraine, the book explore various questions related to crisis and change, including: How are crises culturally and socially constructed? How do issues of agency and structure come into play in Ukraine? Which subjectivities were brought into existence by Ukraine crisis discourses? Chapters explore the participation of women in Euromaidan, identity shifts in the Crimean Tatar community and diaspora politics, discourses related to corruption, anti-Soviet partisan warfare, and the annexation of Crimea, as well as long distance impacts of the crisis.

Current international relations (IR) theories and approaches, which are almost exclusively built in the West, are alien to the non-Western contexts that engender the most hard-pressing problems of the world and ultimately unhelpful in understanding or addressing the needs surrounding these issues. Our supposedly revolutionary new concepts and approaches remain largely insufficient in explaining what happens globally and in offering lessons for improvement. This deficiency can only be addressed by building more relevant theories. For theory to be relevant in accounting for contemporary international relations, we argue, it should not only apply to, but also emanate from different corners of the current political universe. In other words, diversity and dialogue can only come about when periphery scholars do not just "meta-theorize" but also "theorize." Aydinli and Biltekin propose a new form of theorizing through this collection of work, one that effectively blends peripheral outlooks with theory production. They call this form "homegrown theorizing," or original theorizing in the periphery about the periphery. Arguing that disciplinary culture is oblivious to the diversity that might be achieved by theorizing based on indigenous ideas and/or practices, this book intends to highlight that potential, showing diversity in the background of the authors, because wherever one looks at the world from, paints the picture that is being seen. Therefore, we bring together scholars from Eastern Europe to South Africa, from Iran to Japan to cover the extant diversity in ideas. This work will be essential reading for all students and scholars concerned with the future of international relations theory.

This volume examines the war in Ukraine from a range of historical, military and feminist perspectives, exploring aspects such as the attitude of neighboring states, political leadership, local government, social mechanisms and the cultural and media policies of both Russia and Ukraine. The contributors explain how Ukraine shaped its identity following its separation from the USSR and how Russia built its military power and implemented its invasion plans. Considering the impact of the war not only in Ukraine, but also the Baltic states, chapters discuss the leadership role of President Zelensky, patriotic attitudes, the victimization of women and the impact on Poland as it helps and aid to huge numbers of refugees. Providing much needed context on the Russia-Ukraine war, this book will be of interest to students and scholars of international relations, political science, gender studies, international and national security and public politics.

JAIR Journal of International Relations (JAIR J. Int. Relat.) is a biennial, peer-reviewed, refereed journal of International Relations published by The Jadavpur Association of International Relations with the financial assistance from the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), New Delhi.

The breakup of the Soviet Union led to the creation of new states and territorial conflicts of different levels of intensity. Scrutinising the post‐Soviet period, this volume offers explanations for both the frequency and the intensity of crises in the region. This book argues that the societies which emerged in the post-Soviet space share characteristic features, and that the instability and conflict-prone nature of the Soviet Union’s successor states can be explained by analysing the post-independence history of the region and linking it to the emergence of overlapping economic, political and violent crises (called 'Intersecting Crises Phenomena’). Transformation itself is shown to be a decisive process and, while acknowledging specific national and regional characteristics and differences, the authors demonstrate its shared impact. This comparison across countries and over time presents patterns of crisis and crisis management common to all the successor states. It disentangles the process, highlighting the multifaceted features of post-Soviet crises and draws upon the concept of crisis to determine the tipping points of post-Soviet development. Especially useful for scholars and students dealing with the Soviet successor states, this book should also prove interesting to those researching in the fields of communist and post‐communist Studies, Eurasian politics, international relations and peace and conflict studies.

The book introduces the concept of practical biopolitics and discusses its applicability for anti-pandemic crisis management in Indonesia and Russia. The authors scrutinize the functioning of sovereign power and governmentality during the state of exception.