John Ikenberry uses the metaphor of a ‘Liberal Leviathan’ to describe the role of the U.S in world politics. This essay discusses whether this metaphor is analytically helpful or not.
Cet article documenté et bien pensé s’articule autour de cette citation de Noiriel (5) : « la politique d’asile reflète le problème central auquel continuent de se heurter les démocraties contemporaines : la contradiction insoluble entre les droits de l’homme et ceux de l’Etat, autrement dit entre l’universel et le national ».
This thought-provoking essay discusses Pratt’s idea that: “Marking boundaries, insisting on the materiality and persistence of differences, may be as politically productive as blurring them in notions of mobility, hybridity and thirdspace” (1999).
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics written by John Mearsheimer is “the latest in a long line of pessimistic accounts of international politics, and as onesided as its predecessors”. This essay assesses this judgement, arguing that realism is by no means one-sided.
This excellent paper analyses to what extent the EU is suppporting its declaration policy in DRC through operational policy.
The European international investment policy is part of the exclusive EU competence and, as such, has been depicted as an area of expert, secretive negotiation understandable through careful analysis of the rules of procedure. This brilliant essay aims at proving that the process of aggregation of interests shaping EU stance is highly problematic, using the example of the TTIP.
After World War I, new forms of Islamic consciousness began to emerge in what would become one of the most impressive manifestations of Muslim unity to date. In a large range of Muslim countries, including Morocco, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria, activists began mobilize in response to external political threats, simultaneously functionalizing and politicizing Islam to lend support for the cause.
This essay argues that Mearsheimer’s structural realism or offensive realism offers little explanatory or predictive value in the complex world of international politics and should rather be viewed as an ideal type of international politics or as a model for policy prescription.
In his essay “Anarchy is what states make of it”, Alexander Wendt posits that anarchy does not causally lead to a self-help system (Wendt 1992). Who is his critique aimed at, and how successful is he?