{"id":11518,"date":"2022-08-12T11:03:47","date_gmt":"2022-08-12T11:03:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/2022\/08\/a-bib\/"},"modified":"2024-11-20T22:11:51","modified_gmt":"2024-11-20T19:11:51","slug":"selected-topics-in-international-relations-an-annotated-bibliography-ismail-erkam-sula-ed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/2022\/08\/selected-topics-in-international-relations-an-annotated-bibliography-ismail-erkam-sula-ed\/","title":{"rendered":"Selected Topics in International Relations: An Annotated Bibliography – \u0130smail Erkam Sula (ed.)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. IR Scholarship: The State of the art in the World and Turkey
1.1. Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations Scholarship
1.2. IR Scholarship around the World and the state of the IR Discipline in Turkey
1.3. The Sociology of the IR discipline
2. History of International Relations Discipline
2.1. The Evolution of the Discipline 1: Major debates in IR Theory
2.2. The Evolution of the Discipline 2: \u2018Westphalia Treaty\u2019, \u2018Great\u2019 Debates or a Myth?
2.3. International Political Economy: A short history of the Liberal World Order
3. IR Methods and Methodology
3.1. Explaining and Understanding International Relations
3.2. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methods in International Relations
3.3. Eclectic Methods and Triangulation
4. IR Concepts and Theoretical debates
4.1. Power, Balance of Power, Soft\/smart Power
4.2. Hegemony, Hegemonic stability, and Cooperation
4.3. Security, Security Dilemma, Securitization
4.4. Democracy, Democratic Consolidation, Democratization<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Contributors: <\/strong>\u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki, B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu, Karlygash Delig\u00f6z, Burak \u0130nce, Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Introduction \u2013 \u0130smail Erkam Sula<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Since\nthe birth of the discipline, definitions of science and scientific inquiry in\nIR have validated certain knowledge production approaches while invalidating others.\nDebates among International Relations (IR) scholars on the definition of\nscientific inquiry and the use of knowledge-production methods lead to the\nformation of competing epistemic communities. It is important for an IR scholar\nto have a grasp of the main topics that are debated among the scholars of the\nfield and how (or if) certain approaches are being pushed to the margins of the\ndiscipline. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nfollowing annotated bibliography is designed as a reference source that\nsummarizes a selection of IR readings (books, chapters, and research articles),\nexamining how the main topics and fundamental concepts are handled by multiple scholars\nand theories. Most of the readings below are cited as classical works of IR and\nPolitical Science, which I believe will encourage further discussion and\nresearch on the topics they cover and serve as an advanced introduction for IR\nstudents at the graduate level. The summaries focus on fundamental issues that\nrevolve around four major components: IR Theory and Philosophy, Research\nMethods, Key Concepts in IR scholarship, and the history of the IR discipline.\nIt is a reading list prepared with a \u201ccarpet bomb strategy\u201d that aims to be as\ncomprehensive as possible and to reach as many IR students as possible. It is also\ndesigned for those graduate students that are deeply feeling the \u201cagony\u201d of getting\nprepared for their PhD comprehensive exam. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below,\nyou may find annotations from and summaries of the readings from the syllabus\nof a PhD-level elective course, \u201cthe Selected Topics in International\nRelations, offered at Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University (AYBU) Department of\nInternational Relations. You may also take a look at the syllabus of this\ncourse, which was also previously published at Panorama<\/a>.\nThe course is designed to prepare students for their PhD comprehensive exam. This\nannotated bibliography is a product of the \u201cInternational Studies Research\nGroup\u201d that was established at the university, and all the studies below are reviewed\nby graduate students who completed their comprehensive exams and are now PhD\nCandidates at AYBU. They are at different stages of their PhD Dissertation research.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To\nsum up, the following reading list does not assume to cover \u2018everything\u2019 that\nis important for IR students. The selected readings are based on three main\nconsiderations: (1) that theories play a very significant role in understanding\ninternational relations, 2) that no theoretical approach is categorically more\naccurate, better, or more successful than the other, and (3) that it is\nimportant to have a grasp of how fundamental concepts that are frequently\nencountered in IR are used by different theories. I hope that our selection of\nreadings and the annotated bibliography further encourage students, readers,\nand scholars of IR in their quest to understand and explain world politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

***** ***** ***** *****<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

1. IR Scholarship: The State of the art in the World and Turkey<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.1. Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations Scholarship<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lebow, Richard Ned. 2019. \u201c<\/strong>Philosophy and International Relations<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs<\/em> 87 (5): 1219\u201328. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lebow reviews the works of C. Wight, J. Joseph and P.T. Jackson on scientific realism, philosophy of science debates, and international relations. Lebow pairs these two works by highlighting the rise of philosophical debates among international relations theorists that aim to search for new ontological and epistemological foundations or to clarify their existing commitments. Lebow argues that Joseph and Wight\u2019s studyis a good example of theorists\u2019 search for new ontological and epistemological grounds due to its contribution to the discipline as a leading philosophy of science. According to Lebow, Jackson is concerned with relationships between the knower and the known and between knowledge and observation. Lebow concludes his review article with critics of both Jackson and Joseph & Wight\u2019s studies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wight, Colin. 2002. <\/strong>\u201cPhilosophy of Social Science and International Relations.\u201d<\/strong><\/a> In Handbook of International Relations<\/em>, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 23\u201351. London: SAGE Publications (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wight makes a meta-theoretical discussion of the discipline of International Relations, discussing whether it is a science or has a philosophy of social science (or not). The main question of the study is what science is and whether IR can or should be a science. First, Wight ask does IR really needs a philosophy of social science. He builds this narrative around key debates that had begun in the early days of the discipline and continue to the present day. After discussing the scientific nature of the discipline in its different stages, he concludes the discussion with the idea that the philosophy of social science is not something the discipline can use or discard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.2. IR Scholarship around the World and the state of the IR Discipline in Turkey<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sula, \u0130smail Erkam. 2022. <\/strong>\u201c\u2018Global\u2019 IR and Self-Reflections in Turkey: Methodology, Data Collection, and the Social Sciences Data Repository<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d All Azimuth <\/em>11, 1, 123-142. (Reviewed by \u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sula mainly suggests that Turkish IR scholars focus more on the solutions of the shortcomings in the development of the discipline, rather than continuing to identify them. He shares Aydinli and Biltekin’s ideas on the importance of methodological clarity, but he disagrees with their sharp distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods. He argues that such distinction hampers one of their main suggestions to create a unitary local community of scholars for the development of the discipline. Sula emphasizes the significance of using research methods in general. He suggests that methodological clarity is not a unique characteristic of only \u201cquantitative\u201d approaches. Moreover, Sula also criticizes the tendency to regard all non-quantitative studies as automatically qualitative ones.  Then, he identifies the general misperception regarding the qualitative studies in the discipline, as those studies are regarded as if they have no methodology, and no scientific consideration. He argues that \u201cqualitative research does not imply methods-free research or an \u2018anything goes\u2019 approach\u201d and highlights that \u201cspecifying the methodological approach does not directly result in methodological clarity.\u201d In addition to those misperceptions, Sula also clarifies that methodological clarity is not provided by just mentioning the name of the methodological approach in any study. In this context, Sula mainly suggest that new students in graduate schools should be trained through data-collection projects in order to lead them to produce new studies with methodological clarity, rather than encouraging them to continue with old ideological and exclusionary positions regarding the quantitative, qualitative or mixed methodological approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ayd\u0131nl\u0131, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. 2017. \u201c<\/strong>Time to Quantify Turkey\u2019s Foreign\nAffairs: Setting Quality Standards for a Maturing International Relations\nDiscipline<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International Studies Perspectives<\/em> 18\n(3): 267\u201387. (Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ayd\u0131nl\u0131 and Biltekin focus on the lack of communication and interactive scholarly debates in the Turkish IR disciplinary community. They suggest that quantitative research could fill this gap by providing methodological clarity. By doing this, they also aim to contribute to Turkish IR\u2019s progress. The article aims to make a significant contribution to the development of quantitative research in Turkish IR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

K\u00f6stem,\nSe\u00e7kin. 2015. \u201c<\/strong>International Relations Theories and Turkish\nInternational Relations: Observations Based on a Book.<\/strong><\/a>\u201d All Azimuth<\/em> 4 (1):\n59\u201366. (Reviewed By Burak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this review article K\u00f6stem first\npresents a brief outline and discusses the place of IR theory within the\nTurkish IR community. He enquires about the sources of the lack of theorizing\nup to now in Turkish IR. He has different solutions and suggestions for the\nproblematic. In the piece, K\u00f6stem asks why \u2013 despite Turkey\u2019s position in a\ndynamic part of the world \u2013 we still lack theoretical approaches based on the\nTurkish experience. He suggests that Turkish IR scholars \u2013 especially young\nacademics \u2013 may work on mid-range theories and get beyond grand-theoretical\nboundaries. He presents his advice to IR students and asserts his belief in\nTurkey\u2019s deep history of contributions to IR theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By employing a contextualized approach, considering conditions under which strategic policies formed, Wiener interprets the European Union’s capacity in dealing with possible terrorist threats. In this theory-driven study, she introduces distinct European capabilities, which refer to the enforcement power in transnational and trans-border issues. Finally, she concludes that the critical point of tackling terrorism is to have a common agreement on the negotiators’ interest and their understanding of the norms binding their decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.3. The Sociology of the IR discipline<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilgin, P\u0131nar. 2009. <\/strong>\u201cThe International Political \u2018Sociology\nof a Not so International Discipline.\u2019 \u201d<\/strong><\/a> International\nPolitical Sociology<\/em> 3 (3): 338\u201342. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilgin uncovers ways to get beyond the\npresent reality of multiple worlds of knowledge about the international<\/em>\nand calls for an inquiry into their emergence and persistence. By multiple\nworlds, Bilgin points to the divide between the West and the rest and the\nknowledge about the international. She argues that moving beyond the current\nintellectual traditions in the discipline requires looking into international\npolitics of the ways in which the international is studied in different parts\nof the world. To do so, Bilgin supports the idea of inquiring into the\nsociology of the discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bigo, Didier, and R. B. J. Walker. 2007. <\/strong>\u201cPolitical Sociology and the Problem of\nthe International.\u201d<\/strong><\/a> Millennium: Journal of International Studies<\/em> 35 (3):\n725\u201339. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bigo and Walker bring political sociology\nto bear on the issue that they call the problem of international. As the\ndefinition of the international is regarded as an object to be examined, Bigo\nand Walker problematize the term international as it is used in the discipline\nas a field of practice, and issues arise from identifying a field with it.\nTherefore, in this study, they focus most explicitly on questions about\nboundaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waever, Ole. 1998. <\/strong>\u201cThe Sociology of a Not So\nInternational Discipline: American and European Developments in International\nRelations.\u201d<\/strong><\/a> International Organization<\/em> 52 (4): 687\u2013727.\n(Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waever reviews the development of the\nfield of IR worldwide and argues that American hegemony exists in the field in\nterms of theory borrowing, publication, and citations but that the Europeans\nhave become more self-assured. In contrast to the Hoffman 1971 article, Waever\nbuilds a counterargument against the idea that the discipline of IR is\nprimarily American. Furthermore, Waever argues that American IR is more about\nrationalist\/quantitative studies, while European IR is more about\nconstructivist and sociological approaches. He supports his arguments with the\ndata about the theoretical position of articles in four international journals.\nWaever concludes by discussing the state of European and American IR and how\nEuropean IR shows signs of increasing professionalization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

***** ***** ***** *****<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

2. History of International Relations Discipline<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

2.1. The evolution of the discipline 1:\nMajor debates in IR Theory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith, Steve. 1996. \u201c<\/strong>I. Positivism and Beyond<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d In Steve\nSmith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism\nand Beyond<\/em>, 11\u201346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reviewed by\nB\u00fc\u015fra bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith focuses on\npositivist assumptions in social science in general and the IR discipline in\nparticular. He explains that positivism in IR has a commitment to an empiricist\nepistemology, but there are also epistemological alternatives to empiricism. He\nfirst examines rationalism and pragmatism as historical contenders and then\nscientific realism, hermeneutics, Critical Theory, feminist, and post-modernist\nepistemology as contemporary epistemological debates. In the conclusion of the\nchapter, Smith points out that the international theorists have tended to use\nthe positivist term over the last 30 years, and he argues on whether we move\nbeyond positivism. He concludes that there is no single post-positivist\napproach, only post-positivist approaches, and they operate within very\ndifferent epistemological positions. Smith\u2019s work is an essential read not only\nfor experts in philosophy of science but also for any post-graduate students of\nIR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaplan, Morton A. 1961. <\/strong>\u201cIs International Relations a Discipline?\u201d<\/strong><\/a> The Journal of\nPolitics<\/em> 23 (3): 462\u201376. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his study written in \u201961, Kaplan\ndiscusses International Relations\u2019 (IR) disciplinary nature, long before the\nidea was widely accepted. The main question that Kaplan tries to answer is\nwhether International Relations (IR) is a distinctive discipline or a\nsub-discipline of political science. Kaplan argues that while there is no\nconvincing discussion that a specifically international relations discipline\nexists, it should not simply be put under political science as a sub-discipline.\nTherefore, Kaplan also discusses the requirements for a discipline of\ninternational politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lake, David A. 2013. \u201c<\/strong>Theory Is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great\nDebates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.<\/strong><\/a>\u201d European Journal of\nInternational Relations <\/em>19 (3): 567\u201387. (Reviewed By Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lake discusses the rise of the positivists\nand post-positivists debate as a new stage of the great debates. The reason for\nhis concern is the inconclusiveness of the debate, the same as in the previous\nGreat debates. The author calls for a focus on real-world problems instead. He\ndiscusses the eclectic theory and mid-level theory as the most effective ones\nfor the IR discipline because they are applied \u201cto specific issues and even\nlimited historical periods\u201d. The author describes the eclectic (mid-level)\ntheory as the tool for the progress of the IR discipline. According to Lake, the\nexplanation of trade policy and the democratic peace theory brightly\nillustrates the progressive nature of mid-level theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wilson, Peter. 1998. \u201c<\/strong>The Myth of the \u2018First Great Debate<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Review of\nInternational Studies<\/em> 24: 1\u201315. (Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wilson claims that the\nfirst great debate never actually happened, and \u2018idealism\/utopianism\u2019 was\ninvented by Carr to discredit a wide range of things he happened to disagree\nwith. He explains that a great set of ideas, opinions, and theories existed\nduring the inter-war period rather than \u2018idealism, utopianism. Wilson\u2019s work\nleads the reader to an alternative view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.2. The evolution of the discipline 2:\n\u2018Westphalia Treaty\u2019, \u2018great\u2019 debates or a myth?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Osiander, Andreas. 2016. \u201c<\/strong>Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian\nMyth<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International Organization <\/em>55 (2): 251\u201387.\n(Reviewed by Burak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Osiander discusses the Westphalian system\nalong with the concept of sovereignty. He asks: Are the \u201cpillars of the\nWestphalian temple decaying\u201d? Are we moving \u201cbeyond Westphalia\u201d? His claim is\nthat the IR narrative about Westphalia is a myth, and he hopes to gain a better\ntheoretical understanding of contemporary international politics by analyzing\nthe concept. The author explains the Thirty Years\u2019 War, the Holy Roman Empire,\nand the Westphalian Peace. He criticizes the twentieth-century IR scholars and\nregards them among the most eager continuators of the old propaganda image of\nthe war because he thinks that the standard account of the peace reflects not\nits actual content but wartime anti-Habsburg propaganda. He draws our attention\nto Leo Gross. His argument is that many of the misleading statements about 1648\nin IR literature derive directly or indirectly from a 1948 article by Leo\nGross. While he narrates 1648, he goes to the year 1555. According to him, the\n1648 Peace is the outcome of the breakdown of the Augsburg religious peace of\n1555. He associates the most significant transition in the international system\nwith the occurrence of the French Revolution, not with the Peace of Westphalia.\nAnother approach of his is that sovereignty as currently understood does not go\nback to the seventeenth century. He brings an unconventional perspective to the\nsubject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patton,\nSteven. 2019. \u201c<\/strong>The Peace of Westphalia and It Affects\non International Relations Diplomacy and Foreign Policy<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d The Histories<\/em>\n10 (1): 91\u201399. (Reviewed by Burak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patton\ndiscusses the Westphalian system and its effects. He argues that the\nWestphalian system remains a model for international politics around the world.\nIt is a turning point in world history. The author highlights the before and\nafter of the Westphalia Peace. He argues the revolutionary Westphalia treaty\ncompletely changed the relations between church and state and established a new\nprecedent. He exemplifies that before 1648, war was the accepted means of\ninstating policy changes when one country found fault with another. It was the\n\u201clegitimate form of solving conflicts\u201d before the Peace, but after the treaties\nwere agreed upon, \u201cNo state was allowed to be destroyed.\u201d He also concentrates\non the outcomes of the Peace of 1648 and says possibly the most significant one\nis the idea of state sovereignty. He advocates that the Westphalian tradition\ncan still be seen in modem international politics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rosenberg, Justin. 2016. \u201c<\/strong>International\nRelations in the Prison of Political Science<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International Relations<\/em> 30 (2): 127\u201353. (<\/strong>Reviewed by \u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rosenberg mainly questions the reasons for the current claims\nregarding “the end of IR theory”, which stem from the failure of IR\nto produce “big ideas” that would have an impact on other social\ndisciplines. The borrowed ontology of IR from the discipline of political\nscience, which is defined as “the prison of Political Science” by the\nauthor, is illustrated as the main obstacle in front of such a production of\nbig ideas in the article. The solution suggested by Rosenberg is re-grounding\nIR in its own unique problematique, which\nis its own original ontology as well as “the key” out of the prison\nof political science that is “the consequences of societal\nmultiplicity”. Co-existence, difference, interaction, combination, and\ndialectical change are five consequences of the multiplicity detected by the\nauthor. He concludes his suggestion of re-grounding IR on its own ontology by\noffering “uneven and combined development” as one of those big ideas\nthat are grounded on the accurate theme of IR, which is societal multiplicity.\nHence it has the potential to influence all other disciplines by revealing the\nsignificance of “the international” for the other areas of social\nsciences. Thus, the article provides a coherent explanation and fruitful\nrecommendation for the future development of IR theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rosenberg, Justin. 2017. \u201c<\/strong>The Elusive International.<\/strong><\/a>\u201d International\nRelations, <\/em>31 (1): 90\u2013103. (Reviewed by Burak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article focuses on the realization of the\npotential for the subject matter: the international dimension of the social\nworld. Rosenberg stresses the intellectual standing of the International\nRelations field. He problematizes the status of IR as a sub-field of Political\nScience. His argument is that Political Science is the prison of IR. He also\nattaches special importance to multiplicity. He says the multiplicity is for IR\nwhat space is for Geography, time for History, culture for Anthropology, and power\nfor Political Science. According to him, this premise of IR remains largely inactivated\nwithin IR itself. He questions the issue of the no production of explicit\npositive theorization of what the international is. For him, IR needs the idea\nof multiplicity as the fundamental fact about the world that is presupposed by\nallinternational relations. Rosenberg\u2019s offer and wish are that \u201cthe\nexile of IR at the margin of the social sciences\u201d should come to an end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Booth, Ken, and Milja Kurki. 2017. \u201c<\/strong>Rethinking\nInternational Relations-Again<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International\nRelations<\/em> 31 (1): 68\u201370. (<\/strong>Reviewed by\n\u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Booth and Kurki, in their introduction, explain their aim to\ninitiate a debate around Justin Rosenberg’s idea of the “societal\nmultiplicity” as the unique theme of the discipline of IR that have the\npotential to reveal the significance of the discipline by offering important\ncontributions for the other social disciplines. Therefore, “International\nRelations in the Prison of Political Science”, the article in which\nRosenberg wrote his above-mentioned ideas, constitutes the starting point of\nthe authors. Thus, they initiated a conversation among a small group of\nacademicians who provided their comments on Rosenberg’s article, his claims,\nand suggestions. In this way, they explain in their introduction briefly the\ncomments of the contributors regarding the issue, as well as Rosenberg’s\nrelated reply to those critiques and the four main themes that they reached as\nan outcome of such a conversation about Rosenberg\u2019s influential article. Booth\nand Kurki’s efforts in this study to develop their colleague’s view on the\nfuture of the discipline of the IR by initiating a discussion among their peers\nseems to be a good example of academic responsibility for the development of\nthe discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Booth, Ken. 2019. <\/strong>\u201cInternational Relations: The Story so Far<\/strong><\/a>\u201d. International\nRelations<\/em> 33 (2): 358\u201390. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Booth\u2019s article is the conclusion of part\nof the first centenary special issue that marks 100 years since the birth of\nthe discipline of IR. He takes a panoramic perspective of the discipline since\n1919. The special issues of the Journal of International Relations focus on the\nchange and continuity of the discipline regarding themes like structure, order,\nnorms, and process. Booth makes the closure of both his article and the special\nissue with a general evaluation of discussions, along with his notes on writing\nrelations (international) and reflections on the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.3. International Political Economy: A\nshort history of the Liberal World Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gilpin, Robert. 2001. <\/strong>Global Political Economy: Understanding the International\nEconomic Order<\/em><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/a> Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (<\/strong>Reviewed by \u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this book, Gilpin initially explains\nthe fundamental changes taking place in World politics since the publication of\nhis 1987 book titled “The Political Economy of the International\nRelations”. These changes include the end of the Cold War, the triumph of\ndemocratic capitalism, which brings increasing deregulation and privatization,\nthe rise of the internet economy as well as the increasing interdependence of\nnational economies because of significant advancements in information, telecommunication,\nand transportation technology and so on. The result of those developments has\nbecome the emergence of a truly global economy, according to Gilpin. Those\npractical transformations are accompanied by theoretical innovations also,\nwhich include “new growth theory”, “new economic geography”,\nand “new trade theory”, all of which, according to Gilpin, are\nimportant contributions to analyzing the international political economy. In\nthis context, the book mainly argues that the significance of economic\nglobalization is exaggerated while the importance of domestic politics and\neconomics is underestimated, as Gilpin believes that the principal determinant\nof economic affairs is not economic globalization but the domestic economies of\nthe states. In relation to this, Gilpin, in this book, aims to compensate for his\nmisperception regarding the importance of the domestic economies and some other\noutdated claims that he revealed in his 1987 book mentioned above. In this way,\nthe aim of the book is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the\nInternational Political Economy. To this end, Gilpin implements a\n“state-centric” approach to the international economy and argues\nagainst those who claim that the international economy is shifting away from a\nstate-dominated model to a market-dominated one, while he argues that in a\ntruly integrated global economy, states are still the primary but not the only\none actor to manage economic policies in line with their own national\ninterests. Therefore, the interaction of the markets and nation-states together\ndetermines the functioning of the world economy as well as world politics,\naccording to him. In this direction, the book covers both political and\neconomic analyses to provide a comprehensive understanding of the functioning\nof the global economy. Therefore, this book provides important insights for\nunderstanding the globalization of world politics as well as its related\nimpacts on the international political economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ikenberry, G. John. 2015. \u201c<\/strong>The\nFuture of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism After America<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Foreign Affairs <\/em>90 (3): 56\u201368.(<\/strong>Reviewed by \u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on his influential book,\n“Liberal Leviathan: The Origins and Transformation of the American\nWorld” (2011), Ikenberry wrote this 2015 article to argue against those\nviews that see the rising power and influence of non-Western powers as the sign\nof a fundamental transformation of the liberal World order. Contrary to those\nwho expect the evolution of the liberal global order toward an illiberal direction,\nIkenberry argues that the liberal order has reached its “ultimate\nascendance” with the current developments in global economics as well as\npolitics. In accordance with this rationale, the article emphasizes that the\nrising non-Western powers, such as China, India, and Brazil, owe their rise to\ntheir good adaptation of the rules and principles of and active participation\nin the institutions of the existing international order. Therefore, Ikenberry\nfinds it nonsense to expect those powers to act in a way to challenge the\nexisting liberal order, which is, according to him, not American or Western\nanymore, as he claims that this global liberal order has no equal competitor\nthat would provide same opportunities for those rising powers as well as for the\nrest of the world. However, he accepts the declining capacity of the US to\nshape the global order and suggests that the US and its allies should update\nthis liberal order that they have created to make sure that it will continue to\nserve to provide “prosperity and security\u201d, as it has done since the end\nof the Second World War. Such an update of the liberal order would result in a greater\nnumber of states taking responsibility for the global economic and political\ngovernance while the US keeping its central role within it, not as the global\nhegemon but as the leader. Thus, the article seems to be written to cool down\nthose who worry about the future of World politics after the end of the US\nhegemony by offering a rationale that the end of the hegemony means neither the\nend of the centrality for the US nor the end of the global liberal order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ikenberry, G. John. 2015. \u201c<\/strong>The Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism\nAfter America<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Foreign Affairs<\/em> <\/strong>90 (3): 56\u201368. (<\/strong>Reviewed by\nBurak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ikenberry focuses on the change of the\nliberal international order. According to him, the old liberal international\norder was designed and built in the West. In this light, he compares the states\nand stresses the different experiences and so the stances of states. From his\npoint of view, the United States’ position in the global system is changing, and\nthe liberal international order is alive and well. He articulates the need an update\nthe liberal order for a new era. He discusses the deep interests of rising\nstates in an open and rule-based system and says openness gives them access to\nother societies for trade, investment, and knowledge sharing. John is a bit\npessimistic about competing for global organizing logic. He also brings\nsuggestions for China\u2019s peaceful rise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry.\n1999. \u201c<\/strong>The Nature and Sources of\nLiberal International Order<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Review of\nInternational Studies <\/em>25 (2): 179\u201396. (<\/strong>Reviewed by\n\u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deudney and Ikenberry suggest that both\nrealism and liberalism fell short to analyze the Western liberal order, whose\nfuture and durability have been questioned by scholars since the end of the\nCold War. They demonstrate the weaknesses of the realist approaches, which offer\neither hegemony or balancing as the only sources of the liberal order, as well\nas the missing conceptions of the liberal approaches to grasp the whole\nfeatures of this order. Instead, they offer their theory of “structural\nliberalism”, which illustrates five mutually reinforcing features of the\nWestern liberal order. These five features, which are “co-binding security\ninstitutions, penetrated American hegemony, semi-sovereign great powers,\neconomic openness and civic identity”, according to the authors, are the\nkeys to totally understanding the robust character of the Western liberal order\nand recognizing its resilience and durability which are not dependent on the\nbinary structure of the world system. Thus, they suggest “structural\nliberalism” as the true approach that would help both to analyze the\nliberal order established by the US and to strengthen this liberal order at a\ntime when the forces that contributed to this order have started to remove with\nthe end of the Cold War. Therefore, this article, which offers a new\ntheoretical perspective to analyze the Western liberal order, is full of claims\nregarding the character of this order, its uniqueness, its durability, and its significance\nfor maintaining peace, at least among the Western states. In this sense, it is\na fruitful article that has the potential to initiate flourishing counter\ndebates among scholars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haas, Richard N. 2018. \u201c<\/strong>Liberal\nWorld Order, R.I.P<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Project Syndicate <\/em>March\n21. (<\/strong>Reviewed by \u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haas, who is an American foreign policy\nexpert and diplomat, shares his worries regarding the dangerous results of the\nUS’s decision to abandon its commitment to the liberal international order, for\nthe US itself as well as for the rest of the World. Haas assumes that the\nliberal global order, that was created initially by the UK and US collaboration\nand sustained by the US, was providing peace and security in the World and the\nabsence of the commitment of the US for the order that it itself has created,\nbecause of the policies of Trump administration, would mean the retreat of\nliberalism and the returning of the great power rivalries. Therefore, the\nfuture of the World, in the absence of US support for the liberal order,\naccording to Haas, would be “less free, less prosperous and less peaceful\nfor the US and others”. In this context, Haas complains about the\nincreasing challenges against the three significant components of the existing\nWorld order, which are “liberalism, universality and preservation of order,”\nbecause of the increasing populism, regionalism and decreasing support of the\nUS for that order which has the central importance. One of the interesting points\nis that he initially claims that the order is not global anymore because of the\nincreasing regionalism, but then he makes some universal claims that would have\nthe same negative impacts globally regarding the results of the abandonment of\nthe US support for the system. However, the most significant element of this\nessay is that it illustrates the retreat of liberalism as an unfortunate\ndecision of the US itself as if it is still and will always be the might of\nonly the US to determine the present and future of the direction of the World\npolitics. In this sense, this essay seems to aim to make the propaganda of the unrivalled\npower of the US, and this is not surprising if we keep in mind that Haas\nhimself is an American diplomat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Woods, Ngaire. 2014. \u201c<\/strong>International Political Economy in an\nAge of Globalization<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d In John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (Eds.) The\nGlobalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations,\n7th Edition<\/em>, 244\u201357. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Reviewed by\nBurak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Woods examines the events and the actors\nin the international economy. She especially focuses on the history of the\npost-war economy. The history gives clues to understanding why and how the international\npolitical economy has become so central to the study of international\nrelations. She asks, \u201cWhat is globalization? Is it diminishing the role of\nstates in the world economy?\u201d For her, globalization creates new challenges for\nall states and other actors in the world economy. She seeks the answer to the\nquestion: what role can we expect institutions to play in managing\nglobalization? The author argues during the last phase of the Second World War,\nthe institutions and framework of the world economy have their roots. It is\nstated in the article that the first decade of the twenty-first century has a\nshift in global economic power, and the study of IPE has become dominated by a\n\u2018rational choice\u2019 or neo-utilitarian approach. One of the main assumptions of\nthe author is that the governments and their policies are important but that\nthe policies and preferences of governments reflect the actions of specific\ninterest groups within the economy. She draws our attention to the concept of\nhegemony. She says the dominant power within the system will achieve goals not\njust through coercion but equally by ensuring the consent of other actors\nwithin the system. She shares the case of the Asian financial crisis and claims\nthat states are losing power in a global economic order in which state borders\nand governments are less influential and underlines the sufferings of weaker\nstates by the impact of globalization more than others<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

***** ***** ***** *****<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

3. IR Methods and Methodology<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

3.1. Explaining and Understanding\nInternational Relations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hollis, M, and S Smith. 1991. <\/strong>Explaining and Understanding\nInternational Relation<\/em><\/strong>s<\/strong><\/a>. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin Hollis and Steve Smith focus on one\nof the main debates in the discipline of IR, explaining vs. understanding.\nTheir claim is that in relation to social matters, there are always two stories\nto tell. One is an outsider\u2019s story, where the endeavour is made to generalize\nin the manner of a natural scientist seeking to explain how nature works. The\nother one is an insider\u2019s story, which is told after the fashion of the\nhumanities to make us understand how things look to the participants. Hollis\nand Smith offer that one can have either an explanatory account or an\nunderstanding account; what one cannot have, is some combination of the two\nwhen grasping the essence of the social world. Explanatory assumptions that\nSmith claims are based on scientific principles. Understanding, on the other\nhand, as Hollis argues, is based on hermeneutic principles. In this view,\nHollis, the philosopher, defends his concept of social action as fitting\nbroadly within the understanding account, while Smith, the social scientist,\npresents an explaining account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.2. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methods\nin International Relations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wheelan, Charles. 2013. <\/strong>Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread\nfrom the Data<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. New York: W. W. Norton. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wheelan explains the importance of\nstatistics with engaging examples and questions, such as \u201cHow does Netflix know\nwhat movies I like?\u201d, \u201cHow does Target know when their customer gets\npregnant?\u201d, \u201cHow can we identify and reward good teachers and schools?\u201d, \u201cWhat\nare the best tools for fighting global poverty?\u201d. The author explains all the\nbasic concepts used in statistics, such as basic probability, descriptive\nstatistics, inference, correlation, regression analysis, and data. Also,\nthrough easy-to-follow cases, he makes aware the reader of how statistics can\nbe used and abused. He underlines the importance of the data and the way it was\ngathered and gives a list of useful software. Wheelan’s book is an excellent\nguide to the basics of statistics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin, William E., and D. Krista Bridgmon. 2012. <\/strong>Quantitative and Statistical Research\nMethods: From Hypothesis to Results<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. San Francisco, CA:\nJossey-Bass. 1-38. (Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this chapter, Martin and Bridgton\npresent an overview of the book and information related to the foundations of\nresearch and statistics. They explain the quantitative research process and\nemphasize the importance of statistical software in the research of students.\nThe book, in general, helps students understand quantitative research methods\nto construct independent research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marvasti, Amir. 2004. <\/strong>Qualitative Research in Sociology<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. London: SAGE\nPublications, Ltd. (Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The questions we ask about the world and\nhow we answer them depend on our disciplinary orientation. In this book\nchapter, Marvasti first deals with the field of sociology and then explains\npositivism and constructionism and their influence on social inquiry. He also\npresents the two-research perspective of quantitative and qualitative\nmethodologies. The readers gain general insight into the similarities and\ndifferences between the two research perspectives in the field of sociology in\nthis chapter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.3. Eclectic Methods and Triangulation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rosenau, James N. 1984. \u201c<\/strong>A Pre-Theory Revisited: World Politics in an Era of\nCascading Interdependence<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International Studies Quarterly, <\/em>28\n(3): 245\u2013305. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rosenau discusses \u201cpre-theory\u201d considering\nthe dynamics in the world of 1984. The author wants Pre-theory to be more\nadaptable and be applied as it was since its creation in the early 1960s. Three\nconcepts were chosen by him to keep Pre-theory capable to study the tendencies\nof its time: role scenarios, aggregation, and adaptation. The author analyzes\nRoles as Analytic Units, states, governments, individuals, and observers as\nactors in role scenarios, the Aggregation of Collective Actors, and Adaptive\nCollectivities as Actors. Occurring repeatedly \u201cself-generating and\nfar-reaching dimensions of global life\u201d because of the merging of new and old\nstructures is defined by him as Cascading Interdependence. Cascading\nInterdependence could be developed on the mentioned three concepts: authority\nrelationships, aggregative dynamics, and adaptive mechanisms. The author claims\nthe Vietnam war, Watergate, and other occurrences would be the basis of a world\ncrisis of authority, resulting decline of the US as a hegemon and a change in\nthe world order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sula, Ismail Erkam. 2019. \u201c<\/strong>An Eclectic Methodological Approach in\nAnalyzing Foreign Policy: Turkey\u2019s Foreign Policy Roles and Events Dataset\n(TFPRED)<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d All Azimuth 8<\/strong> (<\/strong>2<\/strong>)<\/strong>: 255-283. (Reviewed by\nKarlygash Deligoz)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sula describes the results of his five\nyear study of Turkish foreign policy analysis. He did research of the issue for\n\u201cRosenau\u2019s call to develop a \u201ctheory\u201d of foreign policy\u201d. Sula chose and\ncombined in his work two research methods: content and event data analysis. He\ncategorized and compared the relevant data and combined the outcome into\n\u201cTurkey\u2019s Foreign Policy Roles and Events Dataset (TFPRED)\u201d. He observed\nnational role conceptions (NRC) and foreign policy events, where the NRC was\ndetermined through leaders\u2019 speeches and public promises (\u201cdiscourse\u201d) and\nstate foreign policy actions taken (\u201cpractice\u201d). Thus, his research was based\non \u201cforeign policy words, deeds, and parallelism between the two\u201d. Sula shows\nhow to process a vast amount of information while making the research. He gives\ndetailed examples of application of the methods used as \u201ccoded speeches, data\nsheets, news reports, and specific portions of the TFPRED dataset\u201d.  The TFPRED dispose both descriptive and\nstatistical data on foreign policy. Author also explains the limitations of\nthis eclectic methodological approach and the better way of organization for\nfuture researches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katzenstein, Peter, and Rudra Sil. 2009. \u201c<\/strong>Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and\nPractice of International Relations<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d In Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan\nSnidal (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations<\/em>, 109-130. Oxford:\nOxford University Press. <\/strong>(Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katzenstein and Sil focus on the\ndistinctive characteristics of analytic eclecticism, which rejects competing\nresearch traditions to explore problems in original ways. They also deal with a\nsample of scholarships in international relations that illustrates the value of\nanalytical eclecticism with reference to issues of international security and\npolitical economy. They also present that there are costs and risks of analytic\neclecticism. The article leads the reader to an alternative view of the\nresearch traditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katzenstein P., and Rudra\nSil. 2009. <\/strong>Eclectic\nTheorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations<\/strong><\/a>, In Christian\nReus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of\nInternational Relations.<\/em> 109-130. London: Oxford University Press. (Reviewed by\nKarlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter\nKatzenstein and Rudra Sil wrote a chapter of the Oxford Handbook of International\nRelations on eclectic theorizing through \u201cpragmatist view\u201d, defining analytic eclecticism\nand its place in IR. According to the authors, the linear view is not important\nfrom the pragmatist perspective but the effect of research on the quality of\ncommunication among scholars studying the same issue. The pragmatist\nperspective supports analytic eclecticism as the way of problem focusing.\nFurthermore, analytic eclecticism is different from \u201ctheoretical synthesis or\nthe building of a unified theory\u201d. Authors claim it is about creation of a \u201cnew\nunified system of\u2026analytic principles\u201d to solve wide-ranging issues. The place\nof eclecticism in IR is analyzed through its perspectives in national security\nand international political economy (IPE). Thus, they discuss \u201cexternal threat,\nAmerican hegemony, and the pacifying effects of nuclear weapons\u201d through\nvarious schools\u2019 approaches (liberal, constructivist, realist), and admit\neclecticism\u2019s contribution to the IPE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. \u201c<\/strong>Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of\nWorld Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research\nTraditions<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Perspectives on Politics<\/em> 8 (2): 411-431. <\/strong>(Reviewed by\nB\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article deals with analytic\neclecticism in comparative politics and international relations. It first\noutlines the research traditions, as articulated by Larry Laudan, that are not\ncapable of generating a more comprehensive understanding of complex, multi-faceted\nproblems. For this reason, scholarly analysis needs to be more open-ended. The\narticle then presents why analytic eclecticism has emerged and focuses on its\nthree characteristics. The authors conclude the article by expressing the\nlimitations of analytic eclecticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. <\/strong>Analytic\nEclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and\nMechanisms across Research Traditions<\/strong><\/a>, Perspectives on\nPolitics<\/em>, 8 (2): 411-431. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/em><\/strong>\n\nSil and Katzenstein’s analytic eclecticism in the study of world\npolitics focused on comparative politics and international relations. Authors\nstudy research traditions in the social sciences; the competition of different\nschools and their metatheoretical postulates are given as the main ones. They\nanalyze the works of the classics of IR theory. Moreover, the authors give the\nanswer to the question of why eclecticism is preferred by them. They support\nanalytic eclecticism with the works of Albert Hirschman, Philip Tetlock, Scott\nPage, Josiah Ober, Mark Blyth, and John Campbell. They identify analytic\neclecticism from three perspectives and analyze each of them separately: (1)\nPragmatist ethos as a basis of argumentation to cover real problems of policy\nand practice; (2) Wide range of issues considering the difficulties of the\nreal-world situations; (3) Building \u201csubstantive arguments related to the\nproblems\u201d through the generation of complex causality. The article is concluded\nby discussing the challenges (\u201ctheoretical incoherence linked to the possible\nincommensurability of research traditions\u201d) and payoffs (possible discovery of\nunknown bonds and new insights) of analytic eclecticism\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

***** ***** ***** *****<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

4. IR Concepts and Theoretical debates<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

4.1. Power, Balance of Power, Soft\/smart\nPower<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. 2005. <\/strong>Power in International Politics<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. International\nOrganization.<\/em> 59 (1):  39 \u2013 75. (Reviewed\nby Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barnett and\nDuvall\u2019s article <\/sup>suggests the research\nof various concepts of power to extend academic knowledge about international\npolitics. They build the \u201cTaxonomy of power\u201d to help scholars to identify the\nconcepts of power in a systematic way. The Taxonomy divides two dimensions:\nDirect and diffuse; and specifies four different conceptual types, depending on\nthe interaction of specific actors: Compulsory (direct) and Institutional\n(diffuse), and depending on the social relations of the constitution:\nStructural (direct) and Productive (diffuse). These types describe the ways in which\npower functions.  Furthermore, the authors\nuse global governance and American empire perceptions to show the bonds and\ninter-influence between all the concepts. Authors call to treat different\nconceptual forms as not competing but complementing each other.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n


\nPape, Robert A. 2005. \u201c<\/strong>Soft\nBalancing against the United States<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International\nSecurity<\/em> 30 (1): 7-45. (<\/strong>Reviewed by\n\u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aggressive foreign\npolicy strategy of the Bush Administration following the 9\/11 attacks,\nformulated under the title of the “war on terror” and implemented by\nthe unilateral interventions of the US in the Middle East, is addressed in the\narticle as a totally strange strategy of the US which had been known till that\ntime as the non-aggressive superpower of the World. According to Pape, such a\nfundamental change in the foreign policy of the US towards unilateralism has\nthe potential to lead the other major powers to feel insecure. Thus, the\narticle illustrates how such a feeling of insecurity among the major powers,\nstemming from unilateral actions of the US, has the potential to change even\nthe unipolarity of the system by leading them to take necessary measures to\nimplement “soft balancing” against the US. Pape defines soft\nbalancing as the strategy of “the second-ranked powers” in the\nunipolar orders, which would use non-military means, including international\ninstitutions, economic tools, and so on, to achieve coordination and balance\nagainst the sole superpower. He explains soft balancing is different from hard\nbalancing but has the potential to turn into hard balancing in the long term.\nHence, he urges the US to take necessary steps to keep its superpower status\nand unipolarity of the world system. Therefore, this article may be a useful\nsource to explain the recent developments in the world in terms of the\ntransformation of the world order, though it seems to be written as a policy recommendation\nfor the US policymakers of the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pape\nR. 2005. \u201c<\/strong>Soft\nBalancing against the United States<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d\nInternational Security<\/em>, 30 (1): 7-45. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pape\ndiscusses President Bush\u2019s strategy and aggressive unilateralism in its foreign\npolicy. He analyzes changing reputation of the US among major powers (Europe,\nRussia, China, Japan, Turkey, Brazil). Nonetheless, he stresses that there has\nbeen no direct balancing against the US since the collapse of the USSR and the start\nof the unipolar world. The author admits such a world is \u201ca balance of power\nsystem, not a hegemonic one\u201d. Thus, a unipolar leader is never immune from\nmajor powers\u2019 collective balancing. The absence of direct balancing against the\nUS is explained by its dominance, \u201ca high reputation for nonaggressive\nintentions\u201d, and its offshore balancing in different regions. However, US\nunilateralism can cause \u201csoft balancing\u201d measures such as using nonmilitary\ntools (international institutions, economic statecraft, and diplomatic\narrangements) to confront indirectly its military actions. The author supports\nunilateral use of force in some cases when benefits prevailing costs. He is\nsure that direct balancing is barely possible, even soft balancing against the US\nalready exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baldwin, David A. 2013. \u201c<\/strong>Power and International Relations<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d In Walter Carlsnaes,\nThomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (Eds.). Handbook of International Relations<\/em>,\n273-297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicaions Ltd. (Reviewed by Karlygash\nDelig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baldwin\ncontributes to the Handbook of International Relations of SAGE with a chapter\non \u201cPower and International Relations\u201d. He discusses the role and the nature of\npower with references to famous scholars\u2019 (Morgenthau, Waltz, Gilpin, Dahl, etc.)\narguments (dimensions and faces). He agrees with the relative power concept and\naccepts power as a \u201crelationship between two or more actors, rather than a\nproperty of any one of them\u201d. He sees its multidimensional qualities as scope,\ndomain, reliability, costs, and means. He analyzes different power problems\n(potential power, measurement and fungibility problem, problem of intentions),\nand the concept of power in IR theory. Furthermore, he discusses the \u201cCurrent\nissues\u201d in the prism of polarity and balancing, military power, structural and\nrelational power, constructivism, and rationalism. The author shows potential\npaths for future research on power issues as \u201cpower relations as dependent\nvariables, forms of power, institutions and power, domestic politics, strategic\ninteraction and bargaining, distribution of power\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schweller, Randall L. 2016. \u201c<\/strong>The Balance of Power in World Politics<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d In William R. Thompson\n(Ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics<\/em>, 177\u201391. London: Oxford\nUniversity Press. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schweller <\/strong>describes the\nhistory of balance of power and discusses a \u201ccore international politics\ntheory\u201d from various schools\u2019 perspectives (liberalism, constructivism,\nrealism). Thus theory\u2019s \u201cautomatic version\u201d of regulation belongs to structural\nrealists, a \u201cmanual\u201d one through diplomats and consciousness of the community –\nto English school. The author also agrees with the notion that balance of power\nis \u201ca type of international order\u201d. The main principle of power balance is\nindividually and\/or collectively combining the military forces against\ndominating power that threatens the security of the former(s). The author\nshares conditions that promote the smooth operation of the balance of power and\nreflects on the prevalence of balancing behaviour over other state responses to\nthe growing power<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schweller, Randall L. 2016. \u201c<\/strong>The Balance of Power in World Politics<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d In William R. Thompson\n(Ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics<\/em>, 177\u201391. London: Oxford\nUniversity Press. (Reviewed by Burak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schweller questions the place and role of\nbalance of power in world politics. He initiates his inquiry by asking, what\nprecisely does the term \u201cbalancing\u201d mean? What is the ultimate promise of the balance\nof power theory? He comes to the idea that it is to preserve the integrity of\nthe multistate system. He elaborates on the concept and touches briefly on three\ntypes of balance of power systems: the automatic version, the semi-automatic\nversion and the manually operated version. Another important point of the paper\nis the offers of the author. He asserts the nine conditions which are jointly\nsufficient to bring about an effectively performing balance-of-power system. He\nalso regards the balance of power as a type of international order. Moreover,\naccording to him, there are essentially three types of international orders: A\nnegotiated order, an imposed order, and a spontaneously generated order. He\nconcludes that the balance of power system does not always function properly\nand predictably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.2. Hegemony, Hegemonic stability, and\nCooperation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gavris, Maria. 2021. \u201c<\/strong>Revisiting the Fallacies in Hegemonic Stability\nTheory in Light of the 2007\u20132008 Crisis: The Theory\u2019s Hollow Conceptualization\nof Hegemony<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Review of International Political Economy<\/em>\n28 (3): 739\u2013760. (Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gavris focuses on the\nneed to reassess the literature on hegemony after the 2007-2008 crisis. She\nclaims that there is an erroneous causal relationship between stability and\nhegemony by criticizing HST (Hegemonic Stability Theory), which contains an\nunderdeveloped concept. Her work also argues how inattention to the conceptual\ncontent of HST has permitted the extension of a problematic understanding of\nhegemony based on the case of Germany in the European Economic and Monetary\nUnion. The author presents a brief discussion on the emergence of the concept\nof hegemony and HST and its critics of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Webb,\nMichael C., and Stephen D. Krasner. 1989. \u201c<\/strong>Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Review of\nInternational Studies<\/em> 15 (2): 183\u201398. (<\/strong>Reviewed by Burak \u0130nce)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npaper is an assessment of the empirical validity of the hegemonic stability\nthesis with a focus on the international political economy since 1945. The authors\ndraw our attention to the power capabilities of the United States, and they\nshare the international trade and finance details. The question of whether the\nUnited States should still be regarded as a hegemon might be seen as a major\ninquiry throughout the study. According to them, the United States has pursued\nrelatively open trade and finance policies. Within the concentration on\nempirical developments in the areas of international trade and finance, the authors\nask and answer; Can the theory be defended, reformulated, or resurrected? The\nmost obvious defence is to maintain that the United States is still a hegemon,\nalbeit a waning one. Such an argument would be consistent with empirical\ndevelopments in the last four decades; growing instability, although not\ncollapse or closure, has been associated with declining but still formidable\nAmerican power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keohane, Robert O. 1984. <\/strong>After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World\nPolitical Economy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. Princeton: Princeton\nUniversity Press. (<\/strong>Reviewed by\n\u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this book, Keohane mainly argues that once interconnection is\nestablished, it maintains. Therefore, the initial need for a hegemon for the\ninitiation of the interconnection, which would reduce discord and enable\ncooperation globally, becomes invalid. In this way, Keohane aims to direct the\nattention of the scholars to search for ways that would strengthen worldwide\ncooperation, which has benign impacts on all. Thus, he challenges both\nneorealist assumptions regarding the impossibility of composition of true\ninternational cooperation, albeit he accepts their claims regarding the\nconception of the states as rational egoists, and particularly the hegemonic stability\ntheory that offers the existence of a hegemon as the prerequisite for the\nformation of international cooperation. In this sense, he emphasizes the\nsignificance of “international regimes” as the main tools for\ngenerating cooperation among “egoistic actors” that are advanced\ncapitalist countries. Therefore, the book provides a well-designed and coherent\nalternative point of view to the issue of cooperation and conflict in\ninternational relations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cox, Robert W. 1981. \u201c<\/strong>Social\nForces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Millennium: Journal of International Studies<\/em> 10\n(2): 126-155. (<\/em><\/strong>Reviewed by\n\u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Theory is always for someone and for some purpose” is\nthe key sentence of this highly influential article. After such a definition of\nthe essence of the theory, Cox categorizes theories into two groups which are\n“problem-solving theories” and “critical theories”. In this\ncontext, he evaluates neo-realism within the problem-solving category that is\ndesigned to maintain the status quo, while historical materialism, as a\nsubdivision of Marxist theory, is an example of critical theory in his\ncategorization of the theories. Thus, the article initially compares\nneo-realism and historical materialism in terms of their perspectives and main\npurposes. Thereby, he reflects on the agent-structure problem while emphasizing\nthe transformative potential of the structures that are defined to come into\nexistence as the result of the interactions of three forces which are\n“material conditions, thought patterns and human institutions” Then,\nCox explain his main argument through such a comparison by explaining the\ninterconnection and mutual influences among social forces, forms of states and\nworld orders. Therefore, he employs historical materialism to analyze imperial\nsystems and concludes by suggesting three alternative future possibilities,\nwhich are “a new hegemony generated by the internationalizing of\nproduction, a non-hegemonic world structure of conflicting power centres or a\ncounter-hegemonic order based on a Third World coalition”. In this sense,\nthe article provides a crystal-clear picture of the role of the theory in the\npractice of international relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.3. Security, Security Dilemma,\nSecuritization<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baylis, John. 2008. \u201c<\/strong>The Concept of Security in\nInternational Relations<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d In Hans G\u00fcnter Brauch, \u00darsula\nOswald Spring, Czeslaw Mesjasz, John Grin, P\u00e1l Dunay, Navnita Chadha Behera,\nB\u00e9chir Chourou, Patricia Kameri-Mbote, and P. H. Liotta (Eds.) Globalization\nand Environmental Challenges. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental\nSecurity and Peace, Vol 3.<\/em>, 495\u2013502. Berlin: Springer. (Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baylis deals with the development of\nthe concept of \u2018security\u2019 from its traditional origins to the newer thinking\nafter the Cold War. He presents that there are changes in thinking about\ninternational security in parallel with the empirical events in world politics.\nDespite the security view of idealism and constructivism, in the conclusion\npart of the article, Baylis claims that realism remains once again a dominant\nperspective in literature. The readers gain general insight into the concept of\nsecurity in Baylis\u2019s work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilgin, Pinar. 2003. \u201c<\/strong>Individual\nand Societal Dimensions of Security<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d International\nStudies Review<\/em> 5 (2): 203\u201322. (<\/strong>Reviewed by\n\u00c7i\u011fdem Dilek Aflaki)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article shows the historical evolution of state-based\napproaches to security studies towards a line including individual and societal\naspects of security beginning from the Cold War era. However, Bilgin explains\nthe end of the Cold War as the point that gave way to the flourishing of those\nalternative approaches to security studies. Therefore, in the first part of the\narticle, she focuses on the Cold War era developments in security studies in\nterms of the evolution of individual and societal themes of the security\napproaches through three significant contributions of the era regarding the\nissue, which are “common security”, “stable peace” and\n“third world security approaches”. In the second part, she focuses on\nthe post-Cold War era regarding the same issue by reflecting on the debates\nthat have been developed around main themes such as “whose security”,\n“primary referents”, and “security as emancipation”.\n“Insecurity dilemma”. “Societal security”, “human\nsecurity”, and “agents of security”.  In this context, she concludes the article by\nemphasizing the “risk society” conception of the current world\npolitics and its possible implications for the main theme of the article, is\n“individual and societal dimensions of security”. Thus, the article\nhelps the readers to extend their mindset regarding the concept of security to\nthe extent that they can understand the historical developments and evolutions\nregarding the issue while detecting the implications of those in their daily\nlife as well as personal expectations from the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilgin, Pinar. 2011. \u201c<\/strong>The Politics of Studying Securitization? The Copenhagen\nSchool in Turkey.\u201d<\/strong><\/a> Security Dialogue<\/em> 42 (4\u20135): 399\u2013412. (Reviewed by\nMustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the article on securitization and its\npractices in Turkey, Bilgin argues that due to the Western European origins and\nfocus of the theory, there is no actual reason to expect securitization theory\nto have an important presence outside Western Europe, Turkey, for instance. Due\nto the anomaly, this article explores how securitization theory has begun to\nacquire a presence in Turkey. First, Bilgin discusses whether securitization\ntheory can get beyond Western Europe. Then, she focuses on the securitization\ntheory practices in Turkey by using data about security and securitization\narticles published in Turkey (2002\u201311) and internationally (1980\u20132011). After\nquestioning how securitization theory has begun to acquire a presence outside\nWestern Europe, Bilgin focuses on the politics of studying securitization\ntheory, especially in studying it in Turkey. To conclude, Bilgin states that\nthe reason why scholars make a choice in favour of adopting a perspective over\nanother one may have to do not only with its foundations but also with the\nhistoric-political context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilgin, Pinar. 2012. <\/strong>\u201cThe Continuing Appeal of Critical\nSecurity Studies.\u201d<\/strong><\/a> In Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima, Jo\u00e3o Nunes (Eds.) Critical\nTheory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and\nReflections<\/em>, 159\u201370, London: Routledge. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yal\u00e7\u0131n)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the chapter in Critical Theory in\nInternational Relations and Security Studies, <\/em>Bilgin focuses on how\ncritical security studies (CSS) made its place in security literature and its\ncritics from other critical perspectives. In the chapter, Bilgin unfolds two\nimportant, and entangled questions\/critics pointed toward CSS in the\nliterature, with the responses and her own notes. The first<\/em> one is about\nthe Western origins of CSS, and the other one is about the political impact of\nCSS. Bilgin unravels these critiques regarding the debates on two interrelated\nissues: the relevance of CSS for understanding insecurities in the non-West\nworld and what it means for CSS to have a political impact. Latter parts of the\nchapter, Bilgin discuss the relevance of CSS for understanding insecurities in\nthe non-West with the critics and the potential of CSS for political impact\nwith the critics and responses. In the last part, Bilgin concludes with a\ngeneral evaluation of the critics and claims critical theory of security as\noffered by CSS is a more promising framework for solving problems in so far as\nit problematizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Booth, K., & Wheeler, N. (2008). <\/strong>Rethinking the Security Dilemma<\/strong><\/a>. In P. D. Williams (Ed.), Security\nStudies: An Introduction <\/em><\/strong>London: <\/strong>Taylor\n& Francis, 131-150. (Reviewed by B\u00fc\u015fra Bayramo\u011flu)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this book chapter, Booth and\nWheeler argue that security dilemma is a more fundamental concept for security\nstudies than the concept of war and strategy and the rest. They claim that\nhuman society will be challenged by a combination of old and new security\nthreats such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, climate change, and mass\nmigration. According to Booth and Wheeler, the most key risk areas will be the\ndanger of a new cold war with China, the danger of new arms races, the danger\nof a world of many nuclear powers, and the danger of terrorism. For this\nreason, they suggest that the security dilemma should be at the heart of\nsecurity studies. Anyone interested in security dilemmas will find this article\nuseful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tang, Shiping. 2009. \u201c<\/strong>The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis<\/strong><\/a>.\u201d Security Studies <\/em>18\n(3): 587\u2013623. (Reviewed By Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tang discusses the security dilemma\nconcept based on the works of Herbert Butterfield, John Herz, and Robert\nJervis. Thus, Tang gives a precise definition of the security dilemma and\nunderlines its major aspects as anarchy, uncertain intentions of the states; as\na result, an arms race, increasement of power, worsening of relations, less\nsecurity, and more wars. He also highlights material and psychological factors that\ninfluence on the regulation of the dilemma. He argues that security dilemma\nmostly appears between two defensive states. He suggests available remedies for\nthe previous wrong extensions and gives a few directions for future research. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.4. Democracy, Democratic Consolidation,\nDemocratization<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Przeworski A. (1991). \u201c<\/strong>Chapter 1. Democracy<\/strong><\/a>,\u201d In Adam Przeworski,  Democracy and the Market: Political and\nEconomic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America<\/em>, 10 \u2013 50, Cambridge:\nCambridge University Press. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Przeworski elucidates\ndemocracy mainly through comparison with dictatorship. He admits two main\nattributes of democracy: uncertainty of outcomes and \u201cthe people\u201d who determine\nthe outcomes. The author also discusses the enforcement and classes of the\noutcomes, rationality, and compliance issues. He distinguishes \u201cthree classes\nof outcomes: (1) Spontaneous self-enforcing outcomes, or equilibria; (2)\nBargains, or contracts; (3) Norms. Furthermore, he explains the possible\noutcomes of \u201ctransitions to democracy\u201d from dictatorship. They are\nself-enforcing democracy, reversed authoritarian regimes, or a new\ndictatorship. Yet, the author finds consolidated democracy as the only\npotential result of the collapse of authoritarian regimes. In a conclusion, he\ndescribes the reasons why outcomes in democracy appear uncertain<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Przeworski, A. 2016. <\/strong>Democracy: A Never-Ending Quest<\/strong><\/a>, Annual Review of Political\nScience<\/em> 19 (1): 1\u201312. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Przeworski discusses\nsome of his observations during his lifetime regarding democratization.\nAlthough the debate on the compatibility of democracy and capitalism is still\nrelevant, he argues, democracy \u201cturned out to be compatible with inequality,\nirrationality, injustice, particularistic enforcement of laws, lies and\nobfuscation, a technocratic policy style, and even a fair dose of arbitrary\nviolence.\u201d He repeats the \u201cconnection between power and money.\u201d He observes\nthat young people in democracies don\u2019t believe they will have a better future.\nSuch disillusionment about the functioning of democracy is new to the last 200 years\nof democracy. Meanwhile, claims of alternative views of democracy are heard\nfrom authoritarian settings such as Russia and China. For example, a Chinese\nargument claims that their system is superior in various dimensions to\ndemocracy. He argues, citizens are not able to control bureaucracies. All these\nareas are offered as potential research agendas. Moreover, Przeworski says he\ndoesn\u2019t understand coups, repression without a threat and China\u2019s rise vs\nRussia\u2019s failure. Finally, he suggests learning basics: mathematics,\nphilosophy, and history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diamond, L. 1994. <\/strong>Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolidation<\/strong><\/a>, Journal of Democracy<\/em>,\n5 (3): 4\u201317. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diamond\ndiscusses democratic consolidation through civil society\u2019s definition,\ndemocratic functions, and features. He defines civil society as an \u201cintermediary\nentity, standing between the private sphere and the state\u201d, and its main\ndemocratic function as the control of the state via observing and controlling\nin democratic states and democratization in authoritarian states. Other\nfunctions are described too: recruiting and training new political leaders;\npromotion of political participation, responsibility, and obligations; creation\nof diverse channels for representing interests, freely associating, accessing\ninformation, etc. The author underlines that civil society\u2019s ability of\nsuccessfully perform its functions depends on its features: internal groups\u2019\ngoals and methods, level of organizational institutionalization, the internally\ndemocratic character, pluralism, and access to multiple associations at\ndifferent levels of society. Diamond claims civil society can and must build\nand consolidate democracy, but it is not the most important part of a consolidation\nof democracy. The political institutionalization is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Albrecht H., O. Schlumberger. 2004. <\/strong>Waiting for \u2018Godot\u2019: Regime Change\nwithout Democratization in the Middle East<\/strong><\/a>, International\nPolitical Science Review<\/em>, 25 (4): 371-392. (Reviewed by Karlygash Delig\u00f6z)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Albrecht and\nSchlumberger\nsuggest asking what helps the perseverance of Arab authoritarianism instead of\nwaiting until the moment democratic rule comes to the Middle East. There are\ntwo perceptions to explain such persistence: (1) fluctuation of \u201ccontrolled\npolitical liberalizations and de-liberalizations\u201d, and (2) five areas of\nchange: \u201clegitimation, elites, institution building, co-optation, and regimes\u2019\nreactions to external influences\u201d. Authors compare developing regions where the\npolitical transition was already made with the Arab world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>
\n
Dr. \u0130smail Erkam Sula, <\/strong> Ankara Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m Beyaz\u0131t University <\/h5>\n\n\n\n

\u0130smail Erkam Sula is asistant professor in the Department of International Relations at Ankara Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m Beyaz\u0131t University. He received his doctorate and master’s degrees in International Relations from Bilkent University and his undergraduate degree from Dokuz Eylul University International Relations Department. He worked as a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University Institute for Quantitative Social Science in 2019 with the support of T\u00dcB\u0130TAK B\u0130DEB with his research project titled “Foreign Policy Analysis and Quantitative Research Methods”. His main research areas are scientific research methods, foreign policy analysis, international relations theories, active learning techniques. He has various academic publications, seminars and conference papers in these fields. He is currently working on data generation and computer aided research methods in social sciences.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

To cite this work<\/strong> :<\/strong> \u0130smail Erkam Sula (ed.), \u201cSelected Topics in International Relations: An Annotated Bibliography\u201d, Panorama<\/em>, Online, 12 August 2022, https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/blog\/2021\/09\/13\/a-bib<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Copyright@UIKPanorama. All on-line and print rights reserved. Opinions expressed in works published by the Panorama<\/em> belongs to the authors alone unless otherwise stated, and do not imply endorsement by the IRCT, Global Academy, or the Editors\/Editorial Board of Panorama. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Contents 1. IR Scholarship: The State of the art in the World and Turkey 1.1. Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations Scholarship 1.2. IR Scholarship around the World and the state of the IR Discipline in Turkey 1.3. The Sociology of the IR discipline2. History of International Relations Discipline 2.1. The Evolution of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":171,"featured_media":9219,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[513,515],"tags":[656],"class_list":["post-11518","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-miscellaneous","category-reading-list","tag-english"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11518","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/171"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11518"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11518\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9219"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11518"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11518"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11518"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}