Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: International Studies Association URL: http://www.isanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p98956_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Kiersey, Nicholas. "The 'Debate About Empire' and International Relations Theory; Beyond the Narratives of Sovereign and Imperial Power in Theorizing Modern World Politics" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-05-25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p98956_index.html>

Kiersey, N. , 2006-03-22 "The 'Debate About Empire' and International Relations Theory; Beyond the Narratives of Sovereign and Imperial Power in Theorizing Modern World Politics" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA <Not Available>. 2009-05-25 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p98956_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: This paper explores how different understandings of power in IR theory lead to different understandings of world order. It focuses specifically on the role of power in shaping what Mick Cox has recently labeled the "debate about empire". I start by investigating how power is understood in relation to the role of shared understandings. Mainstream or ?Rationalist? scholars of IR have argued that shared norms and principles are epiphenomenal, existing only to the extent that sovereign states find utility in them. Marxist scholars have stressed the critical role of class in determining global cultural developments. 'Reflectivist' scholars, on the other hand, have suggested that we should attribute a much greater degree of autonomy to what they call ?constitutive knowledge?. That is, the intersubjective and historically contingent truths about world politics that inform the values and norms of state behavior. What is noteworthy about the recent debates about ?empire? is that, for better or for worse, Rationalist scholars have tended to explain America?s recent unilateralism in terms of a return to the logic of political realism which gives primacy to state power. Similarly, Marxist scholars have described the recent turn as revealing an Imperial substrate to contemporary world politics. However, following the Reflectivist argument, I argue that it is a mistake to limit the analytic scope of unilateralism to the egoistic agency of any one state or class. Instead, it may be more precise to situate American unilateralism in the context of an emerging regime or formation of shared understandings which is more global in scope. To explore this possibility, I turn to Foucault?s theory of power/knowledge which explores how liberal governments both direct their populations and rationalize the use of certain forms of violence. I turn also to Hardt and Negri who, taking their lead from Foucault, offer a novel definition of the term empire as a quality or condition of the practice of global governance particular to late modernity. Hardt and Negri define empire as a new form of global sovereignty that has emerged along with the global market and global circuits of production. My paper explores how this definition can be used to refine such key concepts and categories of IR theory research as sovereignty, political economy and security. Through the reinterpretation of these key categories, I show how theories based on constitutive knowledge are capable of recognizing that there is in fact a great deal more going on in contemporary global power relations than American imperialism.

Why do states choose certain normative strategies over others in world politics? Interrogating theories of normative state agency in International Relations.

The 'Debate about Empire' and International Relations Theory: Beyond the Narratives of Sovereign and Imperial Power in Theorizing Modern World Politics

Can Asians Theorize? Reflections on the Debate over the Place of Theory in Asian International Relations