TRIPping Constructivism

The Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) surveys have become the authoritative source for making sense of the discipline of inter- national relations (IR) as a global field of practice. At relatively regular intervals they provide snap-shots of the discipline based on the self-reporting of IR schol- ars from 20 countries around the world. The TRIP project also includes assessments from “a new journal article database that includes every article published in the field’s 12 leading journals” (Maliniak, Oakes, Peterson and Tierney 2011, 438). That the TRIP project has thus filled a significant void by providing very useful sociological information about the discipline is indisputable. In this brief forum essay, however, I want to highlight some more critical insights that emerge from the TRIP project in the hopes of generating a productive conversation about how the surveys should be understood.This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Cambridge University Press

Recognizing injustice: the ‘hypocrisy charge’ and the future of the liberal international order

Abstract Struggles for recognition, rooted in the desire to be acknowledged by others, are fundamental to the stability of international orders. All international orders face actors with recognition grievances, and sometimes these grievances become major sources of contention. At the same time, each international order faces struggles that are specific to its mode of legitimation because they are rooted in challenges over the constituent elements of that order. The liberal international order (LIO) is no exception to this rule. Unlike international orders that are organized through explicit social hierarchies, the LIO claims to foster egalitarian, meritocratic justice based around universal, ‘rational’ standards. Yet it is clear to many actors around the world that the LIO has historically been, and remains today, premised on ‘irrational’, unjust forms of hierarchical recognition, often organized around group identity. This opens up the LIO to charges of hypocrisy. We trace the ways in which this ‘hypocrisy charge’ is levelled by both LIO ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’, arguing that it generates an irresolvable tension within the LIO. This tension may not spell the end of the LIO, but it does point to a period of extended contention.</jats:p

Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents

AbstractThe Liberal International Order (LIO) is currently being undermined not only by states such as Russia but also by voters in the West. We argue that both veins of discontent are driven by resentment toward the LIO's status hierarchy, rather than simply by economic grievances. Approaching discontent historically and sociologically, we show that there are two strains ofrecognition strugglesagainst the LIO: one in the core of the West, driven by populist politicians and their voters, and one on the semiperiphery, fueled by competitively authoritarian governments and their supporters. At this particular moment in history, these struggles are digitally, ideologically, and organizationally interconnected in their criticism of LIO institutions, amplifying each other. The LIO is thus being hollowed outfrom withinat a time when it is also facing some of its greatest external challenges.ER

Polymorphic justice and the crisis of international order

Abstract The post-1945 international order is in crisis, spurring a wide-ranging debate about its future in a period of rapid global change. A critical dimension of this crisis has been neglected by existing perspectives, however. At multiple levels the post-1945 international order is being challenged by claims of justice. Diverse actors criticize the order for its economic inequalities, social hierarchies, institutional unfairness, intergenerational inequities, and historical and epistemic injustices. This article, which serves as an introduction to a special section on ‘Injustice and the crisis of international order’ seeks to map and explicate this polymorphic politics of global justice. We begin by reviewing past debates about justice and order in world politics, highlighting their narrow and over-stylized engagement with justice politics. To fill this gap, we develop a typology of contemporary justice claims, differentiating between recognitional, institutional, distributive, historical and epistemic, and intergenerational claims. Our goal is not only to distinguish these distinct kinds of justice claims, however. We argue that justice claims are also intersectional, multiscalar and multivocal, with significant implications for how the relationship between justice and order is managed in contemporary world politics.</jats:p

Debating Uneven and Combined Development/Debating International Relations: A Forum

This forum arises from an online event on the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD). Following an introduction which proposes a ‘special affinity’ between UCD and International Relations (IR), four presenters at that event discuss their ‘view from outside’ UCD, including perspectives from Global Historical Sociology, Realism, Decolonial theory and Gramscian Marxism. Meanwhile four members of the audience add their views on UCD and disciplinarity, the need for pluralism in UCD methodology, UCD and ‘whiteness’, and its potential contribution to ecological theory and practice. Débattre du développement inégal et combiné/Débattre des relations internationales </jats:p