Drawing upon philosophy and social theory, Social Theory of International Politics develops a theory of the international system as a social construction. Alexander Wendt clarifies the central claims of the constructivist approach, presenting a structural and idealist worldview which contrasts with the individualism and materialism which underpins much mainstream international relations theory. He builds a cultural theory of international politics, which takes whether states view each other as enemies, rivals or friends as a fundamental determinant. Wendt characterises these roles as 'cultures of anarchy', described as Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian respectively. These cultures are shared ideas which help shape state interests and capabilities, and generate tendencies in the international system. The book describes four factors which can drive structural change from one culture to another - interdependence, common fate, homogenization, and self-restraint - and examines the effects of capitalism and democracy in the emergence of a Kantian culture in the West.

/pdf/social-theory-of-international-politics-3eegdnnwai.pdf

Social Theory of International Politics

The debate between realists and liberals has reemerged as an axis of contention in international relations theory.’ Revolving in the past around competing theories of human nature, the debate is more concerned today with the extent to which state action is influenced by ‘structure’ (anarchy and the distribution of power) versus ‘process’ (interaction and learning) and institutions. Does the absence of centralized political authority force states to play competitive power politics? Can international regimes overcome this logic, and under what conditions? What in anarchy is given and immutable, and what is amenable to change?

/pdf/anarchy-is-what-states-make-of-it-the-social-construction-of-39pmlbk9ww.pdf

Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics

Aspect] is a simple and practical aspect-oriented extension to Java With just a few new constructs, AspectJ provides support for modular implementation of a range of crosscutting concerns. In AspectJ's dynamic join point model, join points are well-defined points in the execution of the program; pointcuts are collections of join points; advice are special method-like constructs that can be attached to pointcuts; and aspects are modular units of crosscutting implementation, comprising pointcuts, advice, and ordinary Java member declarations. AspectJ code is compiled into standard Java bytecode. Simple extensions to existing Java development environments make it possible to browse the crosscutting structure of aspects in the same kind of way as one browses the inheritance structure of classes. Several examples show that AspectJ is powerful, and that programs written using it are easy to understand.

An overview of AspectJ

Twenty years ago, in the pages of the Journal of Common Market Studies, Hedley Bull launched a searing critique of the European Community’s ‘civilian power’ in international affairs. Since that time the increasing role of the European Union (EU) in areas of security and defence policy has led to a seductiveness in adopting the notion of ‘military power Europe’. In contrast, I will attempt to argue that by thinking beyond traditional conceptions of the EU’s international role and examining the case study of its international pursuit of the abolition of the death penalty, we may best conceive of the EU as a ‘normative power Europe’.

/pdf/normative-power-europe-a-contradiction-in-terms-1xp5k91f3a.pdf

Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?

Acknowledgements 1. The World in English Introduction: from Hurt Waldheim to Johnny Clegg The natural, neutral and beneficial spread of English The social, cultural and political contexts of English The worldliness of English Conclusion 2. Discourse and Dependency in a Shifting World Introduction: rethinking internationalism Development, aid and modernization Dependency and imperialism Culture, discourse, difference and disjuncture Criket, English and cultural politics 3. English and Colonialism: Origins of a Discourse Introduction: the complexities of colonialism Anglicism and Orientalism: two sides of the colonial coin English for the few: colonial education policies in Malaya Anglicism and English studies Conclusion 4. Spreading the Word/Disciplining the Language Introduction: anti-nomadic disciplines The disciplining of linguistics The disciplining of applied linguistics The spreading and disciplining of discourse of EIL 5. ELT From Development Aid to Global Commodity From cultural propaganda to global business: The British Council 'The West is better...': discourses of ELT English Language Teaching practices as cultural practices Conclusion: the compass of discourse 6. The Worldliness of English in Malaysia Contexts Cultural politics after independence Malay nationalism and English English, class and ethnicity English adn Islam English and the media The debates continue 7. The Worldliness of English in Singapore English as a useful language The making of Singapore Singapore English Pragmatism, multiracialism and meritocratism Pragmatic, multiracial and meritocratic English Conclusion 8. Writing Back: The Appropriation of English Postcolonial English Re-presenting postcolonial worlds Worldy texts in a worldly language Decentered voices: writing in Malaysia Centered voices: writing in Singapore From aestheticism to yuppyism: the new writing in Singapore From writing back to teaching back 9. Towards a Critical Pedagogy for Teaching English as a Worldly Language Critical pedagogies Discourse, language and subjectivity Insurgent knowledges, the classroom and the world References Index

http://www.tnewfields.info/Articles/PDF/reviewPennycook.pdf

The cultural politics of English as an international language

Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community

R. B. J. Walker (*) Colonialism without a civilizational mission is no colonialism at all. Ashis Nandy Race is a complex and multiply contested concept, pulled this way and that by the opposing demands of culture and biology, knowledge and power. It animates antagonisms in the academy, in homes, and on the streets. Few conversations about race manage to avoid either the engaged anger of the conversationalists or the sense that the conversation has to move in many directions at once--not least toward claims about gender and class, toward the overlapping frames of otherness, alterity, or orientalism through which we seek to comprehend contemporary exclusions and the legitimation of oppressive powers. The theory of international relations has shown a famous aversion to complex and multiply contested concepts. It has been especially silent about race, as about many other practices that cannot be quickly reduced to claims about the necessities of states in a modern states-system. Like culture, economy, or gender, it does not fit into the prevailing division of the world into "levels" above (the international) and below (the individual) the state. Unlike culture, economy, and gender, there has been very little attempt to insist that claims about race do indeed deserve serious discussion in the context of a changing international or global order. From time to time, of course, the discipline does open up to problems hitherto deemed outside its epistemological boundaries. "Opening up" has historically resulted from sustained wars of position between the forces that represent a broadening of the proper subjects of the discipline and those who insist that international relations (IR) is about "war and peace" among states. It may be time for one more apertura; namely, for race to be systematically incorporated into the analysis of global politics. Consider the following: The first global attempt to speak of equality focused upon race. The first human rights provisions in the United Nations Charter were placed there because of race. The first international challenge to a country's claim of domestic jurisdiction and exclusive treatment of its own citizens centered upon race. The international convention with the greatest number of signatories is that on race. Within the United Nations, more resolutions deal with race than any other subject. And certainly one of the most long-standing and frustrating problems in the United Nations is that of race. Nearly one hundred eighty governments, for example, recently went as far as to conclude that racial discrimination and racism still represent the most serious problems for the world today. (1) Extensive as it is, the above synopsis provided by Paul G. Lauren must be viewed as very limited indeed. The significance of race goes much beyond various multilateral and other diplomatic achievements. Race has been a fundamental force in the very making of the modern world system and in the representations and explanations of how that system emerged and how it works. This can only be understood, however, if we look at race as an interrelated set of material, ideological, and epistemological practices. The articulation of these latter into full-fledged racialized discourses have produced, over time, social formations and even world orders that were macrostructural systems of inclusion and exclusion. The primary problem that must be addressed is not that race has been ignored in IR (there is, in fact, a fairly significant literature on racial factors in world politics), but that race has been given the epistemological status of silence. Silence, Michel-Ralph Trouillot tells us, has four moments; namely, "the moment of fact creation (the making of sources); the moment of fact assembly (the making of archives); the moment of retrieval (the making of narratives); and the moment of retrospective significance (the making of history in the final instance). …

Apertura: Race in International Relations:

Requirements such as distribution or tracing have an impact on multiple classes in a system. They are cross-cutting requirements, or aspects. Their support is, by necessity, scattered across those multiple classes. A look at an individual class may also show support for cross-cutting requirements tangled up with the core responsibilities of that class. Scattering and tangling make object-oriented software difficult to understand, extend and reuse. Though design is an important activity within the software lifecycle with well-documented benefits, those benefits are reduced when cross-cutting requirements are present. This paper presents a means to mitigate these problems by separating the design of cross-cutting requirements into composition patterns. Composition patterns require extensions to the UML, and are based on a combination of the subject-oriented model for composing separate, overlapping designs, and UML templates. This paper also demonstrates how composition patterns map to one programming model that provides a solution for separation of cross-cutting requirements in code—aspect-oriented programming. This mapping serves to illustrate that separation of aspects may be maintained throughout the software lifecycle.

Composition patterns: an approach to designing reusable

Most debates about our collective futures remain in thrall to the polis, or at least to some vaguely remembered and creatively reimagined ideal of the polis expressed in modern statist claims to political community and identity - especially to the community of blood that we call the nation and the community of law that we engage as citizens. Some are content to declare or assume that this is what there is. Canonical traditions and grand theoretical assertions erase our sense of historical contingency. All ontological axiological, and epistemological possibilities are delineated in the stroke of an assertion, in the sovereign act of discrimination and authorization. Hobbes gave us what remains the most elegant modern account of how such an assertion might be achieved through the modern sovereign state. Kant gave us an altogether smoother, deeply ambivalent, but no less troubling, account of how it might be achieved once modern subjects learned to rule themselves, to minimize politics and maximize ethics. Other philosophers, and political economists, then taught us how to forget about what was involved in these declarations of modern possibility, these affirmations of the necessary freedom of the modern subject, allowing us to go looking for, or escaping from, politics in, say, the market, civil society, history, representation, and the personal. While claims about where and what political life is supposed to be have now been sharply contested over many centuries, we now keep catching ourselves affirming the natural necessity of the modern polis by reproducing the sovereign state's own self-affirming account of how it is both natural and necessary, and all other alternatives are impossible, even if in some sense they might be desirable. Most would nonetheless insist that this self-proclaimed natural necessity is a historical achievement, and perhaps even a rather fragile one at that. It is this historical achievement that supposedly distinguishes us from those living in tribes and empires, even from

Robert Walker

Papers

Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community

Apertura: Race in International Relations:

Composition patterns: an approach to designing reusable

Polis, Cosmopolis, Politics

Europe is not where it is supposed to be