• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >The end of liberal institutional history: Military intervention and the fallacy of institutional order in the post-Cold War era.
【24h】

The end of liberal institutional history: Military intervention and the fallacy of institutional order in the post-Cold War era.

机译：自由主义制度史的终结：后冷战时代的军事干预和制度秩序的谬误。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In the post-Cold War era the value of institutions in establishing a world order with greater levels of cooperation and fewer violent conflicts has been forwarded. The failure of global communism was offered as a liberal victory, and with no real challengers, economic and political liberalism were hypothesized to spread democracy and peace throughout the globe and fashion what Fukuyama termed the ‘end of history.’ However, the ideological battle among international relations theorists has continued to ensure that decision makers are faced with the challenge of determining which theory most accurately reflects the reality of the world system, and thus, which approach to use in guiding them in developing policies that will achieve their desired goals. Therefore, my purpose in this paper is to invalidate the supposition that institutional order has displaced the traditional process of statecraft. First, I have offered a general debate among liberal and realist visions of cooperation and conflict in the post-Cold War era to highlight the compatibility of the international system with the realist framework. Second, in order to combat claims that such general arguments are non-falsifiable, I have augmented the general arguments with the topic of military intervention as the lowest common denominator of both conflict and cooperation to exemplify the consistency of realist explanation and the corresponding deficiency of liberal institutionalism. Third, I have offered three specific cases of military intervention (Rwanda 1994, Kosovo 1999, Iraq 2003) that defy the institutional and support the realist frameworks. Finally, I have concluded that there is not sufficient reason to abandon classical realism for liberal institutionalism as a framework for understanding international relations. Instead, if we are to negotiate relations among states we must do so with an accurate realist picture of the international system as a guide.
机译：在冷战后时代，机构在建立具有更大合作水平和更少暴力冲突的世界秩序中的价值已经被提出。全球共产主义的失败是一次自由主义的胜利，没有真正的挑战者，人们认为经济和政治自由主义可以在全球范围内传播民主与和平，并形成福山所说的“历史的终结”。国际关系理论家一直在确保决策者面临挑战，即确定哪种理论最准确地反映世界体系的现实，从而确定用哪种方法指导他们制定将实现其期望目标的政策。因此，我在本文中的目的是使制度秩序取代传统的治国进程的假设无效。首先，我在冷战后时代的自由主义和现实主义关于合作与冲突的观点之间进行了一般性辩论，以强调国际体系与现实主义框架的兼容性。其次，为了反对这种普遍论点是不可证伪的说法，我以军事干预作为冲突和合作的最低共同标准来扩充了普遍论点，以举例说明现实主义解释的一致性和相对应的缺陷。自由主义制度主义。第三，我提出了三个具体的军事干预案例（卢旺达，1994年，科索沃，1999年，伊拉克，2003年），这些案例违背了体制并支持现实主义框架。最后，我得出的结论是，没有充分的理由放弃自由主义制度主义的古典现实主义作为理解国际关系的框架。相反，如果我们要谈判国家之间的关系，就必须以对国际体系的准确的现实主义图画为指导。

著录项

  • 作者

    Ducharme, Randall James.;

  • 作者单位

    Dalhousie University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 Dalhousie University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Political Science International Law and Relations.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2003
  • 页码 156 p.
  • 总页数 156
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 国际法;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号