Papers and Books by Yong-Soo Eun
Lynne Rienner, 2024
Mohammed Ayoob's work in the field of international relations, spanning more than four decades, o... more Mohammed Ayoob's work in the field of international relations, spanning more than four decades, offers invaluable insights into both international conflicts and the security dynamics of the Global South. From Regional Security to Global IR provides a guide to Ayoob's intellectual journey and advances the concept of Global IR as an inclusive approach to understanding the emerging decentralized world order.
An Ontological Rethinking of Identity in International Studies, 2023
This book shows that identity studies in the discipline of International Relations (IR) generally... more This book shows that identity studies in the discipline of International Relations (IR) generally cohere around two discrete understandings of being, substantialism and correlationism, and that their analytical, theoretical, and epistemological orientations are split along those lines. This binary opposition makes it difficult for identity scholarship to meet the internal validity standard of coherence while unnecessarily narrowing the theoretical lenses of constructivism in IR. This book argues that the best way to step outside that binary is to re-ground identity in ontology of immanence. The book shows that immanent ontological thinking enables us to have a pluralist epistemology and methodology for the study of identity, including both positivist and interpretivist orientations, without yielding a logically inconsistent alignment.
Journal of International Political Theory, 2023
Will a desirable apparatus always return a desirable end? This short engagement expresses my hope... more Will a desirable apparatus always return a desirable end? This short engagement expresses my hope for Karin M. Fierke's Snapshots from Home: Mind, Action, and Strategy in an Uncertain World (Bristol University Press, 2022).
International Studies Review, 2023
The primary purpose of this article is to advance the ongoing Global International Relations (Glo... more The primary purpose of this article is to advance the ongoing Global International Relations (Global IR) debate and to offer some possible paths towards Global IR 2.0. To this end, this article first analyzes how Global IR has emerged, what contributions it makes to giving new impetus to IR knowledge (production), and, more importantly, what charges are leveled against Global IR. Although Global IR has produced an important body of scholarship, contributing substantially to identifying West-centrism as a key point of contention in IR and nudging the discipline toward theoretical pluralism, Global IR in its current form still carries the risk of reinforcing the old hierarchical and essentialized structure of knowledge production in ways that are analytic, epistemological, and ontological. Following this critical mapping exercise, I argue that while Global IR can serve as a key signifier of challenge to West-centrism, this important signifier needs to be redefined in terms of what it indicates and means-thereby becoming Global IR 2.0. In onto-epistemological terms, Global IR 2.0 relates more directly to questioning and dissolving essentialized ways of knowing in the discipline. In the final section of this article, I elaborate on how to realize this idea and harness it in practice.
The Pacific Review, 2022
This introductory article provides rationales and contextual background for the special issue whi... more This introductory article provides rationales and contextual background for the special issue which examines how weak states in Asia actualise and exercise their agency in the twenty-first century regional or global environments. The article opens with a consideration of why attention is drawn to the agency of the weak. Weak states are often treated as 'objects' of international politics rather than 'subjects', and their foreign policy actions are commonly taken to be 'reflexive' of external constraints, such as fluctuations in the balance of power in the international system. We disagree with this view. We argue that weak actors can demonstrate varieties of agency regardless of their position in the international system in terms of material capabilities. To clarify this point, the article reflects on the changed and changing global and regional environments and order. Rather than seeing them through the lens of great power politics and its signature concept of 'polarity', the article offers an alternative notion, namely a 'multiplex' world, and identifies the key nature of order therein: multiplicity and fluidity. Both material and normative power have already and continue to become fragmented, decentralised, and dispersed within and across states. While emphasising that such a multifaceted and fluid world opens up a wide avenue of agency for weak actors, this article also notes that the weak has varieties of agency as potentials.
Global Studies Quarterly, 2021
This article takes reflexive stock on the current state of the discipline of International Relati... more This article takes reflexive stock on the current state of the discipline of International Relations (IR) in order to catalyse a robust debate on diversity in IR knowledge and knowledge production. IR has witnessed a theoretical explosion and proliferation since the 1980s, and pluralism is acknowledged as a legitimate position for producing IR knowledge and theory. As a result, we have now arrived at “a plural, and pluralist,” field, and several IR scholars have observed that the discipline is much healthier as a result. On closer inspection, however, what we find in IR is quantitative (i.e. representational) diversity and closed territoriality, as opposed to qualitative (i.e. ontological) diversity and open territoriality. By reviewing what defines the nature of diversity in artefacts, including the field of knowledge we know as IR, this article shows that territories and codes of knowledge production in IR remain narrowly confined within a few lines of articulation and strata. Furthermore, although IR is often regarded as a plural, and pluralist, field, the article demonstrates that this is true only in terms of actualised knowledge assemblages (e.g. approaches, theories, or research programmes), and not the kinds and movement of territories and codes of knowledge production through which those assemblages are actualised. How can we ensure qualitative diversity and open territoriality in the production of IR knowledge? This article takes preliminary steps in addressing this question by calling for ‘IR as becoming-rhizomatic.’
Routledge, 2020
The main intellectual concerns of this edited volume are problematising Western parochialism in I... more The main intellectual concerns of this edited volume are problematising Western parochialism in IR; giving theoretical and epistemological substance to pluralism in the field of IR based on both Western and non-Western thoughts and experiences; and working out ways to move the discipline of IR one step closer to a dialogic community. A key issue that cuts across all contributions in the volume is to go beyond both parochialism and fragmentation in international studies. In order to address the manifold and contested implications of pluralism in in the field of IR, the volume draws on the wealth of experience and research of prominent and emerging IR scholars.
https://www.amazon.com/Parochialism-Fragmentation-International-Relations-Practice/dp/1138063002
Politics , 2019
This opening article maps the terrain of the ongoing debate over various forms of ‘non-Western’ I... more This opening article maps the terrain of the ongoing debate over various forms of ‘non-Western’ International Relations (IR) theory-building enterprise with the aim not only of providing contextual background for the Special Section, but also, and more importantly, of identifying what is missing in the overall debate. It is often pointed out that IR as a discipline is ‘too Western centric’, and that much of mainstream IR theory is ‘simply an abstraction of Western history’. In this respect, many IR scholars have called for ‘broadening’ the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over non-Western IR theorisation and its recent contributions, several critical questions and issues still remain unclear and under-explored. I suggest that there are (at least) three sets of questions that require more careful attention in our discussion. First, does IR need to embrace theoretical pluralism? Second, to what extent has contemporary IR become pluralistic? Third, should IR pursue the promotion of dialogue and engagement across theoretical and spatial divides? Of course, each of these questions invites several subsequent questions. This discussion will serve as a useful point from which more substantial and exciting bearings may be taken in enriching the ongoing debate and moving IR towards becoming a more pluralistic discipline.
PS: Political Science & Politics, 2019
David Lake wrote that International Relations (IR)1 will be a more diverse and better field of s... more David Lake wrote that International Relations (IR)1 will be a more diverse and better field of study if we embrace varied “life experiences and intuitions,” especially those of “marginalized” scholars, about politics and how the world works. Although concurring with his admonition, I also believe that his call for “greater diversity” in IR and his approach to realizing it need to be subject to critical scrutiny, being reconsidered in terms of reflexivity—more specifically, self-reflection by “marginalized” scholars. For this reason, as a “non-white” scholar working in a “non-Western” (or, in Lake’s words, “underrepresented”) IR community, I want to make my own confession to better understand what is at stake in promoting diversity in the academy from a different angle.
The Pacific Review , 2019
This article aims to address how to ensure a two-way ‘dialogue’ across ‘the West/non-West distinc... more This article aims to address how to ensure a two-way ‘dialogue’ across ‘the West/non-West distinction’ in international studies. To this end, I first discuss three different approaches to dialogue, the Socratic, the Habermasian, and the Weberian, and clarify what kind of thing dialogue should be if it is to overcome the ‘West-non-West divide’ and transform the current ‘Western-centric’ IR into a global discipline. I argue that dialogue should be understood as reciprocal feedback from different perspectives for mutual learning. In order to achieve this goal (i.e. mutual learning), I call for an ‘instrumentalist’ approach to dialogue. To elucidate this point, I offer an empirical illustration. The focus here is on dialogue as mutual learning between Western-centric IR theory, more specifically constructivism, and the indigenous experience and knowledge of East Asia.
Routledge, 2018
International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be “too Western” centric. It has ... more International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be “too Western” centric. It has been argued that much of mainstream IR theory is “simply an abstraction of Western history.” In this respect, many IR scholars have called for “broadening” the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the “non-Western” IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical “self”-reflection and “collective” empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.
Palgrave, 2016
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9789811011207#aboutBook
Japanese Journal of Political Science, 2016
This article attempts to fill a gap in International Relations (IR) literature on East Asian sec... more This article attempts to fill a gap in International Relations (IR) literature on East Asian security. ‘East Asia’ appears to be mostly an indeterminate conceptual construct, allowing scholars to look selectively at those aspects and areas that could justify their security thesis, albeit security dynamics in the region are all too difficult to comprehend and predict. This problem has been frequently pointed out in IR literature, but its methodological implications and suggestions have neither been appropriately illuminated nor been systematically offered, and the main solution commonly found in the literature was the tautological one of ‘better defining’ the region. As an alternative, this article suggests that one needs to tighten geographical focus and differentiate the subjects of analysis.When it comes to the study of East Asian security, one needs to aim to develop specific and differentiated generalizations as opposed to generalizations of a broad character. To showcase the fact that research outcomes can be more determinate when the target of analysis is more focused and specified, this article takes Northeast Asian security as an example and challenges the so-called ‘peaceful East Asia’ thesis, one of the mainstream perspectives on East Asian security. This article ultimately argues that while apprehending East Asian security dynamics through delimiting the scope of analysis and circumscribing the subjects of investigation is often deemed to be a modest enterprise–in particular, in terms of generalizability–the merits are substantial: research outcomes will be able not only to give us a truer mapping of the real world, but also bring us closer to building knowledge which satisfies the scientific criterion of ‘falsifiability.’
The Pacific Review , 2018
The Pacific Review
This opening article presents rationales for the Special Section which analy... more The Pacific Review
This opening article presents rationales for the Special Section which analyses South Korea's debates and discourses on crucial issues related to East Asian regional politics. The article opens with a consideration of why attention is drawn to South Korea and particularly to its discourses. Expanding upon constructivist theoretical insights, this article shows how they matter in foreign policy-making and state behaviour. In addition, the article clarifies the scope of analysis of this Special Section. While recognising that many different actors and issues shape the regional order in East Asia to varying degrees, we hold that the most direct impact on changes and/or continuity in that order comes from state actors in the realm of security (or the security–economy nexus). The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: although the perspectives and discourses analysed in this Special Section are not exhaustive, the analysis can serve as a useful reference point for discussion that seeks to advance our understandings of how South Korea is likely to behave toward its neighbours and what the future of the East Asian regional order will look like.
Perspectives on Politics, 2018
Palgrave Macmillan, 2014
How are global crises, such as the current financial crisis, responded and dealt with? What are t... more How are global crises, such as the current financial crisis, responded and dealt with? What are the consequences? Are there any links between regionalism and global crises in terms of stimuli, processes, and consequences? This edited volume brings together a range of examples to illustrate the development and importance of regional actors in the global governance of the political economy.
Regionalising Global Crises highlights the regional level dynamics that exacerbate or contribute to solving the global economic crisis. It also explores the potential for change in the governance of the global political economy and international financial architecture by assessing the current and past financial crises through regional lenses. In particular, it addresses the debates that have emerged on the roles of regions and regional actors by undertaking empirical investigation of the impact of the crises on Africa, Europe, BRICS, and East Asia and their reactions to those events. As such it will provide an important empirical and methodological resource for students, researchers and practitioners with an interest in regional actors, comparative regionalism and international political economy.
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/regionalizing-global-crises-toni-haastrup/?isb=9781137347565
Review of International Studies , 2012
This article argues that International Relations (IR) researchers concerned with why-questions a... more This article argues that International Relations (IR) researchers concerned with why-questions about the state’s external behaviour ought to employ a multicausal approach attentive to the interrelated relationship between external structures and internal agents, presenting the (meta-)theoretical rationales underlying its argument. Here the author suggests ‘a rich/bold ontology’ regarding foreign policy behaviour. Then the article elaborates on detailed and explicit guidelines on how to traverse the bridge that connects the insights of that rich ontology to the empirical research necessary to make claims about the real world of any one moment. In a related vein, the article claims that a multicausal approach should be established using what the author calls ‘loose-knit deductive reasoning’ through which epistemological and methodological openness can be preserved in a manageable way. More importantly, this article discusses the role of theory for IR scholarship and the standards for judging theoretical contributions and progress in the field of IR. Ultimately, the author argues that a complex and flexible approach – both as a useful mode of explanation and as a progressive model of theory construction – can make important contributions to a better understanding of foreign policy and world politics, not only because it enables researchers to become keenly sensitive to the complex reality underlying a nation’s foreign policy and to the interrelated relationship between structures and agents in international relations, but also because it can serve to provide a secure base for the progressive accumulation of the evidence closely associated with multiple causation on which any adequate explanation about complex foreign policy behaviour must surely be founded and without which general theory cannot really flourish.
PS: Political Science & Politics, 2014
Causality in social science is hard to establish even through the finest comparative
research. To... more Causality in social science is hard to establish even through the finest comparative
research. To ease the task of extracting causes from comparisons, we present
the benefits of tracing particularities in any phenomenon under investigation.We introduce three real-world examples from 2011: British riots, worldwide anticapitalist protests, and the highway crash near Taunton in southwestern England. Whereas all of these three examples have broad causes, we embark on the quest after specific factors.
The Taunton accident can send a powerful message to social scientists, which is about
the danger of making general statements in their explanations. Instead of saying much
but explaining little, the merit of singling out the specific is substantial. As social scientists, when we are faced with “smoke” but no “fire,” let us then focus on the part that is distinct.
Journal of Korean International Studies Association, 2020
From the theoretical perspective of postcolonialism, this article examines the postcolonialsing p... more From the theoretical perspective of postcolonialism, this article examines the postcolonialsing processes of Korea since its liberation in 1945 and takes a close look at the ramifications of the international events at that time, such as the 1945 division of the Korean peninsula, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the 1950-1953 Korean War, for South Korea’s foreign and security policy thinking and behaviour in the postwar period. In doing so, the article shows that how “coloniality” has been embedded in South Korean foreign and security policy thinking and behaviour in its postcolonialising processes. To elucidate this point, the article first discusses postcolonialism theory explicating its manifold meanings and implications. Based on this theoretical discussion, the article notes that Korea’s liberation did not lead to restoring postcolonial subjectivity in the realms of foreign affairs and national security. Rather, coloniality at both material and socio-epistemic levels remains deeply entrenched in Korean foreign and security policy thinking and practice. This is mainly due to the international and domestic political events that Korea has gone through since its 1945 liberation, especially during the cold war period. More specifically, the cold war, as a structural divide at the global level, unfolded in a very different manner in Asia as compared with Europe, which has resulted in a US-Japanese centered regional security system of anti-communism. This system was, once again, consolidated through the Korean War, and then filtered into the domestic politics of South Korea ruled by military dictatorial regimes, who were seeking their political legitimacy from American recognition or approval. Ultimately, the combination of these global, regional, and domestic dynamics has brought about a ‘hybrid’ coloniality to South Korea’s external behaviour. The problem is this ‘hybrid’ coloniality in which South Korea for itself contemplates its foreign policy actions and makes moral judges about those actions either on the basis of ‘American’ positions and values or within the context of the relationship with the US remains prevalent even after the collapse of the (global) cold war system in 1990. How to overcome this? As postcolonialism theory points out, the ways to address a hybrid coloniality should be met with the processes of emancipation from the coloniality of episteme/knowledge; and these emancipation processes ought to point toward pluralism in making truth claims and recognising diverse subjectivities and modernities. Considering this, the article offers pathways to overcome South Korea’s hybrid coloniality by building on and expanding the insights of “Global IR” and the emerging field of “vernacular” security studies.
Keywords: postcolonialism, coloniality, ‘hybrid’ coloniality, Korea, foreign and security policy, postcolonial subjectivity, “Global IR”, “vernacular” security studies
(This paper is written in Korean)
혼종 식민성(hybrid coloniality): 탈식민주의로 바라본 한국의 외교안보정책
은용수
한양대학교
요약문
본고는 탈식민주의(postcolonialism)라는 이론적 시각을 통해 한국의 탈식민 역사과정에서 발생한 국제정치적 사건들과 한국정부의 대응이 한국외교안보(정책)에 어떤 영향을 끼쳤는지를 “식민성”(coloniality)이라는 측면에서 비판적으로 살펴본다. 이를 위해 우선 탈식민주의 이론은 무엇이며 어떤 시사점을 함축하고 있는지에 대해 설명한다. 이를 바탕으로 한국은 탈식민 과정에서 물리적이고 인식적인 측면에서 식민성이 생성되는 역사적 경로를 걷게 되었음을 논한다. 특히 1950년대, 미소의 글로벌한 균열구조로써의 냉전이 동아시아라는 지역적 맥락을 거치고 이것이 한반도의 민족적 경험과 한국의 국내정치적 이해관계로 다시 한번 필터링 되면서 식민성은 혼종된(hybrid) 형태로 내면화 되고 한국의 외교안보영역에 배태되었음을 상술한다. 어떻게 극복할 수 있을까? ‘혼종 식민성’의 발생기원이면서 지금까지도 작동하고 있는 한반도 냉전의 물리적 기제인 정전협정이 평화협정으로 전환될 필요가 있다는 것은 자명하다. 그러나 본고는 이와 함께 ‘인식적’ 측면에서의 주체성 회복이 혼종 식민성 극복에 매우 중요하다고 판단한다. 이를 실현하기 위한 방안으로써 최근 주목받고 있는 “글로벌 국제관계학”(Global IR)과 “버내큘러”(vernacular) 안보의 지역비교연구를 연구프로그램으로써 제언한다. 부족하나마 본고의 분석과 제언, 특히 ‘혼종 식민성’이라는 개념과 “버내큘러” 안보라는 연구프로그램이 한국외교안보의 (탈)식민성에 관한 학술적 논쟁을 촉발할 수 있는 계기가 되길 바란다.
주제어: 탈식민주의, 이론, 혼종 식민성, 한국, 외교안보, 냉전, 글로벌 IR, 버내큘러 안보
Journal of Korean Political Science Association, 2018
In this paper, I argue that IR needs to pay greater attention to the theorisation of emotion, an... more In this paper, I argue that IR needs to pay greater attention to the theorisation of emotion, and that a focus needs to be on having a rich understanding of the ‘generalisable’ mechanisms through which a state’s ‘collective emotions’ are triggered and produced. I posit that the generation of collective emotions is affected by whether and how much the symbols or symbolistic cues of a ‘superior’(or ‘master’) national identity are manifested visually and persistently in our daily lives. Based on the forgoing discussions, I make three basic theoretical propositions
and four IR-sensitive assumptions about when a state’s collective emotions are generated and how they are related to the state’s external actions.
(This paper is written in Korean)
Uploads
Papers and Books by Yong-Soo Eun
https://www.amazon.com/Parochialism-Fragmentation-International-Relations-Practice/dp/1138063002
This opening article presents rationales for the Special Section which analyses South Korea's debates and discourses on crucial issues related to East Asian regional politics. The article opens with a consideration of why attention is drawn to South Korea and particularly to its discourses. Expanding upon constructivist theoretical insights, this article shows how they matter in foreign policy-making and state behaviour. In addition, the article clarifies the scope of analysis of this Special Section. While recognising that many different actors and issues shape the regional order in East Asia to varying degrees, we hold that the most direct impact on changes and/or continuity in that order comes from state actors in the realm of security (or the security–economy nexus). The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: although the perspectives and discourses analysed in this Special Section are not exhaustive, the analysis can serve as a useful reference point for discussion that seeks to advance our understandings of how South Korea is likely to behave toward its neighbours and what the future of the East Asian regional order will look like.
Regionalising Global Crises highlights the regional level dynamics that exacerbate or contribute to solving the global economic crisis. It also explores the potential for change in the governance of the global political economy and international financial architecture by assessing the current and past financial crises through regional lenses. In particular, it addresses the debates that have emerged on the roles of regions and regional actors by undertaking empirical investigation of the impact of the crises on Africa, Europe, BRICS, and East Asia and their reactions to those events. As such it will provide an important empirical and methodological resource for students, researchers and practitioners with an interest in regional actors, comparative regionalism and international political economy.
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/regionalizing-global-crises-toni-haastrup/?isb=9781137347565
research. To ease the task of extracting causes from comparisons, we present
the benefits of tracing particularities in any phenomenon under investigation.We introduce three real-world examples from 2011: British riots, worldwide anticapitalist protests, and the highway crash near Taunton in southwestern England. Whereas all of these three examples have broad causes, we embark on the quest after specific factors.
The Taunton accident can send a powerful message to social scientists, which is about
the danger of making general statements in their explanations. Instead of saying much
but explaining little, the merit of singling out the specific is substantial. As social scientists, when we are faced with “smoke” but no “fire,” let us then focus on the part that is distinct.
Keywords: postcolonialism, coloniality, ‘hybrid’ coloniality, Korea, foreign and security policy, postcolonial subjectivity, “Global IR”, “vernacular” security studies
(This paper is written in Korean)
혼종 식민성(hybrid coloniality): 탈식민주의로 바라본 한국의 외교안보정책
은용수
한양대학교
요약문
본고는 탈식민주의(postcolonialism)라는 이론적 시각을 통해 한국의 탈식민 역사과정에서 발생한 국제정치적 사건들과 한국정부의 대응이 한국외교안보(정책)에 어떤 영향을 끼쳤는지를 “식민성”(coloniality)이라는 측면에서 비판적으로 살펴본다. 이를 위해 우선 탈식민주의 이론은 무엇이며 어떤 시사점을 함축하고 있는지에 대해 설명한다. 이를 바탕으로 한국은 탈식민 과정에서 물리적이고 인식적인 측면에서 식민성이 생성되는 역사적 경로를 걷게 되었음을 논한다. 특히 1950년대, 미소의 글로벌한 균열구조로써의 냉전이 동아시아라는 지역적 맥락을 거치고 이것이 한반도의 민족적 경험과 한국의 국내정치적 이해관계로 다시 한번 필터링 되면서 식민성은 혼종된(hybrid) 형태로 내면화 되고 한국의 외교안보영역에 배태되었음을 상술한다. 어떻게 극복할 수 있을까? ‘혼종 식민성’의 발생기원이면서 지금까지도 작동하고 있는 한반도 냉전의 물리적 기제인 정전협정이 평화협정으로 전환될 필요가 있다는 것은 자명하다. 그러나 본고는 이와 함께 ‘인식적’ 측면에서의 주체성 회복이 혼종 식민성 극복에 매우 중요하다고 판단한다. 이를 실현하기 위한 방안으로써 최근 주목받고 있는 “글로벌 국제관계학”(Global IR)과 “버내큘러”(vernacular) 안보의 지역비교연구를 연구프로그램으로써 제언한다. 부족하나마 본고의 분석과 제언, 특히 ‘혼종 식민성’이라는 개념과 “버내큘러” 안보라는 연구프로그램이 한국외교안보의 (탈)식민성에 관한 학술적 논쟁을 촉발할 수 있는 계기가 되길 바란다.
주제어: 탈식민주의, 이론, 혼종 식민성, 한국, 외교안보, 냉전, 글로벌 IR, 버내큘러 안보
and four IR-sensitive assumptions about when a state’s collective emotions are generated and how they are related to the state’s external actions.
(This paper is written in Korean)
https://www.amazon.com/Parochialism-Fragmentation-International-Relations-Practice/dp/1138063002
This opening article presents rationales for the Special Section which analyses South Korea's debates and discourses on crucial issues related to East Asian regional politics. The article opens with a consideration of why attention is drawn to South Korea and particularly to its discourses. Expanding upon constructivist theoretical insights, this article shows how they matter in foreign policy-making and state behaviour. In addition, the article clarifies the scope of analysis of this Special Section. While recognising that many different actors and issues shape the regional order in East Asia to varying degrees, we hold that the most direct impact on changes and/or continuity in that order comes from state actors in the realm of security (or the security–economy nexus). The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: although the perspectives and discourses analysed in this Special Section are not exhaustive, the analysis can serve as a useful reference point for discussion that seeks to advance our understandings of how South Korea is likely to behave toward its neighbours and what the future of the East Asian regional order will look like.
Regionalising Global Crises highlights the regional level dynamics that exacerbate or contribute to solving the global economic crisis. It also explores the potential for change in the governance of the global political economy and international financial architecture by assessing the current and past financial crises through regional lenses. In particular, it addresses the debates that have emerged on the roles of regions and regional actors by undertaking empirical investigation of the impact of the crises on Africa, Europe, BRICS, and East Asia and their reactions to those events. As such it will provide an important empirical and methodological resource for students, researchers and practitioners with an interest in regional actors, comparative regionalism and international political economy.
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/regionalizing-global-crises-toni-haastrup/?isb=9781137347565
research. To ease the task of extracting causes from comparisons, we present
the benefits of tracing particularities in any phenomenon under investigation.We introduce three real-world examples from 2011: British riots, worldwide anticapitalist protests, and the highway crash near Taunton in southwestern England. Whereas all of these three examples have broad causes, we embark on the quest after specific factors.
The Taunton accident can send a powerful message to social scientists, which is about
the danger of making general statements in their explanations. Instead of saying much
but explaining little, the merit of singling out the specific is substantial. As social scientists, when we are faced with “smoke” but no “fire,” let us then focus on the part that is distinct.
Keywords: postcolonialism, coloniality, ‘hybrid’ coloniality, Korea, foreign and security policy, postcolonial subjectivity, “Global IR”, “vernacular” security studies
(This paper is written in Korean)
혼종 식민성(hybrid coloniality): 탈식민주의로 바라본 한국의 외교안보정책
은용수
한양대학교
요약문
본고는 탈식민주의(postcolonialism)라는 이론적 시각을 통해 한국의 탈식민 역사과정에서 발생한 국제정치적 사건들과 한국정부의 대응이 한국외교안보(정책)에 어떤 영향을 끼쳤는지를 “식민성”(coloniality)이라는 측면에서 비판적으로 살펴본다. 이를 위해 우선 탈식민주의 이론은 무엇이며 어떤 시사점을 함축하고 있는지에 대해 설명한다. 이를 바탕으로 한국은 탈식민 과정에서 물리적이고 인식적인 측면에서 식민성이 생성되는 역사적 경로를 걷게 되었음을 논한다. 특히 1950년대, 미소의 글로벌한 균열구조로써의 냉전이 동아시아라는 지역적 맥락을 거치고 이것이 한반도의 민족적 경험과 한국의 국내정치적 이해관계로 다시 한번 필터링 되면서 식민성은 혼종된(hybrid) 형태로 내면화 되고 한국의 외교안보영역에 배태되었음을 상술한다. 어떻게 극복할 수 있을까? ‘혼종 식민성’의 발생기원이면서 지금까지도 작동하고 있는 한반도 냉전의 물리적 기제인 정전협정이 평화협정으로 전환될 필요가 있다는 것은 자명하다. 그러나 본고는 이와 함께 ‘인식적’ 측면에서의 주체성 회복이 혼종 식민성 극복에 매우 중요하다고 판단한다. 이를 실현하기 위한 방안으로써 최근 주목받고 있는 “글로벌 국제관계학”(Global IR)과 “버내큘러”(vernacular) 안보의 지역비교연구를 연구프로그램으로써 제언한다. 부족하나마 본고의 분석과 제언, 특히 ‘혼종 식민성’이라는 개념과 “버내큘러” 안보라는 연구프로그램이 한국외교안보의 (탈)식민성에 관한 학술적 논쟁을 촉발할 수 있는 계기가 되길 바란다.
주제어: 탈식민주의, 이론, 혼종 식민성, 한국, 외교안보, 냉전, 글로벌 IR, 버내큘러 안보
and four IR-sensitive assumptions about when a state’s collective emotions are generated and how they are related to the state’s external actions.
(This paper is written in Korean)
Beijing, 04/25/2018
China Foreign Affairs University
This series will publish philosophical, theoretical, methodological and empirical work by prominent scholars, as well as that of emerging scholars, concerned with IR theory and practice in the context of Asia. It will engage with a wide range of issues and questions ranging from meta-theoretical underpinnings of existing Western-oriented IR theories to ways of theorising Asian histories and cultures.
What are we looking for?
While we are open to any exciting ideas for edited, single or co-authored work, we are currently inviting book proposals which intend to address the following areas:
• Global IR
• Critical test and application of IR theory in Asian contexts
• IR scholarship in Asia
• Asian international politics
• Critical pedagogy of international studies
• Sociology of IR scholarship
• Asian theory of international relations (Chinese IR; Japanese IR; Korean IR; and IR in ASEAN)
• Multiple (or competing) discourses about non-Western IR theory
• Asian histories of international relations
• Theoretical pluralism and fragmentation in IR
• Dialogues and engagement in a pluralist IR
More specifically, the questions the series is interested in include (but are not limited to) the following:
• What are the implications of the rise of Asia, and especially China, for IR as a discipline?
• Through what mechanisms has Western IR theory dominated the discipline?
• Why has IR, as a discipline, developed the way it has?
• What are the distinctive features and teaching practices in Asian IR communities?
• To what extent is Western IR theory useful in comprehending Asian international politics?
• Do developments in contemporary Asia require new theoretical and methodological innovations?
• Is the development of an Asian theory of IR desirable? If so, how might it be achieved?
• Will efforts to develop Asian IR theory or schools lead IR to becoming a fragmented field of study?
If you have an idea for a new book in IR Theory and Practice in Asia, please send a written proposal to the Series Editors:
Yong-Soo Eun, Editor-in-Chief, ysir@hanyang.ac.kr
Kosuke Shimizu, Editor, shimizu@world.ryukoku.ac.jp
Ja Ian Chong, Editor, polcji@nus.edu.sg
https://www.routledge.com/series/IRTPA
Editorial Board Members:
Peter J. Katzenstein, Cornell University, USA
Takashi Inoguch, University of Niigata Prefecture, Japan
Timothy M. Shaw, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
T.V. Paul, McGill University, Canada
Tim Dunne, University of Queensland, Australia
Colin Wight, University of Sydney, Australia
Shaun Breslin, University of Warwick, UK
Ian Hall, Griffith University, Australia
Wookhee Shin, Seoul National University
Chris Hughes, University of Warwick, UK
Geun Lee, Seoul National University
Mark Beeson, University of Western Australia
Yongjin Zhang, Bristol University, UK
Chaesung Chun, Seoul National University
Cheng-Chwee Kuik, National University of Malaysia
Yong-Wook Lee, Korea University
Jong Kun Choi, Yonsei University, South Korea
Inanna Hamati-Ataya, Aberystwyth University, UK
Ching-Chang Chen, Ryukoku University, Japan
Young Chul Cho, Chonbuk National University, South Korea
Emilian Kavalski, Australian Catholic University, Australia
L.H.M. Ling, The New School, USA
Pinar Bilgin, Bilkent University, Turkey