Review: Transcending the State-Global Divide
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Author | Geoffrey R.D. Underhill |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070209705200114 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
REVIEWS/INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
171
In
sum,
Bonanate's
Ethics
and
International
Politics
would
serve
as
a
useful
starting
point
for
newcomers to
international
ethics,
while
Frost's
Ethics
in
International
Relations
provides
food
for
thought
for
newcomers
and
the
initiated
alike.
Mark
Neufeld/Trent
University
TRANSCENDING
THE
STATE-GLOBAL
DIVIDE
A
neostructuralist agenda
in
international
relations
Edited
by
Ronen
Palan
and
Barry
Gills
Boulder
co/London:
Lynne
Rienner,
1994,
283pp,
US$
4
o.oo
The
editors
point
to
the
need
for
a
fresh
approach
to
international
rela-
tions
(IR)
theory
and admit
that
the relevant concepts
have
been
around
for
some
time.
The most
important
contribution
of
the
volume
is
its
emphasis
on
social
forces
as
constituent
elements of
the
'interna-
tional'
system
and
on
the
relationship
between
internal
and
external
causes
of
behaviour.
The
volume
itself
has
a wide
variety
of chapters and
contributors,
including
subjects
seldom associated
with
traditional
inter-
national
relations,
theory or
otherwise.
These include
South
Korea
in
an
international
context,
Sweden,
unified
Germany,
and
chapters on
tech-
nology,
international
finance,
nationalism,
as
well
as
conceptual
pieces
concerning
the
state,
the
'international'
dimension,
social
forces,
and
the
functioning
of
the
capitalist
market
economy.
And
here
the
editors
run
a
risk:
that
their
claims
will
prove
exagger-
ated.
I
think
they
are in
at least
two
ways:
in terms
of
coherence and
in
terms
of
originality.
On the
issue
of
'newness,'
the
contributors
by
their
own
admission
draw
on
ideas
which
have
been
developed
out
of
the
clas-
sical
tradition of
political
economy,
via
Marx
in
most
cases.
Unfortunately,
not
all-chapters
merit
the
epithet
'neostructuralist.'
Some
of
the
contributors,
the
best
example
being
Gunder-Frank,
would
be
better
labelled
as
'paleostrncturalists,'
and their
contributions
seem
to
militate
against
neo-structuralism
as
presented
in
the
introduction.
Indeed,
inventing
labels
such
as
neo-structuralism
has
its
own
problems
because
of
the
recent
proliferation
ofjargonized
terminology
in
IR
the-
ory,
each claiming
a
new
movement: neo-realism,
structural
realism,
structurationism,
neo-institutionalism,
and
so
on.
To continue reading
Request your trial