What is the topography of international-relations theory in the People’s Republic of China? What …
Episode 24: International Relations in China
read more
Featured
The Leaky Pipeline
This piece is written by Bridging the Gap co-Director Naazneen H. Barma, Director of the Scrivner Institute of Public Policy, Scrivner Chair, and Associate Professor at the Josef Korbel...
Why are we so quick to dismiss the UAE-Israel peace treaty?
In September, the UAE and Israel signed "the Abraham Accords," normalizing relations between the UAE and Israel. The Trump Administration presented this as if it was equivalent to the Camp David...
What game theory taught me about last night’s presidential debate
Last night’s debate might go down as one of the greatest in recent memory, and I am prepared to die on that hill. It was ugly. But it was also raw, unfiltered, and honest. It was thin on policy...
More Featured Posts
Brexit Epiphany
As I was chatting with my dissertation adviser yesterday while in DC (yes, my dissertation was completed in 1993 but the relationship goes on), I had an epiphany that had been on the edges of my thinking but finally popped: the Brexit folks are secessionists. Sure, the European Union is not a country (nor does it have an army), but the effort to pull the UK out of the EU is very much like the effort to secede from an advanced democracy. How so? While the EU's democratic credentials have long been criticized (so many articles about its democratic deficit), the key here is that it is not...
The Most Important Corpses: Eastern Front Edition
I was on twitter talking with some folks about what Canada might promise at the Warsaw Summit, with the focus on who is going to provide the troops for the four battalions that will be based in the Baltics and Poland. The conversation went into a bunch of directions, so I had an epiphany while shopping--it is not about proximity or folks who have ties to the Baltics--it is about whose corpses would have the greatest international political relevance. The basing of NATO troops in the East (the Eastern Front is what people are calling it) is all about two things: reassuring the allies...
Selling Out to the Enemy of Open Access
Yesterday, news quickly spread that the Social Science Research Network was bought by Elsevier. This quickly caused an uproar on twitter. Why? The SSRN was established to provide a place for social scientists to share their work in progress. Elsevier is one of the most rapacious rent-seeking profitable publishers of academic journals. Elsevier charges large amounts of money to universities so that universities can provide access to bundles of journals (the de-bundling movement in cable might remind folks that bundling is not an altruistic strategy by those facing little competition). ...
Whose Academy Is It Anyway?
Recently there has been a lot of talk about one of those issues academics (at least in the U.S.) obsess about: how to get tenure and the job security as well as license to (supposedly) speak truth to power that comes with it. This round of conversations started when Stephen Walt gave some, rather generic, advice in his Foreign Policy piece "How to Get Tenure". As a long-time professor at Harvard, Walt certainly has experience - but with a very particular kind of (highly privileged) institution and hence, while not wrong per se, his advice certainly is limited in a number of ways. One such...
Clash of the Doctrines
Now that the U.S. presidential race has been whittled down effectively to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and after Trump’s much anticipated foreign policy speech last week, we now have a Trump Doctrine, a new Clinton Doctrine—different from Bill Clinton’s pro humanitarian intervention doctrine—to contrast with the often misunderstood Obama Doctrine. As foreign policy has begun to feature more prominently in the race for the White House, we can no longer beg the question as to which of these would better serve core U.S. national security interests, not to mention the interests of our...
Five “Don’ts” for Introducing a Female Speaker (And Why This Matters)
This is a guest post by Janina Dill, Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and a Research Fellow at the Center for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on international law and ethics in international relations, specifically in war. She is the author of “Legitimate Targets? Social Construction, International Law and US Bombing." “She may be a small person, but she has big ideas,” states the panel chair by way of introducing one of the most impressive senior scholars in security...
Ben Rhodes, Part the Second: Or, Journalistic Interpolations are Not Evidence
For those of you not on Twitter. FWIW, Samuels' appears to be walking a very fine line in the piece. /1 — Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016 Here's his inference from the 'grand deception' of focusing on the 2013-2015 round & critics are seizing upon: 2/ pic.twitter.com/HZeUSEoggj — Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016 Here's the *only* supporting evidence he offers from Rhodes — which is not actually from the interview: 3/ pic.twitter.com/CIyRwOEzvC — Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016 These are NOT the same argument. One is about trying to 'end cycles of conflict,' the other is about...
The White House Pushes for its Policies, and Other Surprises from Ben Rhodes
It seems that everyone (at least on the political right) is in a tizzy about the "revelations" in David Samuels' New York Times Magazine story on Ben Rhodes. For example, Lee Smith, at the Weekly Standard, headlines "Obama's Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal." As I'll explain below, that's, at best, massive hyperbole. But what we really learned is that Ben Rhodes has a massive ego—Thomas Ricks is less kind in his assessment. We also learned that Samuels—like any reporter—wants to break big stories. Put the two together, and you come away less,...