当前位置: X-MOL 学术Cooperation and Conflict › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Review of ‘Liminal sovereignty practices’
Cooperation and Conflict ( IF 2.310 ) Pub Date : 2020-06-03 , DOI: 10.1177/0010836720931131
Sergei Prozorov

I recommend that the article should be revised and resubmitted. This is a very wellwritten and clearly argued piece that offers a systematic and analytical treatment of the concept of liminality that the authors suggest as an alternative to the binary inside/outside thinking that characterizes both the traditional international relations (IR) theory and its post-structuralist critique that remains fixated on the dividing line between the inside and the outside, even as it affirms its contingency, fluidity, haziness, and so on. While the authors’ argument, particularly their typology of liminal practices, is very interesting and suggestive, I am not certain that it succeeds in solving the problems the authors claim it does, at least on the level they claim it does. Below I address three problems with the argument. The authors argue that liminal practices challenge ‘the very ontology of modern international relations, unsettling the inside/outside dichotomy on which the modern concept of state sovereignty rests’. Yet the examples provided in the article suggest otherwise: while important in their own ways, contested or non-recognized states, indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and terrorist organizations have coexisted for a long time with sovereign states without undermining them or ‘unsettling’ the overall inside/outside logic. By definition, liminal spaces do not (easily) fit in with that logic but this does not entail that they succeed in overcoming or transcending it. On the contrary, they may either be subsumed by it (e.g. unrecognized states gaining recognition, indigenous groups acquiring autonomous status within states) or coexist with it with varying degrees of antagonism (Amnesty International, which challenges particular state practices but not statehood as such, or ISIS, which destroys existing states in the

中文翻译:

审查“主权主权实践”

我建议对该文章进行修订并重新提交。这是一篇写得很好且论据明确的文章,为系统性分析概念提供了系统性和分析性,作者建议该方法可替代表征传统国际关系理论及其后时代的二元内外思想。结构主义批评仍然固守在内部和外部之间的分界线上,尽管它肯定了它的偶然性,流动性,模糊性等。尽管作者的论点,特别是他们对行为方式的分类学,非常有趣和具有启发性,但我不确定它能否成功解决作者所声称的问题,至少在他们所宣称的水平上能够解决。下面,我将讨论该参数的三个问题。作者认为,限制行为挑战了“现代国际关系的本体论,使现代的国家主权概念所基于的内部/外部二分法不安”。然而,本文中提供的示例却另有说明:尽管有争议的国家或未被承认的国家以其自己的方式发挥了重要作用,但土著群体,非政府组织和恐怖组织却与主权国家长期共存,而没有损害它们或使整个内部/外部逻辑“不稳定”。根据定义,限制空间并不(轻松)适合该逻辑,但这并不意味着限制空间成功克服或超越了该逻辑。相反,它们可能被它所包容(例如,无法识别的国家获得认可,
更新日期:2020-06-03
down
wechat
bug