Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:p> The article presents a model for the study of norms transfer through state socialization, which combines a Social Constructivist body of theory for ideational change with Social Identity Theory (SIT) for identity formation. The model privileges self- and other categorization processes which according to SIT takes place between all social groups, as the main determinant for the outcome of state socialization. By also reconceptualizing domestic structure into two separate we-groups; state/elite and nation/people, which may have different self- and other categorization dynamics, the model is able to not only account for the common occurrence of different outcomes of socialization in apparently similar cases, but is also able to take the mass domestic level into consideration. The question that is asked is therefore ‘why do the same norms matter so differently to apparently similar agents?’ </jats:p>

<jats:p> Militarily aggressive actions by Russia and China in recent years have sparked a debate among foreign policy commentators regarding the utility of spheres of influence, even as International Relations (IR) scholars have continued to neglect the phenomenon. This article tests three rival theories that attempt to explain the spheres of influence behavior of great powers. Structural realism proposes that a great power will cede a small power to the sphere of a rival that possesses a stronger material interest in the small power and is a peer competitor, and that a consequent rupture or crisis in the sphere will lead the great power to engage in vigorous but restricted cooperation with the restive small power that maintains the previously granted sphere. Ideological distance theory (IDT) hypothesizes that a great power will steadfastly oppose ceding an ideologically homogeneous small power to the sphere of an ideologically divergent peer competitor, and that a rupture in a previously granted sphere will result in noncooperation between the great power grantor and restive small power if they are ideologically heterogeneous. I introduce a third approach, modified ideological distance theory (MIDT), which predicts that a great power will temporarily oppose ceding an ideologically homogeneous small power to the sphere of an ideologically divergent peer competitor, and will engage in delayed and attenuated cooperation with an ideologically heterogeneous small power following a rupture in a peer competitor’s sphere. Examination of the United States’ relationship with Yugoslavia (1948–1955) and the Soviet Union’s relationship with Cuba (1960–1962) demonstrates MIDT’s explanatory superiority. </jats:p>

<jats:p> How should one understand the construction of a state’s identity in the international system—its international identity? In this article, I attempt to provide richer answers. Drawing insights from social psychology, specifically Social Identity Theory and Identity Theory, I provide a micro-account of identity construction to better specify the mechanisms and logics through which international identity is constructed. This framework proposes the following general arguments about international identity formation. First, the construction of international identity is interpreted as a process of role negotiation between the state Self and relevant Other, animated by the mechanisms of self-categorization, alter’s casting, and role appraisal. Second, the collective motivations of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-consistency drive state identity change or continuity. As a plausibility probe, I apply the framework to a current analysis of China’s construction of an international identity as a “responsible” power in recent years, with a corresponding focus on the United States as the primary Other. </jats:p>