• Home
  • About
  • International Relations
    • Journal Articles
    • Books
  • Journalism
    • Karya Jurnalistik
  • Commentary
  • Lecture
    • Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia
    • Pengantar Hubungan Internasional
    • Bahasa Inggris Diplomasi
  • RoomHLNKI
  • Academic Profile

Jurnal Asep Setiawan

Jurnal Asep Setiawan

Monthly Archives: January 2010

Buku-buku Hubungan Internasional

25 Monday Jan 2010

Posted by Setiawan in Global Politics

≈ Leave a comment

macmillanlogoPenerbit Macmillan terkenal dengan literatur hubungan internasional. Dengan produktif mengeluarkan berbagai judul terkait dengan Hubungan Internasional, Politik Luar Negeri, Diplomasi, Studi Asia dan Timur Tengah.Dari daftar buku di situsnya yang dikeluarkan Macmillan tampak sekali luasnya literatur Hubungan Internasional.Beberapa penerbit juga di Inggris seperti Cambridge dan Routledge mengeluarkan secara rutin kajian Hubungan Internasional.

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

The New Politics of Islam

25 Monday Jan 2010

Posted by Setiawan in Archives, Global Politics, Middle East

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Pan Islam

bookpansilamWith the end of the Cold War and the unfolding of unprecedented acts of transnational terror on September 11, representing perhaps new civilizational cleavages, Islam has attained renewed prominence in Western political reflections. Too often viewed from ethnocentric or sensationalist perspectives, how is Islam, as a strategic entity, to be understood in contemporary world politics?The New Politics of Islam is a timely study of the international relations of Islamic states. In detailing both theory and practice, it both describes the idea of pan-Islamism from classical to post-caliphal times and analyzes the foreign-policy behavior of contemporary states – especially Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan – from the colonial period to the global aftermath of September 11. With a concise and analytic style, the book engages one-by-one with the pressing questions of Islam’s political theory, Islam’s political geography, and Islam’s political sociology. Critical of grand explanations, The New Politics of Islam seeks to restore the scholarly balance between different perspectives on religion and realpolitik in the Middle East and South Asia. The primary empirical investigation of this book is centred on the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a 57-member international regime, sometimes referred to as the “Muslim United Nations,” and its involvement in post-Cold War crises in the form of the Gulf War, the Palestine problem, the Balkan wars, the Chechnya campaign, and nuclearization in South Asia. In its subsequent theoretical deliberations on Islam and the postmodern condition, The New Politics of Islam reconstructs contemporary social-science understandings of how religious ideas and identities influence international politics in the Islamic world in a worthy attempt to move beyond the clash-of-civilizations paradigm. A necessary tour d’horizon for the researcher and informed observer alike.Table of Contents:Acknowledgements ixForeword xi(Re-)Introductory Remarks: Pan-Islam: 1 (19)Whence and Whither?Scholarship & Statesmanship: A 2 (6)Military–Academic Complex“Pax Islamica” Revisited: Politics and 8 (5)PolemicsWhere From Here? The Ideational 13 (7)Idiosyncrasy of the OICPan-Islamic Paradigms: Adjusting to the 20 (23)Post-Caliphatic World OrderThe Trans-Islamic Umma: Political 20 (13)Taxonomy and Epistemic CommunityThe Organization of the Islamic 33 (4)Conference: Catalyst, Conception, andInceptionThe Charter of the Islamic Conference: 37 (6)Etatism as Fait AccompliA Geopolitical Genealogy of the OIC: The 43 (62)Secular RationaleThe OIC and Saudi Foreign Policy: 44 (16)Depoliticizing International IslamThe OIC and Iranian Foreign Policy: 60 (22)Unilateral MultilateralismThe OIC and Pakistani Foreign Policy: The 82 (18)Search for SecurityTriangle of Neutralization: A Comparative 100(5)InquirySelf-Identity in Foreign Policy: Bringing 105(25)Islam Back InThe Clash of Civilizations: Reinventing 107(5)“Geo-Culturalism”“Rhetorical Islam”: The Dialectics of 112(10)Rationale and DiscoursePostmodern Pan-Islamism: The Synthesis of 122(8)Rationality and “Aspirationality”Summary and Concluding Reflections: A 130(12)Mighty Myth—Rise, Demise, and ResurrectionOld World Order: The OIC and the “War on 133(4)Terror”On the Via Media: The Enduring Resonance 137(5)of IslamAppendix A Member States of the OIC: Territory, 142(2)Demography, EconomyAppendix B The Institutional Structure of the 144(3)OIC: A Comprehensive ListingAppendix C Triangle of Neutralization: A 147(1)Schematic OverviewNotes and References 148(35)Select Bibliography 183(18)Index 201Source: Amazon.com

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

Theory and Evidence

24 Sunday Jan 2010

Posted by Setiawan in Archives, Global Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

method, metoda, Theory

Mark Irving LichbachIn their debate on neopositivism, while Kratocwil danced with relativism,Pollins stressed the value of positivism to qualitative researchers, andHopf recognized the importance of making interpretations more rigorous.Listening to their stimulating debate, Chernoff tried to clarify thenature of naturalism, and Waldner probed the idea of causal mechanisms.Trying to understand the implications of the debate for social sciencepractice, Lawrence subjected the empirical claims of the democratic peaceliterature, and Levy international relations research programs morebroadly, to scrutiny. Bernstein, Lebow, Stein, and Weber summarize and extend these analysesby making a plea for case-based reasoning. We need to understandthese debates in terms of three principles of the traditional positivist philosophy of science.1. Theory is deductive-nomological: it begins as abstract, axiomatic,and foundational; it becomes subsuming, integrating, and unifying;and it ends as organized, comprehensive, and encyclopedic.2. Evidence is oriented toward falsification: scientists attempt to reject ahypothesis; after one possible explanan is discarded, they investigateanother to see if it can account for the explanandum.3. Evaluation is therefore based on deductive and nomological lawsthat resist falsification: these laws establish the ever-expandingdomain of a theory; science therefore succeeds when it discoversuniversal laws that are true.This philosophy of science might have suited social scientists a few decades ago. Today’s more modest philosophy of science that consists instead of three different principles.1. Theory consists of research programs that contain nuts and bolts;these causal mechanisms are combined into models of a theory thatsuggest lawful regularities.2. Evidence establishes the applicability of these models of a theory forthe models of data that exist in particular domains; the elaborationof a theory thus delimits the theory’s scope.3. Evaluation grapples with the problem that the science that resultsfrom following the first two principles is prone to nonfalsifiabilityand to self-serving confirmations. Confrontations between theoryand evidence are thus evaluated in the context of larger structures ofknowledge.This final chapter moves the debate (Lichbach 2004) forward by dealingwith the problem of evaluation. For pragmatists who work with a thin version of one paradigm, Lakatos’s (1970) “additional and true” standard, which lets them explore rationalist, culturalist, and structuralist approaches on their own terms, is applied. For competitors who employ alternative paradigms, Popper’s (1968) “different and better” standard, which lets them conduct competitive evaluations among alternative rationalist, culturalist, and structuralist explanations, is employed. And for hegemons who synthesize the different paradigms into one thick paradigm,“ nested models” that combine the two standards, and thus lets them compare syntheses to their components (models and foils), is used.Source: Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations Edited by Richard Ned Lebow and Mark Irving Lichbach, 2007.

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...
← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • KEMULIAAN HARI ARAFAH: PUNCAK KESEMPURNAAN IBADAH DAN AMPUNAN ILAH
  • ARAFAH: PUNCAK MAHABBAH DAN MAGFIRAH YANG MENGGETARKAN JIWA
  • Beyond Managed Competition: The Xi Jinping–Donald Trump Summit and Its Implications for the Architecture of Global Politics
  • Menyingkap Hikmah di Balik Turunnya Surat Al-Adiyat: Refleksi Spiritual untuk Kehidupan Modern
  • Surat Al-Adiyat: Relevansi di Era Modern

Archives

Categories

My Tweets

Pages

  • About
  • Academic Profile
  • Bahasa Inggris Diplomasi
  • Karya Jurnalistik
  • My Books
  • NEWSROOM-HLNKI
  • Pengantar Hubungan Internasional
  • Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia
  • RoomHLNKI

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Jurnal Asep Setiawan
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Jurnal Asep Setiawan
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar

Loading Comments...

    %d