Collective memory and dyadic relations: The different qualities of power in the interaction of democratic states and civil societies∗

Abstract

Relations between—and among—countries that share democratic attributes, practice capitalism, exhibit high degrees of economic integration with each other, and have a significant understanding of each other's culture and history may nevertheless remain conflictual, even antagonistic. The source of this continued lack of empathy lies in the very factors ignored by contemporary liberal and realist theorists alike: the lenses of perception through which both elites and masses operate, lenses that we label “collective memory” and that link history (as objective reality) to ideology (as subjective world view). The acuity of this collective memory is analyzed and described in the dyadic relationship between Germany and the Netherlands on the one hand, and Germany and Austria on the other.     

Pyongyang: Rules of engagement

The article attempts to re-construct the motivation behind the current North Korean policies, especially in the domestic sphere. It is argued tht North Korean leaders have valid political reasons not to imitate the Chinese-style reform, and are likely to limit themselves to moderate changes which would not jeopardize political stability and the domination of the present-day elite. The most critical factor is the maintenance of control over the access to information.     

Two Rights of Free Speech

My main argument in this paper is that the right to freedom of expression is not a single right, complex as it may be, but spans two separate rights that I label the right to speak and the right to hear. Roughly, the right to speak stands for the right of a person to express freely whatever they wish to communicate to some other persons or to the public at large. The right to hear stands for the right to have free and unfettered access to any kind of content that has been communicated by others. The right to speak and the right to hear are two separate rights, grounded in different kinds of interests. I try to show that this division of rights and their respective rationales can be utilized to explain how we think about some of the limits of the right to freedom of expression, particularly in the context of conflicts between the right to speak and the right to hear, conflicts that are rather pervasive. I also argue, though perhaps less conclusively, that in thinking about the limits of freedom of expression, an exclusive focus on the harm principle would be misguided. There is no reason to deny that speech is often harmful, sometimes very much so, but the prevention of harm is not sufficient to justify legal prohibition, at least not in this case.     

The Rule of Law and its Limits

Law and Philosophy -     

In the Shadow of Nikolai Danilevskii: Universalism,Particularism, and Russian Geopolitical Theory

In order to contribute to our understanding of Russian geopolitical theory, this article investigates closely the figure of Nikolai Danilevskii. The article pays special attention to the thinker’s increased influence on contemporary Russian geopolitical thought, by presenting qualitative and quantitative evidence of this influence. It explains Danilevskii’s rise by looking at Western pressures on Russia and the country’s internal vulnerabilities. Such vulnerabilities emerged from the breakup of the Tsarist and the Soviet state, respectively, by providing the required context for the emergence of defensive nationalist ideas.     

A Sociology of Dependence in International Relations Theory: A Case of Russian Liberal IR

This article addresses the question of interaction between Western and "non-Western" international relations (IR) by analyzing liberal theory of IR that is emerging in contemporary Russia. We argue that, despite a growing diversity within Russian scholarship of liberal orientation, it remains largely a product of Western, particularly American, intellectual hegemony, and more so than any other theoretical perspective. As compared to two other existing traditions in Russian IR—realism and critical studies—liberalism remains the most dependent and therefore must be explored before any other traditions as a crucial case for understanding the dialectic of cultural dependence and hegemony in production of global knowledge. We argue that the greater dependence of Russian liberal IR results from its relatively weak indigenous tradition, perception of Russia's material weakness as opportunity, and greater availability of Western research funds. We also discuss an alternative, less dependent version of Russian liberal IR, and opportunities that its existence implies for development of a global, de-centered international relations theory.