The Totalisation of Human Social Practice: Open Marxists and Capitalist Social Relations, Foucauldians and Power Relations

This article critiques Open Marxism for an ontology which totalises human social practice—for Open Marxists, capitalist social relations are the singular constitutive source of human activity. Such a stance is superficially attractive yet ultimately inadequate, and I reinforce my case by demonstrating how other critical approaches—in this article, Foucauldian perspectives on power—suffer from similar deficiencies. Thus there is a need to resist the temptation of claiming to know how human social practice can be understood with recourse to a singular aspect (no matter how important) of such practice. I conclude that an excellent example of how to avoid such pitfalls is provided by Antonio Gramsci's writings, for they acknowledge the multifaceted yet nevertheless anchored existence lived by humans in capitalist societies.     

Living and Teaching Across Cultures

As long as one lives within the confines of a single culture it is difficult to achieve cross-cultural awareness. Multiculturalism is often simply the tolerance of a dominant culture for minority cultures. Cross-cultural awareness is a state of mind in which one is alert to alternity , the existence of others possessing different and equally valid world views and ways of life. This can be acquired living within or alongside other cultures, when one's own and others' strangeness become readily apparent. Culture shock involves just such a realization. The challenge for the teacher of international relations is to convey the possibility of alternity to students in the classroom. After all, international relations is above all about the interaction between communities possessing separate identities and autonomous wills. The article discusses ways of cultivating cross-cultural awareness, comparing the difficulties of doing so in a society under siege—Israel—with the greater scope available in the cosmopolitan setting of an elite American university.     

Human Security and Constructivism

This article explores the concept of "human security" as an academic and fledgling policy movement that seeks to place the individual—or people collectively—as the referent of security. It does this against a background of evolving transnational norms relating to security and governance, and the development of scientific understanding that challenges orthodox conceptions of security. It suggests that human security is not a coherent or objective school of thought. Rather, there are different, and sometimes competing, conceptions of human security that may reflect different sociological/cultural and geostrategic orientations. The article argues that the emergence of the concept of human security—as a broad, multifaceted, and evolving conception of security—rreflects the impact of values and norms on international relations. It also embraces a range of alliances, actors, and agendas that have taken us beyond the traditional scope of international politics and diplomacy. As a demonstration of change in international relations, of evolving identities and interests, this is best explained with reference to "social constructivist" thought, in contradistinction with the structural realist mainstream of international relations. In a constructivist vein, the article suggests that empirical research is already building a case in support of human security thinking that is, slowly, being acknowledged by decision-makers, against the logic of realist determinism.     

网络直播用工关系的劳动法思考

网络直播行业光鲜亮丽的背后是网络主播寻求劳动法保护基本劳动权益的征途。经纪公司进军网络直播行业的初心也在于该行业用工关系处在劳动法调整的灰色地带,用工成本低且获利大。现行劳动法单一调整模式日益暴露出诸如网络表演用工等非典型劳动关系规范漏洞,加上从属性标准抽象化在演绎推理式的裁判逻辑中拔高了劳动关系认定难度,法院更倾向于用合同法来解决网络直播用工纠纷。为保护网络主播等自治性劳动者的基本劳动权益,今后可以考虑两种立法体例,或是转变劳动法调整模式,采用三分结构增设类似劳动者制度,扩大调整对象,或是保持劳动法体系的稳定,专门制定下位法,规范网络直播用工关系。     

Administrative reform assistance and democracy promotion: exploring the democratic substance of the EU’s public administration reform principles for the neighbourhood countries

International donors, particularly the European Union (EU), vehemently endorse institution-building and public administration reform (PAR) in their work on democracy support. Still, the linkages between externally sponsored reform and advancement of democratic governance in beneficiary countries constitute a blind spot in our understanding of democratization. This article contributes to examining this relationship by exploring the democratic substance of the EU’s PAR portfolio for the neighbourhood countries. The aim of the article is to focus attention on the PA–democracy interface in the study of democracy promotion by elaborating a conceptual framework for exploring the nature of externally supported administrative reforms and the substantive content of democracy being advanced. By using the OECD/SIGMA’s (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/Support for Improvement in Governance and Management) PAR framework for the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries as a case study, this article demonstrates how the EU’s approach to programming PAR accommodates elements from several formats of democratic governance while the conceptualization of the democratic effects of the PAR principles remains vague. The article concludes by highlighting the need for closer examination of the potentials and limits of external PAR strategies in democracy support, and for attuning the EU’s PAR design to its democratic implications.     

A tango by two superpowers: China-US cooperation in trilateral aid and implications for their bilateral relations

The US-China relationship continues to be characterized by both competition and cooperation in recent years. Cooperation in the development sector is one little-known new aspect of such cooperation. This paper therefore examines why and how the two superpowers have undertaken cooperation in trilateral aid projects, and implications for bilateral relations. By tracing China-US policy engagement on development cooperation and examining their most recent trilateral aid project in the Asia-Pacific region, the paper argues that the US aims to use trilateral aid cooperation to engage with China and shape it into a responsible stakeholder, while China uses trilateral cooperation to build a cooperative image and facilitate the broad China-US relationship.     

A More Turbulent and Troubled World

The year 2016 marked the 25th anniversary of the end of the Cold War and the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attack.Though international relations are constantly adjusted,the world is by no means more stable and orderly.International order reshaping triggered by the 2008 financial crisis is deepening,with chaos of various kinds popping up here and there.In the sociopolitical field,the "Trump phenomenon" and Brexit indicate serious weakening of the authority of traditional political systems and elites.In major country relations and international security,the world is witnessing the rise of emerging countries and the and fall of the West,fiercer US-Russia and Sino-US wrestling of strategic significance,and greater global and regional security risks.In global governance,while adjustment of UN-centered global governance is laboring along,national rivalries touch core issues,making global governance more urgent.     

Trumponomics and China-US Economic and Trade Relations

Since he took office,the new US president,Donald Trump,has unveiled his broad economic policy-now called Trumponomics.It emphasizes neoliberalism at home,less government regulations,more growth and weakening the welfare state.Internationally,Trumponomics embraces protectionism and nativism with a focus on US economic interests.Trumponomics caters to the lower-middle classes,a reflection of the country's current economic and diplomatic challenges.Trumponomics will bring uncertainty to China-US economic and trade relations.China should carefully study the policies of the Trump administration and prepare contingency plans.     

Iran and Turkey: not quite enemies but less than friends

The rise and subsequent erosion of friendly relations between Iran and Turkey was a result of their regional ambitions. While Turkey had long seen its secular system as presenting an alternative to Iran’s Islamic ideology, the alignment of their regional interests facilitated a rapport between the two states in the first decade of the twenty-first century. However, the Arab Spring proved divisive for this relationship as each state sought to advocate its model of government and secure a leadership role in the Arab world. The war in Syria widened the divide, as Iran’s long-standing support for the Bashar al-Assad regime could not be reconciled with Turkey’s desire to see President Assad out of office. Using a close reading of Persian and Turkish sources, the authors will analyse the Iran–Turkey divide, focusing specifically on how the Iranians have portrayed it as a clash of civilisations, citing Turkey’s so-called ‘neo-Ottoman’ ambitions as the primary cause.