Beyond the gap: relevance, fields of practice and the securitizing consequences of (democratic peace) research

  • Christian Büger
  • Trine Villumsen
Article

Abstract

International Relations (IR) has cultivated the idea of a gap between the theory and the practice/praxis of IR. This division into two different spheres of knowledge is related to the predominant objectivist conception of science in IR, where the scientist is said to be observing reality from a distance without affecting it. Poststructuralists have denied that this distinction is meaningful and have even argued that it is dangerous to be oblivious to the structuring effects science may have on the social world. This article sets out to avoid further cultivation of the so-called gap between theory and practice, and instead addresses the question of how the theories of IR relate empirically to the practices of world politics. We suggest a theoretical and empirical alternative based on practice theoretical thought. We argue that researchers' theories and policymakers practice ‘hang together’ and require analytical attention. In order to give empirical flesh to the theoretical discussions and to demonstrate the difference a practice theory approach makes, we discuss the example of the democratic peace thesis. We lay out how US peace researchers, the Clinton government and NATO participated in weaving a ‘web of democratic peace practice’ and stabilizing the thesis as a ‘fact’. We argue that ‘ivory tower scientists’, US foreign policymakers, and NATO politicians and bureaucrats hang together in this web and use each other as a resource. As a consequence, the academically certified version of the democratic peace led to a securitization of democracy. We conclude that one way to cope with the complexity of science–politics interactions is to foster reflexive empirical work on researchers' own practices.

Keywords

democratic peace NATO policy relevance practice theory theory and practice US Foreign Policy 

References

  1. Adler, Emmanuel (2005) Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, Emanuel and Michael Barnett, eds (1998) Security Communities, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler, Emmanuel and Peter M. Haas (1992) ‘Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program’, in Peter M. Haas, ed., Knowledge, Power and International Policy Coordination, 367–390, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  4. Antoniades, Andreas (2003) ‘Epistemic Communities, Epistemes, and the Construction of (World) Politics’, Global Society 17(1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashley, Richard K. (1987) ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics’, Alternatives 12(4): 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashley, Richard K. (1988) ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17(2): 227–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashley, Richard K. (1989) ‘Imposing International Purpose: Notes on a Problematic of Governance’, in Ernst Otto Czempiel and James N. Rosenau, eds, Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s, 251–291, Massachusetts/Toronto: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bigo, Didier (2007) Policing Insecurity Today: Defense and Internal Security, CERI Series in International Relations and Political Economy, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Bilski, Andrew (1995) ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’, Maclean's (April 17): available at http://www.rjgeib.com/biography/milken/crescent-moon/social-issues/jihad/fundie.htm (13 November, 2006).
  10. Booth, Ken (1991) ‘Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies 17(4): 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Booth, Ken (1997a) ‘Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist’, in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds, Critical Security Studies, 83–120, London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  12. Booth, Ken (1997b) ‘Discussion: A Reply to Wallace’, Review of International Studies 23(3): 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, Pierre (1993) ‘The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed’, in Randal Johnson, ed., The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, 29–74, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, Pierre (1998) Practical Reason, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bourdieu, Pierre (2000) Pascalian Meditations, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic J.D. Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce (2002) ‘Domestic politics and International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 46(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  20. Büger, Christian (2007) ‘Paradigms, Cultures and Translations: Seven Ways of Studying the Discipline of International Relations’, Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Conference of the International Studies Association, Chicago, 28 February–3 March.Google Scholar
  21. Büger, Christian and Frank Gadinger (2007) ‘Reassembling and Dissecting: IR Practice from a Science Studies Perspective’, International Studies Perspectives 8(1): 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Calhoun, Craig, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff and Indermohan Virk (2002) Contemporary Sociological Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. c.a.s.e. collective (2006) ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’, Security Dialogue 37(4): 443–487.Google Scholar
  24. Carothers, Thomas (1997) ‘Democracy Without Illusion’, Foreign Affairs 76(1): 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cavallar, Georg (2001) ‘Kantian Perspectives on Democratic Peace: Alternatives to Doyle’, Review of International Studies 27(2): 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chan, Steve (1997) ‘In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise’, Mershon International Studies Review 41(1): 59–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Doyle, Michael (1986) ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review 80(2): 1151–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eriksson, Johan (1999) ‘Observers or Advocates? On the Political Role of Security Analysts’, Cooperation and Conflict 34(3): 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eriksson, Johan and Bengt Sundelius (2005) ‘Molding Minds that Form Policy: How to Make Research Useful’, International Studies Perspectives 6(1): 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galvin, John C. (1994) ‘Breaking Through and Being Heard’, Mershon International Studies Review 38(1): 173–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Geis, Anna (2001) ‘Diagnose: Doppelbefund — Ursache ungeklärt?’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 42(2): 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. George, Alexander L. (1993) Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy, Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  33. George, Jim (1994) Discourses of Global Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gleditsch, Nils Petter (1995) ‘Democracy and the Future of European Peace’, European Journal of International Relations 1(4): 539–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldmann, Kjell (1999) ‘Issues, Not Labels, Please!’, Cooperation and Conflict 34(3): 331–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gray, Colin S. (1992) ‘New Directions for Strategic Studies? How Can Theory Help Practice?’, Security Studies 1(4): 611–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grayson, Kyle (2003) ‘Democratic Peace Theory as Practice: (Re)Reading the Significance of Liberal Representations of War and Peace’, YCISS Working Paper Series, March 22.Google Scholar
  38. Guilhot, Nicolas (2005) The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and international Order, New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gusterson, Hugh (1994) ‘Missing the End of the Cold War in International Security’, in Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson and Raymond Duvall, eds, Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, 53–73, Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Guzzini, Stefano (2001) ‘The Significance and Roles of Teaching Theory in International Relations’, Journal of International Relations and Development 4(2): 98–117.Google Scholar
  41. Haas, Richard N (2003) ‘Planning Policy in Todays World’, remarks by Richard N. Haas, Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the Kennan Institute 2003 Annual Dinner’, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington, DC, 22 May, available at http://www.state.gov/s/p/rem/2003/20910.htm (27 September, 2007).
  42. Hamilton, Lee H (1992) ‘A Democrat Looks at Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs 71(3): 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Herborth, Benjamin and Ulrich Franke (2007) ‘Tragedians as Technocrats: Realist Policy Interventions and the Problem of Reflexivity in International Theory’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Chicago, 28 February–3 March.Google Scholar
  44. Hoffmann, Stanley (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106(1): 41–60.Google Scholar
  45. Huysmans, Jef (2002a) ‘Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative Dilemma of Writing Security’, Alternatives 27: 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huysmans, Jef (2002b) ‘Shape-Shifting NATO: Humanitarian Action and the Kosovo Refugee Crisis’, Review of International Studies 28(3): 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ish-Shalom, Piki (2006) ‘Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic Peace Thesis and the Politics of Democratization’, European Journal of International Relations 12(4): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jentleson, Bruce W. (2002) ‘The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In’, International Security 26(4): 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. King, Anthony (2000) ‘Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A “Practical” Critique of the Habitus’, Sociological Theory 18(3): 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kissinger, Henry (1994) Diplomacy, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Klein, Bradley (1994) Strategic Studies and World Order: The Global Politics of Deterrence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. (2005) ‘The Fabrication of Facts: Toward a Microsociology of Scientific Knowledge’, in Nico Stehr and Meja Volker, eds, Society and Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives in the Sociology of Knowledge, 175–195, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Kratochwil, Friedrich (2006) ‘History, Action and Identity: Revisiting the “Second” Great Debate and Assessing its Importance for Social Theory’, European Journal of International Relations 12(1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kruzel, Joseph (1994) ‘More a Chasm than a Gap: But Do Scholars Want to Bridge It?’, Mershon International Studies Review 38(1): 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Laffey, Mark and Jutta Weldes (1997) ‘Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 3(2): 193–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lake, Anthony (1993) ‘From Containment to Enlargement’, address delivered by Anthony Lake at the School of Advanced International Study, John Hopkins University, September 21.Google Scholar
  57. Latour, Bruno (1983) ‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World’, in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, eds, Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, 141–170, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lawrence, Philip K (1996) ‘Strategy, Hegemony and Ideology: The Role of Intellectuals’, Political Studies 44(1): 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Leander, Anna (2005) ‘The Market for Force and Public Security: The Destabilizing Consequences of Private Military Companies’, Journal of Peace Research 42(5): 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Leander, Anna (2006) ‘“The Realpolitik of Reason”: Thinking International Relations through Fields, Habitus and Practice’, Paper presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, 22–25 March.Google Scholar
  63. Lepgold, Joseph (1998) ‘Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem of Policy Relevance’, Political Science Quarterly 113(1): 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lepgold, Joseph and Miroslav Nincic, eds (2002) Being Useful: Policy Relevance and International Relations Theory, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  65. Levy, Jack (1988) ‘Domestic Politics and War’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History XVIII(4): 653–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lidskog, Rolf and Göran Sundqvist (2002) ‘The Role of Science in Environmental Regimes: The Case of LRTAP’, European Journal of International Relations 8(1): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. MacMillan, John (1998) On Liberal Peace, Democracy, War, and International Order, London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  68. MacMillan, John (2004) ‘Whose Democracy, Which Peace? Contextualizing the Democratic Peace’, International Politics 41(4): 472–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Madrid Declaration (1997) Madrid Declaration on Euro-Atlantic Security and Cooperation, North Atlantic Council: Issued by Heads of State and Government, Press Release M-1(97)81, Madrid, 8 July.Google Scholar
  70. Mallin, Martin and Robert Latham (2001) ‘The Public Relevance of International Security Research in an Era of Globalism’, International Studies Perspectives 2(2): 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Müller, Harald (2004) ‘The Antimony of Democratic Peace’, International Politics 41(4): 494–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. NAC, London (1990) ‘London Declaration on a Transformed North Atlantic Alliance’, Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, London, 5–6 July.Google Scholar
  73. NAC, Turnberry (1990) ‘Final Communiqué’, North Atlantic Council Ministerial Communiqué, Turnberry, United Kingdom, 7–8 June.Google Scholar
  74. NAC, Brussels (1996) ‘Final Communiqué’, North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting Communiqué, Press Communiqué M-NAC-2(96)165, Brussels, 10 December.Google Scholar
  75. Neumann, Iver B. (2002) ‘Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31(3): 627–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Oren, Ido (1996) ‘The Subjectivity of the “Democratic” Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany’, International Security 20(2): 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Oren, Ido (2004) ‘The Enduring Relationship Between the American (National Security) State and the State of the Discipline’, PS: Political Science and Politics 37(1): 51–55.Google Scholar
  78. Oren, Ido (2006) ‘Can Political Science Emulate the Natural Sciences? The Problem of Self-Disconfirming Analysis’, Polity 38(1): 72–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Oren, Ido and Jude Hays (1997) ‘Democracies May Rarely Fight One Another, But Developed Socialist States Rarely Fight At All’, Alternatives 22(4): 493–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Owen IV, John M. (2005) ‘Iraq and the Democratic Peace’, Foreign Affairs 84(6): 122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Owen, John M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security 19(2): 87–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Partnership for Peace: A Political View (1998) ‘Secretary General's Remarks’, PfP Defense Planning Symposium, Oberammergau, 15 January.Google Scholar
  83. Partnership for Peace: Invitation (1994) Press Communiqué M-1(94)2, issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, 10–11 January.Google Scholar
  84. Partnership for Peace: Framework Document (1994) Annex to M-1(94)2, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, NATO Headquarters, Brussels 10–11 January.Google Scholar
  85. NATO (2002) Partnership in Action, Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press.Google Scholar
  86. Pels, Dick (2005) ‘Mixing Metaphors: Politics or Economics of Knowledge’, in Nico Stehr and Meja Volker, eds, Society and Knowledge. Contemporary Perspectives in the Sociology of Knowledge and Science, 2nd revised edition, 269–298, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publisher.Google Scholar
  87. Pouliot, Vincent (2004) ‘Toward a Bourdieusian Constructivism in IR: Outline of a Theory of Practice of Security Communities’, Paper presented to the Fifth pan-European conference, Standing Group on International Relations, The Hague, 9–11 September.Google Scholar
  88. Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby (2003) The West, Civil Society and the Construction of Peace, Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ray, James Lee (1998) ‘Does Democracy cause Peace?’, Annual Review of Political Science 1: 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Reckwitz, Andreas (2002a) ‘Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Reckwitz, Andreas (2002b) ‘The Status of the “Material” in Theories of Culture: From “Social Structure” to “Artefacts”’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 32(2): 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Robin, Ron (2001) The Making of the Cold War Enemy: Culture and Politics in the Military-Intellectual Complex, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Rothstein, Robert L. (1991) ‘Weak Democracy and the Third World’, Washington Quarterly 14(2): 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rouse, Joseph (2001) ‘Two Concepts of Practices’, in Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Eike Von Savigny, eds, The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, 189–199, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  95. Rummel, Rudolph (1989) ‘The Democratic Peace: A New Idea?’, available at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POLSYS.ART.HTM (27 September, 2007).
  96. Rupert, Mark (2001) ‘Democracy, Peace: What's not to Love?’, in Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, eds, Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate, 153–172, Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  97. Russett, Bruce (1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Russett, Bruce (2005) ‘Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace’, International Studies Perspectives 6(4): 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schatzki, Theodore R. (2001) ‘Introduction: Practice Theory’, in Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina and Eike Von Savigny, eds, The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, 1–15, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  100. Schatzki, Theodore R. (2002) The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Schatzki, Theodore R., Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Eike Von Savigny, eds (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  102. Scholarz, Stephen J. (1992) ‘A Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity’, The National Interest 1: 24–27.Google Scholar
  103. Schwartz, Thomas and Kiron Skinner (1999) ‘The Myth of Democratic Pacifism’, Wall Street Journal (January 7): reprinted in Hoover Digest 2, available at http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3512216.html (1 October, 2007).
  104. Singer, Max and Aron B. Wildavsky (1993) The Real World Order: Zones of Peace, Zones of Turmoil, London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  105. Siverson, Randolph (2001) ‘A Glass Half-Full? No, but Perhaps a Glass Filling: The Contributions of International Political Research to Policy’, PS: Political Science and Politics 33(1): 59–64.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, Steve (1997) ‘Power and Truth: A Reply to William Wallace’, Review of International Studies 23(4): 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Smith, Steve (2003) ‘International Relations and international relations: The Links Between Theory and Practice in World Politics’, Journal of International Relations and Development 6(3): 233–239.Google Scholar
  108. Smith, Steve (2004) ‘Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11’, International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Spiegel, Gabrielle M. (2005) Practicing History: New Directions in Historical Writing after the Linguistic Turn, New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  110. Strategic Concept (1999) ‘The Alliance's Strategic Concept’, North Atlantic Council Heads of State and Government. Press Release NAC-S(99)65. Washington, DC, 24 April.Google Scholar
  111. Talbott, Strobe (1996) ‘Democracy and the National Interest’, Foreign Affairs 75(6): 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. US Department of State (1999) ‘Overview to Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998’, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 26 February, available at http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1998_hrp_report/overview.html (27 September, 2007).
  113. Villumsen, Trine (2007) ‘The Problem of Practice in IR and a Bourdieusian Way Out’, paper presented at the workshop ‘The (Re-)turn to Practice: Thinking Practices in International Relations and Security Studies’, EUI, Florence, 18–19 May.Google Scholar
  114. Wæver, Ole (1995) ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in Ronnie D. Lipschutz, ed., On Security, 46–86, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Wæver, Ole (1999) ‘Securitizing Sectors? Reply to Eriksson’, Cooperation and Conflict 34(3): 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wæver, Ole and Barry Buzan (2007) ‘After the Return to Theory: The Past, Present, and Future of Security Studies’, in Allan Collins, ed., Contemporary Security Studies, 383–402, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Wagner, Peter (1994) A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and Discipline, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  118. Walker, Rob B.J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Wallace, William (1996) ‘Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 22(3): 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Walt, Stephen (1999) ‘Never Say Never: Wishful Thinking on Democracy and War’, Foreign Affairs 78(1): 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Walt, Stephen (2005) ‘The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations’, American Review of Political Science 8(1): 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. White House (1995) A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  123. White House (1996) A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, Washington, DC: The White House, available at http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/1996stra.htm (26 September, 2007).
  124. Williams, Michael C. (1999) ‘The Practices of Security: Critical Contributions’, Cooperation and Conflict 34(3): 341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Williams, Michael C. and Iver B. Neumann (2000) ‘From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity’, Millennium 29(2): 357–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wyn Jones, Richard (2005) ‘On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity and Concrete Utopias’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics, 215–235, London: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Büger
    • 1
  • Trine Villumsen
    • 2
  1. 1.European University Institute, Badia FiesolanaSan Domenico di FiesoleItaly
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations