Advertisement

The Global Politics of Science and Technology: An Introduction

  • Maximilian Mayer
  • Mariana Carpes
  • Ruth Knoblich
Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

The reality of international politics has rapidly grown in complexity. This complexity has been pressuring the discipline of International Relations (IR) to engage with new phenomena, concerns, and issue areas, and to translate them into innovative theorizations. Science and technology is one of these issues. Contemporary human life is tied to and thoroughly permeated by artifacts, technical systems and infrastructures, making it hard to imagine any international or global issue that does not have technological or scientific aspects. However, this condition remains fundamentally challenging for many approaches within IR, in which instead science and technology have been largely treated as exogenous. Although an increasing number of IR scholars is exploring the roles scientific practices and technological systems play in international affairs and global politics, the subject matter deserves much more systematic scrutiny. The following chapter articulates the conceptual, intellectual and academic contexts of this two-volume collection on the Global Politics of Science and Technology. After pointing out general normative challenges and briefly problematizing global technological transformations, we recapitulate the evolving IR scholarship on the topic. We argue that, although most IR theories do not grant science and technology a genuine conceptual place, there is enough research to document and reconstruct the breadth and depth of the vivid, yet unrecognized subfield of IR. While the further development of this subfield would greatly benefit from interdisciplinary conversations, we propose the notion of techno-politics to indicate how the discipline might rearticulate existing analytical frameworks, establish innovative conceptualizations, and advance new concerns for research.

Keywords

Technology Science IR theory Techno-politics Global transformations Technological determinism Interdisciplinarity 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors are thankful to Douglas Howland, Anna Agathangelou, Peer Schouten, and Christian Bueger for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions. They were instrumental for writing this introductory chapter.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  2. Acuto, M., & Curtis, S. (Eds.). (2013). Reassembling international theory: Assemblage thinking and international relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Adas, M. (1989). Machines as the measure of men: Science, technology, and ideologies of western dominance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Adas, M. (1997). On science technology and colonial expansion and dominance of European states: A field matures: Technology, science, and western colonialism. Technology and Culture, 38(2), 478–487.Google Scholar
  5. Adas, M. (2006). Dominance by design: Technological imperatives and America’s civilizing mission. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.Google Scholar
  7. Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  8. Adler, E., & Bernstein, S. (2005). Knowledge in power: The epistemic construction of global governance. In M. Barnett & R. Duvall (Eds.), Power and global governance (pp. 294–318). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Agathangelou, A. M. (2010). Bodies of desire, terror and the war in Eurasia: Impolite disruptions of (neo) liberal internationalism, neoconservatism and the ‘new’ Imperium. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 38(3), 693–722.Google Scholar
  10. Agathangelou, A. M., & Ling, L. H. M. (2009). Transforming world politics: From empire to multiple worlds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.Google Scholar
  12. Agnew, J. (2005). Sovereignty regimes: Territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(2), 437–461.Google Scholar
  13. Ansorge, J. T. (2011). Digital power in world politics: Databases, panopticons. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 40(1), 65–83.Google Scholar
  14. Aradau, C. (2010). Security that matters: Critical infrastructure and objects of protection. Security Dialogue, 41(5), 491–514.Google Scholar
  15. Arkin, R. C. (2010). The case for ethical autonomy in unmanned systems. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(4), 332–341.Google Scholar
  16. Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Arrighi, G. (1994). The long twentieth century: Money, power, and the origins of our times. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Badenoch, A., & Fickers, A. (Eds.). (2010). Materializing Europe: Transnational infrastructures and the project of Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Barry, A. (2001). Political machines: Governing a technological society. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  20. Barry, A. (2006). Technological zones. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 239–253.Google Scholar
  21. Barry, A. (2013a). Material politics: Disputes along the pipeline. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Barry, A. (2013b). The translation zone: Between actor-network theory and international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 41(3), 413–429.Google Scholar
  23. Bauman, Z. (2013). Modernity and the holocaust. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., et al. (2014). After snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121–144.Google Scholar
  25. Bayly, C. A. (2004). The birth of the modern world, 1780-1914: Global connections and comparisons. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Bélanger, P., & Arroyo, A. S. (2012). Logistics Islands: The global supply archipelago and the topologics of defense. Prism, 3(4), 54–75.Google Scholar
  27. Bellanova, R., & Duez, D. (2012). A different view on the ‘making’ of European security: The EU Passenger Name Record System as a socio-technical assemblage. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(Special Issue), 109–124.Google Scholar
  28. Berman, M. (1983). All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  29. Biggs, M. (1999). Putting the state on the map: Cartography, territory, and European state formation. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 41(2), 374–405.Google Scholar
  30. Bigo, D. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu and international relations: Power of practices, practices of power. International Political Sociology, 5(3), 225–258.Google Scholar
  31. Bigo, D. (2014). The (in)securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: Military/Navy-border guards/police-database analysts. Security Dialogue, 45(3), 209–225.Google Scholar
  32. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Trevor Pinch, J. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Bijker, W. E. (1993). Do not despair: There is life after constructivism. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18(1), 113–138.Google Scholar
  34. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Betz, D., & Stevens, T. (2011). Cyberspace and the state: Toward a strategy for cyber-power. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Bollier, D. (2010). The promise and peril of big data. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  38. Bousquet, A. J. (2009). The scientific way of warfare: Order and chaos on the battlefields of modernity. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Branch, J. (2011). Mapping the sovereign state: Technology, authority, and systemic change. International Organization, 65(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  40. Bratton, B. H. (2009). On geoscapes and the Google caliphate reflections on the Mumbai Attacks. Theory, Culture and Society, 26(7–8), 329–342.Google Scholar
  41. Braudel, F. (1982). Civilization and capitalism, 15th-18th century: The perspective of the world (Vol. 3). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Braun, B., & Whatmore, S. (Eds.). (2010). Political matter: Technoscience, democracy and public life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  43. Bray, F. (2012). Only connect: Comparative, national, and global history as frameworks for the history of science and technology in Asia. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 6(2), 233–241.Google Scholar
  44. Brenner, N. (2004). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in Western Europe, 1960–2000. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 447–488.Google Scholar
  45. Breznitz, D. (2007). Innovation and the state. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Bridge, G. (2010). Geographies of peak oil: The other carbon problem. Geoforum, 41(4), 523–530.Google Scholar
  47. Brodie, B. (1946). The absolute weapon: Atomic power and world order. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  48. Brunn, S. D., Cutter, S. L., & Harrington, J. W., Jr. (Eds.). (2004). Geography and technology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Bueger, C. (2013). Pathways to practice: Praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review, 6(3), 383–406.Google Scholar
  50. Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Buzan, B. (1987). An introduction to strategic studies: Military technology and international relations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society?: English school theory and the social structure of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2013). The global transformation: The nineteenth century and the making of modern international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 57(3), 620–634.Google Scholar
  54. Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2001). Why international relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 19–40.Google Scholar
  56. Buzan, B., Jones, C., & Little, R. (1993). The logic of anarchy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Byrne, J., & Glover, L. (2005). Ellul and the weather. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 25(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
  58. Çalışkan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economization, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38(3), 369–398.Google Scholar
  59. Camilleri, J. (1996). Impoverishment and the national state. In F. Osler & J. Reppy (Eds.), Earthly goods. Environmental change and social justice (pp. 122–153). Ithaca: Cornell Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  60. Campbell, D. (2007). Geopolitics and visuality: Sighting the Darfur conflict. Political Geography, 26(4), 357–382.Google Scholar
  61. Carroll, P. (2006). Science, culture, and modern state formation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  62. Castellacci, F., & Archibugi, D. (2008). The technology clubs: The distribution of knowledge across nations. Research Policy, 37, 1659–1673.Google Scholar
  63. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (The information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. 1). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. London: Anthem.Google Scholar
  66. Cipolla, C. M. (1965). Guns, sails and empires: Technological innovation and the early phases of European expansion, 1400-1700. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  67. Cole, D. (2013). Agentic capacities and capacious historical materialism: Thinking with new materialisms in the political sciences. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 41(3), 451–469.Google Scholar
  68. Conca, K. (2004). Ecology in an age of empire: A reply to (and extension of) Dalby’s imperial thesis. Global Environmental Politics, 4(2), 12–19.Google Scholar
  69. Connolly, W. E. (2013). The ‘new materialism’ and the fragility of things. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 41(3), 399–412.Google Scholar
  70. Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology & capitalism in the Neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  71. Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, power, and world order: Social forces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Creveld, V., & Martin, L. (1993). Nuclear proliferation and the future of conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  73. Cronon, W. (Ed.). (1995). Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  74. Dalby, S. (2007). Anthropocene geopolitics: Globalisation, empire, environment and critique. Geography Compass, 1(1), 103–118.Google Scholar
  75. Dant, T. (2006). Material civilization: Things and society. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(2), 289–308.Google Scholar
  76. Darby, P. (Ed.). (2000). At the edge of international relations: Postcolonialism, gender and dependency. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  77. Deibert, R. J. (1997). Parchment, printing, and hypermedia: Communication in world order transformation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (Eds.). (2010). Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Delanda, M. (1991). War in the age of intelligent machines. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  80. De Nardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Der Derian, J. (1990). The (S)pace of international relations: Simulation, surveillance, and speed. International Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 295–310.Google Scholar
  82. Der Derian, J. (2003). The question of information technology in international relations. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 32(3), 441–456.Google Scholar
  83. Der Derian, J. (2009). Virtuous war: Mapping the military-industrial-media-entertainment-network. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Deudney, D. (2000). Geopolitics as theory: Historical security materialism. European Journal of International Relations, 6(1), 77–107.Google Scholar
  85. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Ohio: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Dillon, M. (2003). Virtual security: A life science of (dis) order. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 32(3), 531–558.Google Scholar
  87. Dinerstein, J. (2006). Technology and its discontents: On the verge of the posthuman. American Quarterly, 58(3), 569–595.Google Scholar
  88. Dittmer, J. (2014). Geopolitical assemblages and complexity. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 385–401.Google Scholar
  89. Drahos, P. (2010). The global governance of knowledge: Patent offices and their clients. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Drahos, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  91. Drake, W. J., & Wilson, E. J. (Eds.). (2008). Governing global electronic networks. International perspectives on policy and power. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Drezner, D. W. (2004). The global governance of the internet: Bringing the state back in. Political Science Quarterly, 119(3), 477–498.Google Scholar
  93. Dyer-Witheford, N., & De Peuter, G. (2009). Games of empire: Global capitalism and video games. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  94. Dunne, T., Hansen, L., & Wight, C. (2013). The end of International Relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(03), 405–425.Google Scholar
  95. Edgerton, D. E. H. (2007). The contradictions of techno-nationalism and techno-globalism: A historical perspective. New Global Studies, 1(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  96. Edwards, P. N. (1997). The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Edwards, P. N. (2010). A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Eriksson, J., & Giacomello, G. (2009). Who controls the Internet? Beyond the obstinacy or obsolescence of the state. International Studies Review, 11(1), 205–230.Google Scholar
  99. Elden, S. (2013). Secure the volume: Vertical geopolitics and the depth of power. Political Geography, 34, 35–51.Google Scholar
  100. Endres, D. (2009). The rhetoric of nuclear colonialism: Rhetorical exclusion of American Indian arguments in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste siting decision. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6(1), 39–60.Google Scholar
  101. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.Google Scholar
  102. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  103. Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  104. Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  105. Frank, A. G. (1998). ReOrient: Global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  106. Freedman, L. (2003). The evolution of nuclear strategy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  107. Friedman, T. (2009). The world is flat. The globalized world in the twenty first century. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  108. Fritsch, S. (2011). Technology and global affairs. International Studies Perspectives, 12(1), 27–45.Google Scholar
  109. Gavin, F. J. (2012). Nuclear statecraft: History and strategy in America’s atomic age. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Gilbert, E., & Helleiner, E. (Eds.). (2013). Nation-states and money: The past, present and future of national currencies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  111. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Gray, J. (2014). The Snowden files: So much more than state surveillance. Open Democracy. February 6. http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jonathan-gray/snowden-files-so-much-more-than-state-surveillance. Accessed 19 Feb 2014.
  113. Green, S. (1999). A plague on the panopticon: Surveillance and power in the global information economy. Information, Communication and Society, 2(1), 26–44.Google Scholar
  114. Greenhalgh, S. (2008). Just one child: Science and policy in Deng’s China. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  115. Grovogui, S. N.’ Z. (1996). Sovereigns, quasi sovereigns and Africans: Race and self-determination in international law. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  116. Guldi, J. (2012). Roads to power: Britain invents the infrastructure state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Hall, R. B., & Biersteker, T. J. (Eds.). (2002). The emergence of private authority in global governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  119. Haraway, D. (2003). Cyborgs to companion species. Reconfiguring Kinship in technoscience. In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality (pp. 58–82). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Hart, H. (1946). Technological acceleration and the atomic bomb. American Sociological Review, 11(3), 277–293.Google Scholar
  121. Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the conditions of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  122. Haunss, S., & Shadlen, K. C. (Eds.). (2009). Politics of intellectual property: Contestation over the ownership, use, and control of knowledge and information. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  123. Headrick, D. (1981). The tools of empire. Technology and European imperialism in the nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Hecht, G. (1998). The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after world war II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  125. Hecht, G. (2010). The power of nuclear things. Technology and Culture, 51(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  126. Hecht, G. (Ed.). (2011). Entangled geographies: Empire and technopolitics in the global Cold War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  127. Hecht, G. (2012). Being nuclear: Africans and the global uranium trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  128. Heilbroner, R. (1994). Technological determinism revisited. In M. R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 67–78). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  129. Held, D., Goldblatt, D., McGrew, A., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Herrera, G. L. (2002). The politics of bandwidth: International political implications of a global digital information network. Review of International Studies, 28(1), 93–122.Google Scholar
  131. Herrera, G. L. (2003). Technology and international systems. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 32(3), 559–593.Google Scholar
  132. Herrera, G. (2006). Technology and international transformation: The railroad, the atom bomb, and the politics of technological change. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  133. Hoyt, T. D. (2003). Technology and security. In M. E. Brown (Ed.), New world: Security challenges in the 21st century (pp. 17–37). Grave, Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  134. Holsti, K. J. (2004). Taming the sovereigns: Institutional change in international politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.Google Scholar
  136. Hughes, T. P. (2004). Human-built world: How to think about technology and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  137. Hugill, P. J. (1999). Global communications since 1844: Geopolitics and technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  138. Hugill, P. J., & Bachmann, V. (2005). The route to the techno-industrial world economy and the transfer of German organic chemistry to America before, during, and immediately after world war I. Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 3(2), 158–186.Google Scholar
  139. Huntington, S. P. (1997). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  140. Innis, H. (1950). Communication and empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Innis, H. (2008). The bias of communication. Second Edition with a new introduction by Alexander J. Watson, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  142. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  143. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.Google Scholar
  144. Jasanoff, S. (2004a). The idiom of co-production. In J. Sheila (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  145. Jasanoff, S. (2004b). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order (pp. 13–45). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  146. Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of science and technology studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  147. Joerges, B. (1999). Do politics have artefacts? Social Studies of Science, 29(3), 411–431.Google Scholar
  148. Jervis, R. (1988). The political effects of nuclear weapons: A comment. International Security, 13(2), 80–90.Google Scholar
  149. Jervis, R. (1989). The meaning of the nuclear revolution: Statecraft and the prospect of Armageddon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  150. Juma, C. (2010). The new harvest: Agricultural innovation in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  151. Kaag, J., & Kaufman, W. (2009). Military frameworks: Technological know-how and the legitimization of warfare. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4), 585–606.Google Scholar
  152. Kahler, M. (Ed.). (2009). Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  153. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  154. Keohane, R. O. (2001). Governance in a partially globalized world. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  155. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  156. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1998). Power and interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs, 77(5), 81–94.Google Scholar
  157. Kern, S. (2003). The culture of time and space 1880-1918. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  158. Kevles, D. J. (1977). The national science foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942–1945: A political interpretation of science–the endless frontier. Isis, 68(1), 4–26.Google Scholar
  159. Knorr Cetina, K., & Preda, A. (2004). The sociology of financial markets. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  160. Krige, J. (2006). American hegemony and the postwar reconstruction of science in Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  161. Krige, J., Callahan, A. L., & Maharaj, A. (2013). NASA in the world: Fifty years of international collaboration in space. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  162. Krige, J., & Barth, K.-H. (Eds.). (2006). Global power knowledge: Science and technology in international affairs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  163. Krishna, S. (2009). The social life of a bomb: India and the ontology of an ‘overpopulated’ society. In I. Abraham (Ed.), South Asian cultures of the bomb: Atomic publics and state in India and Pakistan (pp. 68–88). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  164. Kurzweil, R. (2006). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  165. Larner, W., & Walters, W. (Eds.). (2004). Global governmentality: Governing international spaces. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  166. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  167. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–58). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  168. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  169. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  170. Law, J. (1991). A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  171. Lebow, R. N. (1994). The long peace, the end of the cold war, and the failure of realism. International Organization, 48(2), 249–277.Google Scholar
  172. Lear, L. J. (1993). Rachel Carson’s “silent spring”. Environmental History Review, 17(2), 23–48.Google Scholar
  173. Linklater, A. (2009). Human interconnectedness. International Relations, 23(3), 481–497.Google Scholar
  174. Litfin, K. T. (1994). Ozon discourses. Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  175. Litfin, K. T. (1998). The greening of sovereignty in world politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  176. Luke, T. W. (1998). Running flat out on the road ahead: nationality, sovereignty, and territoriality in the world of the information superhighway. In G. Ó. Tuathail & S. Dalby (Eds.), Rethinking geopolitics (pp. 175–212). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  177. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. New York: Polity.Google Scholar
  178. Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437.Google Scholar
  179. MacKenzie, D. A. (1993). Inventing accuracy: An historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  180. MacKinnon, R. (2013). Consent of the networked: The worldwide struggle for internet freedom. New York: Perseus.Google Scholar
  181. Makhijani, A., Howard, H., & Yih, K. (Eds.). (2000). Nuclear wastelands: A global guide to nuclear weapons production and its health and environmental effects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  182. Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 185–213.Google Scholar
  183. Mann, M. (2008). Infrastructural power revisited. Studies in Comparative International Development, 43(3), 355–365.Google Scholar
  184. Matthewman, S. (2011). Technology and social theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  185. Marres, N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–780.Google Scholar
  186. May, C. (2010). The global political economy of intellectual property rights. The new enclosures (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  187. May, C., & Sell, S. K. (2005). Intellectual property rights. A critical history. London: Boulder.Google Scholar
  188. Mayer, M. (2014). The unbearable lightness of international relations – technological innovations, creative destruction, and explorative realism. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  189. Mayer, M., & Schouten, P. (2011). Energy security and climate security under conditions of the Anthropocene. In L. Anceschi & J. Symons (Eds.), Energy security in the era of the climate change. The Asia-Pacific experience (pp. 13–35). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  190. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Lazer, D. (Eds.). (2007). Governance and information technology: From electronic government to information government. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  191. McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the construction of security. European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), 563–587.Google Scholar
  192. McLuhan, M., & Powers, B. R. (1992). The global village: Transformations in world life and media in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  193. McNeill, W. H. (1982). The pursuit of power. Technology, armed force, and society since A.D. 1000. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  194. McNeill, J. R., & Unger, C. R. (Eds.). (2010). Environmental histories of the cold war. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  195. Miller, C., & Edwards, P. (Eds.). (2001). Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  196. Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (2005). Introduction: Inventing Europe: 1. Technology and the hidden integration of Europe. History and Technology, 21(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  197. Mishra, P. (2012). From the ruins of empire. Intellectuals who remade Asia. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  198. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  199. Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  200. Moldaschl, M., & Stehr, N. (Eds.). (2010). Wissensökonomie und Innovation. Beiträge zur Ökonomie der Wissensgesellschaft. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  201. Morgenthau, H. J. (1964). Modern science and political power. Columbia Law Review, 64, 1386–1409.Google Scholar
  202. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism, and the urge to fix problems that don’t exist. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  203. Morozov, E (2014). More political interference! Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 15 Jan 2014. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/evgeny-morozov-s-response-to-sascha-lobo-more-political-interference-12752837.html?printPagedArticle=true. Accessed 19 Feb 2014
  204. Mueller, J. (1988). The essential irrelevance of nuclear weapons: Stability in the postwar World. International Security, 13(2), 55–79.Google Scholar
  205. Mueller, J. (1989). Retreat from doomsday: The obsolescence of major war. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  206. Mueller, M. L. (2010). Networks and states. The global politics of Internet governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  207. Mumford, L. (1966). The myth of the machine: Technics and human development. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  208. Murphy, C. N., & Yates, J. A. (2009). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Global governance through voluntary consensus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  209. Murphy, C. N. (1994). International organization and industrial change: Global governance since 1850. Europe and the international order. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  210. Nanni, G. (2012). The colonisation of time: Ritual, routine and resistance in the British empire. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  211. Nelkin, D. (Ed.). (1992). Controversy: Politics of technical decisions (3dth ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  212. Netz, R. (2004). Barbed wire: An the ecology of modernity. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  213. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  214. Nye, J. S., & Keohane, R. O. (1971). Transnational relations and world politics: An introduction. International Organization, 25(3), 329–349.Google Scholar
  215. Oldenziel, R. (2011). Islands: The United States as a networked empire. In G. Hecht (Ed.), Entangled geographies: empire and technologies in the global Cold War (pp. 13–42). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  216. Ogborn, W. F. (1949). Technology and international relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  217. Osterhammel, J. (2009). The transformation of the world. A history of the 19th century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  218. Paarlberg, R. L. (2004). Knowledge as power: Science, military dominance, and US security. International Security, 29(1), 122–151.Google Scholar
  219. Patomäki, H., & Wight, C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 213–237.Google Scholar
  220. Paul, H. W. (2003). From knowledge to power: The rise of the science empire in France, 1860-1939. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  221. Peoples, C. (2009). Technology, philosophy and international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4), 559–561.Google Scholar
  222. Perkins, J. H. (1997). Geopolitics and the green revolution. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  223. Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 491–516.Google Scholar
  224. Pielke, R., Wigley, T., & Green, C. (2008). Dangerous assumptions. Nature, 452(7187), 531–532.Google Scholar
  225. Pinch, T., & Swedberg, R. (2008). Living in a material world: Economic sociology meets science and technology studies (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  226. Pinch, T. (2008). Technology and institutions: Living in a material world. Theory and Society, 37(5), 461–483.Google Scholar
  227. Poe, M. T. (2011). A history of communications: Media and society from the evolution of speech to the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  228. Porter, T. (2003). Technical collaboration and political conflict in the emerging regime for international financial regulation. Review of International Political Economy, 10(3), 520–551.Google Scholar
  229. Potter, S. J. (2007). Webs, networks, and systems: Globalization and the mass media in the nineteenth-and twentieth-century British empire. The Journal of British Studies, 46(3), 621–646.Google Scholar
  230. Pouliot, V. (2010). The materials of practice: Nuclear warheads, rhetorical commonplaces and committee meetings in Russian–Atlantic relations. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(3), 294–311.Google Scholar
  231. Poulantzas, N. (1978). State power and socialism. London: NLB.Google Scholar
  232. Price, D. H. (2011). Weaponizing anthropology: Social science in service of the militarized state. Petrolia and Oakland, CA: CounterPunch and AK.Google Scholar
  233. Rasmussen, A. (2014). NATO’s new frontier. World Affairs, February 11. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/anders-fogh-rasmussen-presents-the-benefits-of-creating-a-european-missile-defense-system. Accessed 02 Feb 2014.
  234. Reisch, G. A. (2005). How the cold war transformed philosophy of science: to the icy slopes of logic. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  235. Reus-Smit, C. (1996). The normative structure of international society. In F. Osler & J. Reppy (Eds.), Earthly goods. Environmental change and social justice (pp. 196–221). Ithaca: Cornell Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  236. Reuss, M., & Cutcliffe, S. H. (Eds.). (2010). The illusory boundary: Environment and technology in history. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  237. Richards, E., & Ashmore, M. (1996). More sauce please! The politics of SSK: Neutrality, commitment and beyond. Social Studies of Science, 26(2), 219–228.Google Scholar
  238. Ronen, P. (2003). The offshore world: Sovereign markets, virtual places, and nomad millionaires. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  239. Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  240. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.Google Scholar
  241. Rosenau, J. N. (1990). Turbulence in world politics: A theory of change and continuity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  242. Rosenau, J. N. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1(1), 13–43.Google Scholar
  243. Rosenau, J. (2003). Distant proximities: Dynamics beyond globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  244. Rosenau, J. N., & Singh, J. P. (Eds.). (2002). Information technologies and global politics. The changing scope of power and governance. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  245. Rosenberg, J. (2010). Basic problems in the theory of uneven and combined development. Part II: unevenness and political multiplicity. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(1), 165–189.Google Scholar
  246. Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization, 47(1), 139–174.Google Scholar
  247. Sabaratnam, M. (2011). IR in dialogue… but can we change the subjects? A typology of decolonising strategies for the study of world politics. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 781–803.Google Scholar
  248. Sassen, S. (2001). Global networks, linked cities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  249. Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  250. Salter, M. B. (2007). Governmentalities of an airport: Heterotopia and confession. International Political Sociology, 1(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  251. Salter, M. B. (Ed.). (2014). Making things international I: Circulation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  252. Scharff, R. C., & Dusek, V. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy of technology: The technological condition: An anthology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  253. Schmidt, B. (1998). The political discourse of anarchy: A disciplinary history of international relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  254. Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realist conceptions of power. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43–64). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  255. Scheuerman, W. E. (2009). Realism and the critique of technology. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4), 563–584.Google Scholar
  256. Schlosser, E. (2013). Command and control: Nuclear weapons, the Damascus accident, and the illusion of safety. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  257. Schouten, P. (2013a). The materiality of state failure: Social contract theory, infrastructure and governmental power in Congo. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 41(3), 553–574.Google Scholar
  258. Schouten, P. (2013b). Theory talk No. 60: Daniel Deudney on mixed ontology, planetary geopolitics, and Republican Greenpeace. http://www.theorytalks.org/2013/11/theory-talk-60_285.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2014
  259. Schouten, P. (2014). Security as controversy: Reassembling security at Amsterdam airport. Security Dialogue, 45(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  260. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  261. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  262. Shamir, R. (2013). Current flow: The electrification of palestine. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  263. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  264. Simmons, B. A. (2013). Preface: International relationships in the information age. International Studies Review, 15(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  265. Singh, J. P. (2002). Introduction: Information technologies and the changing scope of global power and governance. In J. N. Rosenau & J. P. Singh (Eds.), Information technologies and global politics. The changing scope of power and governance (pp. 1–38). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  266. Singh, J. P. (Ed.). (2010). International cultural policies and power. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  267. Singh, J. P. (2013). Information technologies, meta‐power, and transformations in global politics. International Studies Review, 15(1), 5–29.Google Scholar
  268. Singleton, R. (2008). Knowledge and technology: The basis of wealth and power. In D. N. Balaam & M. Veseth (Eds.), Introduction to international political economy (4th ed., pp. 196–214). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  269. Skocpol, T., & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.). (1996). States, social knowledge, and the origins of modern social policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  270. Skolnikoff, E. B. (1993). The elusive transformation: Science, technology and the evolution of international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  271. Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  272. Smith, M. R., & Marx, L. (Eds.). (1994). Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  273. Srnicek, N. (2013): Representing complexity: The material construction of world politics (PhD thesis). The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Google Scholar
  274. Squire, V. (2014). Reshaping critical geopolitics? The materialist challenge. Review of International Studies. doi:10.1017/S0260210514000102.Google Scholar
  275. Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377–391.Google Scholar
  276. Steinberg, P. E. (2001). The social construction of the ocean. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  277. Steinberg, P. (2013). Of other seas: Metaphors and materialities in maritime regions. Atlantic Studies, 10(2), 156–169.Google Scholar
  278. Stopford, J. M., Strange, S., & Henley, J. S. (1991). Rival states, rival firms: Competition for world market shares. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  279. Strange, S. (1988). State and markets. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  280. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  281. Stroeken, K. (Ed.). (2013). War, technology, anthropology. New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  282. Sunder Rajan, K. (Ed.). (2012). Lively capital: biotechnologies ethics and governance in global markets. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  283. Tenner, E. (1997). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  284. Thad Allan, M. (2001). Modernity, the holocaust, and machines without history. In A. C. Hughes, M. Thad Allan, & G. Hecht (Eds.), Technologies of power: Essays in honor of Thomas Parke Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes (pp. 175–214). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  285. Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial formations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  286. Tucker, J. B. (Ed.). (2012). Innovation, dual use, and security: Managing the risks of emerging biological and chemical technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  287. United Nations. (2012). Big data for development. Challenges and opportunities. New York: UN Publishing.Google Scholar
  288. United Nations (2013). Statistics and Indicators for the post-2015 development agenda. New York: UN publishing. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/UNTT_MonitoringReport_WEB.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb 2014Google Scholar
  289. UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies. Paris: UNESCO publishing. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843e.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb 2014.Google Scholar
  290. Van Munster, R., & Sylvest, C. (2014). Reclaiming nuclear politics? Nuclear realism, the H-bomb and globality. Security Dialogue (in press).Google Scholar
  291. Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and politics: an essay on dromology. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  292. Virilio, P. (2010). Grey ecology. New York: Atropos Press. Translated by Drew Burk.Google Scholar
  293. Wajcman, J. (2008). Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(1), 59–77.Google Scholar
  294. Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  295. Walters, W. (2009). Anti-political economy: Cartographies of “illegal immigration” and the displacement of the economy. In J. Best & M. Paterson (Eds.), Cultural political economy (pp. 113–138). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  296. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  297. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  298. Waltz, K. N. (1990). Nuclear myths and political realities. American Political Science Review, 84(3), 731–745.Google Scholar
  299. Weiss, C. (2005). Science, technology and international relations. Technology in Society, 27(3), 295–313.Google Scholar
  300. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  301. Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  302. Williams, M. C. (2013). In the beginning: The international relations enlightenment and the ends of international relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 647–665.Google Scholar
  303. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.Google Scholar
  304. White, L. J. (1966). Medieval technology and social change. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  305. Wolfe, A. (2013). Competing with the Soviets: Science, technology, and the state in Cold War America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  306. Woolgar, S., & Cooper, G. (1999). Do artifacts have ambivalence? Moses’ bridges, Winner’s bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science, 29(3), 433–449.Google Scholar
  307. Yang, D. (2011). Technology of empire: Telecommunications and Japanese expansion in Asia, 1883–1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.Google Scholar
  308. Youngs, G. (2007). Global political economy in the information age: Power and inequality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  309. Yu, P. K. (2012). The rise and decline of intellectual property powers. Campbell Law Review, 34(3), 525–577.Google Scholar
  310. Zaheer, B. (1996). The science of empire: Scientific knowledge, civilization, and colonial rule in India. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  311. Zehfuss, M. (2001). Constructivism and identity: A dangerous liaison. European Journal of International Relations, 7(3), 315–348.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Mayer
    • 1
  • Mariana Carpes
    • 2
  • Ruth Knoblich
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.CGSUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.GIGAHamburgGermany
  3. 3.IEE, Ruhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  4. 4.IPWS, University of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations