dc.contributor.author | Nymalm, Nicola | de |
dc.contributor.author | Plagemann, Johannes | de |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-15T07:38:56Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-03-15T07:38:56Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | de |
dc.identifier.issn | 1468-2486 | de |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/61777 | |
dc.description.abstract | Existing research on exceptionalism in foreign policy suggests a number of confrontational features making it a threat to peaceful international relations. Largely based on US and European cases, and hardly ever taking a comparative approach, this literature overlooks a variety of exceptionalisms in non-Western countries, including so called "rising powers" such as China and India. A comparison between exceptionalist foreign policy discourses of the United States, China, India, and Turkey shows that exceptionalism is neither exclusive to the United States, nor a "new" phenomenon within rising powers, nor necessarily confrontational, unilateralist, or exemptionalist. As a prerequisite for comparative work, we establish two features common to all exceptionalist foreign policy discourses. In essence, such discourses are informed by supposedly universal values derived from a particular civilization heritage or political history. In order to systematize different versions of exceptionalism, we then propose four ideal types, each of which reflects exceptionalism's common trait of a claim to moral superiority and uniqueness but diverges across other important dimensions, with implications for its potentially offensive character. The article concludes by formulating a research agenda for future comparative work on exceptionalist foreign policy discourses and their repercussions for great power relations and global politics. | de |
dc.language | en | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Internationale Beziehungen | de |
dc.subject.ddc | International relations | en |
dc.title | Comparative exceptionalism: universality and particularity in foreign policy discourses | de |
dc.description.review | begutachtet (peer reviewed) | de |
dc.description.review | peer reviewed | en |
dc.source.journal | International Studies Review | |
dc.source.volume | 21 | de |
dc.publisher.country | GBR | |
dc.source.issue | 1 | de |
dc.subject.classoz | International Relations, International Politics, Foreign Affairs, Development Policy | en |
dc.subject.classoz | internationale Beziehungen, Entwicklungspolitik | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | Theorie | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | methodology | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | theory | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Außenpolitik | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | foreign policy | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Methodik | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | comparative research | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | vergleichende Forschung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | Diskurs | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | discourse | en |
dc.identifier.urn | urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-61777-3 | |
dc.rights.licence | Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 | en |
dc.rights.licence | Creative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0 | de |
ssoar.contributor.institution | GIGA | de |
internal.status | formal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossen | de |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10034694 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10041158 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10068092 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10035127 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10052211 | |
dc.type.stock | article | de |
dc.type.document | journal article | en |
dc.type.document | Zeitschriftenartikel | de |
dc.source.pageinfo | 12–37 | de |
internal.identifier.classoz | 10505 | |
internal.identifier.document | 32 | |
internal.identifier.ddc | 327 | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viy008 | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Published Version | en |
dc.description.pubstatus | Veröffentlichungsversion | de |
internal.identifier.licence | 16 | |
internal.identifier.pubstatus | 1 | |
internal.identifier.review | 1 | |
dc.description.misc | WGL | de |
dc.subject.classhort | 10500 | de |
ssoar.wgl.collection | true | de |
internal.pdf.wellformed | true | |
internal.pdf.encrypted | false | |