Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-s4m2s Total loading time: 0.295 Render date: 2021-10-18T23:39:09.046Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

“Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2003

Get access

Abstract

This article introduces a mode of social action and interaction that has so far been largely overlooked in the U.S.-dominated international relations debate between rational choice and social constructivism that focuses mainly on the differences between instrumental rationality and norm-guided behavior. Drawing on insights from a theoretical debate within the Germanspeaking international relations community, I suggest that actors have a third mode of social action at their disposal: arguing and deliberating about the validity claims inherent in any communicative statement about identities, interests, and the state of the world. Arguing and truth-seeking behavior presuppose that actors no longer hold fixed interests during their communicative interaction but are open to persuasion, challenges, and counterchallenges geared toward reaching a reasoned consensus. The preconditions for argumentative rationality, particularly a “common lifeworld” and the mutual recognition of speakers as equals in a nonhierarchical relationship, are more common in international relations than is usually assumed. Arguing processes are more likely to occur the more actors are uncertain about their interests and even identities, the less they know about the situation in which they find themselves and the underlying “rules of the game,” and the more apparently irreconcilable differences prevent them from reaching an optimal rather than a merely satisfactory solution for a widely perceived problem (“problem solving”). Moreover, arguing is likely to increase the influence of the materially less powerful, be it small states or nonstate actors such as INGOs. I illustrate these claims empirically with two plausibility probes. The first concerns the East–West talks leading to a negotiated settlement of the Cold War in Europe and German unification within NATO. The second case focuses on the implementation of international human rights norms into domestic practices of Third World states.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Emanuel, 1997. Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics, European Journal of International Relations 3 (3): 319–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Emanuel, and Michael, Barnett, eds. 1998. Security Communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alker, Hayward A. 1996. Rescuing “Reason” from the “Rationalists”: Reading Vico, Marx, and Weber as Reflective Institutionalists. In Alker, Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Methodologies for International Studies, 207–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert A. 1997. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert A., and Keohane, Robert O.. 1986. Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. In Cooperation Under Anarchy, edited by Oye, Kenneth A., 226–54. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, James A. III. 1995. The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War, and Peace, 1989–1992. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Beschloss, Michael R., and Talbott, Strobe. 1993. At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Börzel, Tanja A. 1998. Organizing Babylon—On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks. Public Administration 76 (2): 253–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsnaes, Walter. 1992. The Agency Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis. International Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly, Wood, Wendy, and Eagly, Alice H.. 1996. Principles of Persuasion. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W., 702–42. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1998. The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics 50 (2): 324–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Russell, DeJong, Douglas V., Forsythe, Robert, and Ross, Thomas W.. 1992. Communication in Coordination Games Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2): 739–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessler, David. 1989. What's at Stake in the Agent Structure Debate? International Organization 43 (3): 441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, Karl W., Burrell, Sidney A., Kann, Robert A., Lee, Maurice Jr., Lichterman, Martin, Lindgren, Raymond E., Loewenheim, Francis L., and Van Wagenen, Richard W.. 1957. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Elbe, Frank, and Kiessler, Richard. 1996. A Round Table with Sharp Corners The Diplomatic Path to German Unity. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1986. The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, edited by Elster, Jon and Hylland, Aanund, 103–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1998a. Introduction. In Deliberative Democracy, edited by Elster, Jon, 118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon, ed. 1998b. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar, and Weigard, Jarle. 1997. Conceptualizing Politics: Strategic or Communicative Action? Scandinavian Political Studies 20 (3): 219–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Joseph, and Rabin, Matthew. 1996. Cheap Talk. Journal of Economic Perspectives 10 (3): 103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, J.-L., Gilboa, I., and Maschler, M.. 1995. Credible Equilibria in Games with Utilities Changing During the Play. Games and Economic Behavior 10 (2): 284317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996a. Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J., 153–85. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996b. Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights From Sociology's Institutionalism. International Organization 50 (2): 325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change International Organization 52 (4): 887917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1978. Dispositive der Macht. Berlin: BerlinMerve Verlag.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1991. Politics and the Study of Discourse. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, edited by Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter, 5372. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Gehring, Thomas. 1999. Die Theorie spezifischer Institutionen und die Europäische Union. Ein Beitrag zur Verbindung von Rationalismus und Konstruktivismus Habilitationsschrift, Fachbereich Politische Wissenschaft, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Genscher, Hans-Dietrich. 1995. Erinnerungen. Berlin: Siedler.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith, and Keohane, Robert O., eds. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gorbachev, Mikhail. 1995. Erinnerungen. Berlin: Siedler.Google Scholar
Gränzer, Sieglinde. 1998. Staatliche Menschenrechtsdiskurse in Marokko. Unpublished manuscript, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
Gränzer, Sieglinde. 1999. Changing Discourse: Transnational Advocacy Networks in Tunisia and Morocco. In The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, edited by Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen C., and Sikkink, Kathryn, 109–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Ernst B. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces 1950–57. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Peter M., ed. 1992. Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46(1). Special issue.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. Replik auf Einwände. In Habermas, , Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 475570. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Taylor, Rosemary C. R.. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies 44 (5): 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasenclever, Andreas, Mayer, Peter, and Rittberger, Volker. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 1998 The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security 23(1): 171200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Hans-Martin. 1996. Konstruktionsfehler des Konstruktivismus in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3 (2): 313–40.Google Scholar
Jepperson, Ronald, Wendt, Alexander, and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 1996. Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J., 3375. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jetschke, Anja. 1997. Government Rhetoric: Indonesia and the Philippines. Unpublished manuscript, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
Jetschke, Anja. 1999. Linking the Unlinkable? International Norms and Nationalism in Indonesia and the Philippines. In The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, edited by Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen C., and Sikkink, Kathryn, 134–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Alastair Ian. 1998. Socialization in International Institutions: The ASEAN Regional Forum and IR Theory. Paper presented at the workshop “The Emerging International Relations of the Asia-Pacific Region,” University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, May.Google Scholar
Kahler, Miles. 1998. Rationality in International Relations. International Organization 52 (4): 919–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., ed. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., Keohane, Robert O., and Krasner, Stephen D.. 1998a. International Organization and the Study of World Politics. International Organization 52 (4): 645–85.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., Keohane, Robert O., and Krasner, Stephen D., eds. 1998b. International Organization at Fifty: Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics. International Organization 52 (4). Special issue.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Otto. 1987. The Information Dilemma: Private Information as a Cause of Transaction Failure in Markets, Regulation, Hierarchy, and Politics. Journal of Conflict Resolution 31 (1): 139–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Otto. 1993. Information, Macht und gesellschaftliche Rationalität. Das Dilemma rationalen kommunikativen Handelns, dargestellt am Beispiel eines internationalen Vergleichs der Kernenergiepolitik. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Keck, Otto. 1995. Rationales kommunikatives Handeln in den internationalen Beziehungen. Ist eine Verbindung von Rational-Choice-Therie und Habermas’ Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns möglich? Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2 (1): 548.Google Scholar
Keck, Otto. 1997. Zur sozialen Konstruktion des Rational-Choice-Ansatzes Einige Klarstellungen zur Rationalismus-Konstruktivismus-Debatte. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 4(1): 139–51.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1989a. International Institutions and State Power. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1989b. International Institutions: Two Approaches. In Keohane, , International Institutions and State Power, 158–79. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Klotz, Audie. 1995. Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich V.. 1989. Rules Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, David A., and Sebenius, James K.. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew. 1996. The Achievements of Critical Theory. In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia, 279–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lose, Lars G. 1998. Communicative Action and the Social Construction of Diplomatic Societies: Communication and Behavior in the Real World. Paper presented at Femmôller Workshop, Femmôller Æbeltoft, Denmark, 2428 June.Google Scholar
Love, Nancy S. 1989. Foucault and Habermas on Discourse and Democracy. Polity 22 (2): 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Marc. 1999. State Interests and Public Spheres: The International Politics of Jordanian Identity. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1998. The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization 52 (4): 943–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lisa L., and Simmons, Beth A.. 1998. Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions. International Organization 52 (4): 729–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayntz, Renate. 1997 Soziale Dynamik und politische Steuerung. Theoretische und methodologische Überlegungen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D.. 1994. Modeling the Forms of International Cooperation: Distribution Versus Information. International Organization 48 (3): 387423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Harald. 1994. Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1 (1): 1544.Google Scholar
Müller, Harald. 1995. Spielen hilft nicht immer. Die Grenzen des Rational-Choice-Ansatzes und der Platz der Theorie kommunikativen Handelns in der Analyse internationaler Beziehungen Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2 (2): 371–91.Google Scholar
Müller, Michael. 1996. Vom Dissensrisiko zur Ordnung der internationalen Staatenwelt. Zum Projekt einer normativ gehaltvollen Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3 (2): 367–79.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action. American Political Science Review 92 (1): 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Gardner, Roy, and Walker, James. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, John M. 1997. Liberal Peace Liberal War: American Politics and International Security. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Oye, Kenneth, ed. 1986. Cooperation Under Anarchy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Rodger A. 1999. Persuasion, Frames, and the Construction of International Norms: Evidence from the Climate Change Debate. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Plümper, Thomas. 1995. Quasi-rationale Akteure und die Funktion internationaler Institutionen. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 4977.Google Scholar
Powell, Walter W., and DiMaggio, Paul J., eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 1998. Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization 52 (3): 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Richard, and Reus-Smit, Christian. 1998. Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism. European Journal of International Relations 4 (3): 259–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prittwitz, Volker von, ed. 1996a. Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Dialog, Interessen und Macht in der Umweltpolitik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prittwitz, Volker von, ed. 1996b. Verständigung über die Verständigung. Anmerkungen und Ergänzungen zur Debatte über Rationalität und Kommunikation in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen. 3 (1): 133–47.Google Scholar
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1995. Reden ist nicht billig. Zur Debatte um Kommunikation und Rationalität. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2 (1): 171–84.Google Scholar
Thomas, Risse. 1997. The Cold War's Endgame and German Unification (A Review Essay). International Security 21 (4): 159–85.Google Scholar
Thomas, Risse. 1999. International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Strategic Adaptation in the Human Rights Area. Politics and Society 27 (4): 526–56.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen C., and Sikkink, Kathryn, eds. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization 52 (4): 855–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post–Cold War World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Saretzki, Thomas. 1995. “Arguing” oder “Bargaining”: Selbstbindung der Politik durch öffentliche Diskurse. In Macht der Öffentlichkeit—Öffentlichkeit der Macht, edited by Göhler, Gerhard, 277307. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Saretzki, Thomas. 1996. Wie unterscheiden sich Argumentieren und Verhandeln? In Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Dialog, Interessen und Macht in der Umweltpolitik, edited by Prittwitz, Volker von, 1939. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaber, Thomas, and Ulbert, Cornelia. 1994. Reflexivität in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Literaturbericht zum Beitrag kognitiver, reflexiver und interpretativer Ansätze zur dritten Theoriedebatte. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1 (1): 139–69.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 1995. Debatten zwischen Staaten: Eine Argumentationstheorie internationaler Systemkonflikte. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 1997. Rhetorisches Handeln in der internationalen Politik. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 4 (2): 219–54.Google Scholar
Schmalz-Bruns, Rainer. 1995. Die Theorie kommunikativen Handelns—eine Flaschenpost? Anmerkungen zur jüngsten Theoriedebatte in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2 (2): 347–70.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerald. 1994. Rational Choice und kommunikatives Handeln. Eine Replik auf Harald Müller. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1 (2): 357–66.Google Scholar
Sebenius, James K. 1992. Challenging Conventional Explanations of International Cooperation: Negotiation Analysis and the Case of Epistemic Communities. International Organization 46 (1): 323–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shevardnadze, Eduard. 1991. Die Zukunft gehört der Freiheit. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Kathryn, Sikkink. 1993. Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America. International Organization 47 (3): 411–41.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1982. Models of Bounded Rationality. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Jackie, Chatfield, Charles, and Pagnucco, Ron, eds. 1997. Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Arthur A. 1983. Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World. In International Regimes, edited by Krasner, Stephen D., 115–40. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Janice Gross. 1995. Political Learning by Doing: Gorbachev as Uncommitted Thinker and Motivated Learner. In International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, edited by Lebow, Richard Ned and Risse-Kappen, Thomas, 223–58. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Janice Gross, ed. 1989 Getting to the Table: The Processes of International Prenegotiation. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teltschik, Horst. 1991. 329 Tage: Innenansichten der Eintgung. Berlin: Siedler.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization 41 (3): 335–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 88 (2): 391425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zangl, Bernhard, and Zürn, Michael. 1996. Argumentatives Handeln bei internationalen Verhandlungen Moderate Anmerkungen zur post realistischen Debatte. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3 (2): 341–66.Google Scholar
Zartman, I. William, and Berman, Maureen R.. 1982. The Practical Negotiator. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zehfuss, Maja. 1998. Sprachlosigkeit schränkt ein. Zur Bedeutung von Sprache in konstruktivistischen Theorien. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 5 (1): 109–37.Google Scholar
Zelikow, Philip, and Rice, Condoleezza. 1995. Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zintl, Reinhard. 1992. Kooperation und Aufteilung des Kooperationsgewinns bei horizontaler Politikverflechtung. In Horizontale Politikverflechtung. Zur Theorie von Verhandlungssystemen, edited by Benz, Arthur, Scharpf, Fritz W., and Zintl, Reinhard, 97146. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 1992. Interessen und Institutionen in der internationalen Politik: Grundlegung und Anwendung des situationsstrukturellen Ansatzes. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
938
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

“Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

“Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

“Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *