Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 33
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Meine, Anna 2016. Debating legitimacy transnationally. Global Discourse, p. 1.


    BOWER, ADAM 2015. Arguing with law: strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court. Review of International Studies, Vol. 41, Issue. 02, p. 337.


    2015. Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity. Journal of Language and Politics, Vol. 14, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    Holzscheiter, Anna 2014. Between Communicative Interaction and Structures of Signification: Discourse Theory and Analysis in International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 142.


    Panke, Diana 2014. The European Union in the United Nations: an effective external actor?. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 21, Issue. 7, p. 1050.


    Riddervold, Marianne 2014. New threats – different response: EU and NATO and Somali piracy. European Security, Vol. 23, Issue. 4, p. 546.


    Dimitrov, Radoslav S. 2013. The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy.


    Jörke, Dirk 2013. The power of reason in international negotiations: notes on Risse, Müller, and Deitelhoff. Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, p. 350.


    Risse, Thomas 2013. Arguing about arguing: a comment. Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, p. 339.


    Reh, Christine 2012. European Integration as Compromise: Recognition, Concessions and the Limits of Cooperation. Government and Opposition, Vol. 47, Issue. 03, p. 414.


    Stevenson, Hayley and Dryzek, John S. 2012. The legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: a deliberative democratic approach. Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 6, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    GRUIN, JULIAN 2011. ‘Freedom’ through repression: epistemic closure in agricultural trade negotiations. Review of International Studies, Vol. 37, Issue. 05, p. 2465.


    Hanrieder, Tine 2011. The false promise of the better argument. International Theory, Vol. 3, Issue. 03, p. 390.


    Wolf, Reinhard 2011. Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of status recognition. International Theory, Vol. 3, Issue. 01, p. 105.


    Bächtiger, André Niemeyer, Simon Neblo, Michael Steenbergen, Marco R. and Steiner, Jürg 2010. Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities*. Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, p. 32.


    Odell, John S. 2010. Three islands of knowledge about negotiation in international organizations. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 17, Issue. 5, p. 619.


    Riddervold, Marianne 2010. ‘A matter of principle’? EU foreign policy in the International Labour Organization. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 17, Issue. 4, p. 581.


    Risse, Thomas and Kleine, Mareike 2010. Deliberation in negotiations. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 17, Issue. 5, p. 708.


    Deitelhoff, Nicole 2009. The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case. International Organization, Vol. 63, Issue. 01, p. 33.


    Deitelhoff, Nicole and Wolf, Klaus Dieter 2009. Der Widerspenstigen Selbst-Zähmung? Zur Professionalisierung der Internationalen Beziehungen in Deutschland. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 50, Issue. 3, p. 451.


    ×

Theoretical paradise – empirically lost? Arguing with Habermas

Abstract

Jürgen Habermas' thinking gained influence within the German International Relations (IR) community in the early 1990s. At the core of the so-called ‘ZIB-debate’ was the controversy whether rationalist theory can explain interstate cooperation. Constructivists accused rationalists of ignoring communication, language and reason, thereby leaving a logical gap in their analyses of interstate cooperation. This gap exists between the plausible motivation for states to cooperate and their actual achievement of cooperation. Rationalist approaches assume that actors face problematic, interdependent situations, in which they can only optimise their preferences by collaboration. Such situations involve a plausible motivation for actors to cooperate but they are not a sufficient condition to ensure that cooperation will actually happen. What is missing is a theoretical link between a general motivation to cooperate and its realisation, given that rationalist theory, following realism, regularly assumes a dangerous anarchical environment with its daunting security dilemma. These circumstances make cooperation risky and should normally work as a show-stopper for nation-states to collaborate.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Review of International Studies
  • ISSN: 0260-2105
  • EISSN: 1469-9044
  • URL: /core/journals/review-of-international-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×