Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Universal but not truly ‘global’: governmentality, economic liberalism, and the international

  • WANDA VRASTI
Abstract

This article responds to issues raised about global governmentality studies by Jan Selby, Jonathan Joseph, and David Chandler, especially regarding the implications of ‘scaling up’ a concept originally designed to describe the politics of advanced liberal societies to the international realm. In response to these charges, I argue that critics have failed to take full stock of Foucault's contribution to the study of global liberalism, which owes more to economic than political liberalism. Taking Foucault's economic liberalism seriously, that is, shifting the focus from questions of natural rights, legitimate rule, and territorial security to matters of government, population management, and human betterment reveals how liberalism operates as a universal, albeit not yet global, measure of truth, best illustrated by the workings of global capital. While a lot more translation work (both empirical and conceptual) is needed before governmentality can be convincingly extended to global politics, Foucauldian approaches promise to add a historically rich and empirically grounded dimension to IR scholarship that should not be hampered by disciplinary admonitions.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 Selby, Jan, ‘Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR’, International Relations, 21:3 (2007), p. 326.

2 Foucault, Michel, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France 1975–1976 (New York: Picador, 2003); Foucault, Michel, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977–1978 (New York: Palgrave, 2007); Foucault, Michel, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979 (Hampshire: Macmillan, 2008).

3 Neal, Andrew, ‘Goodbye War on Terror? Foucault and Butler on Discourses of Law, War and Exceptionalism’, in Dillon, M. and Neal, A. (eds), Foucault on Politics, Security and War (London: Palgrave, 2008), p. 540.

4 Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, dust jacket.

5 Collier, Stephen, ‘Topologies of Power: Foucault's Analysis of Political Government beyond “Governmentality”’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), pp. 78108.

6 Merlingen, Michael, ‘Monster Studies’, International Political Sociology, 3:2 (2008), p. 273; Kiersey, Nicholas J. and Weidner, Jason, ‘Editorial Introduction’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), p. 354.

7 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’; Chandler, David, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism? The Limits of the Biopolitical Approach’, International Political Sociology, 3:1 (2009), pp. 5370; Chandler, David, ‘Globalising Foucault: Turning Critique into Apologia – A Response to Kiersey and Rosenow’, Global Society, 24:2 (2010), pp. 135–42; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Governmentality of What? Populations, States and International Organizations’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 413–27; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘The Limits of Governmentality: Social Theory and the International’, in European Journal of International Relations, 16:2 (2010a), pp. 223–46; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010b), pp. 202–4.

8 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

9 Nelson, Scott G., Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination (New York: Routledge, 2009).

10 Pasha, Mustapha Kamal, ‘In the Shadows of Globalization: Civilizational Crisis, the “Global Modern” and “Islamic Nihilism”’, Globalizations, 7:1–2 (2010b), p. 180.

11 Foucault, Michel, ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 87104.

12 This is not to say that governmentality is separate from or subsequent to sovereign power and its reliance on law, consensus and force, but rather a reconfiguration of sovereign power: they exist side by side, circulating in and out of each other. As John Protevi explains in ‘What Does Foucault Think is New About Neo-Liberalism?’, John Protevi's website {http://www.protevi.com/john/Foucault_28June2009.pdf} (accessed 28 June 2009) the present moment consists of a succession of various rationalities of government: the medieval ‘cosmo-theological framework’, where the responsibility of the sovereign is to guarantee the salvation of the people by acting in accordance to natural, cosmic and divine law; seventeenth-eighteenth century raison d'état, where the prince has to secure the growth and survival of the state through various means of discipline, such as police, mercantilist regulation and inter-state stability; nineteenth century physiocracy and classic liberalism, which introduce political economy as a science to both limit the power of government and ensure the growth and prosperity of the population; and, finally, twentieth century neoliberalism, where the state intervenes in the social fabric to secure the smooth functioning of an artificial and fragile market. This progression must not be understood in the strict, linear sense. The present rationality of government is in many ways a principle for developing, perfecting, and strengthening moments past, in Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, p. 29.

13 Foucault, ‘Governmentality’, p. 97.

14 Burchell, Graham, ‘Liberal Government and Techniques of the Self’, in Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 20.

15 John Protevi, ‘What Does Foucault Think is New About Neo-Liberalism?’

16 Foucault, , ‘The Subject and Power’, in Faubion, J. D. (ed.), Michel Foucault: Power. Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 (New York: The New Press, 2001), p. 341.

17 Albert, Mathias and Lenco, Peter, ‘Introduction to the Forum – Foucault and International Political Sociology’, International Political Sociology, 2:3 (2008), p. 256.

18 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, pp. 325, 332; Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What’, p. 414.

19 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, p. 327.

20 Walker, R. B. J., After the Globe, Before the World (New York: Routledge, 2009); Pasha, Mustapaha Kamal, ‘Disciplining Foucault’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010a), pp. 213–15.

21 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, p. 344.

22 Foucault, Michel, ‘The Confession of the Flesh’, in Gordon, C. (ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), p. 198.

23 Kiersey, Nicholas J., Weidner, Jason R., and Rosenow, Doerthe, ‘Response to Chandler’, Global Society, 24:2 (2010), p. 146, emphasis in original.

24 Walker, R. B. J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Beier, J. Marshall, International Relations in Uncommon Places: Indigeneity, Cosmology and the Limits of International Theory (New York: Palgrave, 2005).

25 Sassen, Saskia, ‘Territory and Territoriality in the Global Economy’, International Sociology, 15:2 (2000), pp. 372–93; We find this duality both in International Relations, where a split between domestic politics (as open to democracy, liberty, and prosperity) and international affairs (as inherently belligerent and uncertain) sustains the fiction of sovereign power, as shown by R. B. J. Walker in Inside/Outside, and in Globalisation Studies, where the state is viewed as a precarious entity constantly threatened by accelerating global processes.

26 Collier, Stephen, ‘Topologies of Power: Foucault's Analysis of Political Government beyond “Governmentality”’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), p. 97; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’; Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’.

27 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

28 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, p. 339; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

29 Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What?’, p. 427.

30 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, pp. 237–8; Joseph, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, p. 203.

31 Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What’, p. 427; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

32 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 236.

33 Ibid., p. 236.

34 Ibid., p. 242.

35 Ibid., p. 239.

36 Chandler, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism?’, p. 97; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010b), p. 203; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 241.

37 Larner, and Williams, , ‘Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces’, in Larner, W. and Walters, W. (eds), Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 5.

38 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, p. 336.

39 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 241.

40 Collier, ‘Topologies of Power’, p. 96; see Gordon, Colin, ‘Governmental Rationality: An Introduction’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 152; Rose, Nikolas, ‘Governing “Advanced” Liberal Democracies’, in Barry, A., Osborne, T., and Rose, N. (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 3764; Lemke, Thomas, ‘“The Birth of Bio-Politics”: Michel Foucault's Lecture at the College de France on Neo-liberal Governmentality’, Economy and Society, 3:2 (2001), pp. 190207.

41 Merlingen, ‘Monster Studies’, p. 190f.

42 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 235.

43 Joseph, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, p. 203.

44 Ong, Aihwa, Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality (Durham: Duke University Press, 1999), pp. 34; Collier, ‘Topologies of Power’, pp. 98–100.

45 Nikolas Rose, ‘Power in Therapy: Techne and Ethos’, Academy for the Study of the Psychoanalytic Arts, available at: {http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/rose2.htm}.

46 Kiersey, Nicholas J., ‘World State or Global Governmentality? Constitutive Power and Resistance in a Post-Imperial World’, Global Change, Peace & Society, 20:3 (2008), p. 370.

47 Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark, ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:4 (1999), pp. 421–2.

48 Ibid., p. 421.

49 Ong, Flexible Citizenship; Larner and Walters, ‘Global Governmentality’; Walters and Haahr, ‘Governmentality and Political Studies’; Collier, Stephen and Ong, Aihwa (eds), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005).

50 Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What’, p. 416.

51 Collier, ‘Topologies of Power’, p. 89.

52 Venn, Couze, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy, Biopolitics and Colonialism: A Transcolonial Genealogy of Inequality’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), pp. 206–33; Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’; Pasha, ‘In the Shadows of Globalization’.

53 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

54 See Callinicos, Alex, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991); McGee, Daniel, ‘Post-Marxism: The Opiate of the Intellectuals’, Modern Language Quarterly, 58:2 (1997), pp. 201–25; Brennan, Timothy, ‘The Empire's New Clothes’, Critical Inquiry, 29 (2005), pp. 337–67.

55 Debrix, Francois, ‘We Other IR Foucauldians’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010), p. 197.

56 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 230.

57 Chandler, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism?’; Chandler, ‘Globalizing Foucault’.

58 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 242.

59 Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’.

60 Chandler, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism?’

61 Kiersey et al., ‘Response to Chandler’, p. 144.

62 Foucault's own political view of liberalism is more complicated. The next section discusses this in greater detail.

63 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 102.

64 Kiersey, Nicholas J., ‘Neoliberal Political Economy and the Subjectivity of Crisis: Governmentality is Not Hollow’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), p. 363.

65 Behrent, Michael C., ‘Liberalism without Humanism: Michel Foucault and the Free-Market Creed, 1976–1979’, Modern Intellectual History, 6:3 (2009), p. 562.

66 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 109.

67 Terranova, Tiziana, ‘Another Life. The Nature of Political Economy in Foucault's Genealogy of Biopolitics’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), p. 237.

68 See Blaney, David L. and Inayatullah, Naeem, Savage Economics: Wealth, Poverty and the Temporal Walls of Capitalism (New York: Routledge, 2010).

69 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 103.

70 Ibid., p. 104, emphasis in original.

71 Ibid., p. 105, emphasis in original.

72 Foucault, The Birth the Biopolitics, pp. 117–20.

73 I borrow the phrase from Mazzarella, William, ‘Affect: What Is It Good For?’, in Dube, Saurabh (ed.), Enchantments of Modernity: Empire, Nation, Globalization (London: Routledge), p. 299.

74 Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (University of Chicago Press, 1991); Barry, Andrew, Osborne, Thomas, and Rose, Nikolas (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

75 Cruikshank, Barbara, The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); Brown, Wendy, Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006); Read, Jason, ‘A Genealogy of Homo Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity’, Foucault Studies, 6 (2009), pp. 2536.

76 Binkley, Sam and Capetillo, Jorge (eds), A Foucault for the 21st Century: Governmentality, Biopower and Discipline in the New Millennium (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009).

77 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Hardt and Negri, Multitude.

78 In particular, Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, and Weidner, Jason, ‘Governmentality, Capitalism and Subjectivity’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 387411.

79 Behrent, ‘Liberalism without Humanism’, p. 554.

80 Ibid., pp. 564–5.

81 It is important here to make a clear distinction between neoliberalism, which Foucault could not have had any sympathies for given his strong connections to the French Left and the liberal art of government, which Foucault might indeed have been attracted to given the failures of the institutional Left to put forth a credible political vision around 1968. After May 1968 many on the French Left accused the Socialist Party and trade unions of having betrayed the wider aspirations of the Left by entering an unholy alliance with the governing forces led by de Gaulle. From this perspective, liberal governmentality could indeed teach the Left a thing or two about how to effectively govern in the name of human betterment without turning to totalitarianism or violating individual autonomy. It is the method, not the principles of liberal governmentality that Foucault would have wanted the Left to learn from. Further proof for the fact that Foucault could not have been a supporter of neoliberalism (a proposition Behrent is careful to avoid) can be found in various recent publications trying to make sense of Foucault's complicated yet sympathetic relation with Marxism: Poster, Mark, Foucault, Marxism and History (Oxford, MA: Polity Press, 1984); Marsden, Richard, The Nature of Capital: Marx After Foucault (New York: Routledge, 1999); Macdonald, Bradley J., ‘Marx, Foucault, Genealogy’, Polity, 34:3 (2002), pp. 259–84; Olssen, Mark, ‘Foucault and Marxism: Rewriting the Theory of Historical Materialism’, Policy Futures in Education, 2:3–4 (2002), pp. 454–82; Read, Jason, ‘A Fugitive Thread: The Production of Subjectivity in Marx’, Pli, 13 (2002), pp. 124–44.

82 Behrent, ‘Liberalism without Humanism’, p. 558.

83 It should be remembered that Foucault never had a chance to fully elaborate his thoughts on biopolitics. While The Birth of Biopolitics was intended to fill that gap, Foucault spent most of the lecture series exploring the ‘condition of intelligibility’ for biopolitics, that is, liberal government. He apologises for this digression but ultimately leaves the conceptualisation of biopolitics up to the generations to come.

84 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 107.

85 Agamben, Giorgio, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 6.

86 Neal, ‘Goodbye War on Terror’, p. 45.

87 See Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, ‘Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 20:1 (2001), pp. 4166; Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, The Liberal Way of War: Killing to Make Life Live (New York: Routledge, 2009); Shapiro, Michael, Edkins, Jenny, and Pin-Fat, Veronique (eds), Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics (New York: Routledge, 2004); Jabri, Vivienne, ‘War, Security and the Liberal State’, Security Dialogue, 37 (2006), pp. 4764; Reid, Julien, The Biopolitics of the War on Terror: Life Struggles, Liberal Modernity and the Defence of Logistical Societies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006); Dillon, Michael, ‘Governing Terror: The State of Emergency of Biopolitical Emergence’, International Political Sociology, 1 (2007), pp. 728; Dauphinee, Elizabeth and Masters, Christina (eds), The Logics of Biopower and the War on Terror: Living, Dying, Surviving (Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); Salter, Mark, Rights of Passage: The Passport in International Relations (Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner, 2003); Salter, Mark (ed.), Politics at the Airport (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008); Dillon, Michael and Neal, Andrew W. (eds), Foucault on Politics, Security and War (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); De Larrinaga, Miguel and Doucet, Marc, ‘Sovereign Power and the Biopolitics of Security’, Security Dialogue, 39:5 (2008), pp. 517–37. Exceptions include, to name but a few, the work of Didier Bigo, William Walters, Peter Nyers, Andrew Lakoff, and Stephen Collier.

88 Dillon and Reid, The Liberal Way of War.

89 Agamben, Homo Sacer, p. 3.

90 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 368.

91 Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’, p. 139.

92 Neal, ‘Goodbye War on Terror?’, p. 46.

93 Foucault cited in Kiersey and Weidner, ‘Editorial Introduction’, p. 345. See also Wendy Larner and Walter Williams, ‘Global Governmentality’; Walters, William and Haahr, Henrik, ‘Governmentality and Political Studies’, European Political Science, 4 (2005), pp. 288300; Nicholas J. Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’; Jason Weidner, ‘Governmentality, Capitalism and Subjectivity’; De Goede, Marieke (ed.), International Political Economy and Poststructural Politics (New York: Palgrave, 2006); Langley, Paul, The Everyday Life of Global Finance: Saving and Borrowing in Anglo-America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Lisle, Debbie, ‘Joyless Cosmopolitans: The Moral Economy of Ethical Tourism’, in Best, J. and Peterson, M. (eds), Cultural Political Economy (New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 139–58; Moore, Phoebe, The International Political Economy of Work and Employability (New York: Palgrave, 2010).

94 Dean cited in Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, p. 333.

95 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 385.

96 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004).

97 Agathangelou, Anna M., Bassichis, Daniel M., and Spira, Tamara L., ‘Intimate Investments: Homonormativity, Global Lockdown, and the Seductions of Empire’, Radical History Review, 100 (2008), p. 137.

98 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, p. 341.

99 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 367, emphasis added.

100 Lemke, Thomas, ‘Foucault's Hypothesis: From the Critique of the Juridico-Discursive Concept of Power to an Analytics of Government’, Parrhesia, 9 (2010), pp. 33–4.

101 Madra, M. Yahya and Őzselcuk, Ceren, Juissance and Antagonism in the Forms of the Commune: A Critique of Biopolitical Subjectivity’, Rethinking Marxism, 22:3 (2010), p. 482.

102 Merlingen, ‘Foucault and World Politics’, p. 188.

103 Connolly, William E., The Ethos of Pluralization (Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1995).

104 Jabri, Vivienne, ‘Restyling the Subject of Responsibility in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27:3 (1998), p. 594.

105 Davies, Matt and Niemann, Michael, ‘The Everyday Spaces of Global Politics: Work, Leisure, Family’, New Political Science, 24:4 (2002), p. 561.

106 Nair, Sheila and Chowdhry, Geeta. Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations (New York, Routledge: 2002); Edkins, Jenny, Pin-Fat, Veronique, and Shapiro, Michael J. (eds), Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics (New York: Routledge, 2004); Agathangelou, Anna M. and Ling, L. H. M., Transforming World Politics: From Empire to Multiple Worlds (New York: Routledge., 2009).

107 Larner and Williams, ‘Global Governmentality’, p. 4.

108 Davies and Niemann, ‘The Everyday Spaces of Global Politics’, p. 567.

109 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 376.

110 Ibid., p. 386.

111 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’.

112 Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik, ‘Neoliberalism and the Urban Condition’, City, 9:1 (2005), p. 103; see also Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik, ‘Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”’, Antipode, 33:3 (2002a), pp. 349–79.

113 Jackson, Pattrick Thaddeus, ‘Three Stories: A Way of Being in the World’, in Inayatullah, Naeem (ed.), Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011), p. 161.

114 Venn, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 206; Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’, p. 5.

115 Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’.

116 See Kiersey and Weidner, ‘Editorial Introduction’.

117 Venn, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 206; Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’, p. 15.

118 Venn, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 211.

119 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’; Weidner, ‘Governmentality, Capitalism and Subjectivity’.

120 Gill, Stephen, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

121 Wallerstein, Immanuel, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004).

122 I borrow the phrase from Sylvère Lotringer, ‘In Theory’, Frieze Art Fair. London (14–16 October 2009), available at: {http://www.friezeartfair.com/podcasts/details/in_theory_sylvere_lotringer/} accessed 27 December 2009.

123 Neal, ‘Rethinking Foucault’, p. 541.

124 Foucault cited in Lemke, ‘“The Birth of Bio-Politics”’, p. 43.

* I borrow the phrase ‘universal but not truly “global”’ from Anna Agathangelou, ‘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 (2010), p. 5. I would like to thank Mark Salter for inviting me to present a first draft of this article at the European Consortium for Political Research conference in Stockholm, September 2010. I am also grateful for the thorough comments and suggestions received from the anonymous reviews of the RIS on earlier versions of this article. This research was made possible with generous support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Germany.

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? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed