Abstract
This article argues that the widespread assumption that the events of world politics since 9/11 represent a radical break in world politics is incorrect. It goes on to argue, first, that world politics since 9/11 displays far more continuities than disjunctions and, second, that the belief that there was a radical change signalled by 9/11 is deeply problematic not just for conceptualizations of world politics but also for practice. This argument is then discussed in the context of four specific areas, the geo-political configuration of world politics, the ideological shape of world politics, ideas and assumptions about the use of force in world politics and the relationship between civil liberty and security.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 539-553 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | International Affairs |
| Volume | 82 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Publication status | Published - May 2006 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- TERRORISM
- WAR
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Apocalypse Now? Continuities and Disjunctions in World POlitics After 9/11'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver