In relation to week five’s readings, I have chosen to examine Barnett, Fang, and Zurcher’s article “Compromised Peace Building” (2014). Barnett et al. approach their article through a counterfactual analysis framework, and examine the concept of peacebuilding, how domestic and international state actors interact during periods of peacebuilding, and why international peacebuilding is particularly significant. While addressing these central concerns, the authors argue that peacebuilding is the paramount tactic in achieving international cooperation, such as cooperation in implementing international human rights treaties (Barnett et al., p. 608) Not only do they emphasize the importance this strategy, but they also offer more “realistic” peacebuilding
…show more content…
Moreover, this portion of the report will discuss the article’s methodological approach, variables, and literature evaluation. Not only will this report offer such analysis, but it will also provide this examination in the context of its application to the course readings presented in week five. As previously stated, Barnett et al.’s study is conducted under a counterfactual analysis. More specifically, the concept of peacebuilding is at the center of Barnett et al.’s article, and thus the concept subjected to the generalized counterfactual: “What would have occurred had there not existed an operation, if the operation had been configured differently, or if peacebuilders had made different choices?” (Barnett et al., p. 608). According to James Fearon’s “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science” (1991), “Counterfactuals make claims about events that did not actually occur...such propositions play a necessary and fundamental, if often implicit and underdeveloped, role in the efforts of political scientists to assess their hypotheses about the causes of the phenomena they study” (Fearon, p.169). Not only does Fearon’s definition help generate a better understanding of Barnett et al.’s counterfactual approach, but much of his essay is also deliberately cited by Barnett et al. in order to illustrate their study’s scientific validity and credibility. Lastly, …show more content…
As illustrated throughout this entire report, the class readings relate to human rights generally because they provide a scientific framework from which human rights studies can be better coordinated and conducted in order for them to acquire more scientific credibility and validity in the area of international relations. However, it is Suzuki’s work that has a more specific application to human rights. One of the central premises of Suzuki’s article is to describe how the current state of Japan’s economic policies fit into the larger context of the international system. Although his article regards a vastly different subject than human rights, there is a similarity in that human rights policies, just as economic policies, are ever changing. Since both policies undergo change, it is necessary for scholarly work on both subjects to investigate their place and impacts in international interactions and policy, and Suzuki’s article fills this particular literature gap in regard to Japan’s economic situation. While each of week five’s readings generally relate to human rights through their framework prescriptions, Suzuki’s work highlights a
Moreover, this portion of the report will discuss the article’s methodological approach, variables, and literature evaluation. Not only will this report offer such analysis, but it will also provide this examination in the context of its application to the course readings presented in week five. As previously stated, Barnett et al.’s study is conducted under a counterfactual analysis. More specifically, the concept of peacebuilding is at the center of Barnett et al.’s article, and thus the concept subjected to the generalized counterfactual: “What would have occurred had there not existed an operation, if the operation had been configured differently, or if peacebuilders had made different choices?” (Barnett et al., p. 608). According to James Fearon’s “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science” (1991), “Counterfactuals make claims about events that did not actually occur...such propositions play a necessary and fundamental, if often implicit and underdeveloped, role in the efforts of political scientists to assess their hypotheses about the causes of the phenomena they study” (Fearon, p.169). Not only does Fearon’s definition help generate a better understanding of Barnett et al.’s counterfactual approach, but much of his essay is also deliberately cited by Barnett et al. in order to illustrate their study’s scientific validity and credibility. Lastly, …show more content…
As illustrated throughout this entire report, the class readings relate to human rights generally because they provide a scientific framework from which human rights studies can be better coordinated and conducted in order for them to acquire more scientific credibility and validity in the area of international relations. However, it is Suzuki’s work that has a more specific application to human rights. One of the central premises of Suzuki’s article is to describe how the current state of Japan’s economic policies fit into the larger context of the international system. Although his article regards a vastly different subject than human rights, there is a similarity in that human rights policies, just as economic policies, are ever changing. Since both policies undergo change, it is necessary for scholarly work on both subjects to investigate their place and impacts in international interactions and policy, and Suzuki’s article fills this particular literature gap in regard to Japan’s economic situation. While each of week five’s readings generally relate to human rights through their framework prescriptions, Suzuki’s work highlights a