Abstract
This chapter establishes the theoretical and methodological basis that informs the study of the discursive construction of Pakistan’s representational identity. Within the International Relations literature purporting to understand Pakistan’s reality, there is a propensity to intellectually secure Pakistan within a resolute system of ontological ‘truths’. These debates then depend on, produce and reproduce knowledge on Pakistan which consequently generates Pakistan’s ‘reality’. In essence then, Pakistan is what we know about it. Considering that knowledge does not exist independently of our theories, concepts, ideas and language, the ‘reality’ of Pakistan does not exist outside our appropriations and interpretations. The chapter moves on to explore the interplay between knowledge and power and provides a comprehensive theoretical understanding of the relationship between discourse and representational practices. The chapter argues that knowledge production is not a neutral, value-free, ‘objective’ exercise and discourse is never impartial, rather knowledge constructs ‘truths’. Consequently, within the ‘truths’ constructed by a western-dominated International Relations, Pakistan’s ‘reality’ is produced and circulated. The chapter finally explores the three main tentacles of the International Relations community namely, the disciplines of International Relations and Area Studies and the think tanks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
L. Jha, “Pakistan a Failed State: Frank Pallone,” Hindustan Times, 2008, http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-a-failed-state-frank-pallone/article1-356611.aspx.
- 2.
A. Gupta, Is Pakistan a Failing State? Policy Brief (Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 2009), http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/IsPakistanaFailingState_AGupta_160609.
- 3.
Gupta.
- 4.
H. Imtiaz, “Pen Friends: Rohrabacher Writes Letter to Gilani, Calls Pakistan a ‘Failed State,’” Express Tribune, 2012, http://tribune.com.pk/story/373354/pen-friends-rohrabacher-writes-letter-to-gilani-calls-pakistan-a-failed-state/.
- 5.
J. Morrison, “Embassy Row: ‘A Failing State,’” Washington Times, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/4/embassy-row-afailing-state/?page=all.
- 6.
D. Markey, No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Pakistan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 10.
- 7.
S. Cohen, “The Nation and the State of Pakistan,” The Washington Quarterly 25, no. 3 (2002): 118.
- 8.
H. Root, “Pakistan: The Political Economy of State Failure,” The Milken Institute Review 7, no. 2 (2005): 74.
- 9.
F.W. Kagan and M. O’Hanlon, “Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem,” New York Times, November 18, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?pagewanted=print.
- 10.
Both authors Gerald B. Helman and Steve R. Ratner are now academics at the University of Michigan.
- 11.
Lene Hansen, Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (Routledge, 2006), 7.
- 12.
A seminal work in this regard is David Campbell’s exposition on US Foreign Policy in David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (University of Minnesota Press, 1992).
- 13.
Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996); Pinar Bilgin and Adam D. Morton, “Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences?” Third World Quarterly 23, no. 1 (2002): 55–80, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993576.
- 14.
For instance, see J. Logan and C. Preble, “Fixing Failed States: A Dissenting View,” in The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, ed. C. Coyne and R. Mathers (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011), 379–96; R. Wilde, “The Skewed Responsibility Narrative of the Failed States Concept,” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 9 (2003): 425–29; Anna Simons and David Tucker, “The Misleading Problem of Failed States: A ‘Socio-Geography’ of Terrorism in the Post-9/11 Era,” Third World Quarterly 28, no. 2 (2007): 387–401, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590601153887; A. Hehir, “The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom,” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1, no. 3 (2007): 307–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/17502970701592256.
- 15.
See R. Gordon, “Saving Failed States: Sometimes a Neocolonialist Notion,” American University International Law Review 12, no. 6 (1997): 903–74; Branwen Gruffydd Jones, “The Global Political Economy of Social Crisis: Towards a Critique of the ‘Failed State’ Ideology,” Review of International Political Economy 15, no. 2 (April 16, 2008): 180–205, https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290701869688.
- 16.
Farzana Shaikh, Making Sense of Pakistan (Oxford University Press, 2012); L. Ziring, “Weak State, Failed State, Garrison State: The Pakistan Saga,” in South Asia’s Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament, ed. T. Paul (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010), 170–95; Shaun Gregory, Pakistan’s Security: The Insecure State (Routledge, 2007). Some others instances are A. Lieven, Pakistan: A Hard Country (New York: Public Affairs, 2011); Ishtiaq Ahmed, Pakistan the Garrison State: Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947–2011) (Oxford University Press, 2013); B. Riedel, “Pakistan and Terror: The Eye of the Storm,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 618, no. 1 (July 1, 2008): 31–45, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208316746; I. Kfir, “The Crisis in Pakistan: A Dangerously Weak State,” Middle East Review of International Affairs 11, no. 3 (2007): 75–88.
- 17.
David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (University of Minnesota Press, 1992), 24.
- 18.
See for instance, A. Siddiqa, Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy (London: Pluto Press, 2007); C. Fair, “Pakistan’s Democracy: The Army’s Quarry?” Asian Security 5, no. 1 (2009): 73–85, https://doi.org/10.1080/14799850802611552; Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, Pakistan’s Arms Procurement and Military Build-Up 1979–99: In Search of a Policy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2001); C. Christine Fair, Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014); Riedel, “Pakistan and Terror: The Eye of the Storm”; S. Nawaz, Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2009); Ahmed, Pakistan the Garrison State: Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947–2011); Aqil Shah, “Getting the Military Out of Pakistani Politics: How Aiding the Army Undermines Democracy,” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 3 (2011).
- 19.
Shaikh, Making Sense of Pakistan; D. Kux, Pakistan: Flawed Not Failed State (New York: Foreign Policy Association, 2001); Ishtiaq Ahmed, “Pakistan’s National Identity,” International Review of Modern Sociology International Review of Modem Sociology 34, no. 1 (2008): 47–59, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41421657; B.C. Upreti, “Nationalism in South Asia: Trends and Interpretations,” Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science The Indian Journal of Political Science 67, no. 3 (2006): 535–44, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856240; Cohen, “The Nation and the State of Pakistan”; Sumit Ganguly, “Pakistan: Neither State Nor Nation,” in Multination States in Asia: Accommodation or Resistance, ed. Jacques Bertrand and André Laliberté (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 309; Christophe Jaffrelot, Pakistan: Nationalism Without a Nation? (London: Zed Books, 2002).
- 20.
Harsh V. Pant, “The Pakistan Thorn in China—India—U.S. Relations,” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2012): 83–95; M. Beckley, “China and Pakistan: Fair-Weather Friends,” Yale Journal of International Affairs 8, no. 1 (2012): 9–22; M. Kugelman, “Can China Deliver in Pakistan?” World Politics Review, 2009, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/4733/can-china-deliver-in-pakistan. Ahmed Waheed, “Pakistan’s Dependence and US Patronage: The Politics of ‘Limited Influence,’” Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 4, no. 1 (2017): 1–26; Ahmed Waheed, The Wrong Ally: Pakistan’s State Sovereignty Under US Dependence (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018); Salamat Ali Tabbasum, “Political Economy of US Aid to Pakistan: Democratization or Militarization?” 1, no. 1 (2013): 22–31; Teresita C. Schaffer, “US Influence on Pakistan: Can Partners Have Divergent Priorities?,” The Washington Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2002): 169–83; C. Cohen and D. Chollet, “When $10 Billion Is Not Enough: Rethinking US Strategy toward Pakistan,” The Washington Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2007): 7–19; C. Cohen, A Perilous Course: US Strategy and Assistance to Pakistan (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2007); A. Rashid, Descent Into Chaos: The World’s Most Unstable Region and the Threat to Global Security (London: Penguin Books, 2009); Robert M. Hathaway, “Leverage and Largesse: Pakistan’s Post-9/11 Partnership with America*,” Contemporary South Asia 16, no. 1 (March 6, 2008): 11–24, https://doi.org/10.1080/09584930701800362; C. Christine Fair et al., Pakistan: Can the United States Secure an Insecure State? (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2010); P. Miller, “How to Exercise U.S. Leverage over Pakistan,” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 4 (2012): 37–52, http://csis.org/publication/twq-how-exercise-us-leverage-over-pakistan-fall-2012.
- 21.
Helle Malmvig, State Sovereignty and Intervention: A Discourse Analysis of Interventionary and Non-interventionary Practices in Kosovo and Algeria (New York: Routledge, 2006), 2.
- 22.
In the Pakistani context, few studies have sought to explore how we know what we know, but invariably barring a few exceptions such as Nizamani’s work in Haider K. Nizamani, The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear Weapons in India and Pakistan (Praeger, 2000), most have looked inwardly at the production of knowledge. Almost all though have either analyzed discourse through an analysis of media content, and statements of policy-makers and experts in the media.
- 23.
Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Theory_of_International_Politics.html?id=2tOuQwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y.
- 24.
I use positivism and rationalism interchangeably.
- 25.
Robert O. Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1988): 379–96, https://www.jstor.org.
- 26.
Hansen, Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War.
- 27.
Hansen.
- 28.
Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (University of South Carolina Press, 1989).
- 29.
Jeffrey Checkel, “Review: The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory,” World Politics 50, no. 2 (1998): 324–48, https://doi.org/10.2307/25054040; Emanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (1997): 319–63, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003; Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
- 30.
Steve Smith, “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline,’” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 74–75, https://doi.org/10.2307/3186354.
- 31.
Constructivists are often distinguished be their work in terms of their epistemological and methodological commitments. They have often been assigned various juxtaposed labels such ‘conventional and ‘critical’ constructivism in Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security 23, no. 1 (July 27, 1998): 171–200, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.23.1.171, ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ constructivism in Peter J. Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (Columbia University Press, 1996), ‘modernist’ and ‘postmodernists’ in Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit, “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism,” European Journal of International Relations 4, no. 3 (September 24, 1998): 259–94, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004003001, and ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ constructivism in Ronen Palan, “A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 26, no. 31 (2000): 575–98.
- 32.
Marcus George, “Foreword,” in Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger (Minneapolis and London: Minnesota University Press, 1999), x.
- 33.
According to Zehfuss the partial essentialization of portions of reality and a doctrinal adherence to an a priori, however limited, reality of some constructivists, a platform they share with rationalists, distinguishes them from the postmodernists.
- 34.
Maja Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 36, https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Constructivism_in_International_Relation.html?id=4M1eKE5jzxgC&redir_esc=y.
- 35.
Javier Lezaun, “Limiting the Social: Constructivism and Social Knowledge in International Relations,” International Studies Review 4, no. 3 (January 1, 2002): 231, https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00272.
- 36.
Robert Cox argued that “Theory is always for someone and some purpose”. I have taken intellectual license to reframe his connotation. Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10, no. 2 (June 23, 1981): 126–55, https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501.
- 37.
Richard Jackson, “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse,” Government and Opposition 42, no. 3 (March 28, 2007): 395, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00229.x.
- 38.
David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (University of Minnesota Press, 1992), 19.
- 39.
Ibid., 24.
- 40.
Ibid., 6.
- 41.
This study is not informed by a reductionist understanding of Pakistan’s political identity within the international community. It does not speak of the Islamic character of Pakistan but of how this character has been constructed. It does not speak of Pakistan’s ostensibly inadequate role in its alliance with the United States on the War on Terror as an ontological reality but of how this role has been constructed to leverage certain expectations. It does not speak of Pakistan’s state fragility as an ontological reality, but how this reality is discursively produced as a political assignment to Pakistan’s identity.
- 42.
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso, 2001), 108, https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Hegemony_and_Socialist_Strategy.html?id=-ZVoVtwCMz0C&redir_esc=y.
- 43.
Malmvig, State Sovereignty and Intervention: A Discourse Analysis of Interventionary and Non-interventionary Practices in Kosovo and Algeria.
- 44.
Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations.
- 45.
Considering how identities are constructed through representational practices, Pakistan has often been represented as a ‘greedy state’, a ‘failed state’ and a ‘garrison state’ among other less conspicuous labels.
- 46.
Malmvig, State Sovereignty and Intervention: A Discourse Analysis of Interventionary and Non-interventionary Practices in Kosovo and Algeria, 3.
- 47.
See Laclau and Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics; Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations.
- 48.
Michael Karlberg, “The Power of Discourse and the Discourse of Power: Pursuing Peace Through Discourse Intervention,” International Journal of Peace Studies 10, no. 1 (2005): 1–25, https://doi.org/10.2307/41852070; Gearoid O. Tuathail and John Agnew, “Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy,” Political Geography 11, no. 2 (1992): 190–204. For an even much detailed study of discursive constructions, see Jackson, “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse”; Richard Jackson, “The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies,” Critical Studies on Terrorism 1, no. 3 (December 10, 2008): 377–92, https://doi.org/10.1080/17539150802515046.
- 49.
Jennifer Milliken, “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods,” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 2 (1999): 225–54, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066199005002003; Roger Maaka and Chris Andersen, The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives (Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006), https://www.canadianscholars.ca/books/the-indigenous-experience.
- 50.
See Derick W.D.W. Brinkerhoff, “Rebuilding Governance in Failed States and Post-Conflict Societies: Core Concepts and Cross-Cutting Themes,” Public Administration and Development 25, no. 1 (February 2005): 3–14, https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.352; R.S. Williamson, “Nation-Building: The Dangers of Weak, Failing, and Failed States,” Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 8 (2007): 9–19; R. Rotberg, When States Fail: Causes and Consequences (Princeton University Press, 2004); A. Ghani and C. Lockhart, Fixing Failed States: A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Morten Bøås and Kathleen M. Jennings, “‘Failed States’ and ‘State Failure’: Threats or Opportunities?” Globalizations 4, no. 4 (December 2007): 475–85, https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730701695729.
- 51.
See for instance, Hehir, “The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom”; Morten Bøås and Kathleen M. Jennings, “Insecurity and Development: The Rhetoric of the ‘Failed State,’” The European Journal of Development Research 17, no. 3 (September 1, 2005): 385–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810500209148; Gordon, “Saving Failed States: Sometimes a Neocolonialist Notion”; Sebastian Mallaby, “The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire,” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 2 (2002): 2, https://doi.org/10.2307/20033079; Logan and Preble, “Fixing Failed States: A Dissenting View”; J. Piazza, “Incubators of Terror: Do Failed and Failing States Promote Transnational Terrorism?” International Studies Quarterly 52 (2008): 469–88.
- 52.
Stuart Hall, “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power,” in The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives (Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006), 167.
- 53.
Stuart Hall.
- 54.
Fair et al., Pakistan: Can the United States Secure an Insecure State? Gregory, Pakistan’s Security: The Insecure State.
- 55.
Ahmed, Pakistan the Garrison State: Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947–2011); Ziring, “Weak State, Failed State, Garrison State: The Pakistan Saga.”
- 56.
For a detailed understanding of how systems of classification as a strategy of representation traces its legacy to the Cold War and the role of academic disciplines, see Bilgin and Morton, “Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences?”; Pinar Bilgin and Adam David Morton, “From ‘Rogue’ to ‘Failed’ States? The Fallacy of Short-Termism*,” Third World Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2004): 169–80; Duncan Bell, “Writing the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond,” International Affairs 85, no. 1 (2009): 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2009.00777.x; David C. Engerman, “Bernath Lecture: American Knowledge and Global Power,” Diplomatic History 31, no. 4 (2007): 599–622, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2007.00655.x.
- 57.
Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations, 10.
- 58.
Doty.
- 59.
Ibid., 11.
- 60.
Ibid.
- 61.
Doty.
- 62.
Stewart R. Clegg, Frameworks of Power (London and New York, 1997), 152.
- 63.
Malmvig, State Sovereignty and Intervention: A Discourse Analysis of Interventionary and Non-interventionary Practices in Kosovo and Algeria, 3.
- 64.
For instance, see Arlene B. Tickner, “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323; Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, International Relations Scholarship Around the World (New York and London: Routledge, 2009); Francesca Lo Castro, “Does International Relations Theory Privilege Western Ways of Thinking and Acting?” 2013; Smith, “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline’”; Ole Waver, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American in and European Developments International Relations,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (2013): 687–727; Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia (Routledge, 2010); Syed Farid Alatas, “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences,” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 30, 2003): 599–613, https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003; John M. Hobson, “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR,” Review of International Studies 33, no. S1 (July 11, 2007): 91, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210507007413.
- 65.
Tickner and Wæver, International Relations Scholarship Around the World, 5.
- 66.
Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction,” International Relations of Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.
- 67.
Alatas, “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences”, 602.
- 68.
Even though most literature in International Relations is evolving to incorporate other theories that have laid outside mainstream concerns and is becoming increasingly non-paradigmatic, however the focus on positivism continues to dominate the literature. See Daniel Maliniak et al., “International Relations in the US Academy,” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2011): 437–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x.
- 69.
Smith, “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline’”, 68.
- 70.
As is apparent for instance, most categories such as failed states, garrison state, client state, etc. that seek to codify state behavior in the Third World have their origins in the western academe. See Walter Mignolo, “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 1 (2002): 57–95.
- 71.
Arlene B. Tickner, “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323; Maliniak et al., “International Relations in the US Academy”; Smith, “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline’”; Castro, “Does International Relations Theory Privilege Western Ways of Thinking and Acting?”
- 72.
See Arlene B. Tickner, “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World,” Millennium—Journal of International Studies 32, no. 2 (June 1, 2003): 295–324, https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320020301; Tickner and Wæver, International Relations Scholarship Around the World; N. Behera, “International Relations in South Asia: State of the Art,” in International Relations in South Asia: Search for an Alternative Paradigm, ed. N. Behera (New Delhi: Sage, 2008); A. Suresh Canagarajah, “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production,” Written Communication 13, no. 4 (1996): 435–72, https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001.
- 73.
For instance Doty’s analysis of Robert Jackson’s work on “Quasi-States, Dual Regimes, and Neoclassical Theory: International Jurisprudence and the Third World” and Campbell’s examination of the NSC 68 document are two important examples in this regard.
- 74.
Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, eds., Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 4.
- 75.
David L. Szanton, The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Discipline, ed. David Szanton, vol. 3 (University of California Press, 2004), https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520245365; Vicente L. Rafael, “Regionalism, Area Studies, and the Accidents of Agency,” The American Historical Review 104, no. 4 (October 1999): 1208–20, https://doi.org/10.2307/2649568; Malini J. Schueller, “Area Studies and Multicultural Imperialism: The Project of Decolonizing Knowledge,” Social Text 25, no. 1 90 (March 1, 2007): 41–62, https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2006-016.
- 76.
Arjun Appadurai, “Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination,” Public Culture 12 (2000): 3, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pc/summary/v012/12.1appadurai.html.
- 77.
Jordan Soukias Tchilingirian, “Producing Knowledge, Producing Credibility: British Think-Tank Researchers and the Construction of Policy Reports,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 31, no. 2 (June 3, 2018): 161–78, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-018-9280-3.
- 78.
For a detailed discussion on Think-tanks and their relationship with the academia in International Relations, see David D. Newsom, “Foreign Policy and Academia,” Foreign Policy 101, no. 101 (1995): 52–67, https://doi.org/10.2307/1149406; Howard Wiarda, “The New Powerhouses: Think Tanks and Foreign Policy,” American Foreign Policy Interests 30, no. 2 (2008): 96–117, https://doi.org/10.1080/10803920802022704.
- 79.
John Mclevey, “Think Tanks, Funding, and the Politics of Policy Knowledge in Canada,” Canadian Review of Sociology 51, no. 1 (2014): 54–75, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cars.12033.
- 80.
Tchilingirian, “Producing Knowledge, Producing Credibility: British Think-Tank Researchers and the Construction of Policy Reports.”
- 81.
Richard Freeman, “Epistemological Bricolage: How Practitioners Make Sense of Learning,” Administration & Society 39, no. 4 (July 26, 2007): 476–96, https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707301857.
- 82.
Lawrence R. Jacobs and Benjamin I. Page, “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review 99, no. 1 (2005): 108.
- 83.
Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations (University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 5, https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Imperial_Encounters.html?id=SUYudGRbIp0C&redir_esc=y.
- 84.
Ibid., 146.
- 85.
Stephen Walt laments that “the deans and faculty at many of these institutions are a who’s who of leading figures in the foreign-policy community, and most of them remain strongly committed to exercising U.S. power far and wide. Not surprisingly, the faculties at these institutions are mostly made up of policy-oriented academics and former government officials, people who are unlikely to question the central premises that have underpinned U.S. foreign policy for many years”. In Stephen Walt, “America’s IR Schools Are Broken,” Foreign Policy, 2018, http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/20/americans-ir-schools-are-broken-international-relations-foreign-policy/.
- 86.
Stuart Hall, ed., Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (Sage in association with the Open University, 1997), 6.
- 87.
Hall.
- 88.
Milliken, “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods.”
- 89.
Ibid., 229.
- 90.
Anthony Burke, “Post-Structural Security Studies,” in Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, ed. Laura J. Shepherd (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), 78.
- 91.
Richard Harvey Brown, “Cultural Representation and Ideological Domination,” Social Forces 71, no. 3 (March 1993): 657–76, https://doi.org/10.2307/2579889.
- 92.
Mallaby, “The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire.”
- 93.
Milliken, “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods”, 229.
- 94.
Ibid., 230.
- 95.
Jackson, “The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies”, 378.
- 96.
Ole Wæver, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (October 1, 1998): 687–727, https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550725.
- 97.
The journal rankings are taken from the data maintained by Scimago Labs and powered by Scopus. See https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3320.
- 98.
Milliken, “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods”, 236.
- 99.
This examination will access the Times Higher Education ranking of universities in International Relations and will look at the corresponding South Asia Centers at these universities.
Bibliography
Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.
———. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Adler, Emanuel. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (1997): 319–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003.
Ahmed, Ishtiaq. “Pakistan’s National Identity.” International Review of Modern Sociology International Review of Modem Sociology 34, no. 1 (2008): 47–59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41421657.
———. Pakistan the Garrison State: Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947–2011). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Alatas, Syed Farid. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 30, 2003): 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003.
Alexander, Wendt. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Appadurai, Arjun. “Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination.” Public Culture 12, no. 1 (2000): 1–19.
Beckley, M. “China and Pakistan: Fair-Weather Friends.” Yale Journal of International Affairs 8, no. 1 (2012): 9–22.
Behera, N. “International Relations in South Asia: State of the Art.” In International Relations in South Asia: Search for an Alternative Paradigm, edited by N. Behera. New Delhi: Sage, 2008.
Bilgin, Pinar, and Adam D. Morton. “Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences?” Third World Quarterly 23, no. 1 (2002): 55–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993576.
———. “From ‘Rogue’ to ‘Failed’ States? The Fallacy of Short-Termism*.” Third World Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2004): 169–80.
Bøås, Morten, and Kathleen M. Jennings. “Insecurity and Development: The Rhetoric of the ‘Failed State.’” The European Journal of Development Research 17, no. 3 (September 1, 2005): 385–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810500209148.
———. “‘Failed States’ and ‘State Failure’: Threats or Opportunities?” Globalizations 4, no. 4 (December 2007): 475–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730701695729.
Brinkerhoff, Derick W.D.W. “Rebuilding Governance in Failed States and Post-Conflict Societies: Core Concepts and Cross-Cutting Themes.” Public Administration and Development 25, no. 1 (February 2005): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.352.
Brown, Richard Harvey. “Cultural Representation and Ideological Domination.” Social Forces 71, no. 3 (March 1993): 657–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579889.
Burke, Anthony. “Post-Structural Security Studies.” In Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, edited by Laura J. Shepherd, 282. London and New York: Routledge, 2013.
Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production.” Written Communication 13, no. 4 (1996): 435–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001.
Castro, Francesca Lo. “Does International Relations Theory Privilege Western Ways of Thinking and Acting?” 2013.
Checkel, Jeffrey. “Review: The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.” World Politics 50, no. 2 (1998): 324–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/25054040.
Clegg, Stewart R. Frameworks of Power. London and New York, 1997.
Cohen, C. A Perilous Course: US Strategy and Assistance to Pakistan. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2007.
Cohen, S. “The Nation and the State of Pakistan.” The Washington Quarterly 25, no. 3 (2002): 109–22.
Cohen, C., and D. Chollet. “When $10 Billion Is Not Enough: Rethinking US Strategy Toward Pakistan.” The Washington Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2007): 7–19.
Cox, Robert W. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10, no. 2 (June 23, 1981): 126–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501.
David C. Engerman. “Bernath Lecture: American Knowledge and Global Power.” Diplomatic History 31, no. 4 (2007): 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2007.00655.x.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
Duncan Bell. “Writing the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond.” International Affairs 85, no. 1 (2009): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2009.00777.x.
Fair, C. Christine. “Pakistan’s Democracy: The Army’s Quarry?” Asian Security 5, no. 1 (2009): 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14799850802611552.
———. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Fair, C. Christine, Keith Crane, Christopher S. Chivvis, Samir Puri, and Michael Spirtas. Pakistan: Can the United States Secure an Insecure State? Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2010.
Freeman, Richard. “Epistemological Bricolage: How Practitioners Make Sense of Learning.” Administration & Society 39, no. 4 (July 26, 2007): 476–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707301857.
Ganguly, Sumit. “Pakistan: Neither State Nor Nation.” In Multination States in Asia: Accommodation or Resistance, edited by Jacques Bertrand and André Laliberté, 309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
George, Marcus. “Foreword.” In Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger, vii–xv. Minneapolis and London: Minnesota University Press, 1999.
Ghani, A., and C. Lockhart. Fixing Failed States: A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Gordon, R. “Saving Failed States: Sometimes a Neocolonialist Notion.” American University International Law Review 12, no. 6 (1997): 903–74.
Gregory, Shaun. Pakistan’s Security: The Insecure State. London: Routledge, 2007.
Gupta, A. Is Pakistan a Failing State? Policy Brief. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 2009. http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/IsPakistanaFailingState_AGupta_160609.
Hall, Stuart, ed. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Sage in Association with the Open University, 1997.
———. “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power.” In The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, 165–73. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006.
Hansen, Lene. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge, 2006.
Hathaway, Robert M. “Leverage and Largesse: Pakistan’s Post-9/11 Partnership with America*.” Contemporary South Asia 16, no. 1 (March 6, 2008): 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09584930701800362.
Hehir, A. “The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1, no. 3 (2007): 307–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502970701592256.
Hobson, John M. “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR.” Review of International Studies 33, no. S1 (July 11, 2007): 91. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210507007413.
Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 23, no. 1 (July 27, 1998): 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.23.1.171.
Imtiaz, H. “Pen Friends: Rohrabacher Writes Letter to Gilani, Calls Pakistan a ‘Failed State.’” Express Tribune, 2012. http://tribune.com.pk/story/373354/pen-friends-rohrabacher-writes-letter-to-gilani-calls-pakistan-a-failed-state/.
Jackson, Richard. “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse.” Government and Opposition 42, no. 3 (March 28, 2007): 394–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00229.x.
———. “The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 1, no. 3 (December 10, 2008): 377–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539150802515046.
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Benjamin I. Page. “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review 99, no. 1 (2005): 107–23.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. Pakistan: Nationalism Without a Nation? London: Zed Books, 2002.
Jha, L. “Pakistan a Failed State: Frank Pallone.” Hindustan Times, 2008. http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-a-failed-state-frank-pallone/article1-356611.aspx.
Jones, Branwen Gruffydd. “The Global Political Economy of Social Crisis: Towards a Critique of the ‘Failed State’ Ideology.” Review of International Political Economy 15, no. 2 (April 16, 2008): 180–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290701869688.
Kagan, F.W., and M. O’Hanlon. “Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem.” New York Times, November 18, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?pagewanted=print.
Karlberg, Michael. “The Power of Discourse and the Discourse of Power: Pursuing Peace Through Discourse Intervention.” International Journal of Peace Studies 10, no. 1 (2005): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/41852070.
Katzenstein, Peter J. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
Kfir, I. “The Crisis in Pakistan: A Dangerously Weak State.” Middle East Review of International Affairs 11, no. 3 (2007): 75–88.
Kugelman, M. “Can China Deliver in Pakistan?” World Politics Review, 2009. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/4733/can-china-deliver-in-pakistan.
Kux, D. Pakistan: Flawed Not Failed State. New York: Foreign Policy Association, 2001.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 2001.
Lezaun, Javier. “Limiting the Social: Constructivism and Social Knowledge in International Relations.” International Studies Review 4, no. 3 (January 1, 2002): 229–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00272.
Lieven, A. Pakistan: A Hard Country. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.
Logan, J., and C. Preble. “Fixing Failed States: A Dissenting View.” In The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, edited by C. Coyne and R. Mathers, 379–96. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011.
Maaka, Roger, and Chris Andersen. The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives. Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006. https://www.canadianscholars.ca/books/the-indigenous-experience.
Maliniak, Daniel, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney. “International Relations in the US Academy.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2011): 437–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x.
Mallaby, Sebastian. “The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire.” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 2 (2002): 2. https://doi.org/10.2307/20033079.
Malmvig, Helle. State Sovereignty and Intervention: A Discourse Analysis of Interventionary and Non-interventionary Practices in Kosovo and Algeria. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Markey, D. No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Pakistan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Mclevey, John. “Think Tanks, Funding, and the Politics of Policy Knowledge in Canada.” Canadian Review of Sociology 51, no. 1 (2014): 54–75. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cars.12033.
Mielke, Katja, and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, eds. Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
Mignolo, Walter. “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 1 (2002): 57–95.
Miller, P. “How to Exercise U.S. Leverage over Pakistan.” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 4 (2012): 37–52. http://csis.org/publication/twq-how-exercise-us-leverage-over-pakistan-fall-2012.
Milliken, Jennifer. “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods.” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 2 (1999): 225–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066199005002003.
Morrison, J. “Embassy Row: ‘A Failing State.’” Washington Times, 2013. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/4/embassy-row-afailing-state/?page=all.
Nawaz, S. Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Newsom, David D. “Foreign Policy and Academia.” Foreign Policy 101, no. 101 (1995): 52–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149406.
Nizamani, Haider K. The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear Weapons in India and Pakistan. Westport: Praeger, 2000.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
Palan, Ronen. “A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 26, no. 31 (2000): 575–98.
Pant, Harsh V. “The Pakistan Thorn in China—India—U.S. Relations.” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2012): 83–95.
Piazza, J. “Incubators of Terror: Do Failed and Failing States Promote Transnational Terrorism?” International Studies Quarterly 52 (2008): 469–88.
Price, Richard, and Christian Reus-Smit. “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.” European Journal of International Relations 4, no. 3 (September 24, 1998): 259–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004003001.
Rafael, Vicente L. “Regionalism, Area Studies, and the Accidents of Agency.” The American Historical Review 104, no. 4 (October 1999): 1208–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649568.
Rashid, A. Descent into Chaos: The World’s Most Unstable Region and the Threat to Global Security. London: Penguin Books, 2009.
Riedel, B. “Pakistan and Terror: The Eye of the Storm.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 618, no. 1 (July 1, 2008): 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208316746.
Robert O. Keohane. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1988): 379–96. http://www.jstor.org.
Root, H. “Pakistan: The Political Economy of State Failure.” The Milken Institute Review 7, no. 2 (2005): 64–74.
Rotberg, R. When States Fail: Causes and Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Schaffer, Teresita C. “US Influence on Pakistan: Can Partners Have Divergent Priorities?” The Washington Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2002): 169–83.
Schueller, Malini J. “Area Studies and Multicultural Imperialism: The Project of Decolonizing Knowledge.” Social Text 25, no. 1 (90) (March 1, 2007): 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2006-016.
Shah, Aqil. “Getting the Military Out of Pakistani Politics: How Aiding the Army Undermines Democracy.” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 3 (2011).
Shaikh, Farzana. Making Sense of Pakistan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Siddiqa-Agha, Ayesha. Pakistan’s Arms Procurement and Military Build-Up 1979–99: In Search of a Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.
Siddiqa, A. Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy. London: Pluto Press, 2007.
Simons, Anna, and David Tucker. “The Misleading Problem of Failed States: A ‘Socio-Geography’ of Terrorism in the Post-9/11 Era.” Third World Quarterly 28, no. 2 (2007): 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590601153887.
Smith, Steve. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.’” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 67–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186354.
Szanton, David L. The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Discipline. Edited by David Szanton. Vol. 3. University of California Press, 2004. https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520245365.
Tabbasum, Salamat Ali. “Political Economy of US Aid to Pakistan: Democratization or Militarization?” 1, no. 1 (2013): 22–31.
Tchilingirian, Jordan Soukias. “Producing Knowledge, Producing Credibility: British Think-Tank Researchers and the Construction of Policy Reports.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 31, no. 2 (June 3, 2018): 161–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-018-9280-3.
Tickner, Arlene B. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium—Journal of International Studies 32, no. 2 (June 1, 2003): 295–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320020301.
———. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323.
Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. New York and London: Routledge, 2009.
Tuathail, Gearoid O., and John Agnew. “Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy.” Political Geography 11, no. 2 (1992): 190–204.
Upreti, B.C. “Nationalism in South Asia: Trends and Interpretations.” Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science The Indian Journal of Political Science 67, no. 3 (2006): 535–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856240.
Wæver, Ole. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (October 1, 1998): 687–727. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550725.
Wæver, Ole. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American in and European Developments International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (2013): 687–727.
Waheed, Ahmed. “Pakistan’s Dependence and US Patronage: The Politics of ‘Limited Influence.’” Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 4, no. 1 (2017): 1–26.
———. The Wrong Ally: Pakistan’s State Sovereignty Under US Dependence. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018.
Walt, Stephen. “America’s IR Schools Are Broken.” Foreign Policy, 2018. http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/20/americans-ir-schools-are-broken-international-relations-foreign-policy/.
Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979. https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Theory_of_International_Politics.html?id=2tOuQwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y.
Wiarda, Howard. “The New Powerhouses: Think Tanks and Foreign Policy.” American Foreign Policy Interests 30, no. 2 (2008): 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803920802022704.
Wilde, R. “The Skewed Responsibility Narrative of the Failed States Concept.” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 9 (2003): 425–29.
Williamson, R.S. “Nation-Building: The Dangers of Weak, Failing, and Failed States.” Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 8 (2007): 9–19.
Zehfuss, Maja. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Ziring, L. “Weak State, Failed State, Garrison State: The Pakistan Saga.” In South Asia’s Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament, edited by T. Paul, 170–95. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Waheed, A.W. (2020). Introduction. In: Constructing 'Pakistan' through Knowledge Production in International Relations and Area Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0742-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0742-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0741-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0742-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)