« Normes » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
Ligne 15 : Ligne 15 :
*Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
*Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
*Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations.European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.
*Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations.European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.
*Kratochwil, F. (2000). Constructing a new orthodoxy? Wendt's "Social Theory ofInternational Politics" and the constructivist challenge. Millennium: Journal ofInternational Studies, 29(1), 73–101.!
*Kratochwil, F. (2000). Constructing a new orthodoxy? Wendt's "Social Theory ofInternational Politics" and the constructivist challenge. Millennium: Journal ofInternational Studies, 29(1), 73–101.
*Hobson, J. M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.!
*Hobson, J. M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.!
*Risse, T. (2000). « ’Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics »,International Organization, 54(1): 1-39.!
*Risse, T. (2000). « ’Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics »,International Organization, 54(1): 1-39.
*Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
*Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
*Adamson, F. B. (2005). Global Liberalism Versus Political Islam: Competing IdeologicalFrameworks in International Politics. Mershon International Studies Review, 7(4), 547–569.!
*Adamson, F. B. (2005). Global Liberalism Versus Political Islam: Competing IdeologicalFrameworks in International Politics. Mershon International Studies Review, 7(4), 547–569.
*Fassin, D. (2010). La raison humanitaire. Une histoire morale du temps présent. Paris:Gallimard/Seuil.!
*Fassin, D. (2010). La raison humanitaire. Une histoire morale du temps présent. Paris:Gallimard/Seuil.
*Foucault, M. (2004). Sécurité, territoire, population. Cours au Collège de France, 1977-1978.Paris: Gallimard/Seuil.!
*Foucault, M. (2004). Sécurité, territoire, population. Cours au Collège de France, 1977-1978.Paris: Gallimard/Seuil.
*Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress.!
*Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress.!
*Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change.International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.!
*Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change.International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
*Gusterson, H. (1999). “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination.”Cultural Anthropology 14 (1): 111–143.!
*Gusterson, H. (1999). “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination.”Cultural Anthropology 14 (1): 111–143.
*Hobson, John M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
*Hobson, John M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.



Version du 1 mars 2014 à 10:41

Enjeux et concepts clefs

Pourquoi étudier les normes ?

Qu'est-ce qu'une norme ?

La tradition constructiviste en RelationsInternationales

La constitution du sens et de la réalité́ sociale

Les enjeux conceptuels clef

Regards critiques=

Rappel

La « cycle de vie » des normes

La norme de non-prolifération des armes nucléaires

Le biais libéral et l'absence du politique

De la norme à la normalité

De la normalité à l'ordre international

Références

  • Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
  • Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations.European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.
  • Kratochwil, F. (2000). Constructing a new orthodoxy? Wendt's "Social Theory ofInternational Politics" and the constructivist challenge. Millennium: Journal ofInternational Studies, 29(1), 73–101.
  • Hobson, J. M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.!
  • Risse, T. (2000). « ’Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics »,International Organization, 54(1): 1-39.
  • Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
  • Adamson, F. B. (2005). Global Liberalism Versus Political Islam: Competing IdeologicalFrameworks in International Politics. Mershon International Studies Review, 7(4), 547–569.
  • Fassin, D. (2010). La raison humanitaire. Une histoire morale du temps présent. Paris:Gallimard/Seuil.
  • Foucault, M. (2004). Sécurité, territoire, population. Cours au Collège de France, 1977-1978.Paris: Gallimard/Seuil.
  • Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress.!
  • Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change.International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
  • Gusterson, H. (1999). “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination.”Cultural Anthropology 14 (1): 111–143.
  • Hobson, John M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.

Notes


<vote type=1 />