Id in Worldwide Conflicts: A Case Examine of the Cuban Missile Disaster

A number of IR theories have sought to know worldwide conflicts amongst states, and notably, the position of id has gained momentum in theoretical debate (Berenskoetter, 2017). This essay compares poststructuralism, constructivism and neorealism and argues that, in understanding the position of id in worldwide conflicts, poststructuralism supplies probably the most compelling account. Considerably, poststructuralism explores the structure of a state’s id, how id can “make potential” for overseas insurance policies to hold out in worldwide conflicts and the mutually constitutive results between overseas insurance policies and id (Campbell, 2013). Neorealism lacks these parts, and though constructivism discusses id, its explorations are usually not as complete as these of poststructuralism. This paper adopts the Cuban Missile Disaster to justify its argument, as this seminal occasion led to “the brink of nuclear battle” (Allison, 1971: 39) and brought about “a better likelihood that extra human lives would finish instantly than ever earlier than in historical past” (Allison, 1969: 689). The essay first critically explores the three theories above after which examines my empirical case research.

Neorealism

Neorealism believes that an “anarchic system” traps states in an “iron cage” with “unremitting competitors for energy” (Mearsheimer, 2013: 78, 80). As such, states residing in a “self-help world” with “ceaseless safety competitions” are pressured to concentrate on the steadiness of energy (materials capabilities) to realize their “predominant purpose”—survival (Mearsheimer, 2013: 79, 80). On this “aggressive world”, “all states are potential threats”; thus, “battle is frequent” (Mearsheimer, 1990: 12). Root causes of conflicts, then, lie within the structure of the worldwide system slightly than the character of particular person states (Mearsheimer, 1990: 12), as states are seen as “black packing containers”, “assumed to be alike” (Mearsheimer, 2013: 78) and regarded to be in pursuit of energy. Neorealist argue that components that decide the probability of battle embrace “polarity of the system”, “energy steadiness”, “energy shifts” and “distribution of powers” amongst states (Mearsheimer, 2013: 84–88). When there may be peace, it is because of rational actors calculating the “price and advantages” and discovering the prices to be too excessive to enter the battle (Mearsheimer, 1990: 13).

In assuming that every one states are “self-interested” (Hopf, 1998: 175) and that materials energy is probably the most influential determinant of states’ behaviour (Hopf, 1998: 177), nonetheless, neorealism is problematic. With neorealism’s (neo) positivist epistemology, energy shouldn’t be solely mounted and noticed scientifically, however it’s nothing greater than materials powers and the state’s functionality to hold them out (Brooks, 1997: 447). Any ideational components are ignored. Extra crucially, neorealism holds that “[the] state is ontologically previous to the worldwide system” (Ashely, 1984: 240), and states’ pursuits and existence are “handled as given” (Ashely, 1984: 238), unbiased of any social establishments and social powers (Ashely, 1984: 243, 244). Neorealists assume that states are unitary actors with a “single everlasting which means” and “[the] similar prior pursuits” (Hopf, 1998: 176) in search of their “intrinsic wishes” (Ashely, 1984: 243). The position of id is uncared for, as all states are assumed to be self-help actors with the identical function. Social processes are ignored (Roush, 2020) and states are taken with no consideration (Hansen, 2017: 167). Ashely claims that the “[p]roposition that states could be primarily problematic…is excluded from neorealist principle” (1984: 238) and in reality, “removed from questioning commonsense look”, the “neorealist orrery hypostasizes them” (Ashely, 1984: 237). Thus, neorealism clearly excludes the position of id in worldwide conflicts.

Constructivism

Recognising the often-blurred boundary between important constructivism and poststructuralism (each adapt an identical discursive epistemology, e.g. Weldes, 1999a), this essay follows Hansen (2006) in not dividing them; thus, “constructivism” on this essay refers to standard constructivism. Constructivism and neorealism each intention to elucidate the causes of states’ actions; nonetheless, constructivism recognises “the significance of id” (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 12) and “concentrates on problems with id in world politics” (Hopf, 1998: 172), as a world with out an id can be “chaos” (Hopf, 1998: 175). In contrast to neorealism, constructivism appreciates “social forces” (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 4) and argues that “intersubjective meanings outline social actuality” (Adler, 1997: 327). Moreover, whereas realising the “existence of the fabric world”, they argue that actors act based mostly on socially constituted “collective interpretations of the exterior world” (Adler, 1997: 330). Constructivism holds that id is constituted by a cognitive understanding amongst actors (Adler, 1997: 332) whose identities are created on the “foundation of information that individuals have of themselves and others” (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 43). States achieve id by way of social learnings that assist them perceive themselves in relation to others (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 47; Zehfuss, 2001: 319); thus, id shouldn’t be given however made. Believing that social identities exist previous to conceptions of curiosity (Corridor, 1993: 51), constructivism argues that states’ pursuits and actions are identity-based (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 46; Value & Reus-Smit, 1998: 259; Hopf, 2002: 16; 1998: 175; Koslowski & Kratochwil, 1994: 223; Flockhart, 2016: 87; Barnett, 2017). Additional, this comparatively “mounted or fixed” id (Hopf, 1998:183) supplies “steady expectations” in the direction of others’ actions (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 34). Thus, the “identification of good friend or foe” (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 46) determines whether or not states enter conflicts.

Though constructivism engages with the position of id, its strategy nonetheless has limitations. It argues that actors achieve their social identities by way of interactions and states’ pursuits and behaviours happen accordingly. That is problematic because it nonetheless requires us to have “imagined [actors] on their very own” and “know” what actors are like earlier than coming to be a part of the context (Zehfuss, 2001: 332, 333). Constructivism “accepts the existence” and affords “no account” of id’s origins (Hopf, 1998: 184). It presents id as “harmless” and “comparatively freed from prior assumptions” (Zehfuss, 2001: 336) and excludes the preliminary strategy of “setting up state id” (Zehfuss, 2001: 335). Subsequently, a selected id is already in place earlier than social interactions happen. Furthermore, to recognise id modifications in interactions, constructivism should “establish the id an actor ‘has’ at any given level” (327). On this logic, particular person states are handled as a “unified entity” (Zehfuss, 2001: 337) “with out [a] distinction” (Zehfuss, 2001: 332). This “anthropomorphic” idea treats states as if they’re “unitary actors with minds, need and intentions” (Zehfuss, 2001: 335). It’s “inconceivable to acknowledge the complexity” of this “seemingly pure narrative of id”, and the exclusion of the “strategy of building of states as a bearer of id” additionally ignores the ability politics behind this articulation (Zehfuss, 2001:333, 335, 336). Constructivism’s “ontological basis… precludes investigation into energy as constitutive of topics” (Doty, 1993: 299) and thus fails to query how a state’s particular id comes into being. Moreover, this view has led to constructivism posing “why questions” (why states behave this like this), which already presume this particular motion “may occur”(Doty, 1993: 298). As such, constructivism presupposes an actor’s means to think about these actions, and thus, their id “should already be in place” (Doty, 1993: 298). Briefly, though constructivism engages with id on a a lot bigger scale than neorealism, it nonetheless fails to discover id formation previous to the social interplay and views the state as a “unitary actor” with a single id.

Poststructuralism

Poststructuralism, like constructivism, goals to denaturalise the social world (Hopf, 1998: 182) however goes deeper than constructivism. It questions the ontological assumptions we make in regards to the world and the way sure issues that appear “pure” and “apparent” are problematic (Hansen, 2017: 171). It holds the non-foundationalist perspective that realities “haven’t any ontological standing” other than the acts that represent them (Campbell, 1998: 9). This isn’t to disclaim that objects exist externally to thought however that “objects may represent themselves as objects exterior any discursive situation of emergence” (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985: 108), as “we are able to by no means know [the existence of the world]” past discourse (Campbell, 1998: 6). Poststructuralism argues that “we should not think about that the world turns towards us a legible face which we might solely need to decipher” (Foucault, 1984: 127). With this “post-positivist epistemology”, poststructuralism makes use of a discursive practices strategy to unpack the “linguistic building of actuality” (Doty, 1993: 302). Thus, it denies the existence of an “goal yardstick” that may outline realities, crises or identities (Hansen, 2017: 159; Nabers, 2019: 2). For poststructuralism, “id is an inescapable dimension of being”, however it “shouldn’t be mounted by nature” (Campbell, 1998: 9). Id shouldn’t be given (Derrida, 1998: 28) however is performatively constituted and relies on discourses (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 374; Doty, 1993: 304; Hansen, 2017: 164, 169; Campbell, 1998: 5, 9; 2013: 234; Zehfuss, 2001, 336). Accordingly, a state is known as an “imagined political group” (Anderson, 1991) whose “id” “is constituted in relation to distinction” (Campbell, 1998: 9; 2013, 238). In poststructuralism, “[the] structure of id is achieved by way of the inscription of boundaries that serve to demarcate an ‘inside’ from an ‘exterior’” (Campbell, 1998: 9), “self” from “different” and “us” from “them”. Furthermore, this boundary is “secured by the illustration of hazard” (Campbell, 1998: 3). Poststructuralism thereby explores the development of id in a means that constructivism doesn’t.

Poststructuralism additionally understands that it’s “inconceivable [for states] to keep up a coherent id” (Roush, 2020), as there exists no goal, steady actuality, dichotomy nor major id (Hansen, 2017: 169; Campbell, 1998: 11). States are thus “all the time in [the] strategy of turning into” (Campbell, 1998: 12), which requires a “regulated strategy of repetition” (Butler, 1990: 136) of discursive practices to (re)produce this id. States due to this fact want replica to “keep” their id’s realness (Hansen, 2017: 169). Attributable to challenges towards “apparent” and “goal” look; as poststructuralism argues, this “naturalness” is created and maintained by repeated articulations (Weldes, 1996: 285). States shouldn’t be handled as “unitary actors” with a single id as they’re in neorealism and constructivism. 

This brings us to energy politics. Energy is “productive” (Doty, 1993; Hansen, 2017: 164). Via energy discourse, particular information is exercised and produced (Edkins, 2005: 4). This energy/information nexus prioritises particular information that articulates meanings for objects whereas on the similar time “marginalis[ing]” different “realities” and “identities” (Foucault, 2004: 7). This energy discourse, whereas constituting seemingly “pure” realities (identities) (Hansen, 2017: 164), additionally workouts authority. It determines what “actual” id a state “has”. Different potential “identities” are thus denied. If we settle for that energy discourse creates a single id for states and thus advantages some teams on the expense of others (Roush, 2020), then the “why questions” posed by constructivism are problematic (Doty, 1993). Energy discourse is usually uncared for in “why questions”. Poststructuralism, nonetheless, asks “how questions”, e.g. how actuality is articulated and the way specific overseas insurance policies have been legitimised and allowed to occur (Doty, 1993: 298, 305). Poststructuralism additionally views the connection between id and overseas coverage as mutually constituted: “id is concurrently a product of and the justification for overseas insurance policies” (Hansen, 2017: 169). Recognising that constituted id wants fixed (re)manufacturing and that it “permits” particular overseas insurance policies to occur, poststructuralism argues that overseas insurance policies and actions in conflicts and crises additionally (re)produce and (re)articulate states’ identities (Hansen, 2017: 169). This exploration of the three theories reveals that poststructuralism supplies probably the most compelling account of id in conflicts, because it compensates for the constraints inside neorealism and constructivism.

Case Examine: The Cuban Missile Disaster

Having critically engaged with these three theories, we now transfer to an empirical case research on the Cuban Missile Disaster, one of many largest “Chilly Struggle confrontations” between the US and Soviet Union that occurred in October 1962 (Historical past, 2019). It started when a US U-2 spy airplane found the Soviets’ missile deployment in Cuba on 14 October. The US then urged the Soviets to take away the missiles. Throughout the disaster, the US was “quickly prepar[ing] [for] a considerable air assault and land invasion pressure” (Garthoff, 1992: 47) towards Cuba whereas additionally enacting insurance policies similar to blockades. The disaster was heightened to the purpose the place it virtually led to a nuclear battle between the US and the Soviets (Allison, 1971: 39).

Having launched the background, neorealism’s limitations are actually examined by way of utility to this case research. Inside neorealism’s theoretical mannequin, the “trigger” of conflicts and US aggression in the direction of Cuba is thought to be the “aggressive nature of bipolar politics” between the US and Soviet Union (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 365). Below the mannequin, the Soviet Union’s deployment of missiles in Cuba was threatening the US’s survival; thus, the US needed to counter the Soviets and pressure them to take away the missiles (Weldes & Saco, 1996:365). Nevertheless, this rationalization not solely neglects the position of id however can also be incorrect. If bipolar superpower politics brought about the conflicts, “then the tip of the Chilly Struggle and Soviet threats ought to [have] sign[led] a decline” (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 365) in US hostility in the direction of Cuba, however this antagonism has not modified instantly after the tip of the Chilly battle (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 365). Furthermore, then US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara argued afterwards that the Soviet’s missile deployment “made no distinction”, as it might not have critically threatened the US: “Can anybody critically inform me that [Soviet] having 340 [missiles] would have made any distinction?” (Blight and Welch, 1990: 23). It’s due to this fact clear that inspecting solely the ability steadiness affords a restricted account of the disaster.

Having denied the usefulness of neorealism’s theoretical strategy, the next sections look at the position of id to know the case. To totally perceive the position of id in worldwide conflicts, a compelling principle ought to discover the preliminary strategy of id “building”. This part will denaturalises the “id” of the state by inspecting quite a few US discourses across the disaster interval, and poststructuralism’s superiority to constructivism might be evident as id was constructed by way of discourses.

In US discourses, the Soviet Union has been articulated as an “different” that’s in distinction with “self” and has been given a unfavourable id in distinction to the US. The Soviet missile deployment was usually articulated as threatening in US discourses; for instance, Dean Rusk, then the US Secretary of State said that it was an “aggressive intervention” into the Western Hemisphere (Weldes, 1996: 290). Douglas Dillon equally said that missile deployment is a “navy intrusion [from] a overseas nation” (Dillon, 1964). “Others” with “intrusion” traits are established on this discourse. Extra considerably, in Kennedy’s (1962) speech, the Soviet Union was linked with “secrecy and deception”, with their missile deployments a “secret, swift and extraordinary” “fast offensive buildup”. Discourse represented these Soviet missiles as “clearly offensive” and in search of to “assault” “the Western Hemisphere”; thus, they have been a “menace to the peace and safety of all of the Americas” (Kennedy, 1962). The Soviets’ “clandestine resolution” was depicted as a “provocative and unjustified” transfer, in opposition to the US’s “justified” additional motion. 

In distinction, the US, together with the “world group”, positioned itself as being “against battle”, claiming it consisted of “peaceable folks” who hope “for a peaceable world” (ibid). The Soviets’ “misleading” and “secretive” traits have been additional contrasted with the US’s “openness” within the US Division of State’s (1962) discourses: “Our missiles overseas are established below open and introduced agreements”, whereas “Soviet missiles have been positioned in Cuba in secret with none public statements and with out an alliance” (7–8). Via discourse, distinct identities are represented, as Robert Kennedy, then the US Legal professional Basic’s discourse clearly exhibits: “We (the US) had not been that type of nation [the Soviet Union]” (Weldes, 1999b: 41). These official discourses established a threatening, aggressive, secretive and duplicitous Soviet id (Weldes, 1996: 290). Furthermore, by establishing “others”, the US was recognized as a “peaceable”, “justified” “international chief” (US Nationwide Safety Council, 1950: 390) in these dichotomous discourses (Weldes, 1996: 282, 299). 

Cuba’s id, too, was constituted by US Chilly Struggle discourse. Cuba was articulated as an “imprisoned island” (Kennedy, 1962), managed and betrayed by the “Castro gang” (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 385). As showcased in Eisenhower’s discourse earlier, Cuba is believed to be “serving Soviet functions” (380). Later, this “Soviet serving position” was reproduced in The New York Instances (1961): Cuba is described as “a brand new satellite tv for pc” established by the Russians, “[governed] by Khrushchev’s chief puppet” (10). In these discourses, the Castro authorities controlling Cuba is thus constructed as being the “Soviets’ software”.

Therefore, the US’s id shouldn’t be pre-given; its id conceptions relaxation upon discursive (re)manufacturing of a relationship of distinction (Weldes, 1999b: 59). US discourses in “differentiating the US from the aggressive different [(Cuba controlled by Castro and Soviets)]… constituted a US id” (Weldes, 1999b: 44). Thus, an id is secured by reworking distinction “into otherness, into evil or one among its quite a few surrogates” (Connolly, 1991: 64). Fairly than assuming the US has a peaceable, justified international management id and the Soviet Union has a misleading, harmful communist id when coming into social interactions, like constructivism may, poststructuralism by way of discourse evaluation unpacks id building.   

Poststructuralism’s compelling account additionally lies in that it investigates the results of energy politics behind discourse that (re)assemble the US id in a selected means. Poststructuralism argues that the state shouldn’t be a “unitary actor” with a single id and that id is unstable and is extra problematic than it appears to be (Zehfuss, 2001). Via these highly effective (official, high-profile) discourses, the US got here to be represented as a state that acquires a peaceable democratic id towards the evil Soviet Union. These energy discourses have marginalised different discourses that articulate a distinct US id. Energy discourses have usually articulated US overseas missile deployment in Turkey and Italy as “open” and “defensive” in distinction with the Soviets’ “offensive” ones. That is apparent when inspecting Stevenson, then US politician’s speech, the place he argued that the US’s overseas missiles are deployed “with out concealment or deceit” and are “publicly declared” and positioned “within the NATO space in response to the menace posed to NATO by Soviet missiles” (Stevenson, 1962: 729). This discourse constituted a “single id” that’s “defensive” and bonafide to the US. This successfully oppressed different potential representational discourses. In reality, in the course of the Chilly Struggle, there have been anti-nuclear protests within the US which included discourses like “No double requirements, US bases aren’t any completely different” (Estuary Press, n.d.) inside the US. These marginalised discourses might need articulated a distinct US id, one that may have articulated US as an imperialist energy. Therefore, states’ id is constituted by way of energy discourse. Constructivism and neorealism each treats states as unitary actors with a single id, thus they overlook the ability politics behind discourse that represent a selected id on the expense of others. Thereby, poststructuralism supplies an in-depth exploration on id. 

An additional means by which poststructuralism permits us to higher perceive the position of id in conflicts is that they look at “how” a sure “id” allows particular overseas insurance policies and conflicts. Importantly, solely by way of discussing how energy discourse marginalises different potential constituted “identit[ies]” can one perceive why “why questions” are problematic (Doty, 1993). Via the development of an aggressive id of the Soviet Union and Cuba, discourse permits for the “possib[le] circumstances for the existence of phenomena” (Majeski & Sylvan, 1991: 8)—that’s, US overseas insurance policies. These “hostile and aggressive [US] overseas insurance policies” (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 378) have been made potential by way of discourses that articulated the US as a worldwide chief who must “defend” the Western Hemisphere and Cuba as an aggressive puppet for the Soviet Union. These “threatening” and “offensive” traits related to Soviet and Cuban id made the US’s insurance policies seem not solely “wise” however even “seemingly unavoidable” (Weldes & Saco, 1996:  378). In spite of everything, in contrast to the Soviet Union or Castro’s Cuba, “[the US] stands for freedom” (Kennedy, 1961 in Weldes, 1999b: 42), and its missiles defend the Western Hemisphere towards threats to “world peace” (Kennedy, 1962). With these contrasts, it appears affordable (certainly, inevitable and fascinating) that “the most recent Soviet menace should and might be met by [the US through] no matter motion is required” (Kennedy, 1962). Furthermore, the Castro authorities’s framing as “puppets and agent[s]” below an “worldwide conspiracy” and the US “shar[ing] [Cuban populations’] aspirations for liberty and justice” additional permits the US to invade Cuba to “save” the folks from Soviet domination (Kennedy, 1962). Accordingly, it “appears” affordable for a “peaceable, legit international chief” such because the US to implement overseas insurance policies, requiring the Soviets to take away missiles in Cuba and even their missile deployments in Turkey and Italy. 

As soon as we recognise how US id was constituted by way of energy discourse, we are able to then realise that these insurance policies are usually not as unproblematic as they appear to be. Overseas insurance policies have been made potential by this constituted US id in the course of the Chilly Struggle, with out which none of those overseas insurance policies can be justified or allowed. By asking why the US engaged in battle with the Soviets, constructivism assumes a unitary goal US id. They could argue that the Soviets have been posing a menace to the US, as they’ve acquired a “totalitarian communist id”, and that the US understands itself as a “democratic international chief” that should interact in conflicts. Nevertheless, this constructivist understanding is proscribed in that it fails to query how your entire battle was made potential. The Cuban Missile Disaster was made potential by an influence discourse constituted US id. Poststructuralism efficiently supplies a complete account of the position of id within the conflicts; by way of its epistemology, id could be denaturalised and the makings of the Cuban Missile Disaster could be understood.

Fairly than taking a look at a a technique causal hyperlink between id and overseas polices, poststructuralism expands our understanding by exploring their mutual constitutional relationship. US id not solely permits overseas insurance policies to occur however is itself a results of overseas insurance policies. US missile deployment in Turkey and Italy considerably (re)constituted US id as a protector of the West. Insurance policies towards Cuba similar to “direct[ing] the Armed Forces to arrange for any eventualities” (Kennedy, 1962) and blockading illustrate the identical results. These discursive acts create the picture that the Soviets’ missile deployment in Cuba was offensive and that the US is a worldwide chief that may reply to this menace with dedication. This id was additionally being rearticulated by way of the US’s “continued and elevated shut surveillance of Cuba and its navy buildup” (Kennedy, 1962). This surveillance serves to assemble the Soviets as a menace that must be carefully monitored and the US as a pacesetter taking over this duty. Extra considerably, by finally “forcing the removing of the Soviet missiles”, the US id as a hemispheric chief “in defence of freedom” was once more (re)articulated (Weldes, 1999b: 55). The Cuban Missile Disaster and US overseas insurance policies are mutually constituted with US id. The disaster was “not solely enabled by a selected illustration of the US however concurrently made it potential for that id itself actively to be (re)produced” (Weldes, 1999b: 53). Constructivism narrowly focuses on how a selected id “causes” sure practices or conflicts, whereas poststructuralism recognises that these overseas insurance policies and conflicts are additionally (re)producing state’s id. 

Thus, the exploration of those three theories and their utility to the Cuban Missile Disaster reveal that poststructuralism supplies probably the most compelling account of id’s position in worldwide conflicts. Its strengths lie in its shut consideration to the preliminary building of id, whereas neorealism utterly neglects it and constructivism, although it recognises id, doesn’t look at the id a state “has” previous to social interactions. Poststructuralism additionally recognises the ability politics behind particular articulations and problematises the seemingly “apparent” state id, whereas each neorealism and constructivism deal with states as a unitary actor with a single id. Poststructuralism additionally questions how worldwide conflicts and overseas insurance policies are made potential, whereas the others don’t. Moreover, solely poststructuralism explores the mutual establishing results between overseas insurance policies and id. To totally perceive id’s position in worldwide conflicts, we should discover “id” itself and never deal with it as given or pure. The US didn’t enter social interactions with a given peaceable, democratic and international chief id—it was established by way of energy discourses. Had different much less highly effective discourses not been marginalised, the US’s id could be understood otherwise. With out this optimistic id, its overseas insurance policies could have been blocked, and the disaster seemingly would have had a distinct end result. Subsequently, this essay concludes that of neorealism, constructivism and poststructuralism, solely the latter can present a complete understanding of id’s position in worldwide conflicts. 

Bibliography

Adler, E. (1997) “Seizing the Center Floor:: Constructivism in World Politics”, European Journal of Worldwide Relations 3(3): 319–363.

Adler, E. and Barnett, M. (eds.) (1998) Safety Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press).

Allison, Graham T. (1969) “Conceptual Fashions and the Cuban Missile Disaster”, The American Political Science Overview 63(3): 689-718.

Allison, Graham T. (1971) Essence of Determination, 1^st version (Boston: Little, Brown & Firm).

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Unfold of Nationalism, revised version (New York: Verso).

Ashley, R. Okay. (1984) “The Poverty of Neorealism”, Worldwide Group 38(2): 225–286.

Barnett, M. (2017) “Social constructivism”, in Baylis, J., Owens, P., and Smith, S. (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to Worldwide Relations, 7^th version (Oxford: Oxford College Press), 144-158.

Berenskoetter, F. (2017) “Id in Worldwide Relations”, Oxford Analysis Encyclopedia of Worldwide Research, 22 December, accessed at https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-218, 16 April 2021.

Blight, J. G. and Welch, D. A. (eds.) (1990) On the Brink: People and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Disaster, 2nd version (New York: The Noonday Press). 

Brooks, S. G. (1997) “Dueling Realisms”, International Group 51(3): 445-477. 

Butler, J. (1990) Gender Bother: Feminism and the Subversion of Id, 1^st version (New York: Routledge).

Campbell, D. (1998) Writing Safety: United States Overseas Coverage and the Politics of Id (Manchester: Manchester College Press).

Campbell, D. (2013) “Poststructuralism”, in Dunne, T. et al (eds.) Worldwide Relations Theories: Self-discipline and Range, third version (Oxford: Oxford College Press), 203-228.

Connolly, W. (1991) Id, Distinction Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, 1^st version (Minneapolis: College of Minnesota Press).