PropertyValue
?:about
?:abstract
  • Existing research on exceptionalism in foreign policy suggests a number of confrontational features making it a threat to peaceful international relations. Largely based on US and European cases, and hardly ever taking a comparative approach, this literature overlooks a variety of exceptionalisms in non-Western countries, including so called "rising powers" such as China and India. A comparison between exceptionalist foreign policy discourses of the United States, China, India, and Turkey shows that exceptionalism is neither exclusive to the United States, nor a "new" phenomenon within rising powers, nor necessarily confrontational, unilateralist, or exemptionalist. As a prerequisite for comparative work, we establish two features common to all exceptionalist foreign policy discourses. In essence, such discourses are informed by supposedly universal values derived from a particular civilization heritage or political history. In order to systematize different versions of exceptionalism, we then propose four ideal types, each of which reflects exceptionalism's common trait of a claim to moral superiority and uniqueness but diverges across other important dimensions, with implications for its potentially offensive character. The article concludes by formulating a research agenda for future comparative work on exceptionalist foreign policy discourses and their repercussions for great power relations and global politics. (xsd:string)
?:contributor
?:dateModified
  • 2019 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2019 (xsd:gyear)
?:doi
  • isr/viy008 ()
?:duplicate
?:hasFulltext
  • true (xsd:boolean)
is ?:hasPart of
?:inLanguage
  • en (xsd:string)
?:isPartOf
?:issn
  • 1468-2486 ()
?:issueNumber
  • 1 (xsd:string)
?:linksDOI
?:linksURN
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • Comparative exceptionalism: universality and particularity in foreign policy discourses (xsd:string)
?:provider
?:publicationType
  • Zeitschriftenartikel (xsd:string)
  • journal_article (en)
?:sourceInfo
  • GESIS-SSOAR (xsd:string)
  • In: International Studies Review, 21, 2019, 1, 12–37 (xsd:string)
rdf:type
?:url
?:urn
  • urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-61777-3 ()
?:volumeNumber
  • 21 (xsd:string)