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

A number of IR theories have sought to grasp 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 essentially the most compelling account. Considerably, poststructuralism explores the structure of a state’s id, how id can “make attainable” for international insurance policies to hold out in worldwide conflicts and the mutually constitutive results between international insurance policies and id (Campbell, 2013). Neorealism lacks these elements, and though constructivism discusses id, its explorations should 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 prompted “the next likelihood that extra human lives would finish abruptly 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 compelled to deal with the steadiness of energy (materials capabilities) to attain their “foremost objective”—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 quite 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 thought of to be in pursuit of energy. Neorealist argue that components that decide the probability of battle embody “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 “value and advantages” and discovering the prices to be too excessive to enter the battle (Mearsheimer, 1990: 13).

In assuming that each one states are “self-interested” (Hopf, 1998: 175) and that materials energy is essentially the most influential determinant of states’ behaviour (Hopf, 1998: 177), nevertheless, neorealism is problematic. With neorealism’s (neo) positivist epistemology, energy just isn’t solely fastened 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), impartial of any social establishments and social powers (Ashely, 1984: 243, 244). Neorealists assume that states are unitary actors with a “single everlasting that means” and “[the] identical prior pursuits” (Hopf, 1998: 176) looking for 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 objective. 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 basically problematic…is excluded from neorealist principle” (1984: 238) and actually, “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 crucial constructivism and poststructuralism (each adapt an analogous discursive epistemology, e.g. Weldes, 1999a), this essay follows Hansen (2006) in not dividing them; thus, “constructivism” on this essay refers to traditional constructivism. Constructivism and neorealism each goal to clarify the causes of states’ actions; nevertheless, 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 could be “chaos” (Hopf, 1998: 175). Not like 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 primarily based 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 folks have of themselves and others” (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 43). States achieve id by social learnings that assist them perceive themselves in relation to others (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 47; Zehfuss, 2001: 319); thus, id just isn’t 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 “fastened or fixed” id (Hopf, 1998:183) supplies “secure expectations” in the direction of others’ actions (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 34). Thus, the “identification of pal or foe” (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 46) determines whether or not states enter conflicts.

Though constructivism engages with the position of id, its method nonetheless has limitations. It argues that actors achieve their social identities by 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 presents “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 “developing state id” (Zehfuss, 2001: 335). Subsequently, a selected id is already in place earlier than social interactions happen. Furthermore, to recognise id adjustments in interactions, constructivism should “determine 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 development 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 capacity 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 concerning 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’d solely should decipher” (Foucault, 1984: 127). With this “post-positivist epistemology”, poststructuralism makes use of a discursive practices method to unpack the “linguistic development 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 “just isn’t fastened by nature” (Campbell, 1998: 9). Id just isn’t given (Derrida, 1998: 28) however is performatively constituted and will depend 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 neighborhood” (Anderson, 1991) whose “id” “is constituted in relation to distinction” (Campbell, 1998: 9; 2013, 238). In poststructuralism, “[the] structure of id is achieved by 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 approach 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, secure actuality, dichotomy nor major id (Hansen, 2017: 169; Campbell, 1998: 11). States are thus “all the time in [the] strategy of changing into” (Campbell, 1998: 12), which requires a “regulated strategy of repetition” (Butler, 1990: 136) of discursive practices to (re)produce this id. States subsequently want replica to “preserve” their id’s realness (Hansen, 2017: 169). Resulting from 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 data is exercised and produced (Edkins, 2005: 4). This energy/data nexus prioritises particular data that articulates meanings for objects whereas on the identical 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 attainable “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 commonly uncared for in “why questions”. Poststructuralism, nevertheless, asks “how questions”, e.g. how actuality is articulated and the way specific international insurance policies have been legitimised and allowed to occur (Doty, 1993: 298, 305). Poststructuralism additionally views the connection between id and international coverage as mutually constituted: “id is concurrently a product of and the justification for international insurance policies” (Hansen, 2017: 169). Recognising that constituted id wants fixed (re)manufacturing and that it “permits” particular international insurance policies to occur, poststructuralism argues that international 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 essentially the most compelling account of id in conflicts, because it compensates for the restrictions 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 greatest “Chilly Conflict confrontations” between the US and Soviet Union that occurred in October 1962 (Historical past, 2019). It started when a US U-2 spy aircraft found the Soviets’ missile deployment in Cuba on 14 October. The US then urged the Soviets to take away the missiles. Through the disaster, the US was “quickly prepar[ing] [for] a considerable air assault and land invasion power” (Garthoff, 1992: 47) towards Cuba whereas additionally enacting insurance policies corresponding to blockades. The disaster was heightened to the purpose the place it nearly 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 utility to this case research. Inside neorealism’s theoretical mannequin, the “trigger” of conflicts and US aggression in the direction of Cuba is considered the “aggressive nature of bipolar politics” between the US and Soviet Union (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 365). Underneath 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 power them to take away the missiles (Weldes & Saco, 1996:365). Nonetheless, this rationalization not solely neglects the position of id however can be incorrect. If bipolar superpower politics prompted the conflicts, “then the top of the Chilly Conflict 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 top 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 will 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 subsequently clear that inspecting solely the ability steadiness presents a restricted account of the disaster.

Having denied the usefulness of neorealism’s theoretical method, the next sections study the position of id to grasp the case. To totally perceive the position of id in worldwide conflicts, a compelling principle ought to discover the preliminary strategy of id “development”. 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 will probably be evident as id was constructed by discourses.

In US discourses, the Soviet Union has been articulated as an “different” that’s in distinction with “self” and has been given a detrimental id in distinction to the US. The Soviet missile deployment was typically articulated as threatening in US discourses; for instance, Dean Rusk, then the US Secretary of State acknowledged that it was an “aggressive intervention” into the Western Hemisphere (Weldes, 1996: 290). Douglas Dillon equally acknowledged that missile deployment is a “army intrusion [from] a international 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” “speedy offensive buildup”. Discourse represented these Soviet missiles as “clearly offensive” and looking for to “assault” “the Western Hemisphere”; thus, they have been a “risk to the peace and safety of all of the Americas” (Kennedy, 1962). The Soviets’ “clandestine choice” 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 neighborhood”, 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 Lawyer Normal’s discourse clearly exhibits: “We (the US) had not been that sort 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 Conflict 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’ instrument”.

Therefore, the US’s id just isn’t 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 in every of its quite a few surrogates” (Connolly, 1991: 64). Moderately than assuming the US has a peaceable, justified international management id and the Soviet Union has a misleading, harmful communist id when getting into social interactions, like constructivism may, poststructuralism by discourse evaluation unpacks id development.   

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 approach. Poststructuralism argues that the state just isn’t 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 special US id. Energy discourses have typically articulated US international 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 international missiles are deployed “with out concealment or deceit” and are “publicly declared” and positioned “within the NATO space in response to the risk posed to NATO by Soviet missiles” (Stevenson, 1962: 729). This discourse constituted a “single id” that’s “defensive” and legit to the US. This successfully oppressed different attainable representational discourses. In truth, in the course of the Chilly Conflict, 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.) throughout the US. These marginalised discourses might need articulated a special US id, one that may have articulated US as an imperialist energy. Therefore, states’ id is constituted by 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 extra approach through which poststructuralism permits us to raised perceive the position of id in conflicts is that they study “how” a sure “id” permits particular international insurance policies and conflicts. Importantly, solely by discussing how energy discourse marginalises different attainable 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] situations for the existence of phenomena” (Majeski & Sylvan, 1991: 8)—that’s, US international insurance policies. These “hostile and aggressive [US] international insurance policies” (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 378) have been made attainable by 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 any case, 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 cheap (certainly, inevitable and fascinating) that “the newest Soviet risk should and will probably 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” cheap for a “peaceable, reputable international chief” such because the US to implement international 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 energy discourse, we are able to then realise that these insurance policies should not as unproblematic as they appear to be. International insurance policies have been made attainable by this constituted US id in the course of the Chilly Conflict, with out which none of those international insurance policies could 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 risk 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. Nonetheless, this constructivist understanding is restricted in that it fails to query how all the battle was made attainable. The Cuban Missile Disaster was made attainable by an influence discourse constituted US id. Poststructuralism efficiently supplies a complete account of the position of id within the conflicts; by its epistemology, id may be denaturalised and the makings of the Cuban Missile Disaster may be understood.

Moderately than taking a look at a a technique causal hyperlink between id and international polices, poststructuralism expands our understanding by exploring their mutual constitutional relationship. US id not solely permits international insurance policies to occur however is itself a results of international insurance policies. US missile deployment in Turkey and Italy considerably (re)constituted US id as a protector of the West. Insurance policies towards Cuba corresponding to “direct[ing] the Armed Forces to organize 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 risk with willpower. This id was additionally being rearticulated by the US’s “continued and elevated shut surveillance of Cuba and its army buildup” (Kennedy, 1962). This surveillance serves to assemble the Soviets as a risk that must be carefully monitored and the US as a frontrunner taking over this accountability. 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 international 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 attainable 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 international 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 essentially the most compelling account of id’s position in worldwide conflicts. Its strengths lie in its shut consideration to the preliminary development of id, whereas neorealism fully neglects it and constructivism, although it recognises id, doesn’t study 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 international insurance policies are made attainable, whereas the others don’t. Moreover, solely poststructuralism explores the mutual establishing results between international 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 energy discourses. Had different much less highly effective discourses not been marginalised, the US’s id could be understood in a different way. With out this constructive id, its international insurance policies could have been blocked, and the disaster probably would have had a special final 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 Evaluation 63(3): 689-718.

Allison, Graham T. (1971) Essence of Resolution, 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: Individuals 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 Hassle: Feminism and the Subversion of Id, 1^st version (New York: Routledge).

Campbell, D. (1998) Writing Safety: United States International 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 Variety, 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).