Arguing deep ideational change

References

• Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? International Organization, 58, 239–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, E. (1991). Cognitive evolution: A dynamic approach for the study of international relations and their progress. In E. Adler & B. Crawford (Eds.), Progress in postwar international relations (pp. 43–88)). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adler, E. (1992). The emergence of cooperation: National epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. International Organization, 46(1), 101–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (Eds.). (2011). International practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alker, H. R. (1996). Rediscoveries and reformulations: Humanistic methodologies for International studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. (1995). Rhetorik (Franz G. Sieveke, Trans.). Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert, J. (2010). How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks, and cognition in the dynamics of markets. Organization Studies, 31(5), 605–627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2013). Introduction to special issue: The politics of policy paradigms. Governance, 26(2), 193–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, S. (2013). Ideational theorizing in the social sciences since ‘policy paradigms, social learning, and the State’. Governance, 26(2), 217–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, R. (1991). The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity ⁄postmodernity. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Betz, G. (2012). On degrees of justification. Erkenntnis, 77, 237–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascallian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (2001a). Pierre Bourdieu im Gespräch mit Philippe Fritsch. In P. Bourdieu (Eds.), Das politische Feld: Zur Kritik der politischen Vernunft (pp. 29–40). Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (2001b). Das politische Feld. In P. Bourdieu (Eds.), Das politische Feld: Zur Kritik der politischen Vernunft (pp. 41–66). Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Bracken, P. (1999). Fire in the East: The rise of Asian military power and the second nuclear age. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1965). Terministic screens. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 39, 87–102.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27(3), 377–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carstensen, M. B. (2011a). Ideas are not as stable as political scientists want them to be: A theory of incremental ideational change. Political Studies, 59, 596–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstensen, M. B. (2011b). Paradigm man vs. the bricoleur: Bricolage as an alternative vision of agency in ideational change. European Political Science Review, 3(1), 147–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopra, R. (2003). Neoliberalism as doxa: Bourdieu’s theory of the state and the contemporary Indian discourse on globalization and liberalization. Cultural Studies, 17(3–4), 419–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicero, M. T. (2003). Topica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our global neighborhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, N. (2002). Argument and change in World politics: Ethics, decolonization, and humanitarian intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Culpepper, P. D. (2008). The politics of common knowledge: Ideas and institutional change in wage bargaining. International Organization, 62(1), 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daddow, O. (2009). ‘Tony’s war’? Blair, Kosovo and the interventionist impulse in British foreign policy. International Affairs, 85(3), 547–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Detienne, M., & Vernant, J. P. (1974). Les ruses de l'intelligence: la me'tis des Grecs. Paris: Flammarion.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrova, A., & Rhinard, M. (2005). The power of norms in the transposition of EU directives. European Integration Online Papers, 9(16). Retrieved from http://eiop.or.at/eiop/
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, W., & Sartor, G. (2013). Teleological justification of argumentation schemes. Argumentation, 27, 111–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• English, R. D. (2000). Russia and the West: Gorbachev, intellectuals, and the end of the cold war. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, C. (2008). The power of words in international relations: Birth of anti-whaling discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, H., & Drezner, D. W. (2008). The power and politics of blogs. Public Choice, 134(1–2), 15–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs. (2015). Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons: Conference report. Vienna: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52, 887–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on langauge. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Frazer, E., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Argument and rhetoric in the justification of political violence. European Journal of Political Theory, 6(2), 180–199.
   Google Scholar
• Friedland, R. (2009). The endless fields of Pierre Bourdieu. Organization, 16(6), 887–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadamer, H. G. (1972). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
   Google Scholar
• Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, J. (2001). Cicero’s authority. Philosophy and rhetoric, 34(1), 38–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, N. J. (1987). The topics in medieval logic. Argumentation, 1, 407–417.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, P. M. (1992). Banning chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone. International Organization, 46(1), 187–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haskins, E. V. (2004). Endoxa, epistemological optimism, and Aristotle’s rhetorical project. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 37(1), 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinze, R. (1925). Auctoritas. Hermes, 60(3), 348–366.
   Google Scholar
• Herrmann, M. (1998). One field, many perspectives: Building the foundations for dialogue. International Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 605–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollis, M., & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Humanitarian Pledge. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HINW14vienna_Pledge_Document.pdf
   Google Scholar
• International Law and Policy Institute. (2014). Counting to zero: A statistical report on the interest and participation of United Nations Member States in the issue of nuclear disarmament. Oslo: ILPI Nuclear Weapons Project.
   Google Scholar
• Jarratt, S. C. (1991). Rereading the sophists: Classical rhetoric refigured. Carbondale: Southern Illiniois University.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. (2013, April 29). NPT and risks to human survival: The inside story. openDemocracy. Retrieved from http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rebecca-johnson/npt-and-risks-to-human-survival-inside-story
   Google Scholar
• Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Dimension of Nuclear Disarmament. (2012a, October 22). 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly First Committee. Retrieved from http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com12/statements/22Oct_Switzerland.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Dimension of Nuclear Disarmament. (2012b , May 2). First session of the preparatory committee for the 2015 review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Retrieved from http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom12/statements/2May_IHL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons. (2013a , October 21). 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly First Committee. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disarmament/special/meetings/firstcommittee/68/pdfs/TD_21-Oct_CL-1_New_Zealand-%28Joint_St%29
   Google Scholar
• Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons. (2013b, April 24). Delivered by Ambassador Abdul Samad Minty, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations at Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom13/statements/24April_SouthAfrica.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kellenberger, J. (2010 , April 20). Bringing the era of nuclear weapons to an end. Statement to the Geneva Diplomatic Corps. Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/nuclear-weapons-statement-200410.htm
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy-Pipe, C., & Vickers, R. (2007). ‘Blowback’ for Britain?: Blair, Bush, and the war in Iraq. Review of International Studies, 33(2), 205–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kienpointner, M. (1986). Topische Sequenzen in argumentativen Dialogen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 14(3), 321–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornprobst, M. (2005). Episteme, nation-builders and national identity: The re-construction of Irishness. Nations and Nationalism, 11(3), 403–421.
   Google Scholar
• Kornprobst, M. (2008). Irredentism in European politics: Argumentation, compromise and norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kornprobst, M., & Senn, M. (in press). A rhetorical field theory: Background, communication, and change. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(2), 300–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kratochwil, F. (1989). Rules, norms and decisions: On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H. (1995). The political opportunity structure of new social movements: Its impact on their mobilization. In J. C. Jenkins & B. Klandermans (Eds.), The politics of social protest: Comparative perspectives on states and social movements (pp. 167–198). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legro, J. W. (2000). Whence American internationalism. International Organization, 54(2), 253–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, E. R. (1962). The nature of foreign policy: The calculated versus the axiomatic. Daedalus, 91(4), 653–667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayors for Peace. (2014). Statement at the 2nd conference of the humanitarian initiative. Retrieved from http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/images/stories/cih/mayorsforpeaceremarks.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McComiskey, B. (1994). Neo-sophistic rhetorical theory: Sophistic precendents for contemporary epistemic rhetoric. Rhetorical Society Quarterly, 24(3/4), 16–24.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, M. C., & Nelson, J. S. (1985). Narrative reason in public argument. Journal of Communication, 35(4), 139–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta, J. (2011). The varied roles of ideas in politics: From ‘whether’ to ‘how’. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research (pp. 28–63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, K., & Worth, O. (2013). Building consent: Hegemony, ‘conceptions of the world’ and the role of evangelicals in global politics. Political Studies, 61, 731–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obama, B. (2009). Remarks by President Barack Obama. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered
   Google Scholar
• Oliensis, E. (1998). Horace and the rhetoric of authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presse universitaire de France.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, R. (1991). Absolute and relative gains in international relations theory. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1303–1320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2005). AI & law, logic and argument schemes. Argumentation, 19(3), 303–320.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, W. M. (1987). Transsumptio: A rhetorical doctrine of the thirteenth century. Rhetorica, 5(4), 369–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintilian, M. F. (1953). Institutio oratoria (H.E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renon, L. (1998). Aristotle's endoxa and plausible argumentation. Argumentation, 12(1), 95–113.
   Google Scholar
• Rigotti, E., & Morasso, S. G. (2010). Comparing argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24, 489–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringmar, E. (2006). Inter-textual relations: The quarrel over the Iraq War as a conflict between narrative types. Cooperation and Conflict, 41(4), 403–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (2013). The persistent power of human rights: From commitment to compliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruggie, J. (1975). International responses to technology: Concepts and trends. International Organization, 29(3), 557–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruggie, J. (1983). International regimes, transaction and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. In S. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 195–232). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Politcal Science, 11, 303–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, D. A., Rochford Jr, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannenwald, N. (2005). Stigmatizing the bomb: Origins of the nuclear taboo. International Security, 29, 4–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S., & Tollefson, J. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Toshkov, D. (2007). Transposition of EU social policy in the new member states. Journal of European Social Policy, 17(4), 335–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report 1994. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waever, O. (1996). The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism & beyond (pp. 149–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., & Sartor, G. (2013). Teleological justification of argumentation schemes. Argumentation, 27(2), 111–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz, K. N. (1990). Nuclear myths and political realities. American Political Science Review, 84(3), 730–745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warnick, B., & Kline, S. L. (1992). The new rhetoric’s argument schemes: A rhetorical view of practical reasoning. Argumentation and Advocacy, 29(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2007). Contested meanings of norms: A research framework. Comparattive European Politics, 5(1), 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Willard, C.A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: Alabama University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, L. (2001). Justification, discovery, reason & argument. Argumentation, 15, 97–104.
   Google Scholar