Introduction justice in security negotiations
International Negotiation, ISSN: 1571-8069, Vol: 19, Issue: 3, Page: 399-409
2014
- 14Citations
- 11Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
This article provides an overview of this thematic issue. We discuss four issues about the role of justice claims in international relations (IR) scholarship: the discrepancy between the historical centrality of justice themes in political thought and empirical research in IR; challenges to the assumption of utility-maximizing motives; justice in the context of rules or norms of negotiation, and the rise of empirical research on justice in IR. We conclude with themes suggested by the contributing authors in this issue and suggest priorities for further research on justice in international negotiation.
Bibliographic Details
Brill
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know