On global learning: pragmatic constructivism, international practice and the challenge of global governance

Second, the book's evidence appears somewhat lacking in strength and depth.Concerns arise from serious misrepresentations of key historical cases, notably Japan's actions from 1937 to 1941.The portrayal of Japan as acting with 'restraint' and reacting to external aggression contradicts mainstream historiography, rich in evidence from events like the Mukden incident (1931) and the Marco Polo Bridge incident (1937).While the book suggests that the war against China was 'initiated by Chiang Kai-shek' not by Japan's invasion of Manchuria, and that the Soviet Union started the 1938 and 1939 conflicts, there is broad consensus on how Japan's actions during this period were aggressive and expansionist, driven by its own imperial ambitions (p.118).Such discrepancies cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the book's arguments.And third, not everyone will be convinced that leaders strictly adhere to credible theories and aggregation reasoning, particularly in crises.This overlooks factors that are deeply ingrained in human psychological and ideological predispositions, inevitably affecting high-stakes and time-sensitive decision-making.Consider Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to wage war against Ukraine.This could be explained from a security perspective, seeing NATO's enlargement as an existential threat to Russia.It is tantamount to 'a matter of life and death'-the annihilation of a state unit in an anarchic world in realist terms (p.xi).However, some might argue that Russia would more likely face a degradation in its major power status, rather than annihilation.This gap in understanding the existential threat highlights the influence of Putin's and his associates' perceptions.If so, can such a decision still be considered rational, as argued in the book?These points notwithstanding, the book proactively engages with a theoretically and substantively crucial topic.More importantly, its ambitious reconsideration of rationality not only promises to enrich future theorizing across paradigms in International Relations, but it also offers normative guidance for more effective and informed decision-making.