On the notion of “interest” in international relations

1982 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Kratochwil
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
State Action ◽  
The Public ◽  
Systemic Theory ◽  
Historical Investigation ◽  
Normative Term ◽  
Taxonomic Categories

Since the notion of the “national interest” plays a pivotal role in the discourse of state action, its clarification as a normative term is historically as well as systematically important. Differing from the conventional approach, which defines the national interest according to genus and taxa, I shall argue that due to its function as a normative term the national interest cannot be understood in taxonomic categories; it necessitates an investigation of the logic of its use according to specified criteria. In this context the notion of the “public interest” is, for historical as well as systematic reasons, illuminating. As historical investigation shows, the term national interest is neither self-justificatory nor arbitrary within the conventions of the European state system until the late nineteenth century. Important changes in the international system can be traced by following the fundamentally changed usage of the term after 1870. A short comparison with and critique of Waltz's “systemic theory” of international relations concludes the article.

The Logics of Systemic Theory

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bear F. Braumoeller ◽  
Benjamin Campbell
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Systemic Theory ◽  
History Of

The history of systemic theory in international relations is a tragedy of bad timing: Interest in systemic theory and awareness of its importance preceded widespread understanding of the methodologies needed to formulate and test it. In the intervening decades, dyadic studies dominated empirical studies of international relations to such an extent that the influences of the international system on actors’ behavior and vice versa were all but forgotten. This need not be the case. Through the lenses of four methodologies, systemic theory can be surveyed to capture their logics in order to highlight the value and feasibility of systemic theorizing.

New Dimensions in International Relations

1975 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 464-478
Author(s):  
Jacques Freymond
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
International System ◽  
Good Basis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Club Of Rome

The last yearly meeting of the Club of Rome, held October 14–17, 1974, in Berlin, featured the public presentation of the “Second Report to the Club of Rome” drafted by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel.That report, Mankind at the Turning Point, inaugurates a new stage in research done under the auspices of the Club of Rome and it provides, in my opinion, a good basis for thinking about the evolution of the international system which frames the destiny of our nation-states.

The eighteenth century international system: parity or primacy?

2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 147-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Sofka
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
International System ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Field Of Study ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
Conceptual Foundations

The conceptual foundations of the eighteenth century international system, long neglected in narrative diplomatic histories, are enjoying increased attention with the recent contributions of Jeremy Black, Paul Schroeder, and Michael Doyle. Nevertheless, in political science literature the period is routinely treated as an interesting—yet quickly dispatched—‘prequel’ to the post-1815 order which matured in the Bismarckian alignments of the late nineteenth century. Indeed, as a field of study the period has been all but ignored in the discipline of international relations.

What's at stake in the agent-structure debate?

1989 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Dessler
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International System ◽  
State Action ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
International Structure ◽  
Structural Research ◽  
Agent Structure ◽  
Structure Debate

Recent developments in the philosophy of science, particularly those falling under the rubric of “scientific realism,” have earned growing recognition among theorists of international relations but have failed to generate substantive programs of research. Consequently, the empirical relevance of much philosophical discourse, such as that centering on the agent-structure problem in social theory, remains unestablished. This article attempts to bridge the gap between the philosophy and practice of science by outlining a model of international structure based on the principles of scientific realism and by considering its implications for a structural research program in international relations theory. Appealing to Imre Lakatos's methodology of theorychoice, the article presents an ontological case for adopting a “transformational” model of structure over the “positional” model developed in the work of Kenneth Waltz. The article demonstrates that the positional approach offers no conceptual or explanatory hold on those features of the international structure that are the intended products of state action. In conclusion, the article argues that the stakes in the agent-structure debate include the capacity to generate integrative structural theory and the ability to theorize the possibilities for peaceful change in the international system.

Peculiarities and main directions of neorealism in international relations theory

2017 ◽  
pp. 57-63
Author(s):  
Halyna Ivasyuk
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
International System ◽  
National Interest ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
International Policy ◽  
Systematic Explanation

As it is known, nowadays neorealism is one of the most influential trends in international relations’ theory, which proposes a systematic explanation of the development of international relations and pragmatic understanding of national and international security. Using achievements of neorealistic school, it is possible to create relevant foreign policy and security strategy for the Ukrainian state, which makes the research in this area particularly topical. Keywords: International relations, international relations theory, international system, neorealism, structure of international policy, the evolution of international relations, national interest, power

Rhetoric, Legitimation, and Grand Strategy

2021 ◽  
pp. 321-336
Author(s):  
Stacie E. Goddard
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Research Traditions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Grand Strategies ◽  
Selection Of

Scholars associated with diverse research traditions have increasingly agreed that legitimacy is significant in the formulation and operation of grand strategy. Despite the field’s embrace of legitimacy, scholars of international relations have shown less interest in the role of legitimation—the public justification of policy—in creating and sustaining grand strategies. This oversight is puzzling. Grand strategy only becomes legitimate when leaders articulate the reasons why policies are justifiable, and only if audiences accept those claims. Empirically, moreover, leaders devote substantial time, energy, and resources to justifying their strategy to audiences at home and abroad. To overlook legitimation is to overlook much of global politics. This chapter makes the case for treating legitimation as central to the study of grand strategy. It explains what legitimation is, why it matters, and how it drives grand strategy at every stage, from the articulation of national interest, to the interpretation of threat, to the selection of instruments. The essay concludes with challenges to the legitimation of grand strategy in contemporary international politics.

Major powers and geopolitical transformations in the Middle East: competing visions for managing international and regional balances

2019 ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Marwan Awni Kamil
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
New Realism ◽  
Major Powers

This study attempts to give a description and analysis derived from the new realism school in the international relations of the visions of the great powers of the geopolitical changes witnessed in the Middle East after 2011 and the corresponding effects at the level of the international system. It also examines the alliances of the major powers in the region and its policies, with a fixed and variable statement to produce a reading that is based on a certain degree of comprehensiveness and objectivity.

The position of the State in the international system from the perspective of major schools of thought in international relations

2019 ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Salah Hassan Mohammed ◽  
Mahaa Ahmed Al-Mawla
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
International Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Status ◽  
Future Vision

The Study is based on the state as one of the main pillars in international politics. In additions, it tackles its position in the international order from the major schools perspectives in international relations, Especially, these schools differ in the status and priorities of the state according to its priorities, also, each scholar has a different point of view. The research is dedicated to providing a future vision of the state's position in the international order in which based on the vision of the major schools in international relations.

Sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard V. Smith
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Great Power ◽  
World War ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
The World ◽  
Paris Peace Conference

We have long known that the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 “failed” in the sense that it did not prevent the outbreak of World War II. This book investigates not whether the conference succeeded or failed, but the historically specific international system it created. It explores the rules under which that system operated, and the kinds of states and empires that inhabited it. Deepening the dialogue between history and international relations theory makes it possible to think about sovereignty at the conference in new ways. Sovereignty in 1919 was about remaking “the world”—not just determining of answers demarcating the international system, but also the questions. Most histories of the Paris Peace Conference stop with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on June 28, 1919. This book considers all five treaties produced by the conference as well as the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey in 1923. It is organized not chronologically or geographically, but according to specific problems of sovereignty. A peace based on “justice” produced a criminalized Great Power in Germany, and a template problematically applied in the other treaties. The conference as sovereign sought to “unmix” lands and peoples in the defeated multinational empires by drawing boundaries and defining ethnicities. It sought less to oppose revolution than to instrumentalize it. The League of Nations, so often taken as the supreme symbol of the conference’s failure, is better considered as a continuation of the laboratory of sovereignty established in Paris.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document