International theory: new directions?

1981 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Great Debate ◽  
International Theory ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Potential Sources ◽  
The 1960S

The last ‘great debate’ in international relations theory occurred in the 1960s, was concerned primarily with matters of method rather than substance, and eventually was called off due to lack of interest. The battle between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘scientists’ was short-lived. The so-called ‘post-behavioural’ revolution in political science conceded some part of the traditionalist case, but the more significant factor in the conclusion of the debate was the prevalence of an attitude of live and let live. Tolerance over method is a virtue in a relatively underdeveloped discipline, for who can predict the shape of future knowledge or the potential sources of insight? Unfortunately, a by-product of tolerance over methodological issues has been the development of such differences over matters of substance that the existence of a coherent discipline is called into question. Perhaps a new ‘great debate’ is called for, this time on matters of substance.

International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wagers to scientific ontologies

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson ◽  
Daniel H. Nexon
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The State ◽  
Contextual Analysis ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
General Lack ◽  
Middle Range ◽  
Great Debate ◽  
International Theory

Concerns about the end of International Relations theory pivot around at least three different issues: the fading of the ‘paradigm wars’ associated with the 1990s and early 2000s; the general lack of any sort of ‘great debate’ sufficient to occupy the attention of large portions of the field; and claims about the vibrancy of middle-range theorizing. None of these are terribly helpful when it comes to assessing the health of International Relations theory. We argue that international theory involves scientific ontologies of world politics: topographies of entities, processes, mechanisms, and how they relate to one another. Understood this way, the state of International Relations theory looks strong: there is arguably more out there than ever before. Ironically, this cornucopia helps explain concerns regarding the end of International Relations theory. In the absence of a ‘great debate,’ let alone ways of organizing contemporary International Relations theory, this diversity descends into cacophony. We submit that three major clusters of international theory are emerging: choice-theoretic, experience-near, and social-relational. These clusters map onto two major axes of contention: (1) the degree that actors should be treated as autonomous from their environment; and (2) the importance of thickly contextual analysis. These disputes are both field-wide and high-stakes, even if we do not always recognize them as such.

scholarly journals The new institutionalism and international relations: A step forward

2011 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-358
Author(s):  
Rudy Baker
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
New Institutionalism ◽  
Institutional Analysis ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Social ◽  
Key Variables ◽  
The 1960S

The behavioral revolution of the 1960s which engulfed the social sciences, and particularly Political Science and Sociology, led to a large-scale disinterest in the study and structure of institutions. The 1980s saw a new movement emerge upon the social sciences, which stressed the centrality of institutional analysis in the study of politics and society and resurrected the study of institutions as key variables. Dubbed the New Institutionalism, this movement would have profound effects on the direction of research in Political Science and Sociology. Unfortunately, the New Institutionalist movement has been largely ignored by International Relations theorists and practitioners, even though it has generated both a useful toolkit of methods, and a rich source of findings that could be of much use to International Relations theory.

scholarly journals Global Cybersecurity: New Directions in Theory and Methods

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Stevens
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Science Methods ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Social Science Methods ◽  
New Directions

This thematic issue advocates a range of novel theoretical and methodological directions applicable to cybersecurity studies. Drawing on critical International Relations theory, Science and Technology Studies, participant observation, quantitative political science, and other social science methods and theory, the contributors advance modes of invigorating the exploration of cybersecurity as an assemblage of sociotechnical practices. In so doing, this issue seeks to enhance understanding of the politics and strategies of cybersecurity, one of the most complex and diverse technical and political challenges of our contemporary world.

THE FIRST MODERN REALIST: FELIX GILBERT'S MACHIAVELLI AND THE REALIST TRADITION IN INTERNATIONAL THOUGHT

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICOLAS GUILHOT
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Historical Scholarship ◽  
Global Power ◽  
The Us ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
International Thought

In the disciplines of political science and international relations, Machiavelli is unanimously considered to be “the first modern realist.” This essay argues that the idea of a realist tradition going from the Renaissance to postwar realism founders when one considers the disrepute of Machiavelli among early international relations theorists. It suggests that the transformation of Machiavelli into a realist thinker took place subsequently, when new historical scholarship, informed by strategic and political considerations related to the transformation of the US into a global power, generated a new picture of the Renaissance. Focusing on the work of Felix Gilbert, and in particular hisMachiavelli and Guicciardini, the essay shows how this new interpretation of Machiavelli was shaped by the crisis of the 1930s, the emergence of security studies, and the philanthropic sponsorship of international relations theory.

The Second Great Debate Revisited: Exploring the Impact of the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide in International Relations

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-476
Author(s):  
Quan Li
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Recent Decade ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Academic Communities ◽  
Great Debate ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Political Science Journals

Abstract Half a century after the “Second Great Debate” in international relations (IR) started, scholars still perceive the qualitative versus quantitative division as their principal divide, and yet we do not have a good grasp of the impact of this divide. My research explores how the divide shaped the incentives and behaviors of scholars and influenced the organization of our academic communities and knowledge production. The impact of the divide expressed itself in the distribution of research among methodologies in terms of relative quantity and impact. Less obviously, and yet more importantly, the divide influenced the distribution of quantitative research among different institution types, across fields and journals, and with respect to policy engagement. Using the TRIP database of 7,792 IR articles in twelve top journals from 1980 to 2014, I classify journal articles into three categories—quantitative-only, qualitative-only, and mixed-methods—and categorize author institutions into similar types—publishing quantitative research only, producing nonquantitative work only, and publishing various proportions of quantitative research. Notably, qualitative and quantitative works switched positions over time in terms of relative quantity and impact, with quantitative research more likely published but only slightly more cited in the recent decade. More importantly, the divide produced other less obvious but more serious outcomes. Among 1,111 institutions that ever published IR research in twelve top journals over thirty-five years, two-thirds published nonquantitative research only; fifty-three institutions published more than half of all quantitative articles; institutions publishing quantitative-only or nonquantitative-only research constituted two modal categories. Political science journals published more quantitative research, persistently and with growing convergence; IR journals also evolved toward publishing more quantitative research though with persistent divergence and forming two clusters. Quantitative articles and political science journals were significantly less engaged in providing policy prescriptions than qualitative articles and IR journals. To overcome this lasting and self-perpetuating divide, we must better understand its impact, learn to appreciate alternative approaches, and change the way we train future scholars.

Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The World

This text argues that theory is central to explaining International Relations (IR) and that the discipline of IR is much more relevant to the world of international relations than it has been at any point in its history. Some chapters cover distinct IR theories ranging from realism/structural realism to liberalism/neoliberalism, the English school, constructivism, Marxism, critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism, green theory, and postcolonialism. Oher chapters explore International Relations theory and its relationship to social science, normative theory, globalization, and the discipline’s identity. This introduction explains why this edition has chosen to cover these theories, reflects on international theory and its relationship to the world, and considers the kind of assumptions about theory that underlie each of the approaches.

A response: why epistemology matters in international theory

1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Hollis ◽  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The Relationship

In their rejoinder to our recent article, Vivienne Jabri and Stephen Chan argue that we have privileged epistemology at the expense of ontology. We welcome this engagement with our continuing discussion of the relationship between epistemology and ontology in international relations theory, and will confine our response to three main points: their interpretation of our argument, their use of the work of Giddens, and their arguments about the nature of epistemology in International Relations.

International Relations Theory, International Law, and the Regime Governing Atrocities in Internal Conflicts

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Cross Fertilization

Over the last ten years, international relations (IR) theory, a branch of political science, has animated some of the most exciting scholarship in international law.1 If a true joint discipline has not yet emerged,2 scholars in both fields have clearly established the value of interdisciplinary cross-fertilization. Yet IR—like international law—comprises several distinct theoretical approaches or “methods.” While this complexity makes interactions between the disciplines especially rich, it also makes them difficult to explore concisely. This essay thus constitutes something of a minisymposium in itself: it summarizes the four principal schools of IR theory—conventionally identified as “realist,” “institutionalist,” “liberal” and “constructivist”—and then applies them to the norms and institutions governing serious violations of human dignity during internal conflicts (the “atrocities regime”).

International theory and international society: the viability of the middle way?

1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Social Philosophy ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Theoretical Terms ◽  
Middle Way ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Hedley Bull

From the perspective of a particular kind of international theorizing, foundational questions about the nature of international society are a central concern. ‘Does the collectivity of sovereign states constitute a political society or system, or does it not? ’ is, according to Hedley Bull, the first of a series of questions that, taken together, constitute ‘Classical’ international relations theory and distinguish it from the ‘Scientific’ approach to the subject. Similar sentiments could be drawn readily from the work of the other authors whose writings collectively make up the International Theory, or International Society, or ‘English School’ approach to international relations theory. I have argued elsewhere that there are reasons why this emphasis on international society is mistaken. To cut a long story short, the burden of the argument is that an approach that places primary emphasis on the nature of international society is likely to isolate itself from the wider discourses of political and social philosophy in ways that cannot be defended in terms of any alleged sui generis features of international relations. Rather, international relations theory is best understood as an aspect of political theory and not as a discourse with its own rules and subject matter. However, this argument has been cast in ‘meta-theoretical’ terms and does not directly address the actual issue of the nature of international society; critics are entitled to point to the absence here of a clearly articulated, positive point of view. The purpose of this article is to begin to remedy this omission, by sketching the outlines of an examination of international society that would be less tied to traditional categories and in closer contact with broader movements in social thought.

An ‘international’ theory of inter-ethnic war

1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart J. Kaufman
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Ethnic Violence ◽  
Violent Conflict ◽  
Analysis Problem ◽  
International Theory ◽  
Ethnic War ◽  
Level Of Analysis

Over the years, a number of scholars have noted that ethnic groups in violent conflict act much like states in the international system; James O'Connell describes the dynamics as ‘international relations without safeguards’. Brief observations aside, however, few works actually apply International Relations theory to explain large-scale ethnic violence. While the oversight ought to be surprising, it is easily explained in terms of what International Relations theory calls the ‘level of analysis problem’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document