scholarly journals The births of International Studies in China

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Yih-Jye Hwang

Abstract This article explores how International Studies as a scientific discipline emerged and developed in China, against the background of a Sinocentric world order that had predominated in East Asia for a long time. The argument of this article is threefold. First, the discipline relied heavily on historical, legal, and political studies, and placed a heavy focus on the investigation of China's integration into the Westphalian system. Second, studies of International Relations were grounded in a problem-solving approach to various issues China was facing at various times in the course of modernisation. Third, the historical development of International Studies in China has had a profound impact on the current IR scholarship in both the PRC and Taiwan, including the recent surge of attempts to establish a Chinese School of IR theory in China and the voluntary acceptance of Western IR in Taiwan. By way of conclusion, the article suggests that there is still an indigenous Chinese site of agency with regards to developing IR. This agency exists despite the fact that in the course of the disciplinary institutionalisation of IR Chinese scholars have largely absorbed Western knowledge.

2021 ◽  
pp. 004711782110214
Author(s):  
King-Ho Leung

This article offers a reading of Plato in light of the recent debates concerning the unique ‘ontology’ of International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline. In particular, this article suggests that Plato’s metaphysical account of the integral connection between human individual, the domestic state and world order can offer IR an alternative outlook to the ‘political scientific’ schema of ‘levels of analysis’. This article argues that Plato’s metaphysical conception of world order can not only provide IR theory with a way to re-imagine the relation between the human, the state and world order. Moreover, Plato’s outlook can highlight or even call into question the post-metaphysical presuppositions of contemporary IR theory in its ‘borrowed ontology’ from modern social science, which can in turn facilitate IR’s re-interpretation of its own ‘ontology’ as well as its distinct contributions to the understanding of the various aspects of the social world and human life.


Author(s):  
Claudio Cioffi-Revilla

Agent-based computational modeling (ABM, for short) is a formal and supplementary methodological approach used in international relations (IR) theory and research, based on the general ABM paradigm and computational methodology as applied to IR phenomena. ABM of such phenomena varies according to three fundamental dimensions: scale of organization—spanning foreign policy, international relations, regional systems, and global politics—as well as by geospatial and temporal scales. ABM is part of the broader complexity science paradigm, although ABMs can also be applied without complexity concepts. There have been scores of peer-reviewed publications using ABM to develop IR theory in recent years, based on earlier pioneering work in computational IR that originated in the 1960s that was pre-agent based. Main areas of theory and research using ABM in IR theory include dynamics of polity formation (politogenesis), foreign policy decision making, conflict dynamics, transnational terrorism, and environment impacts such as climate change. Enduring challenges for ABM in IR theory include learning the applicable ABM methodology itself, publishing sufficiently complete models, accumulation of knowledge, evolving new standards and methodology, and the special demands of interdisciplinary research, among others. Besides further development of main themes identified thus far, future research directions include ABM applied to IR in political interaction domains of space and cyber; new integrated models of IR dynamics across domains of land, sea, air, space, and cyber; and world order and long-range models.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitav Acharya

Abstract The discipline of International Relations (IR) is increasingly being criticized for ignoring and marginalizing states and societies outside of the core countries of the West. The idea of a ‘Global IR’ has been proposed since 2014 a pathway toward a bridging the ‘West and the Rest’ divide and thus develop a more inclusive discipline, recognizing its multiple and diverse foundations. At the same time, there is a trend toward developing theories, or ‘schools’, on a national or regional basis, the leading examples of which come from China. This article examines some theoretical constructs emerging in China, such as the ‘Relational Theory’ of Qin Yaqing, who is the foundational scholar in the ‘Chinese School of IR’, the Tianxia (‘all under Heaven’) concept as applied to IR and world order by Zhao Tingyang, and ‘Moral Realism’ of Yan Xuetong, who is the leading figure of the ‘Tsinghua School’. To many scholars, both inside and outside China, the relationship among the various Chinese approaches and their overall contribution to the IR field remain unclear. Without claiming to capture all their nuances and complexity, this article hopes to stimulate a conversation among scholars, Chinese and foreign, with a view to generate greater clarity and highlight their importance to the study of IR. I argue that while making important contributions, the Chinese approaches to International Relations Theory (IRT) also face a number of challenges. This includes the need for them to offer more convincing proof that the concepts and explanations they propose can apply to other societies and to IR more generally. Moreover, there is the need for these approaches to attract a critical mass of followers worldwide, stimulate a research agenda for other, especially younger scholars, and distance themselves from the official Chinese policy framings. The Global IR approach offers a helpful framework for highlighting and perhaps addressing these challenges, especially in avoiding cultural exceptionalism and ensuring their wider relevance beyond China.


Author(s):  
A. I. Nikitin

Article analyses formation and development of the conflict studies in Russia as a sub-discipline within political sciences, on the edge between political theory and studies of international relations and international security. Article defines stages of formation of conflict studies in Russia, analyzes social request for studies of conflicts, considers influence of foreign and international institutes and research, both form the CIS and from other foreign countries, onto the conflict studies in Russia. Author postulates turning of the "New Political Thinking"paradigm elaborated by Gorbachev that allowed reconsidering Moscow's attitude towards various conflicts and rethinking of theoretical principles of conflict analysis, that are not anymore limited to class struggle and ideological contradictions. Introduction of more pluralistic concepts of "socio-political model" and "world order" instead of Marxist category of "socio-economic formation" led to remodeling of international relations along new lines, as well as study contradictions within one social system. Splash of inter-ethnic and separatist conflicts in the first half of the 1990s led to shaping of "practically oriented conflict studies" reflecting political interests of conflict sides in conflicts in Karabakh, Georgia/Abkhazia, Georgia/South Ossetia, Moldova/Transnistria. On the eve of 1990s-2000s formation of theoretical systemic conflict studies as a discipline took place, and this discipline was already quite strongly interfaced with international and foreign conflict studies theory. Article considers role of various institutes of the Russian Academy of Science, research centers including Russian Council on International Affairs, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy? Russian Pugwash Committee, Center for Political and International studies, Moscow Carnegie Center, Russian institute for Strategic Studies, Institute for the USA and Canada Studies, etc. As a separate direction of studies article tackles studies of post-soviet conflicts by foreign institutes and centers, like UNIDIR (Geneva), SIPRI (Stockholm), EU ISS (Paris), British Royal institute of International Affairs. Interaction of Russian and Swiss scientists on the basis of Geneva-based GCSP and DCAF attracts special attention. In conclusion typical issues in focus, as well as theme fields of the Russian conflict studies as a sub-discipline within political sciences are formulated.


Author(s):  
Craig Douglas Albert

International relations (IR) theory is favorably described in almost every syllabus since 1930. The most important questions asked were: “What is theory?” and “Is there a reason for IR theory?” The most widely used texts all focus on the first question and suggest, among others, that IR theory is “a way of making the world or some part of it more intelligible or better understood.” We can gauge where the teaching of IR theory is today by analyzing a sample of syllabi from IR scholars serving on the Advisory Board of the International Studies Association’s (ISA) Compendium Project. These syllabi reveal some trends. Within the eight undergraduate syllabi, for example, a general introduction to IR theory is taught in four separate classes. Among the theories discussed in different classes are realism, classical realism, neo-realism, Marxism and neo-Marxism, world-systems theory, imperialism, constructivism, and international political economy. Novel methods for teaching IR theory include the use of films, active learning, and experiential learning. The diversity of treatments of IR theory implied by the ISA syllabi provides evidence that, with the exception of the proliferation of perspectives, relatively little has changed since the debates of the late 1930s. The discipline lacks much semblance of unity regarding whether, and how, to offer IR theory to students. Nevertheless, there have been improvements that are likely to continue in terms of the ways in which theories may be presented.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-101
Author(s):  
Sonia Lucarelli ◽  
Francesco N. Moro ◽  
Daniela Sicurelli ◽  
Carla Monteleone ◽  
Eugenia Baroncelli

The discipline of International Relations (IR) for a long time of its history has developed in the form of Great Debates that involved competing paradigms and schools. More recently, it has been described as a cacophony of voices unable to communicate among themselves, but also incapable to provide keys to understand an ever more complex reality. This collection aims at evaluating the heuristic value of a selection of traditional paradigms (realism and liberalism), schools (constructivism), and subdisciplines (security studies and international political economy) so as to assess the challenges before IR theory today and the ability of the discipline to provide tools to make the changed world still intelligible.


Author(s):  
T. A. Alekseeva ◽  
A. P. Mineev ◽  
A. V. Fenenko ◽  
I. D. Loshkariov ◽  
B. I. Ananyev

The article deals with the evolution of constructivist paradigm of international relations. The issue is of utmost importance in terms of the search for theoretical alternatives in the IR thinking. First, we are giving basic introduction of constructivism on the basis of historical and hermeneutical approaches. There is no doubt that the paradigm has faced different theoretical challenges and a lot of critics which has to be addressed. The authors reconsider some constructivist theories and notions in Alexander Wendt's works and the way Wendt tried to reinforce and reassure the constructivist paradigm. This allows us to claim that quantum turn in recent Wendt's work was almost inevitable. Second, the article attempts to answer a question whether the fundamentals of quantum physics are relevant when speaking about social and political processes. At first glance, quantum physics approach has nothing in common with the theory of politics and the theory of international relations. However, there are some grounds to believe that certain problem issues of the political science and IR theory are not deadlocks. In the second part of the article we use the unleashed and underestimated potential of analytical philosophy. To conclude, we believe that today there are more questions than answers but the quantum paradigm is expected to be the important part of the political studies and IR theory as well.


Author(s):  
Hidemi Suganami

The “English School” of International Relations is a historically formed community with somewhat uncertain—even disputed—beginnings. The awareness that there was such a network of scholars grew in the late 1970s against a background of an impressive succession of publications in the UK in the 60s and 70s. As with any historically formed community, the English School gradually transformed itself from a grouping of scholars with intellectual similarities and close personal ties toward a succession of scholars who see themselves as taking part in the historical evolution, or continuing story, of the English School. The key event that contributed significantly to its transformation was the call to “reconvene the English School,” resulting in a “new English School” loosely organized by overlapping networks and activities based in British International Studies Association (BISA) and the International Studies Association (ISA), among others. The writings of the English School, or scholars commonly associated with that label, embody one or more of the following three concerns in their respective investigations into world politics: “structural,” “functional,” and “historical.” Hence, the key interests of the English school are the formal structure and functional studies of the society of sovereign states, as well as the historical transformations of past and present international societies.


Author(s):  
Sara Curran

The intellectual antecedents of international studies scholarship and the efforts to enclose it within academia bounded the research enterprise closely to a predominantly US-centric, international relations, and international systems perspective on world order. Investments by the US government and leading foundations led to the strengthening of interdisciplinary area studies and international studies curricular programs. These investments coincided with a concomitant turn in the humanities and social sciences toward critical social science and postmodern inquiries. Thus, international studies curricular programs became more expansive and less closely tied to a narrow agenda that had previously and primarily been curated by political scientists. By the early 2000s, this disjuncture between international studies scholarship and pedagogy found a voice that continues to be heard in ongoing debates that define a widely delineated space for global studies to closely align its own scholarship and pedagogy, providing a foundation for a vibrant field of transdisciplinary scholarship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document