scholarly journals Quem tem medo da Teoria? Análise como vivência, prática e experimentação nas Relações Internacionais | Who is affraid of Theory? Analysis as experience, practice and experimentation in International Relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Spode ◽  
Bruna Fernandes Olivieri
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Technical Aspect ◽  
Professional Experience ◽  
Theory Analysis ◽  
Practice Turn ◽  
Historical Question ◽  
The One

O anseio de implementação de atividades práticas é uma questão histórica do campo de estudos das Relações Internacionais. Se, por um lado, muito pouco se tem descoberto sobre o aspecto prático e técnico da área – o que tem feito das Relações Internacionais uma área muito mais reflexiva e filosófica, do que propriamente um campo profissionalizante –, por outro lado algumas iniciativas podem ser encontradas, no Brasil e no mundo, capazes de oferecer aos alunos uma vivência profissional na graduação. Até aqui, a consagrada simulação das organizações internacionais tem sido o cerne da prática nas Relações Internacionais, concorrendo ao aprimoramento das habilidades de oratória e negociação dos alunos. Junto a ela, porém, há uma dinâmica relativamente desconhecida, de importância fundamental, denominada “Laboratório de Análise das Relações Internacionais (LARI)”. Esse artigo é um relato de experiências do “LARI” enquanto metodologia ativa de aprendizagem e uma breve reflexão sobre suas possibilidades e limitações.Palavras-chave: Virada Prática; Metodologias Ativas; Teoria das Relações Internacionais. ABSTRACTThe longing for the implementation of practical activities is a historical question of the field of studies of IR. If, on the one hand, very little has been discovered about the practical and technical aspect of the area – which has made IR a much more reflexive and philosophical area – on the other hand some initiatives may be found in Brazil and in the world capable of offering students a professional experience in undergraduate studies. So far, the established simulation of international organizations has been at the heart of International Relations practice, contributing to the improvement of students' speaking and negotiation skills. Next to it, however, there is a relatively unknown dynamics of fundamental importance denominated "Laboratory of Analysis of International Relations (LARI)". This article is an account of experiences of "LARI" as an active learning methodology and a reflection on its possibilities and limitations.Keywords: Practice Turn; Active Learning; International Relations Theory. Recebido em 26 out.2018 | Aceito em 20 ago.2019

Desire all the way down

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROXANNE LYNN DOTY
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
First Principles ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
The Unconscious ◽  
Metaphysical Foundation ◽  
The One ◽  
The Way

Alex Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics demonstrates perhaps more long and hard thought about social theory and its implications for international relations theory than most international relations scholars have dared to venture into. He admirably attempts to do in an explicit manner what most scholars in the discipline do only implicitly and often accidentally: suggest a social theory to serve as the foundation for theorizing about international relations. However, there are problems with his approach, a hint of which can be found in the epigraph he has chosen: ‘No science can be more secure than the unconscious metaphysics, which tacitly it presupposes’. Because metaphysics cannot ultimately be proven or disproved, it is inherently insecure. The insecurity and instability of the metaphysical presuppositions present in Social Theory are not difficult to find, and what Wendt ends up demonstrating, despite his objective not to, is the absence of any secure, stable, and unambiguous metaphysical foundation upon which IR theory could be firmly anchored. Indeed, what Social Theory does illustrate is that there is no such ultimate centre within the discipline except the powerful desire to maintain the illusion of first principles and the essential nature of things. If I may paraphrase Wendt, this is a ‘desire all the way down’ in that it permeates his relentless quest for the essence of international relations. Two goals characterize this desire: on the one hand, to take a critical stance toward more conventional international relations theory such as neorealism and neoliberalism; on the other, to maintain unity, stability, and order within the discipline. Social Theory oscillates between these two goals and in doing so deconstructs the very foundations it seeks to lay.

From subjects to objects: Knowledge in International Relations theory

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bentley B. Allan
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Value Added ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
History Of Knowledge ◽  
History Of

There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of scientific knowledge and expertise in International Relations, but it is not clear what the theoretical value-added of this work is. This article places recent work on scientific knowledge and expertise in a longer-term perspective. The history shows that knowledge has played an important role in International Relations theory since Carr and Morgenthau, but that thinking has been trapped within a simple conceptual framework centered on tracing how knowledge shapes the beliefs and interests of international subjects. This mode of theorizing first entered International Relations via Mannheim and has been further developed by Foucauldian and practice-based approaches since the 1990s. Outlining the history of knowledge from Carr through Haas to the present makes it possible to identify the distinctive contribution of recent work: whereas International Relations has focused on how knowledge shapes subjects such as states and international organizations, recent work by Corry, Sending, and others reorients International Relations to the constitution of governance objects. On the object-centered view, knowledge plays a key role in the construction of the hybrid entities like the economy and the climate that structure the landscape of international politics.

Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform

2003 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel L. Nielson ◽  
Michael J. Tierney
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Agency Theory ◽  
World Bank ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Member States ◽  
The World Bank ◽  
And Behavior

Current international relations theory struggles to explain both the autonomy and transformation of international organizations (IOs). Previous theories either fail to account for any IO behavior that deviates from the interests of member states, or neglect the role of member states in reforming IO institutions and behavior. We propose an agency theory of IOs that can fill these gaps while also addressing two persistent problems in the study of IOs: common agency and long delegation chains. Our model explains slippage between member states' interests and IO behavior, but also suggests institutional mechanisms—staff selection, monitoring, procedural checks, and contracts—through which states can rein in errant IOs. We evaluate this argument by examining multiple institutional reforms and lending patterns at the World Bank from 1980 to 2000.

The poverty of Grand Theory

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Is Theory ◽  
The One ◽  
Late Modern ◽  
Made In

The editors of the special issue, in their call for papers for this special issue, expressed a degree of disquiet at the current state of International Relations theory, but the situation is both better and worse than they suggest. On the one hand, in some areas of the discipline, there has been real progress over the last decade. The producers of liberal and realist International Relations theory may not have the kind of standing in the social/human sciences as the ‘Grand Theorists’ identified by Quentin Skinner in his seminal mid-1980s’ collection, but they have a great deal to say about how the world works, and the world would have been a better place over the last decade or so if more notice had been taken of what they did say. On the other hand, the range of late modern theorists who brought some of Skinner’s Grand Theorists into the reckoning in the 1980s have, in the main, failed to deliver on the promises made in that decade. The state of International Relations theory in this neck of the woods is indeed a cause for concern; there is a pressing need for ‘critical problem-solving’ theory, that is, theory that relates directly to real-world problems but approaches them from the perspective of the underdog.

Forum: The view from everywhere

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
NORMAN GERAS
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Discourse Ethics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Political Community ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Response ◽  
Social Oppression ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The One

In The Transformation of Political Community Andrew Linklater has given us a most impressive synthesis of critical normative thinking about international relations theory, and I might as well begin by emphasizing that I will not be able to do justice to the rich detail of its content in the space here allotted to me, and so I shall not try. I offer just an individual response to Linklater's book, addressed to its core theoretical assumptions. I shall propose a critique of it in two particulars. These relate to a central ambiguity in its underwriting of discourse ethics on the one hand, and to a certain too ready levelling, so to say, vis-à-vis modes of social oppression and exclusion on the other.

The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Guzzini
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Empirical Theory ◽  
Historical Experience ◽  
Constitutive Function ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
The One ◽  
Two Sides

International Relations theory is being squeezed between two sides. On the one hand, the world of practitioners and attached experts often perceive International Relations theory as misleading if it does not correspond to practical knowledge, and redundant when it does. The academic study of international relations can and should not be anything beyond the capacity to provide political judgement which comes through reflection on the historical experience of practitioners. On the other hand, and within its disciplinary confines, International Relations theory is reduced to a particular type of empirical theory with increasing resistance to further self-reflection. Instead, this article argues that neither reduction is viable. Reducing theory to practical knowledge runs into self-contradictions; reducing theorizing to its empirical mode underestimates the constitutive function of theories, the role of concepts, and hence the variety of necessary modes of theorizing. I present this twofold claim in steps of increasing reflexivity in International Relations theory and propose four modes of theorizing: normative, meta-theoretical, ontological/constitutive and empirical.

scholarly journals What Is an International Cybersecurity Regime and How We Can Achieve It?

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-154
Author(s):  
Ilona Stadnik
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Norms ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Process ◽  
Viable Solution ◽  
Governance Models ◽  
The One ◽  
State Cooperation

This article explores the two mainstream directions of debates about the possibility of establishing a kind of international cybersecurity regime. It develops the idea of different governance models based on sovereignty, on the one hand, and multistakeholderism on the other. The application of international relations theory helps to understand the current process and stalemate initiatives regarding state cooperation in this field. In addition, the author pays attention to the applicability of the constructivism framework to the understanding of cybersecurity threats and the elaboration of international norms applicable to cyberspace. Finally, the article concludes with the idea that the multistakeholder approach to norm-making may become a viable solution to the problem of constructing an international cybersecurity regime.

scholarly journals Psychology, Political Psychology and International Relations

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 56-65
Author(s):  
Isabella Hermann
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Psychology ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Theory Building ◽  
Psychological Point ◽  
History Of ◽  
Ambivalent Relationship ◽  
The One

Psychology and international relations theory (IR) share an ambivalent relationship. On the one side psychology is neglected within the theory building of IR, on the other side there exists a large history of psychological approaches within the discipline, as well as interdisciplinary research in the field of political psychology. However, leaving psychology out of IR is not understandable from a psychological point of view since the differentiation between “rationality” on the one side and “irrationality” as psychology on the other side is artificial and contra-empirical. Systematically and naturally incorporating psychology – as for example motives and emotions – in IR would mean to understand international phenomena more profoundly and closer to reality.

scholarly journals Interpretation of China’s Global Advocacy for Renewable Energy through Lenses of Liberalism as an International Relations Theory

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-60
Author(s):  
Junjie (Jasper) Liang ◽  
Sixuan (Alice) Li
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Energy Transition ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Democratic Peace ◽  
International Expansion ◽  
Intergovernmental Cooperation ◽  
Tackle Climate Change ◽  
Compare And Contrast

There has been numerous literature analysing the international expansion of renewable energy utilizing realism as an International Relations theory from both For and Against perspectives, such as casting doubt on fair cooperation or urging individual states to catch up with the global competition. This paper attempts to offer an alternative explanation to the international cooperation between China and the world in the field of renewable energy through the lenses of liberalism. The role and influence of liberalism in explaining this phenomenon will be presented in the form of compare and contrast between liberalism and realism, with secondary theories included such as institutional liberalism, idealism and democratic peace theory. The rapid growth of renewable energy globally in recent decades could be attributed to individual states’ policies, intergovernmental cooperation and advocacy by international organizations. The paper demonstrates that China’s ability to develop renewable energy can be correspondingly attributed to its willingness to cooperate under the framework of liberalism. It actively participates in international agreements, works with international organizations, and trades with other countries. With cooperative efforts, it succeeds in mitigating the traditional energy crisis and further promoting energy transition. In conclusion, liberalism provides a more accurate and innovative explanation to China`s advocacy for renewable energy compared to realism, and it can be argued that China’s model of energy transformation could be learned by the international community to tackle climate change.

The Practice Turn in International Relations Theory

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Cornut
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Peace Negotiations ◽  
The Social ◽  
Practice Turn ◽  
The World ◽  
Symbolic Domination

In the social sciences, IR included, the study of practices starts from a very simple intuition: social realities - and international politics - are constituted by human beings acting in and on the world. Their ways of doing things delineate practices that enact and give meaning to the world. When seen through these lenses, the concerns of other IR approaches – war, peace, negotiations, states, diplomacy, international organizations, and so on – are bundles of individual and collective practices woven together and producing specific outcomes. Rather than as a unified approach, the Practice Turn (PT) in International Relations Theory is best approached through a series of conceptual innovations and tools that introduce novel ways of thinking about international politics. The review article here first introduces the main conceptual tools in PT’s toolbox focusing on defining practices, the logic of practice, field, capital, and symbolic domination. It then situates PT within IR, and shows how it departs from both rationalism and constructivism. The article closes by focusing on the methodological, epistemological and normative debates among practice turners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document