Search results

One of the achievements of the reflectivist turn in international relations theory in the late 20th century was the attention given to the role of discourse and other ideational factors in international politics. In recent years, however, approaches critical of the discursive emphasis in international studies have emerged, seeking to restore the significance of non-discursive aspects of international relations such as geography, technology, and the non-human. This article offers a perspective on the development of international relations theory from the standpoint of the debate between materialism and idealism. Within this framework, it provides a brief overview of the historical evolution of international relations theory and subsequently delves into a detailed analysis of three strands of the new wave of materialist theorizing in the field - critical realism, new materialism, and neoclassical geopolitics. The article suggests considering the new materialist wave as, on the whole, a positive development, but also points out the necessity of taking into account the risk of "exiling" the human element from international relations research as such concepts proliferate. The possibility of collaboration between reflecivists and post-reflecivists, as well as between idealists and materialists in general, is underlined for the comprehensive study of contemporary international realities.

The article provides an overview of international and Russian literature on the genesis and development of System Research in IR studies, demonstrates the emergence of System Research in Russia and in the world, the development of the general theory of systems. It is shown that at the fi rst stage, the representatives of natural sciences tried to identify the isomorphism between the international relations system and other systems (biological, physical). In this context, the attempts to form a general theory of international confl ict could be viewed. It is noted that at the beginning of the 1970s, these attempts ended unsuccessfully in general. The second area of international relations system modeling is related to the work of structural realists, primarily K. Waltz and M. Kaplan. Despite the fact that in their papers the verbal analysis dominates over the formal international relations system model, they have madea signifi cant contribution to the political science in perception of the systems theory. The paper also describes the system modeling in the context of the Neo-Marxist theory of international relations, fi rst and foremost, in the meaning of the I. Wallerstein's world-system theory. Special attention is paid to the systemic research crisis in the IR science at the turn of 1980-1990s, also due to a sharp change in the international situation, and the transition from a predominantly deterministic world of the Cold War to the post-bipolar non-equilibrium international system. The authors clearly reveal the evolution of the international relations perception in terms of the systems theory. They also illustrate the intensifi cation of the international system modeling in the XXIst century on the basis of a new methodology - via the use of the more sophisticated complexity theory (the theory of complex systems), as well as by adapting the sociological theory of structuration by A. Giddens in political sciences. Showing the most promising areas of the complexity theory practical application in the modeling of international relations - agentbased modeling and simulation of system dynamics, - the authors enumerate the most promising spheres for the system modeling in international studies.

Thucydides is considered to be the founder of political realism. Even in those times he determined the basic premises of realism - security and survival. He made an impact on subsequent development of realism embodied in the works of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, Car, Niebuhr, Aaron, Waltz etc. They will call the system of international relations as anarchical one since there is no supreme arbitrator which will force states to adequate behaviour. His views of realism were given in the volume 'The Peloponnesian War' where he had determined the anarchy of the relationships among states. Such system did not rely on justice and morale, but force and power were the predominant facts. He also introduces the category of just wars by claiming that Sparta led a just war against the increased power of Athens, and observed morale principles. Nevertheless, Thucydides faces contradictory, since Sparta itself as the largest land force of that time had to use force in order to beat Athens. He went ahead since he considered force and power as a necessary condition to achieve other objectives, which was later on adopted by Raymond Aaron. Following the example of the war between Athens and Sparta, he successfully analysed bipolar system of balance of power in which the conflict between the leading members of the two opposite blocks was possible in the end, while beforehand there should have been conflicts among weaker members of both blocks. Thucydides explained the manifestation of force and power using example of the Melian dialogue between the envoys of Athens and Melos. It was about the pure politics of force of Athens regardless of the fact that Melos had its independence.

This article is devoted to English historian F.S. Northedge (1918-1985) and his role in the development conception of international society and English School of International relations in 1960-1980.

This school consists of small group of scientists and diplomats, who were well educated in elite British universities like Cambridge and Oxford. They were acquainted with each other personally. British Committee for the Theory of International Politics in 1960-1970 was the center for the study of International Society. Such composition of the school demonstrated aristocratic character of the International relations study as intellectual pursuit in United Kingdom. Meanwhile, such people like Charles Manning, Fred Northedge, Edward Carr and some other famous people, who usually were English School members, did not taken part in the British Committee due to different reasons.

Thus, F.S. Northedge was untypical participant of English school and his scientific heritage need to be studied. Key factors of his biography and his views on International Policy are studies in the article. "Diplomatic style", "System of the state" and "International society" were the central concepts in his works. He met with these ideas in the London School of economy, where Charles Manning, Martin Wight and Headley Bull – founders of English School - had worked at International relations chair in different time. The analysis of these categories let make conclusion that F. Northedge agreed with main ideas of English School of International relations. But at the same time he understood them very originally. His system of the views demonstrated that British Committee for the Theory of International Politics, but not London School of economy, was the main center for the development conception of International Society in 1960-1980.