Suchergebnisse

The state of the art of international relations theory, with analysis of the work of twelve key contemporary thinkers; John Vincent, Kenneth Waltz, Robert O. Keohane, Robert Gilpin, Bertrand Badie, John Ruggie, Hayward Alker, Nicholas G. Onuf, Alexander Wendt, Jean Bethke Elshtain, R.B.J. Walker and James Der Derian

"Empirical Evidence for Empirical International Relations Theorizing: Tests of Epistemological Assumptions With Data" published on by Oxford University Press.

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.

Regime theory is an approach within international relations theory, a sub-discipline of political science, which seeks to explain the occurrence of co-operation among States by focusing on the role that regimes play in mitigating international anarchy and overcoming various collective action problems among States (International Relations, Principal Theories; State; see also Co-operation, International Law of). Different schools of thought within international relations have emerged, and various analytical approaches exist within the regime theory itself (see Sec. F.3 below). However, typically regime theory is associated with neoliberal institutionalism that builds on a premise that regimes are central in facilitating international co-operation and constraining the behaviour of States. Thus, in international relations literature, regime theory is often used interchangeably with the terms 'institutionalism' or 'neoliberal institutionalism'.

Within and outside of the discipline of International Relations, Frankfurt School Critical Theory faces a 'crisis of critique' that is affecting its ability to generate analyses and political interventions that are relevant to the present world-historical conjuncture. This article seeks to identify the theoretical origins of this predicament by investigating the meta-theoretical architecture of the prevailing Habermasian framework of critique. I contend that the binary ontology and methodology of society that lies at the heart of the Habermasian paradigm has effected an uncoupling of normative critique from substantive social and political analysis and resulted in a severe weakening of both Critical Theory's 'explanatory-diagnostic' and 'anticipatory-utopian' capabilities. Thereafter, I discuss the determinate ways in which these issues have manifested in critical theoretical interventions on international politics by exploring both Habermas's own writings on the post-national constellation and Andrew Linklater's theory of cosmopolitanism and the sociology of global morals. Both projects, it is argued, rely on a reductive, functionalist analysis of global political dynamics and express a political perspective that lacks a definite critical content. Ultimately, the article contends that a revitalisation of Critical Theory in International Relations must necessarily involve a clarification of its fundamental categories of analysis and a recovery of the orientation towards totalising critique.

Burke did not count himself a theorist. Metaphysics, abstraction, was stuff for professor So If the speculation of the classroom was brought too close to the life of politics the result was unsettling, dangerous, revolutionary. Politicians should be people of practice not theory, attending to circumstance before principle, working within a tradition not innovating, reforming before countenancing revolution. They should be concerned with the whole of human nature and not just with human reason, with feeling as well as with thought.

Received 11.12.2020. The article is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Academician N. N. Inozemtsev. The article provides an overview of the unpublished collective monograph "Foundations of the Theory of International Relations" – the fundamental work of a group of the IMEMO researchers, devised in the 1970s in the USSR. The process of creating a monograph is considered in the context of domestic and foreign policy conjuncture of that historical period, as well as the history of IMEMO. Among factors that slowed down the publication of this work were ideological transformations in the USSR, the divergence of political elite groups' interests. The main provisions of the monograph, based on a systematic approach and works by representatives of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, are given. Particular attention is paid to comparison with the American and Western European international relations theory concepts of that period. Self-sufficiency of the monograph as a full-fledged theoretical concept within the framework of the Marxist-Leninist theory of international relations is substantiated. The authors of the article prove the relevance of the monograph both as a historical source and as a milestone for modern scientific Marxist thought. Owing to the collapse of the world socialist system, the Marxist paradigm received an opportunity to reach its own realism, separated from ideology and based on the central idea of Marxism – the position of development as an objective quality of the socio-historical process. The publication of the collective monograph "Fundamentals of the Theory of International Relations" is planned for the end of 2021.