Suchergebnisse

The international relations (IR) discipline is dominated by the American research community. Data about publication patterns in leading journals document this situation as well as a variance in theoretical orientations. IR is conducted differently in different places. The main patterns are explained through a sociology of science model that emphasizes the different nineteenth-century histories of the state, the early format of social science, and the institutionalized delineation among the different social sciences. The internal social and intellectual structure of American IR is two-tiered, with relatively independent subfields and a top layer defined by access to the leading journals (on which IR, in contrast to some social sciences, has a high consensus). The famous successive "great debates" serve an important function by letting lead theorists focus and structure the whole discipline. IR in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom has historically been structured differently, often with power vested more locally. American IR now moves in a direction that undermines its global hegemony. The widespread turn to rational choice privileges a reintegration (and status-wise rehabilitation) with the rest of political science over attention to IR practices elsewhere. This rationalistic turn is alien to Europeans, both because their IR is generally closer to sociology, philosophy, and anthropology, and because the liberal ontological premises of rational choice are less fitting to European societies. Simultaneously, European IR is beginning to break the local power bastions and establish independent research communities at a national or, increasingly, a European level. As American IR turns from global hegemony to national professionalization, IR becomes more pluralistic.

The English school in the study of international relations is characterized by its interest in `international society', i.e. a society formed by and of states developing rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations. This perspective has held a promise of overcoming the dichotomies of realist-liberalist and historical-structural approaches. Thereby it opened up for potential studies of for instance the relative weight of systemic (structural and constant) pressures relative to historical peculiarities in the evolution of different systems of states; the interplay between international society and a `world society' of mankind; and characterization of the different logics of international relations in different epochs. Reviewing three recent and prominent publications from the `school', it seems that although the books each on their own make valuable contributions to International Relations, development of theory of international society is not a very dynamic business. A plea is made for an opening of the — too English? — school towards parallel American interest in `regimes', towards semioticians' insight into the nature and implications of `sharing language', and towards historically focused studies in classical political theory and international law. In particular, the books on nationalism (James Mayall) and Hugo Grotius (Hedley Bull et al.) offer promising examples of this.

In Ideology and Foreign Policy: Problems of Comparative Conceptualization, Walter Carlsnaes develops a framework for the study of foreign policy based on the concept of action. Functionalist and structuralist theories are thrust aside on the way to a logical clarification of the nature of explanation. Overall, this contribution is evaluated as positive and stimulating. Three points for possible criticism are made: (1) The `action' framework relegates structural factors to a secondary position; (2) the conceptualization in terms of values and perceptions rests on a narrow and rationalist understanding of psyche and language; (3) the concept of `ideology' remains too closely linked to the issue of beliefs (held by individuals) and thereby an important ideational dimension of social reality is missed. The first point is seen by the reviewer as a necessary price to be paid for the clarification of the intentional dimension. Emphasis is put on the second point. Based on a contrasting conception of language it is pointed out how Carlsnaes ends up in a too narrow concept of politics. This is the major source of the problems in the third category, too. The review suggests that the book might form part of a new `Scandinavian Approach' taking a different approach to the role of theory from the dominant US and British approaches to foreign policy analysis. The review indicates lines along which this new approach can be developed.

This new text examines key questions about the future of European integration. Addressing the crucial role played by national identity, this work argues that the EU debate draws on ideas of the nation as well as the state.