Suchergebnisse

International Relations (IR) textbooks often make reference to an idealist paradigm in interwar IR. This article argues that an idealist paradigm did not exist, and that interwar references to idealism or utopianism are contradictory and have little to do with defining a paradigm. Not only is there no idealist paradigm in IR at this time, but authors from the interwar period that have since been dismissed as idealists rarely share the attributes assigned to idealism or utopianism by later writers. If IR scholars are serious about understanding the history of their discipline then they will have to stop applying misleading and anachronistic terms like idealism.

Today David Mitrany is best known for his work on international functionalism, which influenced the development of European integration and the organisation of United Nations specialised agencies. What is often ignored in the West is his work on South-East Europe. During the inter-war period Mitrany studied both the operation of war government and the subsequent peasant revolution in the Balkans. War government demonstrated that political organisation could bridge the gap between social action and private property, while the peasant social revolution showed that the abstract economics associated with both capitalist and Marxist economics was not applicable outside of urban industrial production. It was through his studies of South-East Europe that Mitrany drew many of the lessons and concepts that were to form the foundations of his international theory.

In the history of international relations, no single idea has been more influential than the notion that there was a `great debate' in the 1920s and 1930s between the advocates of idealism and the champions of realism. In reality, there was never a single `great debate' but rather a multiplicity of discussions which revolved around at least three big questions: does capitalism lead to war; what are the most effective ways of dealing with totalitarian state aggression; and (in the US), is retreat from entangling alliances a reasonable response to a world turned upside down by war and economic depression? Throughout this, the academic study of IR remained strongly liberal and internationalist in orientation. However, liberalism was never seriously challenged by an apolitical realism, but instead by socialist critics - at least in Britain - and isolationists in the United States. Ultimately, the persistence of the notion that there was a real debate between idealism and realism, which the latter apparently won, says less about the actual discussions of the time, and more about the marginalisation of liberal and normative thinking in the IR mainstream in the post-war period.

This book reassesses international functionalism as an approach to global politics. Functionalism has been marginalized as simply a pre-scientific precursor to regional integration theory. In fact, functionalism provides a global view of states and international organizations working towards a peaceful and constructive world order through cooperative relationships across borders to satisfy human needs. Chapters examine the early development of functionalism and apply functionalist insights to issues, problems and conflicts in contemporary global governance

The parallel development of the inter- and non-governmental Commonwealths on the one hand and the field of International Relations and its oldest journal, The Round Table, on the other, should not go unnoticed at the start of the second decade of the century. This article suggests that the Commonwealth nexus has always constituted a distinctive perspective and debate in both the metropole and the rest of the Commonwealth's expanding official and unofficial networks. The Commonwealth 'School' both reinforces and contrasts with other non-US and non-hegemonic approaches presently animating the field. Adapted from the source document.

Ashworth, L. M.: Interdisciplinarity and international relations. - S. 16-25 Ross, F.: Degrees of disciplibarity in comparative politics: interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and borrowing. - S. 26-36 De Shalit, A.: Political philosophy and empirical political science: from foes to friends? - S. 37-46 Kelly, J.: What can interdisciplinarity offer to policy problems? Understanding the public policy of obesity. - S. 47-56