Suchergebnisse

The author proposes a historiographical study of the game theory application to the analysis of international negotiations, conditions for modification of multilateral regimes, mechanisms of decision-making in the international organizations. Game theory is a mathematical theory for analysis of strategic behavior (interaction) and it is widely used in the social sciences. It explains the logic of rational behavior of individuals in situations of conflict of interest. Game theory is used by foreign researchers as a method of analysis of international relations. The domestic researchers, however, do not often resorts to it. The "golden age" of game theory was the era of global confrontation between the USSR and the United States.

The concept of international relations (IR) theory in the People's Republic of China differs drastically from that of the West. The construction of the IR discipline & theory, which began in response to the call of the CCP Central Committee leadership in the Cold War era, is a relatively new development in China, although there is universal agreement among scholars that ancient China has tangibly influenced present-day international attitudes toward China's leaders & its foreign policy. It is also evident that IR theory construction in China is, today, undergoing drastic reform. Many theorists are arguing for a distinct IR theory that conforms to "Chinese characteristics." Yet, because of China's historical lack of IR theory, it is still necessary for Chinese scholars to model their own theories after those of the West. As China's foreign policy matures & strengthens, China's IR scholars are less likely to look to the West for direction. 2 Tables. K. A. Larsen

With a view to providing contextual background for the Special Issue, this opening article analyses several dimensions of 'The end of International Relations theory?' It opens with a consideration of the status of different types of theory. Thereafter, we look at the proliferation of theories that has taken place since the emergence of the third/fourth debate. The coexistence and competition between an ever-greater number of theories begs the question: what kind of theoretical pluralism should IR scholars embrace? We offer a particular account of theoretical engagement that is preferable to the alternatives currently being practised: integrative pluralism. The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: given the disciplinary competition that now exists in relation to explaining and understanding global social forces, International Relations may find resilience because it has become theory-led, theory-literate and theory-concerned.

"Teaching International Relations Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

Many scholars are dissatisfied with the tendency of research and teaching in the field of international relations to be framed as clashes among competing schools of thought. I examine two prominent options for reform that relate to the schools and offer one element of an alternative path forward. The first option, which I term analytical singularism, calls for the abandonment of the IR schools and their replacement with a single, uniform framework for the study of international relations. By virtue of a constricted ontology and partialist epistemology, this option is plagued by omitted variable bias and underspecified modeling of important international processes. The second option, analytical eclecticism, suggests that improved IR studies might emerge from the consideration of interactions between causal factors that are drawn from the different IR schools of thought. Analytical eclecticism holds promise but faces serious challenges arising from its preference for qualitative methods and context-specific epistemology. I then outline a process of collaborative challenges between adherents of the different IR schools as one way by which we might advance research in international relations.

This article argues that the debate between pluralism and solidarism in English School theory has been cast in such a way as to hand the progressive cause to solidarism, taking for granted that moves towards the emergence of world society further a solidarist normative agenda. This article suggests this is because of assumptions about the nature and location of such changes within English School theory. However, an alternative understanding of change, as emerging from tensions arising within the pluralist understanding of international society, has been overlooked. This enables a challenge to be raised to the assumption that world society must be solidarist, producing an initial defence of a potentially ethically desirable pluralist form of world society.

"Toward an Evolutionary Theory of International Relations" published on by Oxford University Press.