Suchergebnisse

The study examines whether it is relevant to use constructivist research instruments in order to study the sanctions and the so-called countersanctions that were imposed on Russia and then by Russia after the events in Crimea in 2014 and February 24. I develop the arguments that were presented in the work "Sanctions in IR: Understanding, Defining, Studying" in an attempt to assess the explanatory capabilities of the three leading paradigms in IR. The question posed is: do realism, liberalism and constructivism coherently and consistently explain the nature of the fast-growing scope of sanctions that tend to be implemented without the UN Security Council's approval? The third way (constructivist one) seems to be efficient since there are difficulties with studying sanctions from the perception of the overwhelming rationality. To be concrete, I test the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy that obtained proponents in psychology and the theory of decision-making as well but hasn't been actively promoted in IR studies. Nevertheless, it seems to be useful to explain the sustainability of sanction's regime, which - paradoxically - from the first glance brings no profit but harm to each party involved. Moreover, it corelates with realist scholars' perception of IR nature (particularly, security dilemma). Finally, four basic and one extra preconditions for self-fulfilling scenarios in the international arena are outlined, applicable not just to the "sanction's" field, but also to the current principles of cross-state interactions.

We revisit and empirically evaluate crucial yet under-examined arguments articulated in "God Gave Physics the Easy Problems" (2000), the authors of which emphasized that, in International Relations (IR) predictions, predominant nomothetic approaches should be supplemented with concrete scenario thinking. We test whether the IR predictive toolkit is in fact dominated by nomothetic generalizations and, more broadly, map the methodological profile of this subfield. We build on the TRIP database, supplementing it with extensive original coding to operationalize the nuances of predictive research. In particular, we differentiate between nomoscopic predictions (predictive generalizations) and idioscopic predictions (predictions for concrete situations), showing that this distinction is not reducible to other methodological cleavages. We find that even though in contemporary IR an increasing number of articles seek to provide predictions, they consistently avoid predictions about concrete situations. The proportion of idioscopic predictions is stably small, with an even smaller proportion of predictions that develop concrete narratives or specify any determinate time period. Furthermore, those idioscopic studies are mostly limited to a niche with specialized themes and aims. Thus, our research shows that the critical claims from 20 years ago are still relevant for contemporary IR, as the "difficult problem" of developing predictive scenarios is still consistently overlooked in favor of other objectives. Ultimately, the types of predictions that IR scholars develop depend on their specific aims and constraints, but the discipline-wide result is a situation in which international studies' ambition to provide predictions grows, but they tend to reproduce the same limitations as they did in 2000.

We revisit and empirically evaluate crucial yet under-examined arguments articulated in "God Gave Physics the Easy Problems" (2000), the authors of which emphasized that, in International Relations (IR) predictions, predominant nomothetic approaches should be supplemented with concrete scenario thinking. We test whether the IR predictive toolkit is in fact dominated by nomothetic generalizations and, more broadly, map the methodological profile of this subfield. We build on the TRIP database, supplementing it with extensive original coding to operationalize the nuances of predictive research. In particular, we differentiate between nomoscopic predictions (predictive generalizations) and idioscopic predictions (predictions for concrete situations), showing that this distinction is not reducible to other methodological cleavages. We find that even though in contemporary IR an increasing number of articles seek to provide predictions, they consistently avoid predictions about concrete situations. The proportion of idioscopic predictions is stably small, with an even smaller proportion of predictions that develop concrete narratives or specify any determinate time period. Furthermore, those idioscopic studies are mostly limited to a niche with specialized themes and aims. Thus, our research shows that the critical claims from 20 years ago are still relevant for contemporary IR, as the "difficult problem" of developing predictive scenarios is still consistently overlooked in favor of other objectives. Ultimately, the types of predictions that IR scholars develop depend on their specific aims and constraints, but the discipline-wide result is a situation in which international studies' ambition to provide predictions grows, but they tend to reproduce the same limitations as they did in 2000.