Suchergebnisse

Contemporary theorists of international politics do not see the world in the same ways nor do they agree on what is important to know, or how to know it. Disagreements are partly due to the increasing complexity of the world, but also derive from the development of many different viewing points. Some are geographic and cultural (Americans often view the world differently than, say, Japanese), but other perspectives come from different epistemological starting points and from different assumptions as to what constitutes reliable or useful knowledge, and how to create it. Debates in the 1960s revolved around problems of methodology. Today, we see in addition arguments over metaphysics, the purposes of theoretical activity (understanding versus praxis, for example), and a whole host of other divisive questions.

Die gegenwärtige theoretische Diskussion im Bereich internationaler Beziehungen stellt die Interdependenz von Wirtschafts- und Sicherheitspolitik in den Mittelpunkt. Zwei Fallstudien über Japan und Finnland ergeben eine unterschiedliche und sich im Laufe der Entwicklung ändernde Dominanz für den sicherheitspolitischen oder wirtschaftlichen Bestimmungsfaktor internationaler Beziehungen, wobei im Zweifel sicherheitspolitische Erwägungen überwiegen. Nur die Anwendung eines dynamischen Modells, das die spezifischen Verhältnisse der betreffenden Staaten einbezieht, kann die internationalen Beziehungen zutreffend beschreiben. (SWP-Bmt)

AbstractTwo contemporary streams of thought in international relations offer significant theoretical challenges to the field and to the way it has been organized since the time of Rousseau. New power cycle theories propose that the etiology of war resides in different growth rates among the major powers. Hegemonic wars are a recurrent consequence of the states system. The literature suggests that the patterns of the past are likely to be repeated in future; hence, the only solution to the problem of war is the transcendence of the states system. The second body of literature proposes that growing interdependence is bringing profound structural changes that are already leading to the demise of the nation state and to the transformation of the states system. The essay critically examines these theories and outlines reasons why both are empirically and logically deficient. These bodies of literature also illustrate how even among rigorous quantitative analysts, normative concerns animate research. Finally, the author suggests why the search for a theory or model of international politics is doomed to failure, and why a healthy field will be characterized by intellectual pluralism.