Suchergebnisse

Abstract
According to conventional narratives of International Relations (IR), the vast majority—if not all—of the twentieth-century proposals to overcome war came from men, such as Norman Angell, Vladimir Lenin and Woodrow Wilson. Recent efforts show that women also contributed significantly to the topic; nevertheless, they have focused almost exclusively on women from the United States or Great Britain. Despite Argentinian Alicia Moreau's significant writings on war, her international thought remains unknown in Latin America, and in the histories of international thought and IR. Through a textual analysis of Moreau's writings and speeches, as well as a comparative approach with other socialist and feminist perspectives, this article has a double objective. First, to lay the foundations for demonstrating that women from the global South also contributed to explaining and providing practical solutions to war during the early twentieth century; and second, to draw lessons from Moreau's writings for today's policy-makers. The article shows that although Moreau's international thought does not transcend Eurocentrism, her blend of socialist democratic feminism, informed by her work as an activist and politician, offers a moderate non-violent alternative to other well-known socialist and feminist approaches, and provides insights for policy-makers on the importance of women, education and democracy to achieve a more peaceful and egalitarian world.

A widespread belief in the field of international relations (IR) is that the first years of the discipline were characterized by a liberal "idealist" theoretical dominance followed by the so-called "first great debate," in which the "idealist" school was intellectually surpassed by a realist tradition. The purpose of this article is to join previous revisionist studies and challenge this conventional narrative. Building primarily on the international thought and work of Norman Angell on imperialism, this article reveals that there was an important intellectual contest preceding the denominated "first great debate." It also shows that even though Angell was not a Marxist, his figure discloses Marxism as an important theoretical force in the genesis of the discipline.

In his own time, Leonard Woolf was one of the most prolific and respected experts on international affairs. Yet, his paramount place in the field fell rapidly, partly because he was a writer whose ideas have been labelled as utopian. This article employs Woolf to challenge the orthodox narrative of the discipline of International Relations (IR) that oversimplifies the early stages of the field as a dichotomy between idealism and realism. While this has already been done cogently by Peter Wilson, this article discloses a Marxist dimension in Woolf's thought and writings. This is particularly important given that Marxism has regained significance in recent IR debates. Through a contextualist approach, this article demonstrates that Woolf represents a considerable challenge to conventional IR historiography and reveals the significance of Marxian-based understandings in the early stages of the discipline as an alternative to idealism and realism. In addition, this article shows some of the distinctiveness in Woolf's Marxian writings on imperialism as an alternative to Leninist understandings.

AbstractA widespread belief in the field of international relations (IR) is that the first years of the discipline were characterized by a liberal "idealist" theoretical dominance followed by the so-called "first great debate," in which the "idealist" school was intellectually surpassed by a realist tradition. The purpose of this article is to join previous revisionist studies and challenge this conventional narrative. Building primarily on the international thought and work of Norman Angell on imperialism, this article reveals that there was an important intellectual contest preceding the denominated "first great debate." It also shows that even though Angell was not a Marxist, his figure discloses Marxism as an important theoretical force in the genesis of the discipline.

Traditionally, the origins of International Relations as a stand‐alone academic discipline have been traced to the inspiration of a generation of so‐called liberal idealist thinkers. Since the late 1990s, however, a growing revisionist literature has challenged this assumption. Important studies have been conducted to show that prominent early IR scholars, such as Leonard Woolf and David Mitrany, hardly share the characteristics of so‐named IR's idealism. The case of J.A. Hobson has also been part of revisionist efforts. Paradoxically, however, he has been at times placed in alignment with "idealist" values. This article aims to employ Hobson to challenge IR orthodox narratives. Through an analysis of Hobson's writings on imperialism, the article aims to reveal a little acknowledged and yet significant underlying theoretical socialist influence on his international theory.

Abstract
Academics working in International Relations (IR) often portray the discipline as predominantly American. The traditional orthodox narrative of the discipline, told through the 'Great Debates', reinforces this, as it depicts the main scholars in the history of the discipline as primarily originating from either the United States or the United Kingdom. In fact, the most popular books covering key thinkers in the discipline feature virtually no Latin American theorists. The marginalization of voices from the global South, including women, and of non-traditional perspectives has created a knowledge gap within the discipline. To address this, this special section of International Affairs, 'Missing voices: Latin American perspectives in International Relations', delves into the rich tapestry of international thought on world affairs, encompassing the works of several intellectuals from Latin America. We are convinced that highlighting these perspectives is vital to dispelling myths and positioning IR in the path of a truly global discipline.