The major dialogues between theories in International Relations are regarded as one of the most significant outcomes of global events such as the two world wars and the end of the Cold War. This is also true for the structural transformations in the nature of international relations that occurred following these events.
By the early 1930s, scholars in International Relations recognized a gap between theorists in the field, notably between proponents of an idealistic perspective (who emphasize how international relations should be) and those of a realist perspective (who focus on what international reality is). This disagreement can, in part, be attributed to the influence of American isolationism on idealism at the time, while realism (represented by Morgenthau) was shaped by the European reality characterized by wars. Thus, the first dialogue between these two orientations centered on the most effective ways to ensure international peace.
The debate could not be definitively settled, and with the onset of World War II, proponents of the realist perspective felt that their interpretations were more aligned with reality. Additionally, some scientists in physics and military industry experienced a moral awakening due to the destruction caused by irrational use of weapons (nuclear bombs). There was a move towards trying to apply scientific methodology (characterized by precision) to the study of International Relations, leading to a second dialogue between the theories considered traditional (idealism and realism) and those classified as scientific (behaviorism).
Despite the important revisions resulting from the second dialogue, which produced the theories of “neorealism” and “neoliberalism” classified under the rationalist paradigm, realism continued to dominate academic studies of International Relations during the Cold War. The failure of realism to predict the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the communist bloc reignited discussions regarding the capacity of theories to explain and predict. Thus, the third dialogue emerged between explanatory theories grounded in “positivist” epistemology and “empirical” methodology, and the constitutive theories adopting a “post-positivist” epistemology and a “post-empirical” methodology. This represents a revolution in the field of theory that undermines previous frameworks and attempts to establish new perspectives that reconsider the epistemological and ontological premises of knowledge in general, and particularly in relation to international relations.
- The Problematic Question: Do the three successive major dialogues indicate a knowledge accumulation, or a knowledge rupture?
- Hypothesis One: The major dialogues serve as a space for reviewing shortcomings and bridging gaps that the dominant theories in the field of International Relations have suffered from, while also creating opportunities to alleviate dogmatism.
- Hypothesis Two: The third dialogue, marked by a critical reassessment, has generated a kind of uncertainty regarding the judgment between knowledge accumulation and knowledge rupture in the realm of theorizing.
These hypotheses have been examined through the three chapters of this research, first by identifying the main assumptions of both realism and idealism in Chapter One in a comparative format. The second chapter presents the realist/behaviorist dialogue, divided into two sections: the first addresses the reliance of realism on a deductive methodology in attempting to theorize international relations through historical events. The second covers the behavioral approach that adopts an inductive methodology in studying phenomena related to international politics. Chapter Three is dedicated to observing the key issues discussed between the explanatory (rationalist) and constitutive (post-positivist) orientations.
Research Plan
- Introduction
- Chapter One: The First (Ontological) Dialogue: Idealism vs. Realism
- Chapter Two: The Second (Methodological) Dialogue: Traditionalism vs. Behaviorism
- Section One: Morgenthau and the Lessons of History
- Section Two: Scientificism and the Search for a General Theory
- Chapter Three: The Third (Epistemological) Dialogue: Explanatory (Rationalist) vs. Constitutive (Reflective)
- Section One: Challenges of Positivism
- Section Two: Post-Positivists and Deconstructing Discourse
- Conclusion
Chapter One: The First (Ontological) Dialogue: Idealism vs. Realism
The first dialogue between realism and idealism focused on the ontological level, examining existence (the international situation after World War I). It involves investigating the nature of the unit of analysis or the reference point of analysis (what is it we are trying to understand).
In this dialogue, realism interprets international relations based on the principle of “what is,” while idealism relies on the principle of “what should be.” The outcomes of World War I significantly influenced the ideas of political and scientific elites, and these manifestations emerged more clearly in this dialogue. What were the main assumptions under discussion?
Idealism vs. Realism
Idealism adopts an optimistic view of an international reality free from wars, grounded in the belief in the inherent goodness of humanity, whereas realism posits that the nature of the state mirrors that of individuals (evil) and seeks to maximize its power for survival. Therefore, realism carries a pessimistic outlook on the prospects for reducing conflicts and wars.
Realism fundamentally adopts a “state-centric” view emphasizing the central role of states as the creators of civil society domestically and the sole intermediaries for that society externally within a chaotic international system (where there is no supreme sovereign authority). The state does not strive for wealth but is primarily engaged in countering chaos. In contrast, idealism posits that the world is a pluralistic cooperative framework, supported by international institutions aimed at achieving collective security and democratic systems bolstered by a knowledgeable public, with the state acting as a servant seeking to foster welfare.
While idealism uses a moral-legal approach to construct a better world devoid of conflicts, drawing from optimistic philosophical assumptions about human nature, the role of education, rationality, and the possibility of establishing absolute value standards, realism seeks to analyze the existing state of international relations, particularly concerning the politics of power, war, and conflicts.
Idealism assumes goodness in human nature (or at least the capacity for it), positing that international interests are harmonious and that the supreme interest of the individual naturally aligns with that of the community, asserting the idea of ‘Harmony of Interests’—that when an individual pursues their self-interest, they also serve the interest of the community. Conversely, realism maintains that human nature is relatively constant or resistant to change, viewing humans as predisposed to evil, sin, and the pursuit of power. Thus, the international world becomes one of conflicting interests, and international politics becomes a struggle for power—primarily states advancing their interests individually. The ultimate concern for states is survival, which is a prerequisite for achieving other goals.
For idealists, ethics take precedence in determining politics, whether within a national framework or internationally, whereas realism argues that moral principles or ethics are difficult to apply to political actions or behavior.
Realism emphasizes the internal organization of power within states according to the principle of “legitimacy of the use of force,” whereby citizens are not expected to defend themselves. It then shifts focus to maximizing power internationally in a chaotic international system (where no sovereign authority exists), while idealism emphasizes establishing democratic systems as a foundational step toward eliminating conflicts, contending that democratic states pursue non-aggressive and peaceful policies, with militaristic, authoritarian, and undemocratic regimes being the main enemies of peace.
According to realism, power, national interest, and the balance of power are fundamental explanations of international relations. Strategic issues (military security) are prioritized while economic and social issues are viewed as less significant or as secondary politics. In contrast, idealism emphasizes economic dimensions as crucial for achieving national welfare, advocating for interdependence at the international political level.
Realism asserts that security stems from a focus on a balance of power in a state-centric approach aimed at enhancing a state’s position through power-maximization policies aimed at survival. The state is considered the primary rational actor in international relations, as it serves as the creator of civil society domestically and the sole intermediary for that community externally; thus, it is the institution through which all other entities operate and determines the conditions under which they act.
The failure of idealism to understand the reasons behind state aggression or conflictual behavior is evident. The explanation provided for World War I was inadequate; Hitler’s decision to go to war received widespread public support in Germany at the time, and Germany was a constitutional state governed by law, with a government accountable to Parliament and the Emperor. While certainly not a democracy, no fully democratic country existed in 1944, as even the most extensive electoral systems (in the United States and France) excluded women from voting rights. The gap widened between idealism and the political realities of the world, notably exemplified by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and Italy’s occupation of Ethiopia in 1935. What transpired could not be merely attributed to the failure of responsible individuals to execute certain policies; rather, it was a result of the fundamental failure of idealist hypotheses to comprehensively understand the factors influencing and determining state and individual behaviors.
Realism has faced numerous critiques, including a lack of precision in defining key concepts such as power, balance of power, and national interest, focusing heavily on causality while ignoring freedom of choice and will as emphasized by idealism, and typically neglecting the role of ethics within international relations. By overly focusing on the concept of “power,” realism approaches the framework of international theory from a unitary variable perspective.
It appeared during the interwar period (the phase of growing debate between idealism and realism) that the task of political science became limited to striving for the establishment of a unified nation-state, upheld by a cohesive people with shared capabilities. Consequently, it becomes evident that the emerging knowledge field labeled political science aimed not merely at providing an analytical framework for studying political phenomena, but indeed at realizing a political agenda as well. This set the stage for the emergence of the second methodological dialogue between the traditionalist and behavioralist currents.
Chapter Two: The Second (Methodological) Dialogue: Traditionalism vs. Behaviorism
The collective criticism from physicists who felt moral guilt about the destructive weapons deployed during World War II, along with systems analysts seeking to enhance the quality of US policy—especially in defense—combined with individuals from behavioral sciences attempting to study the realistic behavior of actors, rather than the meanings attributed to that behavior, led to a dialogue among those advocating for the application of scientific (empirical) methods to the study of international politics, against traditionalist realists who believed in a scientific basis for their principles. Thus, the second dialogue unfolded between traditionalists and behavioralists.
The fundamental disagreement between them can be summarized, as noted by David Singer, around the methodological approaches employed to arrive at a general theory, and in the proportion of cases to variables studied—traditionalists tend to reduce the number of cases while increasing the number of variables, whereas behavioralists adopt an opposite approach (in terms of whether each camps’ interest lies in studying the greatest number of phenomena or the greatest number of variables influencing those phenomena).
Section One: Morgenthau and the Lessons of History
Traditionalists perceive international relations as the study of patterns of action and reaction among sovereign states manifested through their ruling elites. Consequently, the study of international relations should concentrate on the activities of diplomats and soldiers executing their governments’ policies. To them, international relations are synonymous with “diplomacy and strategy,” as well as with “cooperation and conflict.” The goal of international relations studies is to understand peace and war. This perspective leads traditionalists to acknowledge numerous variables influential on the behavior of diplomats and military officials, including climatic conditions, geographical location, population density, levels of education, historical and cultural traditions, perceptions of the “other,” economic circumstances, trade interests, religious and ideological values, and so forth. Any attempt to understand the reasons behind any governmental action and organize these variables in a specific order is deemed pointless, as it can only yield meager hypotheses.
For traditionalists like R. Aron, S. Hoffmann, and Morgenthau, the focus is primarily on observing the behaviors of the governments under study using concepts such as “balance of power,” the national interest, or “diplomacy of caution.” This perspective reflects Morgenthau’s “political realism” school, which posits that scholars adopting this theory should predict that the actions of any state will reflect the rational actions of diplomats and military leaders striving for maximum gain for their countries within the prudent limits necessary for survival. Morgenthau centers his analysis around the concept of “power,” which he defines as “the ability of any elite in its foreign policy to control the ideas and actions of another elite,” despite the challenges posed by establishing a precise definition for power, as it encompasses “influence”—a psychological relationship involving control and based on multiple factors ranging from persuasion to nuclear capabilities. The same issue extends to other terminologies used in traditional theory, such as “national interest,” “balance of power,” and “equilibrium.” The balance of power can either mean maintaining the current international status quo for some states or may imply reconsideration by states for which the current situation serves them poorly. What is the preferable balance, is it the current or future state? The answer relies on the status of each state.
Morgenthau bestowed methodological characteristics on traditional realism, as his book “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace” is rich in listings, such as six principles of political realism and three strategies for foreign policy available to states, among others. However, upon examining the writings of traditionalists, especially R. Aron and S. Hoffmann, one arrives at the conclusion that “nothing is certain” (uncertainty). Despite their contributions to enriching international relations through their emphasis on the impossibility of isolating the determinants of foreign policy choices, which compels politicians to confirm the means they possess compared to the physical, political, and cultural needs of their societies in a chaotic world.
The traditional school conceptualizes international relations as “the study of the nearly chaotic interactions between sovereign political units” and perceives these units as not recognizing any authority above them, often resorting to threats of force or waging wars to protect or enhance what they consider their vital interests. Followers of the traditional school argue that the goal of political science is to study “order” in the distribution of political wealth within relatively stable political systems, while international relations research examines “disorder” within a primitive international political system characterized by inequality.
Section Two: Scientificism and the Search for a General Theory
Behaviorism can be defined as a focus on “political behavior,” alongside a methodological argument for “scientificism,” and an organizational vision for the “political system,” centering on the individual as the basic unit of analysis. Behaviorists believe that for explanations to have a scientific nature, they must be expressed as conclusions.
Behaviorism criticized “traditional theories” as vague and overly inclusive, arguing they fail to provide clear analyses of international political behavior and do not withstand scientific verification as they rely on diplomatic history and historical events, rendered incapable of examining contemporary facts in relation to a historical archive. Proponents of behaviorism advocate for an empirical, inductive methodology and hypothesis testing, verifying principles through repeated observation, testing, and application of concepts to reality—transforming events into data that allow other researchers to conduct observations and verify results—which requires strong training in statistics and computer science.
Behaviorism aimed to replace the “wisdom literature” and the “narrative” use of history embodied by Morgenthau and traditional realists, using precise scientific thinking and concepts instead. Thus, they contend that the traditional school offers insufficient methodological rigor and merely presents a “wisdom approach.”
In their attempts to study international relations from a timeless abstract perspective, behaviorists built models of the international system and gathered data related to those models to confirm or disprove their initial hypotheses. Kaplan’s studies in “The System and the Process in International Politics” and J.D. Singer’s project “War Syndromes” illustrate this; however, most focused on very specific topics, leaving them open to criticisms of their attention to minor issues. Behaviorists sought to combine use of mental and research tools to varying degrees in the 1950s and 1960s, correlating theory building (scientific) with empirical research experimentation. According to behaviorists, theory assumptions should adhere consistently while remaining testable.
The behavioral trend directly counters traditionalist analyses by imitating methodologies from the natural sciences in contrast to the traditional normative analysis of political life, differing in subject matter, methodology, and analytical tools. For behavioralists, political analysis focuses on political activity versus conventional political knowledge that sees political institutions as formally defined by constitutions (a legal outlook). It juxtaposes a scientific analysis (empirical/behavioral) against a philosophical (legal) approach.
The core contribution of the behavioral school lies not in the results they achieve but in the methodological revolution they initiated in the field of international relations during the 1950s, whereby applying the scientific method contributed to the development of concepts and research tools drawn from social sciences. While behavioral efforts remain closer to “promises” than “performances,” as David Singer noted, they diverged from their proclaimed goal of “marrying theory and research” by prioritizing research tools over the goal of theorizing political life, ultimately adding confusion to their analyses of politics.
While behavioralists view traditional analysis as static, presuming human nature’s constancy, and the behavioral approach assumes variability in individual behavior focusing on the dynamic rather than static aspects, behavioralists often end up constricting behavior patterns into rigid molds presumed to be stable, paving the way for their prediction and concluding in static analysis.
Moreover, behaviorism focuses exclusively on describing and understanding political phenomena without extending its boundaries to find solutions to humanity’s pressing problems, which David Easton—one of the significant proponents of post-behavioralism—articulated by stressing the responsibility of the post-behavioral school to breach the silence imposed by behaviorism and to push political sciences toward addressing the actual needs of humanity during crises.
Chapter Three: The Third (Epistemological) Dialogue: Explanatory vs. Constitutive
The essence of the third discussion revolves around theories viewing the social world akin to the natural world (suggesting that the theories used to analyze it are merely descriptive rather than constructive of that reality) versus theories that see our language and concepts as instrumental in creating that reality. The dialogue is not confined to a singular model nor superficial; instead, it is epistemological, debating the foundations upon which the knowledge construct of these theoretical models, be it the established (positivist) ones or contemporary (post-positivist), rests. Were most scholars of International Relations asked about the most pressing issues within the field, their response would prioritize epistemological matters over ontological ones (how do we know versus what we aim to understand). This grants a certain weight to this dialogue relative to its predecessors.
Section One: Challenges of Positivists
Until the late 1980s, social scientists specializing in international relations generally aligned with positivist philosophy, which defines how knowledge should be constructed based on four main hypotheses:
- The belief in the unity of science, meaning the same methodologies can be applied in both scientific and non-scientific realms.
- The distinction between facts and values; facts are neutral across various theories.
- Both social and natural worlds contain regular patterns that our theories can discover, akin to the investigation of regular designs in nature.
- The truth of propositions returns to these facts.
Despite the differences among the paradigms of realism, pluralism, and holism, they converge and share several core assumptions: they adopt an objective scientific stance grounded in impartiality—addressing reality distant from the researcher’s subjective influences—and attempt to interpret it based on causality within a positivist philosophical framework while leaning towards empiricism as a methodological choice. Thus, they can be classified under the explanatory theory that regards the world as something existing prior to our theories about it. These theories focus on uncovering regular patterns in human behavior, consequently interpreting social realities akin to the natural world’s physical realm.
The emergence of the rationalist current (classified under explanatory theories) as a “new-new synthesis,” as termed by Aowal Weaver (referring to: new realism/new liberalism), shifted the focus toward a shared set of issues despite the contrast between them.
The divergence of perspectives between realism and liberalism on critical topics such as the role of international institutions and systems and their capacity to mitigate the contradictory effects of international chaos, along with which should take precedence in International Relations—capabilities (for new realism) or intentions (for new liberalism)—points to the conception of power as a means (according to realism), hence stressing relative gains, while liberalism views power as an end, emphasizing absolute gains. Nonetheless, both admit the anarchic character of the international system as a presupposed factor that is inevitable and enduring.
The explanatory theories’ focus on states often leads to the automatic neglect of other dimensions, avoiding ethical concerns and excluding significant issues such as identity, nationalism, economics, gender, and religion. They perceive the role of theory as descriptive of the external world, unveiling regular behavioral patterns, thus interpreting social realities as natural laws.
The challenge facing positivists lies in addressing the question of human involvement in knowledge construction.
While explanatory theories accept that reality exists independently of humans and allow a distinction between subject and object, acknowledging the existence of standards independent of researcher perception to enable the measurement of knowledge (its value, utility, and the tools leading to it), they face epistemological criticism based on skepticism toward the principal assertion: empiricists argue that we cannot know what we cannot observe because we cannot see it, hence there is no justification for presuming or claiming that such entities exist. This reaffirms the epistemological level of the discussion. This stance significantly influences the study of international relations, as we cannot (observe) both states and the structures of international order; at best, we can say that the concepts of the state and the international system are merely useful tools for organizing our experiences and thoughts rather than pointers to actual structures.
Section Two: Post-Positivists and Deconstructing Discourse
Constitutive theories tend to regard social/international reality not as natural or given; rather, they perceive it as a world continually constructed through human will. Understanding and interpreting this world cannot rely solely on an objective lens; it necessitates an intersubjective view of reality. Therefore, they adopt a post-positivist epistemological stance, grounded in a philosophy of negation as evidenced in Bachelard’s work, which asserts: “The crucial aspect of science is not the mental image conjured by the scientist about natural phenomena. What matters are the critiques and types of rejection that this image encounters from other scientists.” Thus, post-positivism perceives truth not as external to social conditions, but as integral to them, emphasizing the importance of observing that this challenge is posed according to knowledge-generating rules recognized by rationalists but rejected by reflectivists. Given that truths are products of specific social and historical frameworks, and theories are rooted in these frameworks, it enables theorists to reflect critically on what interests any given theory serves. Robert Cox aptly summarized this, asserting that “theory exists either to serve someone or a particular goal,” suggesting it is difficult to maintain a differentiation between object and subject, as humans are the ones constructing the phenomena their theories attempt to explain. Theories aim to advance human liberation, embodying a normative role in political debate as they inquire into how the current distribution of power emerged, questioning the assumed permanence of the state in global politics.
Among the prominent post-positivist theories is radical theory, such as gender equality theory, which fundamentally claims that the world has been dominated by men and their ideas, consequently neglecting women’s experiences. The goal is to rearticulate truth from a female perspective, thus developing a version of truth that, given that knowledge has historically been male-dominated, amounted only to a partial understanding of the world. While feminist theory encompasses diverse intellectual currents, they share a core assumption of focusing on gender to comprehend and explain contemporary international relations. By adopting critical philosophical positions, feminist theory—unlike realism—aims to foster relationships based on cooperation and mutual reliance, minimizing conflicts when women are empowered to assume decision-making positions.
Critical theory rooted in Marxism and emerging from the Frankfurt School, with Horkheimer as one of its founders, posits a close affinity between knowledge and power, maintaining that social powers rather than the objective logic of things capable of being interpreted are the crucial forces for change in social relations—contrary to positivist perspectives, which assert that social structure influences cannot be directly observed. Postmodernism (deconstructionist), although lacking a universally agreed definition among its proponents, fundamentally dismantles and rejects any claim concerning human life that asserts it directly attains truth. One of postmodernism’s significant contributions is its focus on what it terms the “marginalized,” “silent,” and “forgotten” voices, which traditional theoretical approaches have either overlooked or ignored. By focusing on these voices, postmodernism challenges those conventional explanatory theories.
The core issue at hand is the relationship between power and knowledge. The prevailing view within rationalist circles is that knowledge is insulated from power operations, a fundamental presupposition of positivism. In contrast, post-positivists argue that power produces knowledge; therefore, there is nothing such as “truth.” The question arises: how can there be a truth if truth has a history? Truth is not external to social conditions but is part of them. Additionally, deconstructionists dissect the strategies of the texts they employ; Derrida claimed that “the world is constructed like one of the texts,” meaning that interpreting the world reflects linguistic concepts and their structures—this is known as the process of text interaction. Derrida advocated two approaches to uncovering these textual interactions: deconstruction and double readings. Deconstruction elucidates how all theories and discourses rely on artificial stability resulting from using oppositions that appear objectively and naturally within language (rich/poor, good/bad, strong/weak, right/wrong). Double reading involves rereading to uncover the internal tensions within texts that arise from what seems like stability, not aiming to reach a single correct reading of a text but to demonstrate that there is always more than one interpretation of any given text. These “Derridean” readings can be applied to conventional assumptions regarding chaos and sovereignty.
The emergence of the constructivist theory provides a substitute for traditional positivist frameworks during the Cold War, serving as a nexus between rationalism (explanatory) and constitutive methodologies as it is grounded ontologically in post-positivist principles while epistemologically aligned with positivism. It endeavors to interconnect the material, subjective, and intersubjective dimensions of international relations.
Conclusion
The major dialogues among different theoretical schools provide an effective pathway to addressing the various questions that may arise about international politics, serving as a medium to substantiate some assumptions while refuting others, regarding their ability to craft a coherent conception closer to truth and a comprehensive understanding of complex state phenomena with intertwined variables. Through the discussions of the three dialogues, it can be affirmed that a reciprocal influence exists between reality and theory, vividly illustrated by the role of the pioneers of these theories, given their respective positions or the research centers they operated in. Furthermore, the emergence of theories corresponds to the overarching context and transformations observed in the world, as evidenced by the temporary triumph of realism over idealism in the first dialogue (which was fundamentally ontological), as being more capable at that time of providing a clear vision regarding the nature of relations governing the international system, despite its failures to furnish a tight explanation of how security is achieved and war is avoided. This provided the backdrop for behaviorism, demonstrating its superiority in theorizing by effecting a methodological revolution in the field of international relations, relying on an empirical inductive methodology as seen in the natural sciences, channeling efforts toward formulating a precise scientific theory of international relations, akin to that reached in physical sciences.
The interaction between different currents in the field of international relations has led to substantial revisions manifested in the emergence of neorealism and neoliberalism—confirming the accuracy of the hypothesis positing the role of previous dialogues in narrowing the gap between theoretical orientations in the field of theorizing international relations and easing the rigidity among scholars of these orientations.
With the conclusion of the Cold War, which realism as the prevailing trend at the time could not predict, and the emergence of the new trend (post-positivism) advocating re-evaluation of the epistemological foundations underlying rationalist positivism, the discourse resumed between explanatory theories rooted in positivist premises and constitutive theories built upon post-positivist epistemology. While the third dialogue between explanatory and constitutive theorists may appear, to many, as a rupture within theorizing, the involvement of constructivist theory as a connecting thread between the two orientations suggests that the process of theorizing international relations is cumulative, hinting at the potential emergence of a cosmopolitan theory of international relations that embraces both positivist and post-positivist theoretical orientations, as posited by Dr. Jendli in his thesis.
Appendix 1: Summary Table of Key Assumptions Addressed in the First Dialogue between Realism and Idealism
Aspect | Idealism | Realism |
---|---|---|
Ontological Dimension | – Humans are rationally good by nature. Their actions are governed by ethical principles and standards. – The global community is a unified group. – The international system is chaotic and fragmented into independent states lacking central authority. | – Humans are evil by nature, living in a constant state of conflict between values and reality, which generates fear. – The state is a rational, unitary actor. |
Study Interests | – Achieving global peace and maintaining it by removing competition between states. – Global peace and stability can be built upon international law and organizations. – Peace at the international level can be constructed only through the principle of “Balance of Power.” | – International peace can be achieved by learning from past lessons in addressing current issues. |
Core Issues | – What standards should be formulated to guide political actions and societal behavior to achieve: 1. Global peace. 2. Global community. Or: How should international relations be? | – What conditions, shapes, and forces determine relations between states and/or international governmental organizations (e.g., alliances)? Or: What is the international reality that realism perceives? |
Primary Actors in International Politics | – Individuals and their societal affiliations. – Non-governmental organizations. – Multiple actors alongside states. | – Sovereign nation-states. – International governmental organizations. |
Central Goal of Actors | – To achieve a peaceful global order and maintain it. | – To protect the state’s security and survival. – The struggle for power among states seeking to enhance their interests independently. |
Typical Means and Tools to Achieve Goals | – Recourse to reason. – Enlightenment about common interests of humanity. – Education according to values and ideals. – Democratization of governance systems and rule of law. – Establishing global networked communications between international organizations and societal affiliations of individuals. | – Power: Acquiring, maintaining, demonstrating, and augmenting power. – Adopting a balance of power policy. – Implementing a deterrence policy based on an arms race principle. |
Appendix 2: Summary Table of Key Assumptions Addressed in the Third Dialogue between Explanatory and Constitutive Theories
Positivism (Explanatory) | Post-Positivism (Constitutive) |
---|---|
Ontology | |
– The nature of international reality is material, and evolution is natural. | – The international structure is socially constructed, reconstructable according to interactions between structure and agents. |
– The chaotic nature of international structure is a given, hence is inevitable and permanent. | – The chaos of international structure is not a given; rather, it is produced by states. |
Epistemology | |
– Believes in scientific neutrality and objectivity in knowledge production. | – Opposes establishing neutral, independent, and objective foundations for measuring knowledge. |
– Assumes the existence of standards independent of the researcher’s perception, through which knowledge can be measured (its utility, depth, the tools leading to it, etc.). | – Cannot separate the researcher from the subject matter, allowing theorists to reflect critically on what interests any given theory serves. |
– Belief in reaching a general theory. | – Advocates contextual theories (each theory is time- and space-specific). |
Purpose of Theories | |
– Prioritizes neutrality and the desire to uncover existing truths and patterns within an external independent world. | – Aims to interpret reality and renders the current distribution of power as natural; thus, it acts conservatively. |
– Views the social world as a realm subject to control and dominance, akin to nature. | – Seeks to construct the world, advocating for human liberation; thus, it is a normative theory. |
– Inquires into how the current distribution of power originated, meaning the state is not taken as a given in global politics; hence it is a transformative theory. | |
Key Theories | |
– Realism and Neorealism | – Liberalism and Neoliberalism |
– Marxism and Neo-Marxism | – Behaviorism and Post-Behaviorism |
– Feminism | – Critical Theory |
– Postmodernism |
References:
Books
• Roche (Jean-Jacques), Théories des Relations Internationales (Paris: Editions Montchrestein, 5th Edition, 2004).
• Andre Kukla, Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science (UK : Routledge, 2003).
• Peter F. Murphy, Feminism and Masculinities (UK : Oxford University Press, 2004).
• John Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism (UK : Cambrdige University Press, 1998).
“Theories of International Relations: Contending Approaches to World Politics” by Stephanie Lawson
This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical foundations in international relations, emphasizing how different theories interact and debate each other. It covers traditional theories like realism and liberalism as well as more recent approaches.
“International Relations Theory and Philosophy: Interpretive Dialogues” edited by Cerwyn Moore and Chris Farrands
This edited volume features dialogues between IR theorists and philosophers, exploring the intersections and debates between different theoretical perspectives.
“Theory and History in International Relations” by Donald J. Puchala
Puchala examines contending approaches to international relations theory and their relationship to historical analysis. The book reviews how the discipline has evolved and the ongoing controversies between different theoretical camps.
“International Relations Theory” edited by Stephen McGlinchey, Rosie Walters and Christian Scheinpflug
This textbook provides an accessible introduction to major IR theories, applying them to real-world events and issues. It covers both traditional and emerging theoretical approaches.
Articles
- “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by John Mearsheimer
This seminal work presents offensive realism and engages in dialogue with other theoretical perspectives on great power behavior and international conflict.
- “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” by Samuel P. Huntington
Huntington’s influential thesis on cultural conflict sparked significant debate with other IR theories about the primary drivers of international relations.
- “Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger
Drawing on his experience as a statesman, Kissinger explores different theoretical approaches to diplomacy and engages with realist, liberal, and other perspectives.
- “The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics” by Paul Bracken
Bracken’s work on nuclear strategy engages in dialogue with traditional deterrence theory and other approaches to international security.