European Journal of International Relations-2013-Dunne-405-25 (original) (raw)

The end of International Relations theory?

European Journal of International Relations, 2013

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.

Re-orienting International Relations: On Pragmatism, Pluralism and Practical Reasoning

In recent years the discipline of International Relations has been characterised by an explosion of competing philosophical and theoretical debates in which the identity of the discipline (and, thus, its relations to other disciplines) has become increasingly problematised. This is not simply an internal product of debates within IR but also a result of the increasing disavowal of the domestic/international split within political science, political theory, sociology, history, cultures studies and other disciplines, on the one hand, and a wider set of philosophical and methodological disputes within the humanities and social sciences, on the other hand. There is no need in this context to suggest that IR is characterised by a state of crisis but it does seem reasonable to suggest that it is somewhat disoriented, i.e., that it lacks a stable disciplinary orientation in thinking in terms of which the very disparate approaches, theories and methods at play within the discipline can be brought into productive dialogue with one another.

What is International Relations Theory? Theory, Metatheory, Reflexivity, Pluralism

May Darwich and Adham Saouli (eds.), International Relations and the Middle East: Theories and Case Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2025

The chapter first discusses the thorny issues of the nature and purpose of theory and the relationship between theory and the world. The second section of the chapter argues that while metatheoretical consensus on the question of the nature of theory and of its relation to the world is hardly attainable, the act of theorising itself is both indispensable and inherently political. The next section assesses the disciplinary evolution of IR theory and its growing reflexivity largely emulating cognate developments in the wider social sciences. The chapter then turns to an assessment of the current theoretical fragmentation and pluralism in the field and closes with a few words on the future of theorising in IR.

Pluralising International Relations with the Global IR Agenda

2020

How global is International Relations really? The discipline of International Relations (IR) has long been criticised for its Eurocentric foundations and perspectives. At the International Studies Association (ISA) Convention in 2014, the ISA President, Amitav Acharya, promoted the novel Global IR agenda. Constituted of six dimensions, the Agenda seeks to globalise the IR discipline. This article will first define International Relations, linking a broad definition to the root of Eurocentrism within the discipline. It provides three reasons as to how Eurocentrism remains a problem for the IR discipline. It will then outline the six dimensions of the Global IR Agenda: (i) pluralistic universalism; (ii) a grounding in world history; (iii) integration of Western and non-Western theories; (iv) integration of regionalism and area studies; (v) renouncing of exceptionalism; (vi) and recognising multiple forms of agency. A brief evaluation of the Agenda suggests there are at least five pote...

Is There a New International Relations Theory

2013

This article offers a critical and wide extant theories of International Relations (IR). It despite the ubiquity of the field and the abundance of research that has been undertaken over the past century, there remains a need for IR to accept and integrate new ways of thinking if it is to grapple successfully with emerging global ch relevant to practitioners. In this spirit, some components of a more holistic way of understanding IR are suggested, and this in turn hints at a new agenda for research and practice with broader relevance.

Bringing the outside in: The limits of theoretical fragmentation and pluralism in IR theory

Politics, 2019

This article explores the current state of the discipline of International Relations(IR) and assesses the prospects for integration of new voices to the global conversation. The article argues that the current state of theoretical fragmentation that infects the discipline will be a severe barrier to the introduction of alternative visions of IR. Two factors explain the source of this problem. First is the dominant understanding of epistemology, which not only misunderstands the place of epistemology in the research process but also helps reproduce a social structure of fragmentation. Second, I briefly explore the dynamics of that disciplinary structure and argue that when combined with the approach to epistemology the two become mutually reinforcing, limiting the possibilities of a form of pluralism that can incorporate alternative voices unless they give up what it is that makes them different.

The ends of International Relations theory: stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing

European Journal of International Relations, 2013

International Relations theory is being squeezed between two sides. On the one hand, the world of practitioners and attached experts often perceive International Relations theory as misleading if it does not correspond to practical knowledge, and redundant when it does. The academic study of international relations can and should not be anything beyond the capacity to provide political judgement which comes through reflection on the historical experience of practitioners. On the other hand, and within its disciplinary confines, International Relations theory is reduced to a particular type of empirical theory with increasing resistance to further self-reflection. Instead, this article argues that neither reduction is viable. Reducing theory to practical knowledge runs into self-contradictions; reducing theorizing to its empirical mode underestimates the constitutive function of theories, the role of concepts, and hence the variety of necessary modes of theorizing. I present this twofold claim in steps of increasing reflexivity in International Relations theory and propose four modes of theorizing: normative, metatheoretical, ontological/constitutive and empirical.

Theories of International Relations: from an American Science Towards a Pluralism of Thought

Transition Studies Review, 2010

The change was not only promised during Obama’s electoral campaign but urgently invoked by all the major international actors in view of the financial and economic crises: the world foreign policy has suddenly entered a new age not being yet prepared to govern globalization and its wide interdependence conditionality. Even Russia has changed tune now and President Medvedev announced vigorously a new strategy, a new policy, and a new drive for Russia. Until a few years ago, the theories of International Relations were simply an American intellectual and governance exit of the growing role of the US in the world, a kind of field of competence for the greatest power in the global economic, political, strategic and innovative sectors. The British School was an island of the core American thinking and the rest of the world mostly absent. FSU has not expressed a relevant contribution to the various schools of thinking related to the IR theories and even the Marxist political scientists did not dedicate specifically to this main research area because convinced that first it was not a real “science” but a derivative outcome from Philosophy or Political Science; secondly, for the reason of the monopoly of the power in the hands of an autocratic regime where these issues were not left to the researchers and experts but only to the institutional and military leadership. Today Russia—after having caressed and found opportunistically convenient to resume the realism doctrines of the past US almost decennial Presidency, with modest attempts to assume the great changes in international affairs intervened— has the chance to take the last train for a competitive power role, “de facto” under the unavoidable strict rules of engagement of the global governance. In the 2020–2030 the world would be completely reshape by the present metamorphosis.

A 'New'International Relations: More Social than Science

globalpolitics.de

The question concerning the social scientific identity of International Relations has been vigorously discussed. Yet, despite reasonable and compelling arguments lamenting the stranglehold of positivism with regard to ontology, epistemology and methodology of International Relations as an academic practice, not much has changed. New labels such as 'constructivsim' have been employed to signal a fundamental change in direction. Nevertheless, the overall tendency among main stream internationalists is to continue their business as usual. Alerted by this problem and the intellectual defects associated with it, this paper calls for a 'new' science of International Relations. Problematizing fundamental flaws of International Relations as a social science, it does not rest content with assertion but tries to remedy and pave the way for a 'science' that is less formalistic and more responsible and sophisticated.