Great Debates (international relations theory)

Great Debates (international relations theory)

In international relations theory, the Great Debates refer to a series of disagreements between international relations scholars.[1] Ashworth describes how the discipline of international relations has been heavily influenced by historical narratives and that "no single idea has been more influential" than the notion that there was a debate between utopian and realist thinking.[2]

Contents

First Great Debate

The "First Great Debate" also known as the "Realist-Idealist Great Debate"[3] was a dispute between idealists and realists which took place in the 1930s and 1940s[4] and which was fundamentally about how to deal with Nazi Germany.[5] Realist scholars emphasized the anarchical nature of international politics and the need for state survival. Idealists emphasized the possibility of international institutions such as the League of Nations. However, some have argued that defining the debate between realism and idealism in terms of a great debate is a misleading caricature and so described the "great debate" as a myth.[6][7]

Second Great Debate

The "Second Great Debate" was a dispute between "scientific IR" scholars who sought to refine scientific methods of inquiry in international relations theory and those who insisted on a more historicist/interpretative approach to international relations theory. The debate is termed "realists versus behaviourists" or "traditionalism versus scientism". [8]

Inter-paradigm Debate

Sometimes the inter-paradigm debate is considered to be a great debate and is therefore referred to as the "Third Great Debate". The inter-paradigm debate was a debate between liberalism, realism and radical international relations theories.[9] The debate has also described as being between realism, institutionalism and structuralism.[10]

Fourth Great Debate

The "Fourth Great Debate" was a debate between positivist theories and post-positivist theories of international relations. Confusingly, it is often described in literature as "The Third Great Debate" by those who reject the description of the inter-paradigm debate as a Great Debate.[11] This debate is concerned with the underlying epistemology of international relations scholarship and is also described as a debate between "rationalists" and "reflectivists".[12] The debate was started by Robert Keohane in a International Studies Association debate in 1988 and can be considered an epistemological debate rather than a ontological one,[13] that is to say a debate about what we can claim to know.

Fifth Great Debate?

Brown remarking on the possibility of a "Fifth Great Debate" has suggested that the debate could concern critical realism but goes on to say 'let us hope not, because the first four great debates were singularly pointless affairs, and the fifth, when it arrives, is unlikely to be any different.[14] Steve Smith argues that 'it is difficult to find any notion of a "fifth great debate" in the literature.[15]

Criticism

Steve Smith has argued that the differing positions have largely ignored each other meaning that it makes little sense to talk of 'debates' between rival theoretical frameworks.[16]

See also

  • Rationalist-constructivist debate

References

  1. ^ Ken Booth, Michael Cox, Timothy Dunne,The eighty years' crisis: international relations 1919-1999, Issue 1, p1: "The story of international relations is conveniently told in a series of 'great debates'.
  2. ^ LM Ashworth, Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? a Revisionist History of International Relations,International Relations, Vol. 16, No. 1, p31 (2002)
  3. ^ LM Ashworth, Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? a Revisionist History of International Relations,International Relations, Vol. 16, No. 1, 33-51 (2002)
  4. ^ Ken Booth, Michael Cox, Timothy Dunne,The eighty years' crisis: international relations 1919-1999, Issue 1, p1
  5. ^ Richard Devetak, Anthony Burke, Jim George (2007) An Introduction to International Relations: Austrain Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 90
  6. ^ Vigneswaran, Darsha, International relations’ first great debate : context and tradition.ISBN 0 7315 3133 7, p5
  7. ^ Peter Wilson (1998). The myth of the ‘First Great Debate’. Review of International Studies, 24 , pp 1-16
  8. ^ Guzzini, Stefano (1998) Realism in international relations and international political economy: the continuing story of a death foretold, New York: Routledge, P. 32
  9. ^ Weaver, Ole,The rise and all of the Inter-paradigm debate, International theory: positivism and beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth, Marysia Zalewski, p151
  10. ^ http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/9/4/3/p179436_index.html
  11. ^ Y Lapid, The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era, International Studies Quarterly (1989) 33, 235-254
  12. ^ Smith, Steve (2007) "Introduction" in T. Dunne. M. Kuki, and S. Smith (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 10
  13. ^ Smith, S, (2007) 'Introduction' in Dunne, T., Kuki, M. and Smith, S (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity Oxford: OUP, p 5
  14. ^ Brown, C. (2007) Situating Critical Realism, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 35/2: 409-16
  15. ^ Smith, S. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, C. Reus-Smit, D. Snidal (eds.),Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 726
  16. ^ Smith, S. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, C. Reus-Smit, D. Snidal (eds.),Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 726

Further reading

  • Darshan Vigneswaran, Joel Quirk, International relations' first great debate: context and tradition, Issue 2001; Issue 2004 of Working paper, Dept. of International Relations, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, 2004

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем решить контрольную работу

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Critical international relations theory — is a diverse set of schools of thought in International Relations (IR) that have criticized the theoretical, meta theoretical and/or political status quo, both in IR theory and in international politics more broadly from positivist as well as… …   Wikipedia

  • Classical realism in international relations theory — Classical realism is a school of thought in international relations theory associated with thinkers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes.[1] References ^ Jackson, Robert, Sorensen, Georg, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches …   Wikipedia

  • international relations — a branch of political science dealing with the relations between nations. [1970 75] * * * Study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies and political… …   Universalium

  • Constructivism (international relations) — International relations theory  • Idealism  Liberalism   …   Wikipedia

  • Neorealism (international relations) — Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations, outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics. Waltz argues in favor of a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a constraint… …   Wikipedia

  • Neoliberalism in international relations — In the study of international relations, neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation states …   Wikipedia

  • Neutrality (international relations) — For other uses, see Neutral. A map of the world showing the countries in question: neutral countries in green, countries claiming to be neutral in yellow, and countries neutral in the past in blue. A neutral power in a particular war is a… …   Wikipedia

  • Power in international relations — The chamber of the United Nations Security Council Power in international relations is defined in several different ways. Political scientists, historians, and practitioners of international relations (diplomats) have used the following concepts… …   Wikipedia

  • Great power — This article is about great powers in the modern (post 1815) world. For nation states wielding similar power before 1815, see Historical powers. Great powers are recognized in an international structure such as the United Nations Security Council …   Wikipedia

  • Democratic peace theory — (or liberal democratic theory[1] or simply the democratic peace ) is the theory that democracies, for some appropriate definition of democracy, rarely, or even never, go to war with one another. Some have preferred the term inter democracy… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”