Search

This edited volume offers a systematic evaluation of how knowledge is produced by scholarly research into International Relations. The contributors explore three key questions: To what extent is scientific progress and accumulation of knowledge possible? What are the different accounts of how this process takes place? And what are the dominant critiques of these understandings? It is the first publication to survey the full range of perspectives available for evaluating scientific progress as well as dominant critiques of scientism.In its second part, the volume applies this range of perspectives to the research program on the democratic peace. It shows what we gain by accommodating and enabling dialogue among the full range of epistemological approaches. The contributors elaborate and defend the epistemological position of sociable pluralism as one that seeks to build bridges between soft positivism, critical theory, and critical realism. The underlying idea is that if the differences between the various approaches used by different communities of researchers can be understood more clearly, this will facilitate meaningful cross-cutting communication, dialogue, and debate and thereby enable us to address real-world problems more effectively.This timely and original work will be of great interest to advanced-level students and scholars dealing with philosophy of science and methodological questions in International Relations.

The field of international relations is often stagnated in realism and liberalism. Groundbreaking and guaranteed to stir debate, this work will move the field of international relations beyond its current, and often inadequate, assumptions. The contributors describe how states, ideologies, and other areas of analysis evolve, conquer others, or disappear entirely. Change and the fluid nature of history--though so clearly a part of historical reality--are not so deeply embedded in other paradigms as they are in the variation and selection model of evolutionary international relations. Some contributors lay out the various controversies inherent to the new theory, while others apply the paradigm to specific problems in IR theory. Regardless of the approach, the presentation of this entirely new perspective and method succeeds in forming a new paradigm of international relations. Contributors include: William R. Thompson, George Modelski, Vincent S. E. Falger, David P. Rapkin, Jennifer Sterling-Folker, Hendrik Spruyt, Stewart Patrick, Paul Hensel, Karen Rasler, Craig N. Murphy, Jeffrey A. Hart, Sangbae and Brian Pollins.

This book applies the analytical approach called Historical Institutionalism (HI)- so far mostly used within comparative politics-to the field of International Relations (IR). It provides an introduction to HI concepts and makes an argument for why it is particularly well-suited for understanding current developments within international institutions. In particular, it helps us to understand the combination of change and stability that together form the dynamics of institutional development over time. It is the first book to collect original, empirical research applying historical institutionalism to international institutions. The chapters cover a range of institutions important to IR, including the development of European Union competition policy, the global politics of financial reform after the 2008 crisis, the institutional development of the World Health Organization, membership reforms in the League of Nations and the United Nations Security Council, and civil society access to intergovernmental organizations. The concluding chapter discusses the relationship of HI to other institutionalist approaches and the role of HI in future IR research.

The 1954 Conference on Theory, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, featured a who's who of scholars and practitioners debating the foundations of international relations theory. Assembling his own team of experts, all of whom have struggled with this legacy, Nicolas Guilhot revisits a seminal event and its odd rejection of scientific rationalism.Far from being a spontaneous development, these essays argue, the emergence of a'realist'approach to international politics, later codified at the conference, was deliberately triggered by the Rockefeller Foundation. The organization was an early advocate of scholars who opposed the idea of a'science'of politics, pursuing, for the sake of disciplinary autonomy, a vision of politics as a prerational and existential dimension that could not be'solved'by scientific means. As a result, this nascent theory was more a rejection of behavioral social science than the birth of one of its specialized branches. The archived conversations reproduced here, along with unpublished papers by Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Paul Nitze, speak to this defensive stance. International relations theory is critically linked to the context of postwar liberalism, and the contributors explore how these origins have played out in political thought and American foreign policy.