Lecture
Purpose: Substantiating the expediency of applying a holistic approach in the study of international relations
For the awareness and understanding of the peculiarities of the theory of international relations, it is important
to analyze and understand the subject and object of the science. On this issue, in TIR (theory of international relations) discussions have long
been ongoing. As B. Lang notes, objective reality is not given to researchers in
direct perception, and the object of the science of TIR is not characterized by clearly expressed
contours that would distinguish it from a non-object.
Traditionally, the object of international relations is considered to be the environment in which
an anarchic, unordered field dominates, characterized by the absence of central authority and,
accordingly, of a monopoly on the legitimate regulation of the sphere of international relations
by all possible means and methods. In this regard, R. Aron considered it a specific feature of
international relations that they unfolded and continue to unfold in the shadow of war.
It should be noted that the environment of international relations – as an object of science – is not
always complete anarchy, since the second half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries are characterized by
the emergence and development of international institutions, the spread and strengthening of international
regimes, which brings ever greater order and regulation into relations between
international actors. But this does not mean that the difference between them has disappeared – political
localization exists and will continue to exist in the near future. Proceeding from this, the object of TIR
can be any social relations and flows that cross borders and that
avoid single-state control. This significantly narrows the understanding of the concept of the object of
the science of international relations to interstate interactions and reduces it to purely quantitative
differences: the greater or lesser influence of states on the regulation of the indicated flows and
relations.
Based on an analysis of the various schools and theoretical trends in TIR,
it must be pointed out that its object is characterized, first, by a dualism of order and
regulation, and, second, by a significant degree of unpredictability, arising from the pluralism
of sovereignties and the psychological peculiarities of decision-makers who are capable of influencing
the course of development of events and processes.
Let us note that from the first half of the 20th century to the present day, discussions have constantly been
taking place around the subject of TIR, the specifics of the subject field, and the main research methods.
The existence of the subject of the theory of international relations is evidenced by the presence of diverse
phenomena and types of human activity that develop according to specific laws, possess
their own dynamics, and whose essence is not reducible to the internal-political relations of the subjects
of international relations. These types of activity use various means (the army,
military strategy and diplomacy), possess different capabilities, and are carried out in
different environments. Part of the subject field of TIR, on the one hand, consists of
the central concepts of political science (for example, "political power", "political process",
”political regime”, "civil society", etc.), and on the other hand, scientific concepts and
problems that reflect the specifics of international relations, namely "the pluralism
of sovereignties”, “the balance of power”, “bipolarity” and “multipolarity”, “diplomacy”,
"strategy", etc. These concepts are developed within the subject field of TIR, and therefore
it is a relatively autonomous scientific discipline that has its own subject of research.
Without claiming absolute truth, one can define the following problems of scientific
research that constitute the subject of TIR:
– the methodological principles and main methods of historical research;
– the main directions in the history of the development of the theory of international relations, their conceptual
and methodological features;
– international relations as a general social phenomenon and their regularities;
– the system of international relations and its environment;
– the participants of international relations, their goals and means;
– the foreign-policy activity of the subjects of international relations and the process
of foreign-policy decision-making;
– national interests and international security;
– the legal and moral regulation of international relations;
– conflicts and cooperation in international relations;
– international order and its characteristic features.
Thus, the subject of TIR is above all the theoretical generalization of the aforementioned
problems, which as a whole reflect the general regularities, structure, functioning
and development of the system of international relations. From this follows the specificity of TIR:
first, it is a science of a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary character,
second, it is a synoptic science which, with the help of other social disciplines,
studies the various forms and states of international relations, the governing regularities
of them. Therefore, the theory of international relations has an internal structure, and various
connections with these sciences, distinct from other social sciences.
The subject of international theory as a scientific discipline is the global
context of political reality, the identification of contemporary tendencies in its development, and the factors that
determine the political structure of the contemporary world. International relations are the result of
the interaction of a wide range of political actors (subjects) possessing different resources.
The typology of these actors by power resources allows one to distinguish different levels of analysis of world
politics:
1) individual (analysis of the behavior of leaders, elites, political styles);
2) the level of an individual state (analysis of the formation of foreign policy, the mechanisms of its
implementation, the degree of influence on world processes);
3) the global level (analysis of the interaction of countries and international organizations).
Today the world political system is formed not only by independent states, but also by
various economic, trade, and military alliances, and the blocs and structures that have formed
on a bilateral or multilateral basis. In addition to these, the international stage is also home to
the UN, international governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as specialized agencies and
organizations dealing with issues of politics, and social and economic development,
and problems of disarmament and security. All of these act as subjects of international relations.
Thus, international relations constitute a system of economic,
political, social, diplomatic, legal, military, and cultural ties and
interactions arising among the subjects of the world community. However, not all
relations between peoples and state organizations are political in character.
World politics forms the core of international relations and represents the political activity
of the subjects of international law (states, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, alliances,
etc.) related to resolving questions of war and peace, ensuring collective security, protecting the
environment, and overcoming backwardness, poverty, hunger, and disease. World
politics is aimed at resolving questions of the survival and progress of the human community,
developing mechanisms for reconciling the interests of the subjects of world politics, and preventing and
resolving global and regional conflicts, and creating a just world order.
It is an important factor for stability and peace, and for the development of equitable international
relations.
In international relations there is an observable increase in the importance of morality and a growing
sense of accountability for the violation of its norms. Confirmation of this can be found in the
numerous studies that have appeared in recent years on the role of morality in international relations. Legal scholars
have increasingly turned their attention to morality and its interaction with international law. This
trend is also observed in domestic literature, though as yet only a handful of major studies exist.
G. I. Tunkin, who attached serious importance to the interaction of morality and law, wrote that
international morality "is indeed a phenomenon that is difficult to define, but nevertheless it exists".
The main reason for the growing role of morality is seen in the deepening interdependence of
states. As a result, cooperation cannot help but rest on the principle of reciprocity, which
requires taking into account and respecting the interests of one’s partner. In this way, the preconditions are created for
establishing in international relations the golden rule of morality – treat others as
you would want to be treated yourself.
Morality is actively used by countries that do not control the law-making
process. The principle of justice and the related norms of morality are used by
developing countries to transform the system of international economic relations.
These countries consider it necessary to establish a new morality, while emphasizing its
connection with international law.
Morality exists and operates as a system of ideals, principles, and norms, borne by a more or less
large social formation. The largest of these is the international community, for which
international morality is characteristic.
In international relations, morality has a political character, defending the interests of
states, and its effect is therefore of a moral-political nature.
Morality, as a form of social consciousness, has a fairly complex structure, most
elements of which are normative in character: goals, principles, and norms. Norms of morality
must carry morally binding force.
Central to this is the position of principles as the most generalized form
of moral prescriptions. They reflect the value system of international life and the
main goals of morality. The basic principles of international relations are simultaneously principles of politics,
law, and morality.
An important place in international morality is occupied by the simple norms of morality,
the elementary rules of all human intercourse. These include: providing
help to those in acute need, respect for one another’s interests, keeping one’s word,
respect for the dignity of the state, humane treatment of people, and a substantial portion of the rules
of international courtesy.
The main function of morality consists in regulating international relations. An
important aspect of this is establishing the proper combination of the general and particular interests
of states. Historical development determines the constant growth in the importance of general interests, and
consequently the strengthening of the socio-political foundation of international morality.
Critical theory
Critical theorists, in particular J. Habermas, proposed a fairly narrow concept
of creating an "ideal speech situation", which could serve as a means of overcoming
the political domination of powerful superpowers and conflicts, since full openness
of information would foster reasoned argument between the parties and impartial (i.e.
fair) resolutions. The current situation masks inequality in international relations, and
rationalism accepts it a priori. Critical theorists do not seek to study international or
domestic state systems, but instead focus their attention on the power and dominance of the global
superpowers. They conduct research with the political goal of "liberating humanity from
the "despotic" structures of world politics and economics, which are controlled by
hegemonic powers". In this understanding of the international system, critical theorists are extremely
close to neo-Marxist theorists, since they interpret all knowledge as an
instrument of a particular politics. In particular, they regard their opponents (the rationalists) as
advocates of an unjust international order that benefits the most powerful
states in the world, and regard their own theory as a tool for combating it. This leads to
the most important conclusion of critical theory, namely that any theory is a
concealed reflection of certain interests, and its authors, whether or not they are
aware of it, serve as instruments of political power. Within the current of critical theory there emerged a fairly
distinctive scholarly current – the so-called constructivism, represented by the works of A. Wendt,
D. Lumsdaine, and others. Their works reflect two basic claims characteristic of this
theory:
1. The fundamental structures of international relations are shaped by the determining
influence of subjective factors arising from human aspirations and interests, and
lead to the creation of particular social constructs.
2. The behavior and interests of individual states in the international environment are determined
by subjective ideas and conceptions about the development of international relations, rather than by their
real interests.
Constructivism
In the discipline of international relations, constructivism is the application of the epistemology
(the philosophical-methodological discipline that examines knowledge as such, its structure,
functioning, and development) of constructivism to the study of the state of international
affairs.
This field of scholarship is perhaps most closely associated with the name of Alexander Wendt,
since he applied the ideas of social constructivism to the field of international relations.
Wendt’s article "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics" (1992), published in the journal «International Organization», laid the theoretical
foundation for what he regarded as the missing link between neorealists and neoliberal
institutionalists. In attempting to show that even such a basic realist concept
as "power politics" is social in nature — since it is not given beyond its own nature,
and is therefore capable of being transformed through human activity — Wendt opened the way
for a generation of scholars specializing in international relations, who directed their
work toward studying the wide range of problems raised by constructivist perspectives.
From the late 1980s and into the early 1990s, constructivism became one of the
leading theories in the field of international relations. Many constructivists analyze
international relations by looking at goals, threats, cultures, and other elements of "social
reality" on the international stage as social constructs. In their work, constructivist
scholars have challenged many traditional realist assumptions about
how the international system works, especially regarding military security issues.
Constructivism is often presented as an alternative to the two leading theories
of international relations, realism and liberalism. Wendt shares certain key assumptions
with leading realist and neorealist scholars, such as the existence of anarchy and the centrality of
the state in the international system.
Functionalism
Functionalism was the second scholarly current of the 1920s–1930s, directed against
the destructive egoism of nation-states, and was founded on entirely different philosophical
principles. Its proponents held that conflicts and wars are not an innate feature of
human nature. In their view, people are capable of peaceful, rational progress, but under
certain conditions. These conditions must be secured by means other than state
violence. The founder of functionalism was David Mitrany, born in Romania but who spent his entire career
working in England. Like the federalists, he sought a way to put an end to wars between
states. Unlike the federalists, however, he believed that what was needed was not the search for
an ideal form of international community, but rather the identification of the functions that it should
perform. Functionalism is more an approach to analyzing social phenomena than a scholarly
theory. Nevertheless, this approach rests on quite definite (and fairly categorical)
principles. Functionalism proceeds from the primacy of human needs and human
interests. Its adherents place the human being above the «sacred» nation-state or any
ideology whatsoever.
Adherents of functionalism were convinced that functions are primary, while
the forms in which they are embodied are secondary. This inevitably brought them into irreconcilable
conflict with the phenomenon they called the «fixation of the state» — that is, the existence of
rigid state forms independent of the functions they are meant to perform.
It is quite clear that the functionalists were opponents of federalism and of the idea of creating
a «world government», as advocated by interwar public figures such as Bertrand
Russell and Herbert Wells. Mitrany displayed considerable foresight, revealing the inevitability of the weakening
(«hybridization») of the nation-state half a century before this process took on truly
tangible forms. He correctly predicted the emergence of numerous specialized international
organizations oriented toward the performance of specific tasks. Moreover, in essence he
foresaw the radical transformation of the entire system of international relations, which is gradually
being turned into a network of ordinary governing institutions, whose organizational forms
change depending on society’s shortcomings and new social functions.
Functionalism was an innovative concept that left an indelible mark on all
subsequent theories of international relations and European integration.
Feminism
The formation of feminist concepts in the theory of international relations was prompted by
the internationalization of the women’s movement, the growth of transnational feminist
activism, and the placing of the problems of gender inequality on the global agenda. In
these approaches it is not only asserted that gender relations are an integral
part of international relations, but it is also argued that international structures, history, and
scholarly knowledge about international relations are marked by gender specificity. That is,
feminists believe that the entire history of humankind has unfolded under the sign of gender inequality, and
that this has logically been reflected not only in contemporary international relations, but also in scholarly
research into them. In contemporary scholarship, the feminist current arose out of "a critique of the approach in
which the philosophical canons of political theory and the empirical canons of the behaviorist school
of political science excluded women and their activity from the sphere of their attention... guided by
a stereotypical notion of the "apolitical" nature of women".
Adherents of feminism, or so-called gender theories, rely more on their own
political stance than on definite logical arguments or a systematically expounded theory. From their
point of view, rational theories rest on a purely masculine vision of international relations,
but disregard women’s distinct experience and aspirations.
Proponents of these theories start from the idea of gender roles in society, which,
in their view, are unequal. In particular, V. S. Peterson and A. S. Runyan emphasize
that women are placed in a fundamentally lower position within society’s hierarchy. The division
of society along gender roles results in men dominating politics,
while women remain in a subordinate position. N. Hartsock insists on the need
to study the structural differences in the lives and interests of both sexes,
in order to demonstrate the thesis that strength and power are what men strive for, while understanding and harmony
are what women strive for.
It is characteristic of feminists to assert that contemporary international relations
theory harbors a hidden discrimination against women, since state behavior is viewed in purely
masculine categories – rationalism, the exertion of force, and ambition. In their view,
the causes of state aggressiveness should be sought in gender inequality, which results in
the most important state positions always being held by men.
The opposition of particular theories, and the confrontation of scholarly ideas and concepts, have always
been the driving force behind the development of the theory of international relations. Within its research,
significant debates — important for the development of scholarly knowledge — have periodically arisen between representatives
of different schools of thought and particular theories. One may note the special explanatory
significance of four major debates:
The first of these broke out back in the 1940s, between representatives of the classical
theories of idealism and political realism. It concerned a dispute over a wide range
of questions related to international relations. The debates revolved around claims
regarding the content of the basic concepts and categories of the science, and the root causes and driving forces of international
relations. Echoes of this debate are still felt in the theory of international relations today, as
it is continued by the followers of the classical school’s ideas — the neorealists and
neoliberalists. Despite a considerable modification of the basic tenets of the newest
theories of the classical school, the subject matter of the debate between them remains close to that
over which their predecessors argued at the beginning of the 20th century.
The second debate, commonly known as the "Great Debate", began in the
1960s—1970s and led to a split among scholars into opposing camps of
traditionalists and behaviorists. The most important issue in the controversy between them can be
considered the problem of the methodology of research into international relations, although the content of the debate has a
much deeper character. Traditionalists held that it was necessary to study international
relations through an understanding of the specific nature of human beings, and of the interests and values
inherent to human communities. In contrast, the behaviorists, rejecting subjectivism,
sought to formulate the laws and regularities of international relations and to rely on
precise (including mathematical) research methods. In other words, the controversy over method and
methodology was merely a manifestation of a much deeper debate over the subjective or objective
character of international phenomena and processes, and, more narrowly still, over the role and significance of the human being in
social processes.
The third debate is linked to the sharp critique of the classical school’s theories by the
neo-Marxists. The main subject of dispute between proponents of neo-Marxism and
classical theories concerns the problems of the agency and content of international relations.
The fourth debate began in the 1980s–1990s, when the classical theory came under fairly
vigorous challenge from "alternative" currents: postmodernism, feminism, and critical theory. It
touched on both individual methodological questions and problems related to the understanding
and scholarly interpretation of the most important phenomena and processes of international relations
today. In particular, representatives of the above-mentioned scholarly currents reproach
classical theory for its ability to logically explain only the confrontational periods of human
history, while their own theoretical concepts "put forward a series of arguments, for example,
concerning the considerable strength of initiatives within the constituent elements of the system, the significance of the cultural
dimension in world politics, and the need for a careful analysis of normative commitments
capable of lending an idealistic dimension to international relations". This fourth debate in
the theory of international relations came to be known as the inter-paradigm debate, reflecting,
on the one hand, attempts by scholars to advance certain explanatory concepts of the new realities that
had taken shape in the contemporary world, and, on the other hand, the claim of the younger generation of theorists to
put forward new and unconventional paradigms in the theory of international relations.
These debates arose in the theory of international relations largely under the influence of
the important social problems of their time, to which scholarship sought to respond, as well as under
the influence of developments in the methodology of other social and exact sciences. They also contributed to
the formation and development of a large number of explanatory theories, whose classification remains
one of the most complex problems of contemporary scholarship.
The problem of method in international studies
Methodology and the problems associated with it are among the most complex issues in contemporary
social science. As P. Tsygankov holds, the problem of method is one of the most important
questions of any science, since it ultimately concerns how to obtain new knowledge, and how
to apply it in practical activity".
In contemporary scholarly understanding, methodology is the totality of approaches, ways,
methods, techniques, and procedures applied in the process of scholarly cognition.
In the science of international relations, as in any other, general methods of cognition
are selected and adapted to the object of research. The theory of international
relations is sometimes criticized for being unable to exist independently, because it has failed to
develop its own research methods, or at least systems of methods operating in other sciences that are
unambiguously aimed at studying a specific and well-defined object.
The methodology of a science is built on principles that follow from initial conceptions
of the object of research, accumulated beforehand. A problem of contemporary IR
theory, which has led to its methodological imperfection, is the contentiousness of the
primary principles for understanding its own object of research. This concerns, above all, the
traditional divergence between the principles of subjectivism and objectivism, which as a whole
reflects a fundamental discourse in philosophy and other social sciences.
Subjectivism is a system of views associated with the interpretation of international
relations as social relations lacking an objective basis, arising from
human nature, and shaped and directed by individuals.
Objectivism consists in the view that international relations have a real character, and that
their driving forces and regularities do not depend on human will or desire. On the basis of this
approach, the derivative principles of structuralism, rationalism, and determinism have been formulated.
Another methodological problem is the controversy regarding the principal actors in the
international environment; its result has been the emergence of two mutually opposed
principles – state-centrism (etatism) and transnationalism.
The contentiousness of the principles for understanding the object in the theory of international relations
means that its methodology cannot be viewed as a single system of approaches and research
methods, but rather as a multiplicity of separate methodologies, which can be reduced to two currents:
traditionalism and empiricism. The debate between their proponents concerns which
methods should determine research in the theory of international relations: those based on
general logic, or precise facts rigorously described using mathematical methods.
Methodology is also based on scholarly approaches to studying the international
system, and on the specific methods associated with them.
In the methodology of research into international relations, the systems approach is applied above all;
it is an established direction within the methodology of scholarly cognition, which
directly contributes to the adequate formulation of problems and a logically consistent strategy for their
resolution.
The dialectical approach consists in perceiving international relations as a dynamic
system, in a state of motion and development conditioned by their internal
contradictions, and in constant change of forms and types. The dialectical approach covers the general
features of the development of any phenomena and makes it possible to objectively study the driving forces
of international processes and to identify the differences among individual phenomena.
These approaches are the most important in contemporary scholarship, since the first leads to the study of
the elementary structure of a phenomenon and its interrelations, while the second makes it possible to examine its
evolution. In the theory of international relations, the systems and dialectical approaches have not yet become
determinative, since systems theory of modernism and the neorealism largely grounded on them
remain far from perfect.
The formulation of the methodology for a specific piece of research in contemporary international
relations theory consists in the researcher’s choice of certain principles and approaches that
correspond to their conception of the object of research. Depending on the particular methodology chosen,
the researcher also selects specific methods.
1. Define the object and subject of international relations.
2. Characterize critical theory in the development of the methodological base of the theory of international
relations. Constructivism, Functionalism, Feminism
3. Describe and explain the problem of method in international studies of
international relations
Comments