International Studies: Chaos or Pluralism?

A.V. Torkunov

doi:10.17976/jpps/2019.05.02

International Studies:
Chaos or Pluralism?

Torkunov A.V.,

Rector, MGIMO University, tork@mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 498974 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.05.02

Rubric: We in the world, the world in us

For citation:

Torkunov A.V. International Studies: Chaos or Pluralism? – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.05.02

Abstract

The specifics of how scientific knowledge on international relations is formed have long been the subject of a discussion which is still ongoing. The author highlights the features of the relationship between the fundamental and applied levels of knowledge of international relations, analyzes the division of actual scientific knowledge and reflection upon practical international politics (which, in its most general form, is referred to as ‘big ideas’). The relationship between science and international practice is considered in the aspect that scientific knowledge and ‘big ideas’ intersect, having a different nature and, in fact, being incomparable. The author comes to the conclusion that the development of international relations – as an objective science that meets the criteria of science – is associated with difficulties, which also complicates the formation of the applied level of research. As the science of international relations finds solutions to its epistemological problems and accumulates knowledge, prerequisites are created for the formation of its theoretical and applied levels in the fullest sense of the word. However, this process is not instantaneous, but requires constant attention from researchers.

Keywords

world politics, international relations, scientific knowledge, scientific criteria, political theory, methodology.

Full Text

References

Carr E.H. 1946. The Twenty Years’ Crises: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 1919-1939. London: Macmillan.

Mearsheimer J.J., Walt S.M. 2013. Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypotheses Testing as Bad for International Relations. – European Journal for International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 427-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320

Safranchuk I. 2018. Russian-U.S. Relations: Torn Between the Practical and Ideational Agendas. – Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 96-121. www.doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2018-16-4-96-119

Wohlforth W.C., Zubok V.M. 2017. An Abiding Antagonism: Realism, Idealism, and the Mirage of Western-Russian Partnership after the Cold War. – International Politics. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 405-419. www.doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0046-8

Alekseeva T.A. 2019. Sovremennaya politicheskaya mysl’ (ХХ-ХХI vv.). Politicheskaya teoriya i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Modern Political Thought (XX-XXI Centuries). Political Theory and International Relations]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Bull H. 2002. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: primer klassicheskogo podkhoda [Theory of International Relations: An Example of the Classical Approach]. – Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Theory of International Relation]. Pod red. P.A. Tsygankova. Moscow: Gardariki. P. 190-191. (In Russ.)

Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Contemporary International Relations]. 2018. Ed. by A.V. Torkunov, A.V. Mal’gin. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Content No. 5, 2019