.jpg)
printNational schools of diplomatic training:
divergences in the global epistemology of international relations
Sushentsov A.A.,
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, a.sushentsov@inno.mgimo.ru
elibrary_id: 240313 | ORCID: 0000-0003-2076-7332 | RESEARCHER_ID: F-8930-2017
Neklyudov N.Y.,
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, neklyudov.n.ya@my.mgimo.ru
elibrary_id: 984594 |
Pavlov V.V.,
Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, v.pavlov@inno.mgimo.ru
elibrary_id: 845426 | ORCID: 0000-0003-1128-2106 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAC-1764-2020
Article received: 2024.07.11 15:43. Accepted: 2024.08.13 15:43
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.05.08
EDN: UYDPRU
Rubric: University community
For citation:
Sushentsov A.A., Neklyudov N.Y., Pavlov V.V. National schools of diplomatic training: divergences in the global epistemology of international relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.05.08. EDN: UYDPRU (In Russ.)
The study was supported by MGIMO University grant no. 2025-04-05.
Abstract
The proposition of establishing “global international relations” (Global IR) as an amalgamation of diverse national epistemologies in the field of international relations, potentially superseding the Western-centric paradigm, presents significant challenges. A critical inquiry emerges: Is it possible to form a discipline based on the polyphony of national approaches, despite the fact that the ontology of international relations has remained fundamentally unchanged since the mid-17th century? This study evaluates the thesis of extant national epistemologies in international relations by examining national traditions of diplomatic training. The primary research question is formulated as follows: What are the foundational approaches employed by leading states in the training of IR specialists, and can these approaches be considered reflective of national epistemologies regarding the nature of international relations? The research methodology involves a synthesis of findings from an examination of diplomatic training institutions across a diverse sample of countries. This sample encompasses Western nations (United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, United States, Finland, France, and Germany), Asian countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, India, China, and the Republic of Korea), Middle Eastern states (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey), African nations (Nigeria and South Africa), and Latin American countries (Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba). The article is structured in two principal sections. The theoretical section explores the hypothesis of “global international relations” within the context of existing literature and theoretical frameworks. The second section synthesizes the empirical findings from the study of national approaches to diplomatic training, testing the hypothesis of its correlation with national epistemologies in the field of international relations.
Keywords
Global International Relations, epistemology of knowledge, diplomatic training, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
References
Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: a new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly. 58(4), 647-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171
Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing gobal IR: challenges, contentions, and contributions. International Studies Review, 18(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viv016
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of global international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647670
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (Ed.) (2010). Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York; London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861431
Andersen, M.S., & Neumann, I.B. (2012). Practices as models: a methodology with an illustration concerning wampum diplomacy. Millennium, 40(3), 457-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829812441848
Bdrdny, A., Barta, R., Gyorkos, A., P6sdn, L., Schrek, K., & Takdcs, L. (2020). A nemzetkozi kapcsolatok tortdnete — Egyetemi tankonyv. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Tortdnelmi Intdze.
Barnett, M., & Zarakol, A. (2023). Global international relations and the essentialism trap. International Theory, 15(3), 428-444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971923000131
Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2001). Why International Relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829 8010300010401
Cohen, R. (2001). The great tradition: the spread of diplomacy in the ancient world. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 12(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406186
Crawford, R.M.A., & Jarvis, D.S.L. (Ed.). (2001). International relations - still an American social science? New York: SUNYPress.
De Carvalho, B., Lopez, J.C., & Leira, H. (Ed.). (2021). Routledge handbook of historical international relations. New York: Routledge.
Dobrzycki, W. (2007). Historia stosunkdw mi^dzynarodowych 1815-1945. Warszawa: Wydanie Nowe.
Dunne, T., Hansen, L., & Wight, C. (2013). The end of international relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485
Eun, Y. (2020). Going beyond parochialism and fragmentation in the study of international relations. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315161334
Fudan erudite and international politics and international relations series: contemporary history of international relations. (2013). Fudan University Press.
Galganek, A. (2015). Historia stosunkdw mi^dzynarodowych. Warszawa: ELIPSA.
Hoffman, M. (1987). Critical theory and the inter-paradigm debate. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298870160022801
Hoffmann, S. (1959). International relations: the long road to theory. World Politics, 11(3), 346-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009198
Holsti, H. (1985). The dividing discipline: hegemony and diversity in international theory. London: Allen and Unwin.
Lakatos, I. (1980). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Vol. 1. Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1978). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Neumann, I.B. (2012). At home with the diplomats: inside a European foreign ministry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9780801449932.001.0001
Reus-Smit, Ch., & Snidal, D. (Ed.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosenberg, J. (2016). International relations in the prison of political science. International Relations, 30(2), 127-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662
Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. London: Penguin Books.
Saraiva, J.F.S. (2007). Histdria das Relagoes Internacionais Contemporaneas. Editora Saraiva. https://doi.org/10.47695/hegemonia.vi1.10
Scoville, R.M. (2019). Unqualified ambassadors. Duke Law Journal, 71, 71-196.
Shahi, D. (2023). Global IR research programme. Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39121-7
Shani, G. (2008). Toward a post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and critical international relations theory. International Studies Review, 10(4), 722-734. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144544477
Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00042
Waver, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687-727. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550725
Xuetong, Yan. (2016). Political leadership and power redistribution. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pow002
Alekseeva, T.A., & Lebedeva, M.M. (2016). What is happening to the theory of International Relations. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 29-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.01.03
Bogaturov, A.D. (Ed.). (2000). Sistemnaya istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii, 1918-2000 [Systemic history of international relations, 1918-2000]. In 4 vols. Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii. (In Russ.)
Kharkevich, M.V (2023). Grounding ontology ofthe “international” in terms ofradical consructivism. World Economy and International Relations, 67(6), 36-46. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2023-67-6-36-46
Torkunov, A.V., Narinskii, M.M., & Revyakin, A.V. (Ed.). (2012). Istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [History of international relations]. In 3 vols. Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russ.)
Content No. 5, 2024
See also:
Chugrov S.V.,
Moscow University Bulletin. Series 25. International relations and world politics: 5 years on track. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No5
Torkunov A.V.,
International Studies: Chaos or Pluralism?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No5
Lebedeva M.M., Zinovieva E.S.,
Methods of neuroscience in studying world politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No5
Lebedeva M.M., Melville A.Yu.,
Comparative Political Science, World Politics, International Relations: Development of the Subject Spheres. – Polis. Political Studies. 1999. No4
Khudaykulova A.V.,
Contemporary International Relations: Implications of the New Context of Interdependence. – Polis. Political Studies. 2005. No6
.jpg)
.jpg)
