Paste your essay in here…When it comes to explaining what International Relations is about, one should be extremely careful to enter into such a swampy territory. Vague terms such as International Relations might refer to an enormous variety of broader issues. My view about the matter is that the term “International Relations” or IR (upper case) defines an academic discipline, even though the extent to which such a discipline represents an entirely autonomous domain is open to discussion. Furthermore, my second claim is that there is a difference between IR and “international relations” (lower case) because the latter represents the object of analysis of the former. Although authors have struggled to try to categorise International Relations and to differentiate it from other disciplines, there are still several ongoing debates regarding its ontology, its historical background, its methodology and its numerous fields of enquiry. Likewise, the concept of “international relations” has been significantly broadened or narrowed by scholars, acquiring different meanings depending on the context. However, rather than entering into much detail about the mentioned debates, this essay aims to shed some light on the complex definition of International Relations as well as the difference between the former concept and international relations. Thus, it starts by examining the problematic history of the subject, focusing on its foundational myths and their oppressive heritage. Then, it explores the extent to which International Relations as a field of study could claim to be autonomous from other disciplines or not. Finally, it examines the meaning of international relations and its contemporary usage. REVISE SCHEME
First of all, before giving any definition of International Relations, it may be useful to consider the distorted view that the mainstream IR literature continues to perpetuate regarding the discipline’s origins. In fact, one who is about to approach IR for the first time will immediately notice that the discipline and much of its mainstream literature are rooted in two canonical dates, 1648 and 1919, which stand respectively for the Peace of Westphalia and the birth of IR as a discipline in itself. While the Peace of Westphalia is regarded as the moment in which the European nations recognised themselves as being part of a system of sovereign and anarchic states, 1919 is marked as the “virgin birth” of IR as an autonomous discipline in its own domain, following the bloodshed of the Great War (de Carvalho, Leira & Hobson 2011, p. 736). As a consequence of the World War I, the discipline of IR emerged with Alfred Zimmern being appointed the Woodrow Wilson Professor of International Politics at the University of Aberystwyth in 1919. Prior to that, there was no discipline known as International Relations. Rather, as Burchill & Linklater (2013, p. 6) pointed out, its fields of inquiry were scattered across various disciplines such as politics, international history, philosophy, diplomatic history, law, economics, etc.
However, how is lucidly explained by de Carvalho, Leira and Hobson (2011, p. 737), these two “canonical dates” are no more than foundational myths. Moreover, these stories not only undermine the discipline of IR insofar they perpetuate an ahistorical representation of it, which glossed over the crucial role played by empires, but also contributed to base the discipline on Eurocentric and racist outlooks (ibid., p. 737). In particular, rather than from the Treaty of Westphalia, which merely reiterated the medieval order, the concept of sovereignty stemmed from the Protestant Reformation started in 1517 and was embedded in the Treaty of Augsburg of 1555 (ibid., p. 740). Similarly, rather than emerging from the calamity of the World War I in 1919, IR as a discipline was already established in the decades between 1880-1910, as has been claimed by scholars such as Brian Schmidt, Robert Vitalis and Torbjørn Knutsen (ibid., pp. 748-749). Also, another reason why considering 1919 as the year in which IR came into existence is misleading is that some of its core concepts had already been discussed decades before 1919. For instance, less mainstream authors such as Hobson, Swanwick, Du Bois and Sarkar were arguably crucial in debating some of the concepts, such as globalisation, capitalism, imperialism, race and gender that shaped the successive thinking in IR. Even if they are regarded as pre-IR thinkers, their arguments significantly marked the discipline, influencing, among many others, famous thinkers such as Woodrow Wilson and Lenin (ibid., p. 749). Nevertheless, even though it should be now clear that the origins of IR as a discipline should be revised, the most prominent textbooks of International Relations seem to perpetuate the centrality of these foundational myths (ibid., pp. 742-758). As de Carvalho, Leira and Hobson rightfully point out, in order to free the discipline from these ahistorical benchmark dates, it is essential that scholars commit themselves to engage with the Eurocentric-imperialist perspective embedded in IR’s identity (ibid., pp. 756-758).
An analogous path towards a more accurate historical approach in considering IR’s origins seem to have been undertaken by a number of leading academics. As Bell (2001, pp. 123-124) argues, it appears that IR scholars are showing a renewed interest in the foundation of IR as a discipline from a historical perspective. Although it might be an arduous and long task, it is likely that this “historiographical turn” would be beneficial to both IR’s own identity and to provide a better comprehension of the discipline (ibid., pp. 123-124). Furthermore, this historiographical interest resulted in compelling works, which attempted to collocate the discipline of IR into a more accurate historical-context. For instance, Buzan & Lawson (2014, pp. 437-462) revised the most conventional dates in International Relation, which not only do not fully consider macro-historical transformations but also display the presentism and the west-centrism perspectives embedded in the discipline. Instead, they proposed a number of alternative dates clustered in three main categories, named respectively primary, secondary and tertiary benchmark dates, which might offer a more comprehensive explanation of the macro-historical international processes that played a considerable role in shaping both international relations and the discipline of IR. Overall, what these studies demonstrate is that the relationship between history and IR needs to be carefully considered by IR scholars and mainstream literature. In fact, building a sincere and proactive relationship between history and International Relations is essential for the self-awareness of IR identity as a discipline in itself.
It should appear now clear that, due to several issues mentioned above, providing a detailed definition of IR is a complex task, not only for IR’s problematic origins but also because of its theoretical fragmentation. However, it might be useful to identify the core canon of IR in order to grasp the extremely variety of contents which deeply characterises the discipline. Conventionally, the theory of the IR has been marked by what Headley Bull called “waves of theoretical activity” (Bull 1972, p.33), namely periods of time in which one particular theory of IR was dominant among the others. Every IR theory looks at the world from its own theoretical perspective and tends to regard some factors as being more important than others. Consequently, different theories of IR have provided different meanings of what is International Relations and what are its fields of enquiry. In order to illustrate this point clearly, it might be useful to give an example, comparing two IR schools of thought, realism and liberalism. For realists, International Relations is all about great powers, seen as impersonal “billiard balls” which live within an anarchical system, struggling for their survival “in the brooding shadow of violence” (Waltz 1979, p. 102). Liberals, instead, look inside the “black box” of states but do not always consider them as the only actors in the international arena, and focus their analysis towards peace and international cooperation. Besides, each IR paradigm has developed an internal vocabulary and has been oriented towards the formulation of narrow theories within their own paradigm, rather than an inclusive “grand theory” that might be valid for the discipline of IR in its entirety. Again, concepts such as “animus dominandi”, anarchy, power, security, “self-help”, “security dilemma”, are rooted in the realism’s vocabulary. Conversely, terms such as interdependence, rule of law, John Burton’s “cobweb model”, collective security, and the democratic peace theory belong to the liberal paradigm. Although IR was born with a political-military focus, which is still arguably present, its areas of enquire dramatically expanded. Nowadays, IR’s areas of enquiry However, given the variety of topics and theories that constitute International Relations, it is worth noting that developing a universal “grand theory” is undoubtedly a strenuous undertaking, if desirable at all for the sake of the discipline itself.
The tendency of IR of being anti-historical and present-oriented, together with the lack of an International Relations “grand theory”, resulted in an ongoing debate regarding its contested nature. In that respect, as Buzan & Little (2001, pp. 21-22) argued, is still not clear if one should consider IR as a discipline or rather as a field of study. Although it could be claimed that foundational myths might be useful to set the main concepts of the discipline in a simplified historical context, they have been proven deleterious to IR’s identity. In particular, the Eurocentric standpoint along with the historical oversimplification and inaccuracy, which deeply characterise the two benchmark dates, are still present in the discipline. As a result, they arguably contributed to weaken the linkages and the interdisciplinary dialogue between IR and the rest of the social sciences on one hand, and between IR and history, on the other (Buzan & Little 2001, pp. 19-20). Consequently, the risk is that IR might lose authority not only as a social science but also over some of its areas of interest, such as the process of globalisation, in favour of other disciplines and sub-fields. One possible solution to this matter, as pointed out by Buzan & Little, would be a serious IR’s commitment to establish a close cooperation with world history (ibid., p. 33). However, to allow a mutual collaboration between IR and world history,
A mutual collaboration between IR and world history would be provide several benefits to both the disciplines. First of all, IR could get rid of the so-called Westphalian straitjacket, namely
The concept of international systems is the authors’ keystone. According to them, it might enable IR to overcome its theoretical fragmentation and to pursue instead a path of theoretical pluralism.
Although the most famous debates regarding International Relations as an academic discipline are about IR’s ontology, methodology, and theories, less attention is paid to what should be considered as IR’s main area of enquiry and the different names might it acquire, such as “international relations”, “international politics”, “world politics”, “globalisation” (Albert & Buzan 2017, p. 900). Historically speaking, International Relations as a discipline is a far younger