Questions and reflections drawn from Tim Dunne, Lene Hansen and Collin Wight’s laudable and important EJIR special issue, ‘End of International Relations Theory?’ and its companion symposium.
Author profile: A.C. McKeil
Linking History to Political Theory, with an international bridge, gathers deep and important questions, which form an intellectual and academic pursuit greater than the sum of its parts.
Waltz and Wight addressed important questions, both for scholars, practitioners and society at large. While not entirely successful in solving them, their works continue to inspire our thinking today.
The average person knows little or nothing about IR’s issues. This lack of relevance suggests that the discipline should be more self-critical. The next stage in IR’s development should not be theoretical – but attitudinal.
The humanitarian and democratic war motives that partly contributed to the illegal and bloody Iraq war are symptomatic of the old normative contradictions of international society.
While international politics is fettered and formed by the imperious political culture of the West, IR is developing a reflexive turn. That turn gives a new compelling impetus to the popular and radical traditions of resistance and critique.
Christian Reus-Smit diagnoses IR’s disciplinary ailment in Millennium’s latest special issue by pointing out that an anti-theoretical turn to pragmatist problem-solving research is not the correct prescription for IR.
Kristensen’s article fills a quantitative gap in the literature on the divisions of IR scholarship with bibliographic coupling, which maps the communication networks of the discipline.