Great Debates (International Relations)

Introduction:-
In International Relations Theory, the Great Debates refer to a
series of disagreements between international relations
scholars. Ashworth describes how the discipline of international
relations has been heavily influenced by historical narratives and
that "no single idea has been more influential" than the notion
that there was a debate between utopian and realist thinking.

First Great Debate

The "First Great Debate" also known as the "Realist-Idealist

Great Debate" was a dispute between idealists and realists
which took place in the 1930s and 1940s and which was
fundamentally about how to deal with Nazi Germany. Realist
scholars emphasized the anarchical nature of international
politics and the need for state survival. Idealists emphasized the
possibility of international institutions such as the League of
Nations. However, some have argued that defining the debate
between realism and idealism in terms of a great debate is a
misleading caricature and so described the "great debate" as a
myth.
According to revisionist narrative, there was never a single
'Great Debate' between Idealism and Realism. Lucian M.
Ashworth argues, the persistence of the notion that there was a
real debate between idealism and realism, says less about the
actual discussions of the time, and more about the
marginalisation of liberal and normative thinking in the
international relations in the post-war period.
Great Debates (International Relations)
Second Great Debate
The "Second Great Debate" was a dispute between "scientific IR"
scholars who sought to refine scientific methods of inquiry in
international relations theory and those who insisted on a more
historicist/interpretative approach to international relations
theory. The debate is termed "Realists versus Behaviourists" or
"traditionalism versus scientism". This debate would be resolved
when neorealists such as Kenneth Waltz (1959, 1979) adopt a
Behaviouralist, and hence positivist scientific approach to their
studies.

Third Great Debate

The "Third Great Debate" refers to the interparadigm debate
between proponents
of liberalist, realist and Marxist international relations theories,
as well as the academic debate between proponents of realism,
institutionalism and structuralism. This debate was topical during
the 1970s and 1980s.
Criticism
Some scholars have lamented the so-called "paradigm wars",
particularly between (neo)realism and (neo)liberalism. Jack S.
Levy argues that while the realism-liberalism debate “has
imposed some order on a chaotic field,” the distinction ignores
diversity within each of the two camps and inhibits attempts at
synthesis. Levy suggests instead focusing on making testable
predictions and leaving “the question of whether a particular
approach fits into a liberal or realist framework to the
intellectual historians.” Bear F. Braumoeller likewise proposes
that the “temporary theoretical convenience” of separating
realism and liberalism “was transformed into ossified ontology”
Great Debates (International Relations)
that inhibited attempts at theoretical synthesis. Socialization also
leads to a situation where “scholars working primarily within one
paradigm who attempt [to combine paradigms] are likely to be
chastised for theoretical impurity.”

Fourth Great Debate

The "Fourth Great Debate" was a debate
between Positivist theories and Post-Positivist theories of
international relations. Confusingly, it is often described in
literature as "The Third Great Debate" by those who reject the
description of the inter-paradigm debate as a Great Debate. This
debate is concerned with the underlying epistemology of
international relations scholarship and is also described as a
debate between "rationalists" and "reflectivists". The debate was
started by Robert Keohane in an International Studies
Association debate in 1988 and can be considered an
epistemological debate, about how we can know 'things' rather
than an ontological one, that is to say a debate about what we
can claim to know. As Balzacq and Baele summarize, this debate
is "a discussion which, in the 1980s and 1990s, followed a
composite claim for a more diverse, less epistemologically and
ontologically naïve, and more critical IR".
Criticism
Steve Smith has argued that the differing positions have largely
ignored each other meaning that it makes little sense to talk of
'debates' between rival theoretical frameworks. Emmanuel
Navon has argued that the three debates are a sham since there
is nothing new about debating human nature and human
knowledge, while the 'third debate' artificially imports the
Great Debates (International Relations)
deconstructionist French fad into the study of International
Relations.

SO FINAL ANALYSIS WE GET :-

FIRST GREAT DEBATE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
REALISM IDEALISM

SECOND GREAT DEBATE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

NEO - REALISM NEO - MARXISM

THIRD GREAT DEBATE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

LIBERALIST MARXIST

THIRD GREAT DEBATE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

POSITIVISM POST - POSITIVISM

CONCLUSION :-

International Relations (IR) theory has undergone a series of

debates which have left profound changes on the discipline as a
whole. These debates, though highly influential, have still caused
some controversy among those in the field. Indeed, IR scholars
have yet to reach a consensus as to the number of debates in IR,
let alone whether or not the third debate should be recognized
as part of that esteemed history, or, further still, whether or not
the debates should remain part of IR discourse at all. The
eclectic nature of the third debate, after all, makes it difficult to
classify, as there are multiple definitions and accounts of what
Great Debates (International Relations)
the third debate truly entails. The third debate originated in the
1980s, as a certain set of scholars attempted to open up the
theoretical field of international relations to previously neglected
viewpoints. These so-called “dissidents,” more specifically, had
aimed to liberate the field from the neo-utilitarian tradition of
thought. The epistemological-ontological common ground of
traditional IR theories stands at the very center of dissidents’
attack, because of their commitment to undermine
“foundationalist discourses.” Furthermore, the third debate is
credited with the emergence of constructivism as a mainstream
theory of IR, the opening up of IR to new objects and subfields,
and the growth of critical approaches to IR.