1.
The main theoretical traditions in IRs
○ International Political Theory: Theorists that belong to this tradition analyze international
affairs by using concepts that belong to the field of political theory, including terms such as
rights, justice, obligations, norms, ethics, and community. IPT should be understood as the
subset of international relations theories. It examine normative issues, interpret the writing
of political philosophers (Kant, Confucious, Hobbes, and Grotious), and discuss what these
political philosophers might have to say about contemporary international affairs.
○ Liberalism: This is a theory that emphasizes the importance of institutions, cooperation,
economic interdependence, democratic peace, and peaceful conflict resolution in
international relations. Liberal believe in change and progress (human resources and
rationality).
○ Realism: This is an approach to international relations that emphasizes the power politics,
state-centric approach, and conflict. It dismisses the importance of institutions in
international politics. Realists believe that the anarchic system shapes the world politics.
○ International Society Tradition/ English School: The theorists of the international society
tradition, also known as the English School, believe that just looking at liberalism and
realism isn't enough to understand global politics. They argue that adding a third
perspective helps us study today's complicated world more accurately. Even though there is
no world government and the international system is chaotic, they point out that there are
still rules and institutions that influence international relations. They emphasize the social
aspects of international interactions, such as common behaviors and norms. This approach
started in British academia but has become more popular worldwide recently.
○ International Political Economy (Mercantilism, Marxcism, etc): This approach emphasizes
the role of economic factors in international relations. It is a reciprocal relations between
politics and economics in global system. It is an employment of economic approaches in the
study of politics. Scholars who study international political economy focus on issues such as
international trade, globalization, and the role of international organizations in regulating
the world economy.
○ Post-Positivist Tradition: This theoretical tradition critiques the empiricist, positivist
approach to the study of international relations. Scholars who adhere to the post-positivist
tradition focus on understanding issues such as subjectivity and power in international
relations. PPT reject the idea that researchers can be independent of the social world and it
attempt to work with and recognize the biases.
○ Human-Nature Tradition: scholars in International Relations (IR) have been thinking about
the relationship between humans and nature. This idea of human nature is important in
many theories, from classical realism to feminist theories. Today, some theorists in post-
anthropology challenge the idea of focusing only on humans in their studies. They not only
think about what human nature is but also look at how humans interact with their physical
environment. HNT believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective
laws in human nature.
2. The approaches/criteria to define a discipline:
○ Epistemology:
i. Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge - how we know what we know, and
the validity and limits of that knowledge.
ii. In IR, epistemological approaches can range from positivism (which seeks objective,
causal explanations) to post-positivism (which questions the possibility of value-free,
objective knowledge).
iii. Debates around epistemology in IR center on issues like the role of theory, the use of
different methods, and the status of knowledge claims.
○ Ontology:
i. Ontology deals with the nature of reality and being - what exists in the world and
how these things are constituted.
ii. In IR, ontological approaches range from realism (which views states as the primary
actors) to constructivism (which sees international relations as socially constructed).
iii. Ontological debates in IR focus on the status of the state, the role of non-state
actors, the nature of the international system, and how these entities are defined
and conceived.
○ Methodology:
i. Methodology refers to the specific techniques and procedures used to acquire and
analyze data.
ii. In IR, methodological approaches include both quantitative (e.g. statistical analysis,
game theory) and qualitative (e.g. case studies, ethnography) methods.
iii. Methodological debates in IR revolve around issues like the relative merits of
different methods, the ability to establish causal relationships, and the
generalizability of findings.
Summary
In International Relations (IR), ontology, epistemology, and methodology are three fundamental
approaches that shape the study and understanding of global politics. Ontology in IR refers to the
study of what exists in the international system, focusing on the nature of actors, structures, and
relationships. It involves questions about the fundamental components of international reality,
such as states, non-state actors, and the nature of power and sovereignty. Epistemology deals with
the nature and scope of knowledge in IR, addressing how we know what we know about
international phenomena. It explores the sources, validity, and limits of knowledge, and it involves
debates between positivist approaches, which emphasize empirical observation and scientific
methods, and post-positivist approaches, which critique the limits of positivism and incorporate
interpretative and critical perspectives. Methodology encompasses the tools and techniques used
to study international relations, including qualitative methods like case studies and discourse
analysis, and quantitative methods like statistical analysis and formal modeling. These approaches
collectively influence how researchers frame their inquiries, gather and analyze data, and draw
conclusions about international relations.
3. The Emancipation of critical IR theories:
Emancipatory identifies a central moral purpose in the production of knowledge - the elimination of
oppression and the creation of the conditions for human flourishing. Emancipation in critical
International Relations (IR) theories aims to free individuals, groups, and societies from various
forms of domination, oppression, and inequality. Critical IR theories, including Marxism, feminism,
postcolonialism, and critical theory, challenge mainstream approaches by questioning the power
structures and assumptions underlying traditional theories like realism and liberalism. These
theories scrutinize the distribution and exercise of power in international relations, exposing
disparities and injustices such as economic exploitation, gender inequality, racial and ethnic
discrimination, and the marginalization of the Global South. Emancipation involves empowering
marginalized and oppressed groups, giving voice to those excluded from mainstream IR discourse,
and advocating for their rights and interests. It also promotes transformative change, envisioning
and working towards a more just and equitable international system. For example, Marxism focuses
on liberating the working class from capitalist exploitation, feminism aims to free individuals from
gender-based oppression, postcolonialism addresses the legacies of colonialism and imperialism,
and critical theory advocates for a rational, democratic society where individuals can achieve true
autonomy. In practice, emancipatory goals translate into actions and policies such as promoting
human rights and social justice, supporting self-determination movements, advocating for
equitable economic policies, challenging militarism, and ensuring that international institutions and
norms are inclusive and representative of diverse voices. Emancipation in critical IR theories is
about challenging and transforming the power structures and inequalities that characterize the
international system, aiming to create a more just and equitable world.
4. Is IR a science or an art?
The question of whether International Relations (IR) is a science or an art has been a longstanding
debate in the discipline. In order to tackle this question, it is first necessary to establish what we
mean by ‘science’ and ‘art’. Science is often understood as an empirical, objective, and systematic
way of understanding or explaining the world through the testing of hypotheses and the collection
and analysis of data. Art, on the other hand, is generally considered to be subjective, experiential,
and interpretative, often involving an aesthetic or creative dimension.
In IR, this debate has been ongoing since the discipline’s inception. Some scholars argue that the
study of IR should be based on the principles of natural sciences with prediction, control, and
empirical testing as its key aims. This perspective is known as ‘positivism’ and assumes that social
phenomena can be studied in the same way as natural phenomena using the scientific method.
According to this view, science helps to generate universal laws and provide structured
explanations about observable social phenomena.
On the other hand, there are scholars who argue that the study of IR should be understood as more
of an ‘art’ than a science. They argue that human behavior is too complex and diverse to be studied
in a systematic way through the testing of hypotheses and collection of data alone. This perspective
is often associated with interpretive approaches, which attempt to understand social phenomena
through the interpretation of meaning and the examination of context.
However, this divide between the two perspectives is not clear cut. Some scholars argue that rather
than being a binary choice between science or art, the study of IR should be a combination of both.
In other words, there should be a balance between the positivist and interpretive approaches, with
both methods being used together in a complementary manner.
It is also worth noting that there is no consensus on what constitutes ‘science’ or ‘art’. Some
scholars view science and art as opposite ends of a spectrum, with most methodologies existing
somewhere between the two. Others argue that it is a mistake to view these as binary opposites, as
both science and art can be seen as overlapping and complementary fields of study.
In conclusion, the question of whether IR is a science or an art is a complicated one that cannot be
answered definitively. Rather, it is important to recognize that both perspectives offer valuable
insights into the study of IR, and that it is possible to use both methods in a complementary way in
order to better understand the complexities of the world around us.
5. Can we judge some theories to be better than others?
Yes, it is possible to judge some theories to be better than others when it comes to explaining and
predicting international relations. Several factors are involved in making such judgments, including
their empirical and logical coherence, consistency with established facts, ability to provide an
explanation, and their capacity to make predictions.
Empirical coherence refers to the degree to which the theory fits the observed data as well as
existing empirical evidence. Logical coherence refers to how well the theory can logically account
for the various observations and empirical phenomena related to international relations.
Furthermore, a theory that is inconsistent with established facts and knowledge should not be
considered valid. Instead, we should use sound reasoning and well-documented data to make
judgments and test the theory's claims.
However, the criteria used to judge theories depend on the underlying assumptions, paradigms,
and methodologies of the theory in question. For example, the positivist paradigm emphasizes
empirical coherence, whereas the interpretive paradigm puts more emphasis on providing an
explanation of patterns of meaning.
Additionally, criteria for theory assessment should apply to all theories. Are theories capable of
clarifying muddied waters? Are they as simple as possible or at least suitable for complicated
events? Do they evoke fascinating questions? How well do they forecast future events?
Given the varied, and often competing, perspectives, the grounds for assessing the validity of
theories are the subject of debate, both in international relations and more generally across the
social and behavioral sciences. Social and political contexts affect individuals' assessments of
theories; therefore, we all have a level of bias we bring to the table.
In conclusion, it is possible to evaluate theories as always ‘better’ or ‘worse’ based on certain
criteria that are built on factual and empirical evidence, and these judgments can depend on the
underlying assumptions, paradigms, and methodologies of the theory under investigation. Hence, it
is essential to maintain a clear understanding of the social and political contexts that affect
observations and interpretations of that evidence. Nonetheless, the process of evaluating theories
is a critical part of the process of developing sound theories capable of providing valid descriptions,
explanations, and predictions of social and political phenomena.
