The Study Of International Relations

This wide-ranging study surveys the present state of international relations as an academic field. It locates and assesses recent developments in the field - in short, what is being done where, by whom, and why. The editors have focused on some central and controversial theoretical issues, and included surveys of principal sub-fields, as well as the various approaches to the study of international relations in different countries. The book provides a comprehensive overview of an important and fast-growing area of academic endeavour, and is essential reading for teachers and students of international politics and the social sciences at large.

SCOTT (Copy 1): From the John Holmes Library Collection.

International relations are generally understood as a realm of anarchy in which countries lack any superior authority and interact within a Hobbesian state of nature. In Hierarchy in International Relations, David A. Lake challenges this traditional view, demonstrating that states exercise authority over one another in international hierarchies that vary historically but are still pervasive today. Revisiting the concepts of authority and sovereignty, Lake offers a novel view of international relations in which states form social contracts that bind both dominant and subordinate members. The resulting hierarchies have significant effects on the foreign policies of states as well as patterns of international conflict and cooperation. Focusing largely on U.S.-led hierarchies in the contemporary world, Lake provides a compelling account of the origins, functions, and limits of political order in the modern international system. The book is a model of clarity in theory, research design, and the use of evidence. Motivated by concerns about the declining international legitimacy of the United States following the Iraq War, Hierarchy in International Relations offers a powerful analytic perspective that has important implications for understanding America's position in the world in the years ahead.

'This is an outstandingly good book, which succeeds on many different levels.The book is exceptionally well structured and well written. There is so much in this book for so many types of scholars of International Relations. I am certain that this book will be seen over time not only as one of the most intellectually impressive mergers of theory and history in the field, but also as a massive advance on US-style neo-realism. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, not least because I became fascinated with the argument, and found myself nodding in admiration as the authors pulled off the feat of bringing all the elements together into a powerful and intellectually impressive discussion of the types of international system found in world history. This is one of the most important books published in the last decade and for intellectual sophistication it leave neo-realism US-style standing, but also drowning.' International Affairs 76:4 (2000) 833-4.This book tells the story of mankinds evolution from a scattering of hunter-gatherer bands to todays integrated global international political economy. It outlines the concept of international systems as a useful framework for all those interested in a big picture understanding of the evolution of human society from earliest times to the present.

This volume ws the winner of The International Studies Association Theory Section Book Award 2013, presented by the International Studies Association and The Yale H. Ferguson Award 2012, presented by International Studies Association-Northeast. There are many different scientifically valid ways to produce knowledge. The field of International Relations should pay closer attention to these methodological differences, and to their implications for concrete research on world politics. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations provides an introduction to the philosophy of science issues and their implications for the study of global politics. The author draws attention to the problems caused by the misleading notion of a single unified scientific method, and proposes a framework that clarifies the variety of ways that IR scholars establish the authority and validity of their empirical claims. Jackson connects philosophical considerations with concrete issues of research design within neopositivist, critical realist, analyticist, and reflexive approaches to the study of world politics. Envisioning a pluralist science for a global IR field, this volume organizes the significant differences between methodological stances so as to promote internal consistency, public discussion, and worldly insight as the hallmarks of any scientific study of world politics. This important volume will be essential reading for all students and scholars of International Relations, Political Science and Philosophy of Science.

Essay from the year 2006 in the subject Politics - International Politics - General and Theories, London School of Economics (Department of International Relations), language: English, abstract: Since the behaviourist turn of the 1960s, questions concerning the appropriateness and desirability of a positivist research agenda have been at the forefront of meta-methodological debate within the social sciences. The evolving 'science wars' between positivists and normativists have also presented enormous challenges to the epistemological identities and professional self-images of scholars working in the academic field of International Relations (IR). Whereas positivists maintain that the overarching aim of science is the experimentally guided explanation of empirical phenomena under 'covering laws', normativists and traditionalists hold that social scientists cannot - and, in fact, should not - emulate the causal models of the natural sciences. According to this view, it is virtually impossible to study the influences of distinct variables in complex social interactions, and statistical aggregation merely obscures the fact that the true 'causes' of events are rarely obvious in the social world. Hence, the purpose of political and social research ought to be a desire to understand processes 'from within' rather than to explain them 'from outside'. Yet the traditionalist critique of social scientific positivism did not imply that positivists would be entirely oblivious to the importance of norms in international life. IR does not only deal with descriptive, but with political (and, ultimately, prescriptive) aspects of the social world. Thus, it might appear worthwhile to ask: how scientific are so-called 'scientific' (positivist) approaches to the study of IR - if their theoretical premises and empirical achievements are taken at face value and judged by their own standards of 'scientific' neutrality and precision? To answer this question, I will first describe the sp