This article begins by re-opening the Third Great Debate which established division lines between mainstream (realist/liberal/constructivist) and Critical (neo-Marxist/neo-Gramscian) theories of International Relations based on their different assumptions about the nature of the international system: anarchy and hierarchy, respectively. The first half of the article argues that adopting common definitions of these concepts makes the anarchy–hierarchy debate theoretically irresolvable and further demonstrates that mainstream and Critical theories do not share an understanding of these terms neither between, nor within, their own traditions. The second half of this article challenges and aims to correct the interpretation of three key political thinkers, Halford J. Mackinder, W. E. B. DuBois and Norman Angell as appropriated within the inter-paradigm debates of International Relations. It argues that the respective associations of these thinkers with early realism, critical theories and early liberalism are intellectually misguiding because their works exhibit a common understanding of the ‘international’ across macro- and micro-dimensions, which is uncharacteristic of ‘-isms’. This shows that popular interpretations of pre-1919 works through post-1919 paradigms can obscure more than they reveal. These findings do not seek to present new ideas but to produce a reflexive critique of IR which illuminates some, perhaps unintended, counter-productive systemic effects that inter-paradigm divisions can have on the discipline.
AngellN. (1914a). The great illusion: A study of the relation of military power to national advantage. William Heinemann.
2.
AngellN. (1914b). The influence of credit upon international relations. In The foundations of international polity (pp. 81–139). William Heinemann.
3.
AshleyR. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), 225–286.
4.
AshworthL. M. (2011). Realism and the spirit of 1919: Halford Mackinder, geopolitics and the reality of the league of nations. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 279–301.
5.
AxelrodR. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books.
6.
BarkawiT. (2017). Soldiers of empire: Indian and British armies in World War II. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrennerR. (1977). The origins of capitalist development: A critique of neo-Smithian Marxism. New Left Review, 104, 25–92.
8.
CampbellD. (1993). Politics without principle: Sovereignty, ethics and the narratives of the Gulf War. Lynne Reinner.
9.
CardosoF. H., & FalettoE. (1979). Development and dependency in Latin America. University of California Press.
10.
CarrE. H. (1939). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939: An introduction to the study of international relations. Macmillan.
11.
CeadelM. (2009). Living the great illusion: Sir Norman Angell: 1872–1967. Oxford University Press.
12.
Chase-DunnC., & RobinsonR. (1977). Toward a structural perspective on the world-system. Politics and Society, 7(4), 453–476.
13.
CockcroftJ. D., FrankA. G., & JohnsonD. L. (1972). Dependence and underdevelopment: Latin America’s political economy. Doubleday.
14.
CoxR. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(126), 126–155.
15.
CruickshankA., & KubálkováV. (1980). Marxism-leninism and theory of international relations. Routledge.
16.
De TocquevilleA. (1838). Democracy in America, Vol. II. Saunders and Otley.
17.
DevetakR. (2001). Critical theory. In S. Burchill, R. Devetak, A. Linklater, M. Paterson, C. Reus-Smit, & J. True (Eds.), Theories of international relations (pp. 155–180). Palgrave.
18.
DonnellyJ. (2006). Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power and international society. European Journal of International Relations, 12(2), 139–170.
19.
DonnellyJ. (2015). The discourse of anarchy in IR. International Theory, 7(3), 393–425.
20.
DoyleM. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review, 80, 1151–69.
21.
DuBoisW. E. B. (1915). The African roots of war. The Atlantic Monthly, 115(5), 707–714.
22.
DuBoisW. E. B. (2015). The present outlook for the dark races of mankind. In N. D. Chandler (Ed.), W. E. B. DuBois: The problem of the color line at the turn of the twentieth century (pp. 111–137). Fordham University Press.
23.
EdkinsJ. (1999). Poststructuralism and international relations: Bringing the political back in. Lynne Rienner.
24.
EnloeC. H. (1989). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Pandora.
25.
FinnemoreM. (1996). National interests and international society. Cornell University Press.
26.
FrankA. G. (1967). Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical studies of Chile and Brazil. Monthly Review Press.
27.
GillS. (1993). Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
28.
GillmanS., & WeinbaumA. E. (2007). Next to the color line: Gender, sexuality, and W.E.B. DuBois. University of Minnesota Press.
29.
GramsciA. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. International Publishers.
30.
GriecoJ. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.
31.
HopfT. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.
HumeD. (1987). Essays: Moral, political, and literary. Liberty Classics.
34.
KeohaneR. (1989). International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory. Westview Press.
35.
KeohaneR., & NyeJ. (1973). Power and interdependence. Survival, 15(4), 158–165.
36.
KnutsenT. L. (2014). Halford J. Mackinder, geopolitics, and the heartland thesis. The International History Review, 36(5), 835–857.
37.
KrasnerS. D. (1992). Realism, imperialism, and democracy: A response to Gilbert. Political Theory, 20(1), 39–52.
38.
KuhnT. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
39.
LakatosI., & MusgraveA. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965: Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press.
40.
LakeD. (2009). Hierarchy in international relations. Cornell University Press.
41.
LakeD. (2011). Why ‘isms’ are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 465–480.
42.
LinklaterA. (2001). The changing contours of critical international relations theory. In R. Wyn-Jones (Ed.), Critical theory and world politics (pp. 23–43). Lynne Rienner.
43.
LinklaterA. (2006). The harm principle and global ethics. Global Society, 20, 329–343.
44.
MackinderH. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437.
45.
MackinderH. J. (1919). Democratic ideals and reality: A study in the politics of reconstruction. Constable and Company.
46.
MarableM. (1986). W.E.B. DuBois: Black radical democrat. Twayne Publishers.
47.
MarxK., & EngelsF. (2008). The communist manifesto. Pluto Press.
48.
MatternJ. B., & ZarakolA. (2016). Hierarchies in world politics. International Organisation, 70(3), 623–654.
49.
MearsheimerJ. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. Norton.
50.
MilnerH. (1991). The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: A critique. International Theory, 17(3), 67–85.
51.
MoravcsikA. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.
52.
MorgenthauH. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. A. A. Knopf.
53.
NavariC. (1989). The great illusion revisited: The international theory of Norman Angell. Review of International Studies, 15(4), 341–358.
54.
OyeK. A. (1985). Cooperation under anarchy. Princeton University Press.
55.
Plato, & ShoreyP. (1937). Plato’s Republic. Harvard University Press.
56.
Plato, & BuryR.G. (1981). Laws. Harvard University Press
57.
Plato BuryR. G. (1968). Plato in twelve volumes, Vols. 10 & 11. William Heinemann.
58.
Plato ShoreyP. (1969). Plato in twelve volumes, Vols. 5 & 6. William Heinemann.
59.
PolatN. (2012). International relations, meaning and mimesis. Routledge.
60.
PrebischR. (1980). The dynamics of peripheral capitalism. In L. Lefeber, & L. L. North (Eds.), Democracy and development in Latin America (pp. 21–27). Latin American Research Unit.
61.
RoseG. (1998). Review Article: Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.
62.
RosenbergJ. (2006). Why is there no historical sociology?European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 307–340.
63.
RosenbergJ. (2010). Basic problems in the theory of uneven and combined development, Part II: Unevenness and political multiplicity. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(1), 165–189.
64.
SchiederS., & SpindlerM. (2014). Theories of International Relations. Routledge.
65.
ShapcottR. (2004). IR as practical philosophy: Defining a ‘classical approach’. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 6, 271–291.
66.
ShapcottR. (2008). Critical theory. In C. Reus-Smit, & D. Sindal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 327–345). Oxford University Press.
67.
ShilliamR. (2021). Decolonizing politics: An introduction. Polity.
68.
SkocpolT. (1977). Wallerstein’s world capitalist system: A theoretical and historical critique. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 1075–1090.
69.
VitalisR. (2015). White world order, black power politics: The birth of American international relations. Cornell University Press.
70.
WæverO. (1996). The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 149–185). Cambridge University Press.
71.
WallersteinI. (1976). The modern world-system [Vol.1]:Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.
72.
WallersteinI. (2011). The modern world-system [Vol. 2]: Mercantilism and the consolidation of the European world-economy, 1600–1750. University of California Press.
73.
WaltS. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.
74.
WaltzK. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
75.
WaltzK. (1986). Reflections on theory of international politics: A response to my critics. In R. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 322–345). Columbia University Press.
76.
WaltzK. (1988). The origins of war in neorealist theory. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 615–628.
77.
WeissJ. (2013). E. H. Carr, Norman Angell, and reassessing the Realist–Utopian debate. The International History Review, 35(5), 1156–1184.
78.
WendtA. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
79.
WendtA. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
80.
WithersH. (1909). The meaning of money. Elder Smith.
