International relations, as every other scientific discipline, tries to be autonomous; however, that depends on its relationship with time and space. The current situation characterized by post-cold war and globalization realities constitutes an opportunity for the heuristic reinvention of international relations (IR). The reformulation of IR is neither a rejection of the old, nor a worship of the new; it is a reflection of the dynamics affecting international relations through both process and relational analyses.
Albert, M. , L. Brock, and K. D. Wolf, (eds.) (2000). Civilizing World Politics. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
2.
Appadurai, A. (1993). “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” In The Phantom Public Sphere (B. Robbins, ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
Appadurai, A. (1997). Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
Ashley, R. (1987). “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Polity.”Alternatives, XII: 403–434.
5.
Badie, B. (1995). La fin des territoires. Paris: Fayard.
6.
Badie, B. (1999). Un monde sans souveraineté. Paris: Fayard.
7.
Biersteker, T. and C. Weber (eds.) (1996). State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bull, M. (1995). The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics (2nd edn.) London: Macmillan.
9.
Buzan, B. (1996). “The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Camilleri, J. and J. Falk (eds.) (1992). The End Of Sovereignty?London: Elgar.
11.
Clark, I. (1998). ”Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of International Relations.’Review of International Politics, 24: 479–498.
12.
Clark, I. (1999). Globalization and International Relations Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Czempiel, E.-O. and J. N. Rosenau (eds.) (1989). Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990’s. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
14.
Elias, N. (1975). La dynamique de l’occident. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
15.
Elsthain, J. B. (1995). “Feminist Themes and International Relations.” In International Theory: Critical Investigations (J. Der Derian, ed.). London: Macmillan.
16.
Evans, P. (1997). “The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization.”World Politics, 50 (1): 62–87.
17.
Giesen, K.-G. (1992). L’ethique des relations internationales. Les theories Anglo-Americaines contemporaines. Brussels: Bruylant.
18.
Guzzini, S. (1998). Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold. London: Routledge.
19.
Halliday, F. (1994). Rethinking International Relations. London: Macmillan.
20.
Hobden, S. (1998). International Relations and Historical Sociology: Breaking Boundaries. London: Routledge.
21.
Hoffman, S. (1995). “An American Social Science: International Relations.” In International Theory: Critical Investigations (J. Der Derian, ed.). London: Macmillan.
22.
Holsti, K. J. (1998). “Scholarship in an Era of Anxiety: The Study of International Politics during the Cold War”Review of International Studies, 24 (December): 17–46.
23.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
24.
Jervis, R. (1998). “Realism in the Study of World Politics.”International Organization, 52(4): 971–991.
25.
Jorgensen, K. E. (2000). “Continental International Relations Theory: The Best Kept Secret.”European Journal of International Relations, 6(1): 9–42.
26.
Kahler, M. (1997). “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945.” In New Thinking in International Relations Theory (M. W. Doyle and G. J. Ikenberry, eds.). Boulder: Westview.
27.
Kaul, I. , A. Grunberg, and M. A. Stern (eds.) (1999). Global Public Goods. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye (1989). Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown.
29.
Krasner, S. D. (1997). Sovereignty, Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30.
Kuhn, T. (1983). La structure des revolutions scientifiques. Paris: Flammarion.
31.
Link, W. (1989). “Reflections on Paradigmatic Complementarity in the Study of International Relations.” In Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990’s (E.-O. Czempiel and J. N. Rosenau, eds.). Lexington: Lexington Books.
32.
Litfin, K. T. (ed.) (1998). The Greening of Sovereignty in World Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
Neuman, S. G. (ed.) (1998). International Relations Theory and the Third World. New York: Penguin Books.
34.
Reich, R. (1993). L’économie mondialisée. Paris: Dunod.
35.
Rosenau, J. N. (1989). “Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Towards a Post-International Politics for 1990’s.” In Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges (E.-O. Czempiel and J. N. Rosenau, eds.). Lexington: Lexington Books.
36.
Rosenau, J. N. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics. A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37.
Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World (E.-O. Czempiel and J. N. Rosenau, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Ruggie, J. G. (1989). “International Structure and International Transformation: Space, Time and Method.” In Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990’s (E. O. Czempiel and J. N. Rosenau, eds). Lexington: Lexington Books.
39.
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). Constructing the World Polity (E.-O. Czempiel and J. N. Rosenau, eds.). London: Routledge.
40.
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.
41.
Sfez, G. (2000). Les doctrines de la raison d’Etat. Paris: Armand Colin.
42.
Sindjoun, L. (1996). “La civilisation internationale des mœurs: éléments pour une sociologie de l’idéalisme structurel dans les relations internationales.” Etudes Internationales, 27(4): 241–259.
43.
Sindjoun, L. (1999). “L’Afrique dans la science des relations internationales.” Revue africaine de sociologie, 3(2): 142–167.
44.
Sindjoun, L. and P. Vennesson (2000). “Puissance et intégration régionale en Afrique Australe: unipolarité sud africaine et renaissance africaine.” Revue française de science politique, 6: 320–345.
45.
Smith, S. (1996). “Positivism and Beyond.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Smith, S. , K. Booth, and M. Zalewski (eds.) (1996). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Sorensen, G. (1998) “International Relations after the Cold War.”Review of International Studies, 24: 83–100.
48.
Steel, R. (1993). “The End and the Beginning.” In The End of the Cold War: Its Meanings and Implications (M. J. Hogan, ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Strange, S. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Sylvester, C. (1996). “The Contributions of Feminist Theory to International Relations.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Waever, O. (1996). “The Rise and Fall of Inter-paradigm Debate.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
53.
Weber, M. (1992). Essai sur la théorie de la science. Paris: Presses Pocket.
54.
Wohlforth, W. C. (1998). “Reality Check: Revising Theories of International Politics in Response to the End of the Cold War.”World Politics, 50: 650–680.
55.
Youngs, G. (1999). International Relations in a Global Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
