International Relations Theory: in Search of Alternatives? ∗∗

For the best illustration of the traditional and behavioural (or positivist) positions on the question of methodology, see the various representative essays by Bull Hedley Kaplan Morton A. Singer J. David Knorr Klaus Rosenau James N. Knorr Klaus Rosenau James N. (eds.), Contendxing Approaches to International Politics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1969.

For an excellent introduction to the nature of issues involved in this debate, see Smith Steve Positivism and beyond, in Smith Steve Booth Ken Zalewski Marysia (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 11–46. For more comprehensive accounts, see the essays in Booth Ken Smith Steve (eds.), International Relations Today, Polity, Cambridge, 1995.

For the most comprehensive treatment of neo-realism, see the various essays in Keohane Robert (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986. For a useful summary of neo-realism, see Chatterjee Shibashis , “Neo-Relism in International Relations”, International Studies (New Delhi), Vol. 34, No. 1, Jan-March, 1997, pp. 39–58.

For a useful survey of such new scholarship, see the essays in Smith Steve Booth Ken Zalewski Marysia (eds.), op. cit. , (Item No. 2).

For a good understanding of the identity of the Third World and the essence of Third World politics, see Monor James (ed.), Rethinking Third World Politics, Orient Longman, London, 1991.

See, Kuhn Thomas , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970 E. Also useful is, Kuhn Thomas , ‘Reflections on my critics’, in Lakatos Imre Masgrave Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.

For a cogent summery of the concept of paradigm, see Janos C. Andrew , “Paradigms Revisited: Production, Globality, and Post-Modernity in Comparitive Politics”, World Politics, No. 50, October 1997, pp. 118–149.

Karl Popeper’s alternative is to be found in Popper Karl R. , The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1968. For a good exposition, see, Heine Christian Teschke Benno , “Sleeping Beauty and the Dialectical Awakening: On the Potential of Dialectic for International Relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 404–407.

Vasquez John A , ‘The post-Positivist Debate: Reconstructing Scientific Enquiry, and Internatinal Relations Theory After Enlightments Fall, in Booth Ken Smith Steve (eds.), International Relations Theory Today, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995, p. 237.

On inter-paradigm debate, see Banks Michael , “The Inter-Paradigm Debate”, in Light Margot Groom A.J.R. (eds.), International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory, Frances Pinter, London, 1985, pp. 7–26; Waever Ole , ‘The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate’, in Smith Steve Booth Ken Zalewski Marysia (eds.), op. cit., (No. 2), pp. 149–185; Hoffman Mark , “Critical Theory and the Inter-paradigm Debate”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1987, pp. 231–249; and Lapid Yosef , ‘The Third Debate : On the pros-pects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1989, pp. 235–254.

Waltz Kenneth W. , Theory of International politics, Random House, New York, 1977; Also see, Waltz Kenneth , ‘Relflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics’, in Keohance Rebert (ed.), op. cit., (Item No. 32), pp. 322–345

See, Smith Steve , “Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science”, Millenium; Journal of International Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1987, pp. 189–245.

Said Edward W. , Orientalism, Reprinted with a New Afterword, Penguin Books, London, 1995.

Ibid. , 329 ff.

For a comprehensive collection of essays on Critical Theory and the early exponents of the Frankfurt School, see Bernstein Jay (ed.), The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments, Vol. I-VI, Routledge and Paul Kegan, Londone, 1994. Also useful is Seyla Benhabib Norm Critique and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, Columbia University Press, NY, New York, 1986.

Lukacs Georg , History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics (Translated by Livingstone Rodney ), The Merlin Press, London, 1968.

For Habermas’s classic exposition of the crisis problems inherent in capitalism, see Habermas Jurgen Crisis Legitimation (Translated by MacCarthy Thomas ), Heinnemann Educational Books, London, 1976; for his analysis and development of the concepts of discourses, discourse ethics, communicative action and the ideal speech situation, among others, see Habermas Jurgen , Knowledge and Human Interests, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1987 (first published in 1968); The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: Reason and the Ratinalisation of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge, (1991); The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2: The Critique of Functionalist Reason, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1987; Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990; Communication and the Evolution of Society, Heinemann Educational Books, London, 1979. For a good introduction to Habermas’s works, see White Stephen K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge University Press, U.S.A., 1995.

The list of scholars using Habermas in International Relations includes Andrew Linklater, Robert Cox, Mark Neufeld, Mark Hoffman and Jurgen Haacke, For a comprehensive summary see, Haacke Jurgen , “Theory and Prectice in International”. Relations: Hebermas, Self-Reflection, Rational Argumentation”, Millennium: Journal of Internatioal Studies Vol. 25, No. 2, 1996, pp. 255–289.

For a good discussion of Habermas’s ideas on the crisis of capitalism, see Kellner Douglas , Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 191–203.

Habermas Jurgen , Legitimation Crisis, op. cit. (No. 17), p. 33. ff.

Ibid. , pp. 38–39.

Ibid. , pp. 61–92.

Kellner , op. cit. , pp. 199–200.

For Jurgen Habermas’s views on historical materiatism and his difference with classical Marxism, see Love Noncy S. , ‘What’s left of Marx’, in White Stephen K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Combridge University Press, Combridge, 1995, pp. 44–66.

Ibid , pp. 49–51.

Habermas Jurgen , Theory and Practice (Trans. by Viertel J. ), Heinemann Educational Books, London, p. 33.

Habermas Jurgen , The Past as Future (ed. and trasns. by Pensky M. ), Polity Press, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 103–104. The citation is from Jurgen Haacke, op. cit. (No. 18) p. 259.

Ibid. , p. 261.

Ibid. , 262.

See Habermas Jurgen , ‘Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Programme of Philosophical Justifications’, in Habermas Jurgen , Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. by Lenhardt C. Nicholsen S. Weber , Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 60–61. For further development of the theme, see Haacke Jurgen , op. cit. (Note 18), pp. 262–269.

Fay Brian , Critical Social Science: Liberation and its Limits Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, p. 188.

Ibid. , 189.

For an excellent review of their contributions to critical international theory and their affinities with Habermas, see Haacke Jurgen , op. cit. (No. 18,), pp. 272–281.

For the best anthology of the various writings of Cox Robert W. , See Cox Robert W. with Sinclair Timothy , Approaches to World Order, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

Haacke Jurgen , op. cit. , (No. 18), p. 272.

For further explorations of the theme, particularly see Cox Robert W. , On thinking about future world order’, (1976), and Cox Robert W. , “Social forces, states, and world orders (1981)’, in Cox Robert W. with Timothy Sinclair , op. cit. , pp. 60–123.

Haacke Jurgen op. cit. (No. 18), p. 273.

Linklater Andrew’s inportant relevent contributions include, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, Macmillan, London, 1990; Beyond Realism and Marxism :Critical Theory and International Relations, Macmillan, London, 1990; ‘The Achievements of Critical Theory’, in Smith Steve Booth Ken Zalewski Marysia (eds.), op. cit. (No. 2); and, “The Question of the Next Stage: A Crtical Theoretical Point of View’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 21, 1992, pp. 77–98.

Linklater Andrew , ‘The achievements of critical theory’, op. cit , (No. 2), p. 287.

Ibid. , pp. 287–289.

Ibid. , p. 292.

Ibid. , p. 293.

Haacke Jurgen , op. cit. , (No. 18), p. 276.

Ibid. , p. 278.

See, Foucault Michel , Power/Knowldge-Selective Interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, ed. Gordon C. , Harvester Press, Brighton, 1980. For a good introduction to Foucault’s themes, see Rabinow Paul (ed.), The Foucault Reader, Peregrine Books, Harmondsworth, 1986.

For two most penetrating critique of Foucault and post-modernism, see Norris Christopher , The Truth About Post-modernism, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993; and Geras Norman , Discourses of Extremity: Radiacal ethics and Post-Marxist Extravagances, Verso, London, 1990.

Norris Christopher , op. cit. , (No. 48), p. 291.

See, Vasquez John A , op. cit. , (No. 9), pp. 217–240.

Ibid. , p. 224.

The critique of R.B.J. Walker follows closely that suggested by Professor Fred Halliday. For details, see Halliday Fred , Rethinking International Relations, Macmillan, London, 1994, pp. 41–46.

Ibid. , p. 41.

Ibid. , p. 42.

Ibid. , p. 43.

Ibid. , pp. 44–45.