With a view to providing contextual background for the Special Issue, this opening article analyses several dimensions of ‘The end of International Relations theory?’ It opens with a consideration of the status of different types of theory. Thereafter, we look at the proliferation of theories that has taken place since the emergence of the third/fourth debate. The coexistence and competition between an ever-greater number of theories begs the question: what kind of theoretical pluralism should IR scholars embrace? We offer a particular account of theoretical engagement that is preferable to the alternatives currently being practised: integrative pluralism. The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: given the disciplinary competition that now exists in relation to explaining and understanding global social forces, International Relations may find resilience because it has become theory-led, theory-literate and theory-concerned.
AdlerEPouliotV (2011) International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BaldwinDA (1993) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
3.
BhaskarR (1975) A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: Leeds Books.
4.
BhaskarR (1989) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of Contemporary Human Sciences. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
5.
BrownC (1992) International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.
6.
BrownC (2013) The poverty of grand theory. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 483–497.
7.
BullH (1972) The Theory of International Politics, 1919–1969. In: PorterB (ed.) The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics, 1919–1969. London: Oxford University Press.
8.
BuzanBLittleR (2001) Why International Relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium: Journal of International Studies30: 19–39.
9.
CASE Collective (2006) Critical approaches to security in Europe: A networked manifesto. Security Dialogue37: 443–487.
10.
Der DerianJ (2005) Imaging terror: Logos, pathos and ethos. Third World Quarterly26: 23–37.
11.
DoughertyJEPfaltzgraffRL (1997) Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. New York: Longman.
12.
DunneTKurkiMSmithS (eds) (2013) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
EdkinsJZehfussM (eds) (2009) Global Politics: A New Introduction. New York: Routledge.
14.
FeyerabendP (1988) Against Method. London and New York: Verso.
15.
FierkeKM (1996) Multiple identities, interfacing games: The social construction of Western action in Bosnia. European Journal of International Relations2: 467–497.
16.
FierkeKM (2013) Political Self-sacrifice: Agency, Body and Emotion in International Relations. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FriedenJALakeDA (2005) International Relations as a social science: Rigor and relevance. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science600: 136–156.
18.
GeussR (1981) The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society: Introduction of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
Godfrey-SmithP (2003) Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
GuzziniS (2013) The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 521–541.
22.
HagmannJBierstekerTJ (2012) Beyond the published discipline: Toward a critical pedagogy of international studies. European Journal of International Relations. doi: 10.1177/1354066112449879
23.
HolstiK (1998) Scholarship in an era of anxiety: The study of international politics during the Cold War. Review of International Studies24: 17–46.
24.
HudsonVMCaprioliMBallif-SpanvillB. (2009) The heart of the matter: The security of women and the security of states. International Security33: 7–45.
JacksonPTNexonDA (2013) International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wagers to scientific ontologies. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 543–565.
27.
KeohaneRO (1989) International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO and London: Westview Press.
28.
KingGKeohaneROVerbaS (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
KratochwilF (2003) The monologue of ‘science’. International Studies Review5: 124–128.
30.
LakeDA (2011) Why ‘isms’ are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly55: 465–480.
31.
LakeD (2013) Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 567–587.
32.
LapidY (1989) The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly33: 235–254.
33.
LapidY (2003) Through dialogue to engaged pluralism: The unfinished business of the third debate. International Studies Review5: 128–131.
34.
LebowRN (2007) Texts, paradigms, and political change. In: WilliamsMC (ed.) Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–268.
35.
McDermottRWernimontNKoopmanC (2011) Applying psychology to international studies: Challenges and opportunities in examining traumatic stress. International Studies Perspectives12: 119–135.
36.
MarshDFurlongE (2002) Ontology and epistemology in political science. In: MarshDStokerG (eds) Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2nd edn.Basingstoke: Palgrave, 17–41.
37.
MearsheimerJWaltS (2013) Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 427–457.
38.
MertonRK (1967) On Theoretical Sociology: Five Essays, Old and New. New York: Free Press.
39.
MorgenthauHJ (1978) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.
40.
OnufNG (1989) World of our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
41.
PopperK (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper Torchbook.
42.
Reus-SmitC (2012) International Relations, irrelevant? Don’t blame theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies40: 525–540.
43.
Reus-SmitC (2013) Beyond metatheory?European Journal of International Relations19(3): 589–608.
44.
RosenauJN (1980) Thinking theory thoroughly. In: RosenauJNThe Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. London: Frances Pinter, 19–31.
45.
SchellingTC (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
SchmidtBC (1998) The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
47.
SilRKatzensteinPJ (2010) Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
SmithS (2003) Dialogue and reinforcement of orthodoxy in International Relations. International Studies Review5: 141–153.
49.
SmithS (2004) Singing our world into existence: International Relations theory and September 11. International Studies Quarterly48: 499–515.
50.
SmithSOwensP (2008) Alternative approaches to international theory. In: BaylisJSmithSOwensP (eds) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 4th edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 174–191.
51.
SylvesterC (2007) Anatomy of a footnote. Security Dialogue38: 547–558.
52.
SylvesterC (2013) Experiencing the end and afterlives of International Relations/theory. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 609–626.
53.
VasquezJA (1976) Toward a unified strategy for peace education: Resolving the two cultures problem in the classroom. Journal of Conflict Resolution20: 707–728.
54.
ViottiPRKauppiMV (1987) International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. New York: Macmillan.
55.
ViottiPRKauppiMV (2012) International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond, 5th edn.Boston, MA: Longman.
56.
WæverO (1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: LipschutzRD (ed.) On Security. New York: Colombia University Press, 46–86.
57.
WæverO (1996) The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In: SmithSBoothKZalewskiM (eds) Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149–185.
58.
WæverO (2007) Still a discipline after all these debates? In: DunneTKurkiMSmithS (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 288–308.
59.
WalkerRBJ (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
WaltSM (1998) International Relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy110: 29–46.
61.
WaltSM (2005) The relationship between theory and policy in International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science8: 23–48.
62.
WaltzKN (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
63.
WaltzKN (1981) More may be better. Adelphi Papers171.
64.
WendtA (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65.
WiggershausR (1994) The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge: Polity.
66.
WilliamsMC (2003) Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly47: 511–531.
67.
ZakPJKuglerJ (2011) Neuroeconomics and international studies: A new understanding of trust. International Studies Perspectives12: 136–152.
68.
ZalewskiM (1996) All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up: Theories, theorists, theorising. In: BoothKSmithSZalewskiM (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 340–353.
