“The starting point”: History of the Theory of International Relations as a New Sub Discipline

Introduction. A new sub discipline of the Theory of international relations – The History of the TIR, is already in place in the scientifc community of international studies. One of the most important problems, stated by the scientists, is the heterogeneity, fragmentation and the lack of fnished structure of the Theory of international relations. This article is devoted to only one of the multitude of questions: what date may be regarded as a “starting point”, the beginning of the discipline from which we should analyze the achieved results?

Materials and Methods. While preparing this article, the author used the method of the comparative study of the intellectual traditions in the history of the political and legal thought.

The Results of the Study. Nowadays the Theory of international relations is still at the stage of formation with its main features as fragmentation and absence of coherence towards the key moments of its development, including the date of its birth. Therefore, the appearance of the new discipline – History of the Theory of international relations – is quite natural as it helps to build necessary “bridges” and to clarify the details of the international studies development.

Discussion and Conclusions. Today none of the existing theoretical or epistemological attitudes can be regarded suffciently complete to pretend for a monopoly in the international studies. Moreover, no real intellectual progress allows this or that theoretical worldview to have the absolute priority. In the context of the quite complicated and contradictory issues that exist in real international relations, no simple or unequivocal explanation is possible. Therefore, it is high time to turn away from the endless interdisciplinary debates and start evaluating the real problems, but it would presuppose, according to David A. Lake, the recognition of different judgments and articulation of the lexicon which is able to identify not only what the various research traditions have in common but also what differentiates them.

1. Anderson Benedikt, 2001. Voobrazhaemye soobshchestva [Imaginary Communities]. Moscow.

2. Kozelek Rejnhart, 2004. Teoriya i metod opredeleniya istoricheskogo vremeni [The Theory and Method of Historical Times Defnition]. Logos. № 5 (44).

3. Lebedeva M.M., 2007. Mirovaya politika [The World Politics]. Moscow.

4. Fenenko A.V., 2018. Istoriya mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij [The History of International Relations]. 1648-1945. Moscow.

5. Filatov A.S., 2015. Rossiya i mir. Geopolitika v civilizacionnom izmerenii [Russia and the World. Civilization Dimension of Geopolitics]. Moscow.

6. Anderson, Benedict, 2006. Imagined Communities. London, New York: Verso.

7. Armitage, David. Foundations of Modern International Thought. Harvard University, Massachusetts. 2000-2013. Parts 1, 2, 3.

8. Armstrong D., 2003. Revolution and World Order: The Revolutionary State in International Society, Print publication date: 1993, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November.

9. Ashworth, Lucian, 2014. A History of International Thought. London: Routledge.

10. Behr, Hartmut, 2010. A History of International Political Theory. Ontologies of the International. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

11. Bell, Duncan, 2007. The Idea of Greater Britain, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

12. Bishop, Christopher. Review of International Studies. December 1998, Aberyswyth. Foreign Policy. Winter 1998/1999. Issue 113.

13. Cavallar, Georg, 2002. The Rights of Strangers. Theories of International Hospitality, The Global Community and Political Justice, since Vitoria, Cambridge: Ashgate.

14. Carr, E., 2001. The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919-1939. New York: Perennial.

15. Der Derian, James, 1987. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement, 1987. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

16. Hall, Jan, 2012. Radicals and Reactionaries in Twentieth-Century International Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.

17. Holsti, K.J., 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

18. Gunnell, John. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation (1993); The Orders of Discourse: Philosophy, Social Science, and Politics (1998); and Imagining the American Polity: Political Science and the Discourse of Democracy, 2004.

19. Knutsen, Torbjorn L., 2016. A History of International Relations Theory, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

20. Lake. David A., 2011. Why “isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to understanding and Progress. International Studies Quarterly. № 55.

21. Pocock, J.G., 1971. Politics, Language, and Time.

22. Ringmar, Erik. The Making of the Modern World, E-International Relations. URL: https:/www.e-ir/2017/12/24,gettingstarted-with-international relations theory.

23. Ruggie, John, 1983. Continuity and Transformation in World Polity. World Politics. № 35.

24. Schmidt, Brian C., 2013. On the History and Historiography of International Relations. Handbook of international Relations. Ed. by Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas and Beth A. Simmens. London: SAGE.

25. Skinner, Quentin, 1969. Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. History and Theory. № 1.

26. Teschke, B., 2003. The Myth of 1646: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso.

27. Walker R.B.J., 2010. After the Globe before the World. NY: Routledge.

28. Wight, Martin, 1966. Why is There No International Theory? Diplomatic Investigations. Ed. by Butterfeld, Herbert and Martin Wight. London: George Allan and Unwin.

29. Zimmern, Alfred, 1928. Learning and Leadership: A Study of the Needs and Possibilities of International Intellectual Cooperation, London: Oxford University Press.