MEĐUNARODNI PROBLEMI

Abstract ▼

This paper takes on the key discussions in the contemporary International Relations and critically presents and evaluates the insights of the theorists in the content of the latter while systematizing them in an analytical framework based on Wendt’s ontological turn and inspired by Roseanu’s reconceptualization of change in the world politics post‐Cold War. Being aware of the complexity of such a task, the framework shall, if anything, offer a reader a map that facilitates our navigation in a seemingly vast and tangled up world of IR theory, its enduring contentions and new research themes. A special attention is paid to a characterization of the discipline in the state of “theoretical peace”, with respect to the meanings and implications of today’s prevalent theoretical pluralism and ecclecticism in IR. It remains to be seen in what ways the IR community will answer to these perspectives, whether it chooses to go for a bolder dialogue in an early phase of theoretical pluralism, or it will work more on “critical problem solving” of the issues that are delivered daily by turbulent world politics.

Abstract ▼

It is the author’s intention to explore the realist theory in International Relations in the context of Imre Lakatos’s Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. To this end, after defining the notion of realism in IR and exposing the foundations of Lakatos’s analytical pattern, relevant findings of several authors who took part in the debate on this issue from the area of philosophy of science (John Vasquez, Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Walt, Thomas Christensen and Jack Snyder, Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Randall Schweller, William Wohlforth) will be presented and critically analyzed. In that sense, there are two key lines of dispute: about whether Lakatos’s methodology is properly utilized in evaluating realist theory, and whether it represents an adequate tool for such a metatheoretical endeavor in the first place. In the concluding part of the article, author’s findings which point toward tenability of the realist research program, along with a limited scope of applicability of Lakatos’s methodology in the field of International Relations.

Abstract ▼

The author deals with neoclassical realism, the approach which emerged within the realist school of thought about international relations during the nineties of the last century. The goal of the paper is to consider the establishment and development of the approach during this decade and later in the 21st century, in order to show that it improved the realist school of thought and thus responded to the challenge that the end of the Cold War posed to it. This improvement consists of an integration of systemic level of analysis, on which neorealism insists, with unit level, from which classical realism and other IR schools of thought start. The author illustrates the application of neoclassical realism on the research of the topics relevant for the 21st century through the examples of several significant titles within the approach, but also citing his own application of the approach.

Abstract ▼

Neoliberal institutionalism represents the fourth phase in the development of the liberal institutionalism theory. Unlike the previous ones, at this stage of development, theorists focus on international institutions as independent actors in international relations, which are not only the means for the states to realize their national interests, but also influence internal policy in the countries. Ultimately, this leads to seeing the international relations outside the realistic “self‐help principle” as ones defining the behavior of states. The ambiguity in the further positioning of neoliberal institutionalism is regarding the phenomenon of global governance. The global governance is becoming reality. Because of this, states are often forced to act beyond their particular interests, giving priority to solving problems through international institutions. However, this largely does not happen due to state decisions, but thanks to the activities of non‐state actors. Although the international politics stay state‐centered, nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations have more influence in overcoming anarchy through global governance and the establishment of rules of the game in certain areas of life. For neoliberal institutionalism, this presents somewhat a challenge. The development of the fourth phase of the liberal institutionalism will depend on future explanations regarding the relation to global governance.

Abstract ▼

The Great Debates are an important stage in the development of International Relations (IR) as a science. However, the „exactness” of its chronology and content, as well as the precise determination of the actors and results, is questionable on several grounds. Therefore, relying on this, often contradictory, interpretations of the outcome of the Great Debates, little can be said about the current state of the mentioned theoretical dialogue. Today, IR scholars mostly discuss abandoning the idea of macro theory and the pluralistic silence in which medium‐scale theories resonate in peace. However, this \"diagnosis\" still does not give us an answer to the question of who really won the fight of so‐called big theories, or which theoretical paradigm today has the greatest influence within the disciplinary field? Applying the idea of reflexivity between the theory of international relations and the practice of foreign policy, the author of this paper rejects the restrictions of the mythos of the discipline (at the center of which is the myth of the Great Debates) and turns to the analysis of international political praxis as an instrument for the identification of the mentioned theoretical impact. At the center of the analysis are the foreign policy principles of the United States, which the author reviews in a hundred‐year time interval, in particular emphasizing the doctrine of Wilsonianism and the principles of foreign policy advocated by the current US President Donald Tramp. Facing Wilsonianism and Trampism (determining, in turn, the latter as a realistic‐constructivist Anti‐Wilsonian coalition), the author offers his view of the current state of paradigmatic „clashes” in the theory and practice of international relations.

Abstract ▼

After one hundred years since the Russian October Revolution, it seems appropriate to consider and point out some of the key topics, dilemmas, and theoretical considerations of Marxist theories of International Relations. The cyclical movement of global capitalism in the period from 1990 to 2017 contributed to the revival of the Marxist thesis about capitalism and the search for ways to overcome it. Most of the solutions are connected to the more equal distributions of capital and competition, less in socialist revolutions. That is the reason why in the future we can expect more attention given to the original Marx’s theses. Research questions that Marxist thought in international relations today consider are: Redirection of the focus from the East‐ West relations to the North‐South relations, which are characterized by inequality, injustice, dependency and exploitation of the countries of the South by the developed countries of the North; The changed role of the state – the transformation of state functions to fit the needs of transnational capital (transnational state); The combination of force and consent in the creation of a hegemonic world order; The global economic crisis of 2007–8, the crisis of the Euro‐zone in 2011 and the crisis of the developing economies, especially after 2015; Application of austerity measures in response to said crisis, which leads to the impoverishment of the already poor, and a large gap between rich and poor; Strengthening anti‐capitalist and “anti‐system” organization, movements and political parties, and their unification at the international level, as well as their links with countries such as Russia and Latin American countries. The study of these questions is addressed through the Neo‐Marxist and the Post‐Marxist approaches, with additional consideration of the “New Marxism”, which represents a re‐reading of Marx, his texts that have not been analysed by now and attitudes toward the non‐European area. A response to the current crisis is such that the policies of states are being nationalized and tend to become the opposite of what was advocated at the end of the Cold War by the leaders of liberalism. By 2016, such a shift is made that the leader of globalization and the spread of international organizations – the United States – have found itself in the opposite position of what it stood for – open markets, democracy and integration. China is trying to bring other countries in the fight against climate change and supports the continued functioning of the global open market and Russia is becoming a major initiator of the creation of new international institutions in the Asian, European and Latin American continent. The struggle between these new contradictions can only be overcome in some new synthesis – the new world order.

Abstract ▼

The paper examines the genesis of postcolonialism in various (mutually conditioned) forms: at the conceptual, humanistic, theoretical and disciplinary level. With the contextualization of the work of the first authors who put the question mark on the established and dominant western‐centric perception of global divisions, we will (de)construct various historical and paradigmatic influences on the development of postcolonialism. A special emphasis is put on the position of postcolonialism within the so‐called Great Debates in the academic discipline of International Relations. Also, we consider the possibility of development of postcolonialism as a theory on the medium level that has a multiple utility for International Relations. A critical examination of the initial assumptions of postcolonialism as inherently processual, reflexive and subversive, will open up the issues of the contemporary challenges of the social life of former colonies and their relationships with other actors on the international scene. One of the major issues (which can be set as a hypothesis) is how to use the advantage of the epistemological and theoretical postulates of postcolonialism in the research of the modern world in which the orientalist rhetoric largely survives, but due to the rise of terrorism and large‐scale migration from the Middle East, the political and social reality is changed?

Abstract ▼

The article deals with contemporary tendencies and research in the field of critical theory of international relations. Focusing on the analysis of global power relations, this specific approach within the framework of the science of international relations, draws attention to the different capacities of international actors to influence their own political and economic circumstances. Its contribution to the science of international relations is reflected in the opening (and politicization) of issues that the representatives of traditional theories take as a given fact, or for various reasons do not pay needed attention. The article will present the evolution of the critical theory of international relations, ranging from the radically critical point of view of its founder Robert Cox to the strictly normative orientation of Jürgen Habermas. Contrary to the question of the “inevitability” of the existing world order (on which the realists insist in particular), as well as the acceptability of dominant patterns and practice of demonstration of power in world politics, it offers alternative visions of the architecture of global relations. It is concluded that the critical theory of international relations, despite numerous criticisms, is relevant, because it approaches the phenomenon of power in a diametrically opposite way, in comparison to the traditional schools of thought in international relations. It provides researchers with analytical tools, so that they can identify the role and significance of both ideas (theory) and practices (political actions) in creating and maintaining the structures of the world order.

Abstract ▼

The paper analyses the general features of the ongoing debate within the feminist approach to the International Relations studies with the aim to discover whether its proponents continue to tear down the traditional norms of this academic discipline at the beginning of the 21st century, to give innovative insights, and to illuminate the power structure hidden in the so‐called “mainstream” IR theories. The paper discusses the most important feminist research questions and topics of the day, the basic feminist argumentation and its genesis, and stresses internal disagreements and criticism towards some theoretical standpoints within the feminist branch of the International Relations discipline. The analysis focuses on research articles and books published in the period 2001–2016 and primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom – the countries where feminist academia is fairly developed in the discipline of International Relations. The author concludes that despite the influence strengthened by the increased number of published research papers, books, and collections of papers in the early 21st century, the proponents of feminist IR theories continue to struggle for their “place under the Sun” within the mainstream of the International Relations academic community. The epistemological contribution of feminist theories to the International Relations discipline is best seen in regard to their dissident innovations, which “soften” the traditionally rigid framework of mainstream theory by expanding the list of legitimate research topics and introducing postpositive methodological approaches and techniques.