International Relations Researches

International Relations Researches

Potentials of IR Theories for more Convergence and Interactions with IL

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Samira Mohseni 1
Seyyed Abdolali Ghavam 2
1 PhD student in International Relations, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran
2 Professor, Department of International Relations, Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran
Abstract
Although the discipline of IL is hundreds of years old , the academic field of IR is of much more recent vintage .After The first world war , the disciplines of IR and IL overlapped substantially . But with the occurrence of the World War II the era of disciplinary convergence ended .Many realists believed in an anarchical world, international agreements could not meaningfully constrain state actions. These tendencies were reinforced by a structural realist literature that viewed international outcomes as a product of the distribution of capabilities and power across states. By the early 1980’s liberalism had emerged as a coherent theory of IR. Liberalism claims that the configuration of independent state determines state behavior. Since the end of the cold war, constructivism has emerged as a significant approach to bridging two fields. However its sophisticated understanding of norms makes possible a sociologically rich and historically grounded understanding of international law. The focus of this article is on the analysis potentiality of IR theories, i.e., English school, Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism for more interactions and convergence of IR and IL .Our study demonstrates the degree of convergence is greater between IL and IR than other areas.
Keywords
International Relations
International Law
Realism
Liberalism
English School
International Society
Constructivism
Abbott,Kenneth and Duncan Snidal. (2013).”Law,Legalization and Politics : An Agenda for the next generation of IL/IR Scholar’’ in Jeffery L.Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds) Interdisiplinary Perspectives on International Law and IR : The State of the ART ( N.Y. : Cambridge University Press).
Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore. (2004). Rules of the Word: International Organizations in Global Politics, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press).
Bull, Hedley. (1977). the Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in Word Politics, London: Macmillan.
Buzan, B. (2002). ” Rethinking the Solidarist – Pluralist Debate in English School Theory “ISA panel “Solidarity in Anarchy: Advancing the New English School Agenda New Orleans.
Engle, Karen. (2000). Culture and Human Rights: The Asian Values Debate in Context”. New York University Journal of IL and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 2.
Goldstein, Judith and Richard Steinberg. (2008). ’’Negotiate or Litigate? The Effects of WTO Judicial Delegation on US Trade Politics,” Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 71, No. 1.
Hopf , Ted. (2010). The Logic of Habit in IR “, European Journal of IL, Vol. 16, No. 4.
Hall, M. and Jonsson, C. (2001). ”The Reproduction of International society: A View from comparative History,” 4th Pan- European International Relations Conferences, 8 – 10 step .England University of Kent.
Krasner, Stephen. (1999).”Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier.” World Politics, Vol. 43, No. 3.
………….. (1978). Defining the National Interest : RAW Materials , Investments ,and US Foreign Policy, (Princeton : N.J.: Princeton University Press).
Kratochwill, F. (1989). Rules, Norms and Decisions: on the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in IR and Domestic Affairs, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Keohane, R .and Nye, j. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World politics in Transition, Boston, MA: Little Brown, Boulder, Co: West view.
Linklater, A. (1996). ”Rationalism” in Burchill and Linklater eds, Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan and N.Y.: Palgrave.
Meyer,John, John Boli, George Thomas and Francisco Ramirez. (1997), World Society and the Nation state, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 1.
Morse, E. (1979). Modernization and the transformation of International Relations, (N. y.: Free press).
Onuf, Nicholas. (1989). World of our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and IR, (Columbia: University of South Caroline Press).
Ruggie, John. (1998).”What Making the World Hang together? Neo Utilitarianism and Social Constructivist Challenges, International Organization, Vol. 1(52). No. 4.
Said,E. (1978). Orientalism, (N.Y.: Pantheon).
Simmons, Beth. (2011).”The Global Diffusion of Law: Transnational Crime and the Case of Human Trafficking, in “American Political Science Association (APSA).
Searle, John. (1995). the Construction of Social Reality, (N. Y.: The Free Press).
Sinclair, Adriana. (2010). IR Theory and IL: Critical Approach, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Steinberg, Richard. (2002).”IN the Shadow of Law or Power ? Consensus – Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO, “International Organization, Vol. 56. No. 2.
…………… (2004a).”Who is Sovereign, Stanford Journal of International Law, Vol.40, No. 2.
Vincent, j. (1974). Non- Intervention and International Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wight, M. (1992). International Theory: the three Traditions (N. y.: Holmes & Meier).
International Relations Researches
Volume 5, Issue 18 - Serial Number 1
Winter 2016
Pages 137-156