Explore the vast range of titles available.

“Parsimony” is a vague and divisive concept in political science. I identify three distinct but often conflated conceptions of parsimony. The aesthetic conception emphasizes a theory’s elegance and clarity; the ontological conception, drawing upon the hard sciences, posits that the world is governed by simple fundamental laws. Neither applies in international relations theory or to social science more broadly. Instead, only the epistemological conception—abstracting from reality to highlight recurring patterns and build testable propositions—justifies parsimony. This view is not a naive simplification of the world but a selfconscious capitulation to its complexity. Though both critics and supporters of parsimony often do not distinguish among these three “visions,” doing so has important implications for how we think about evaluating theories.

Abstract The two-volume study, authored and edited by Professor Gotchev, presents a broad range of theoretical approaches and frameworks of analysis in International Relations (IR) and is the most comprehensive textbook on the study of IR theories in Bulgarian. The first volume surveys the essence of political research and philosophical aspects of social science, the grand debates in IR and the main approaches-realism, liberalism, and Marxism. It also reviews critical IR theory and examines the importance of international political economy in the discipline of IR. The second volume, which is a collection of essays written by six different US and European scholars, is organised in five different sections and focuses on a broad range of grand approaches to IR and middle-range theories. The former include constructivism, the English School, postmodernism and poststructuralism, feminism, and green theory; the latter deal with a broad set of frameworks, such as behavioural, psychological and integration theories, theories of foreign policy, cooperation, alliances, and international organisations. Special attention is paid to geopolitics.

This paper develops three basic arguments in the context of this forum: that IR theory is genuinely pluralistic though those who see only apparent pluralism have a point. That discussions of pluralism in IR often run together the claims that pluralism is intrinsically valuable and that it is instrumentally valuable, and that these two claims need to be kept separate and examined more critically than they often are. And that pluralism is not Relativism and should not be assumed to be. Finally the paper suggests that IR theory might need to take on a still further aspect of pluralism if it wishes to properly understand the implications of plurality.

Rather than dead or even moribund, International Relations (IR) theory is most certainly \"alive,\" although of course exactly how \"well\" remains a matter for debate. This article explains that each of the traditional and more recent \"schools\" of theory has its important strengths and serious weaknesses. Some theories are more appropriately applied to particular problems than to others. Analysts need to be conversant with a wide range of theories so they can recognize them when they are being employed (even only implicitly) and also use them as a toolkit when developing a research subject or explanations for patterns observed. Viewing some subjects simultaneously from more than one theoretical perspective often enhances understanding.

Analytical pluralism in IR theory is a welcome development, yet it may also play a role in reifying our contemporary liberal world order. While there is clearly greater analytical diversity in the IR discipline today than in the latter half of the twentieth century, it is a diversity that is contained within the boundaries of acceptable liberal discourse. As a result, it does not constitute a challenge to dominant disciplinary ways of knowing and being. IR theory may enjoy a circumscribed version of analytical diversity in which multiple voices may speak but power does not listen. This possibility and its implications are considered, with particular attention paid to liberalism and positivism as the dominant analytical project of the contemporary moment.

There is a multifaceted relational revolution afoot in International Relations (IR) and in the social sciences more widely. This article suggests, via engagement with varied forms of relational thought and practice in IR, but in particular via engagement with ‘relational cosmology’ associated with the ‘natural’ as well as the ‘social’ sciences, that there are important reasons for relational thought and practice in IR and around it to be more attentive to dialogues on relationality across natural and social sciences. If relational thought in IR has challenged the colonial and bifurcated ontologies of the field, relational cosmology too assists in shifting ‘modern’ understandings of science and the cosmos by facilitating engagement with situated knowledges and deep-going relationalities across ‘nature’ and ‘society’, ‘human’ and ‘non-human’ communities. Relational cosmology may be productive in joining, and perhaps even in facilitating, conversations across multiple relationalities emerging from different parts of the world and in different fields of inquiry, and yet – reflecting its relational and pluriversal orientations – it is not proposed here as a new ‘meta-‘ or ‘grand-’ narrative for relational theorising or IR.

Global IR is an encompassing term for a range of work that has set out to globalize the discipline in terms of its core concepts, assumptions, and substantive areas of study. Our symposium supports Global IR's goals but also offers some friendly critiques of the project with the aim of increasing its impact and durability. In this Introduction to the symposium, we posit that Global IR is vulnerable to a dynamic that limits its capacity to upend the status quo, which we term the ‘essentialism trap’. Essentialism captures a range of commitments oriented around the notion that the world is constituted by pre-formed, fixed, internally coherent, and bounded social forms. The trap involves the overuse of essentialist categories by radical projects, a process that can result in the reinforcement of status quo categories and assumptions. With reference to previous openings in IR that have succumbed to this trap, we identify the dynamics that lead to this trap and suggest ways in which Global IR can avoid it by leaning more into relationalism and global history, and, thereby, fulfil the promise contained in the range of movements it speaks with and for.

In this article, we elaborate two distinct ways of criticizing international practices: social critique and pragmatic critique. Our argument is that these two forms of critique are systematically opposed to each other: They are based on opposing epistemic premises, they are motivated by opposing political concerns, and they pursue opposing visions of social progress. Scholars of International Relations (IR) who want to work with the conceptual tools of practice theory are thus confronted with a consequential choice. Understanding the alternatives can help them to be more self-reflexive in their research practices and intervene more forcefully in contemporary political debates. We illustrate these advantages through a discussion of the scholarly debate on the practices of multilateral diplomacy through which the United Nations Security Council authorized a military intervention in Libya in 2011.

The article explores the Legon School of International Relations (LSIR) which is the research, teaching, and academic programming of International Relations (IR) at the University of Ghana, Legon. The LSIR came out of attempts to decolonise knowledge production, dissemination, and academic programing in Ghana in early 1960s. The article shows that the LSIR is decolonial in theoretical perspective, grounded in southern epistemologies, relational in ontology, qualitative in methodology, practice-based, and it is equity-oriented. Although the LSIR scholarship as a package is distinctive, some of its ideas overlap with the work of several contemporary IR communities in the West. The article highlights implications of the LSIR story for the IR communities in the West and the value of paying close attention to the works of IR centres of scholarship in Africa.

This article argues that Critical IR theory’s (CIRT) claims to reflexivity, its engagement with “difference,” and its emancipatory stance are compromised by its enduringly Eurocentric gaze. While CIRT is certainly critical of the West, nevertheless its tendency toward “Eurofetishism”—by which Western agency is reified at the expense of non-Western agency—leads it into a “critical Eurocentrism.” While this Eurofetishism plays out differently across the spectrum of CIRT, nevertheless all too often the West is treated as distinct from the non-West such that a fully relational conception of the West—one in which the non-West shapes, tracks, and inflects the West as much as vice versa—is either downplayed or dismissed altogether. Our antidote to this problem is to advance such a relational approach that brings non-Western agency back in while simultaneously recognizing that such agency is usually subjected to structural constraints. This gives rise to two core objectives: first, that non-Western agency needs to be taken seriously as an ontologically significant process in world politics, and second, that it needs to be explored in its complex, manifold dimensions. Here we seek to move beyond the colonial binaries of non-Western “silence vs. defiance” and an “all-powerful West vs. powerless non-West.” For between these polarities lies a spectrum of instantiations of non-Western agency, running from the refusal to be known and categorized by colonial epistemes to mundane moments of everyday agency to the embrace of indigenous cosmologies through to modes of developmental and global agency. Sometimes these speak back to the West, and at other times they occur for reasons Otherwise. Ultimately we call for a relational sociology of global interconnectivities that problematizes CIRT’s Eurofetishization of the West as a separate, self-generating, self-directed, and hyper-autonomous entity.