Talk:International relations theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] English school

I added a section, copied from the main article about the English School, surely this most rational of theories needs to be represented here?

[edit] Constructivism

I added a paragraph on constructivism (which had been shockingly missing - do I sense a realist plot?), but I'm not sure it's very clear. Feel free to improve. Nicolasdz 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the claim that "social-constructivism" is becoming main stream in IR Theory requires citation. Many IR Theorists have little respect for constructivism, so it's move toward the mainstream is a surprise to me. 164.67.44.90 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to the dictum of being bold, I've moved Constructivism under critical theories, as that's where Richard Price and Chris Reus-Smit see it stemming from[1]. I've also added a citation to the introduction about Constructivism becoming mainstream, partly because I can't seem to escape it in Grad School and also because Reus-Smit explicitly says that on two pages of the article cited. I also dropped the Social- at the start of the word, as I've never seen it that way, nor does wikipedia refer to it as such anywhere else; the other articles just call it constructivism. Thus, changed. Feel free to flame my temerity.. but you can't accuse me of timidity.  :) (and yes, i did add a reference to my own comment) Shigernafy 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ R. Price and C. Reus-Smit, "Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism", European Journal of International Relations, vol. 4, no. 3 (1998), pp. 263-6.

[edit] Merger?

Why is this page separate from the entry on International relations?

Theory about international relations is only a subfield of the larger study of international relations. The international relations article needs a lot of work. When it's brought up to shape, it will be clearer why the IRtheory page has its own article.—thames 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links Section

How about a link to The IR Theory Web Site (www.irtheory.com)?

[edit] Realism "inherently agressive states"

I think someone needs to qualify the claim that realists believe states are inherently agressive, or at least specify that only some forms of realism adhere to it. Structural Realists such as Kenneth Waltz don't subscribe to this view, because he believes it implies that nations are in a constant state of war. I don't want to debate whether that's true or not, but the article needs to be clearer to reflect Neo-realist differences with classical realism 164.67.44.90 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Although it's quite an important school in IR I miss Postmodernism in this article.86.83.133.52 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Addition

Should the example of the Billiard Ball Pardigm be mentioned under Realism, and the Cobweb Paradigm under Liberalism? Int'l knowledge (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)