Author:
Costa Oriol,Martínez Blanc Carme
Abstract
AbstractIn the wake of the Cold War’s conclusion, grand theories faded out of scholarly debates on International Relations. A more eclectic attitude took hold of the discipline—the celebration of mid-level theories that hybridized themes and variables from different theoretical traditions, shedding light on specific phenomena. History had ended, and so had the clashes between different views as to what its basic mechanisms were. This chapter asks whether the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which has done so much to dispel the last remains of the post-Cold War environment, is fostering a return of grand theoretical approaches to IR. More specifically, we want to understand if there is a consistent realignment of authors along paradigmatic fault lines, and what patterns form from the collision and coalition of grand theories.
Publisher
Springer Nature Switzerland
Reference26 articles.
1. Ashford, E. 2023. “The Persistence of Great-Power Politics.” Foreign Affairs, February 20. Accessed June 2023. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/persistence-great-power-politics.
2. Atzili, Boaz, and Min Jung Kim. 2023. “Buffer zones and International Rivalry: Internal and External Geographic Separation Mechanisms.” International Affairs, March 6. 99: 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad028.
3. Bohman, James. 2009. “What is to be Done? The Science Wuestion in International Relations.” International Theory, November 1. 1: 488–498.
4. Cohen, Eliot A. 2023. “Move Fast and Win Things.” Foreign Affairs, February 22. Accessed June 2023. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/move-fast-and-win-things-statecraft.
5. Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. 2013. “The end of International Relations theory?” European Journal of International Relations, September 5. 19: 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献