Studies of International Relations have been undergoing debates for some time. Contrasting views of international relations have resulted in debates, such as those between idealists and realists over norms and objectivity, and between traditionalists and behavioralists over history via-a-vis science. Recently, the influence of “critical theory, ” which examines relations between a theory and its norms, challenges the mainstream of International Relations, which has pretended to separate itself from values. For instance, recent studies by Robert Cox, R. B. J. Walker, Richard K. Ashley, and Mark Hoffman assert that any theory in the field of International Relations is bound to values and history. These studies try to examine the assumptions and the nature of theories in International Relations.
Under the influence of the recent development of studying the relations between norms and theory in International Relations, this paper analyzes state-centric models in the tradition of realism (i. e. H. J. Morgenthau) and neorealism (i. e. Robert O. Keohane, Kenneth N. Waltz, and Robert Gilpin). This analysis encompasses questions such as: what are the theorists' views of international relations? What are the normative values underlining their views? How are these explanations and values related to each other in each theory?
The state has been seen as the most significant actor in the mainstream of International Relations, including realism which sees international relations as a competition among states, and neorealism which recognizes the increasing importance of international economic issues and international regimes during the era of declining U. S. hegemony. The state continues to be described as a rational actor, and at the same time as an indispensable actor in international relations. Both realism and neorealism are based on their assumptions of the separation between theory and norm and are engaged in their pursuits of science. As natural scientists pursue the control of nature, realists and neorealists consider that their science of international relations will provide practical tools to create order and stability out of international relations, which are seen as originally anarchic.
This examination argues that despite their pretension to value-neutrality, objectivity, scientific outlook, and rationality, the mainstream studies in International Relations are heavily grounded in values. The separation of values and methods create a norm of analytical supremacy and scientific rationality which give the illusion of control over international relations. Realism and neorealism also eliminate challenges to themselves by asserting their “scientific” legitimacy. Accordingly, the dominance of state-centric models in realism and neorealism resulted in their peculiar structure of logic and justification, leaving the field undeveloped in terms of critical challenges to these approaches.
Therefore, this analysis concludes that it is essential to examine the nature of relations between theory and norms within theories. This attempt encourages the examination of these models by challenging their premises. This approach would not immediately invent an “alternative” theory; yet, it is a significant beginning to the reassessment of the state of the field and the consideration of theoretical alternatives. Accordingly, it is essential to create an analytical dialogue with these theories and to examine the textures of theories which weave together norms, values, and ideas within a historical context.
抄録全体を表示