Critical IR theory and Feminist IR theory are often considered part of constructivism however, there is much debate over whether they constitute their own branches, and so they are included in this article (as well as in their own entries in the OBO series), though the sources are somewhat different. It has therefore been given its own section and is not included in any of the other sections. The “English School” could be considered part of any of the aforementioned three branches, and its placement in the IR theory world is the subject of some debate. These three branches have replaced the earlier realism-idealism dichotomy. Why did the author choose one theory and not the other? Why did the author choose one source and not the other? Indeed, a wide variety of permutations would be perfectly valid to provide the researcher with an adequate annotated bibliography, so why were these particular entries chosen? This article identifies Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism as the three major branches of IR theory. Any bibliography of international relations theory is bound to create controversy among its readers. Traditional IR theories can generally be categorized by their focus either on humans, states, or on the state system as the primary source of conflict. However, even that definition is contested by many theorists. It is often taught as a theory that seeks both to explain past state behavior and to predict future state behavior. International relations (IR) theory is difficult to define.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |