This essay will critically analyse the notion that there is a fundamental difference between the tasks of ‘explaining’ (comprehending ‘causes’) and ‘understanding’ (comprehending ‘reasons’). First, the essay will examine the emergence of the sharp division, which has come to be accepted as existent between ‘explaining’ (which is advocated by positivists) and ‘understanding’ (which is advocated by post-positivists). Second, one important consequence of the division will be demonstrated by showing how the intellectual battles between positivists and post-positivists, as well as the occasional attempts at reconciliation between them, have been instrumental in positivism’s dominance. Finally, the work of Milja Kurki will be drawn upon to argue that the concept of causation should be broadened, thereby exposing the interrelated nature of ‘explaining’ and ‘understanding’ without reducing one to the other. This will allow for positivism’s dominance to be effectively challenged.
“When I entered the service,” wrote Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, “there was no such thing at all.” Within the six centuries of the French diplomatic system diplomacy evolved from its ad-hoc, temporary status in political society into foreign services that practiced within a distinct profession.
For the majority of states, offensive nuclear strategy is simply not feasible, and it is unlikely rogue states would implement a first-strike strategy due to fear of retaliation.
Muslims are facing discrimination on the sole basis of their faith. Whilst racial, cultural, political, social and economic factors undoubtedly play a role, it is undeniable that religion is equal a factor. Islamophobia as a term then has its problems and therefore requires modification, it is, however, well intentioned and describes a very real phenomenon.
While positivism has brought a sense of rigor and academic framework to study international politics, it obscures some crucial truths.
The disciple of international relations, like all the social sciences, needs theories to make sense of the world it is trying to examine. The merits and faults of each school of thought have been contested in what are known as the ‘great debates’.
This essay seeks to refine Organski’s Power Transition Theory by decoupling the dominant state from the world system it embodies.
The Vietnam War represents the nadir in American military history, its legacy forever ‘scar[ring] the American psyche.’[1] Thus, the Iraq War has been fought in the midst of apocalyptic references to ‘another Vietnam,’[2] as the rejectionists, the Saddamists, and the terrorists[3] continue to derail the American strategy for victory in Iraq. The Vietnam War has fundamentally changed the overall mindset of American leaders and the American public; the result is a different type of war, aimed at minimising casualties and reducing the length of war in a bid to capture ‘hearts and minds.’ In seeking to understand American behaviour in Iraq, there is an implicit assumption that lessons have been learned from Vietnam, but have they?
This essay outlines some of the major constructivist promises and attempts to deduce their direct implications for North-South relations. It concludes that expansion of security communities represents the foundation of the constructivist promise in this area of study.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not mark the beginnings of a ‘nuclear revolution’ as it is understood. The strategic environment and technological capabilities for a revolution did not exist in 1945 and not until much later.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.