Battlefield praxis: The alliance of realism and constructivism and the “fall” of liberal internationalism

Abstract

The Great Debates are an important stage in the development of International Relations (IR) as a science. However, the ?exactness? of its chronology and content, as well as the precise determination of the actors and results, is questionable on several grounds. Therefore, relying on this, often contradictory, interpretations of the outcome of the Great Debates, little can be said about the current state of the mentioned theoretical dialogue. Today, IR scholars mostly discuss abandoning the idea of macro theory and the pluralistic silence in which medium-scale theories resonate in peace. However, this "diagnosis" still does not give us an answer to the question of who really won the fight of so-called big theories, or which theoretical paradigm today has the greatest influence within the disciplinary field? Applying the idea of reflexivity between the theory of international relations and the practice of foreign policy, the author of this paper rejects the restrictions of the mythos of the discipline (at the center of which is the myth of the Great Debates) and turns to the analysis of international political praxis as an instrument for the identification of the mentioned theoretical impact. At the center of the analysis are the foreign policy principles of the United States, which the author reviews in a hundred-year time interval, in particular emphasizing the doctrine of Wilsonianism and the principles of foreign policy advocated by the current US President Donald Tramp. Facing Wilsonianism and Trampism (determining, in turn, the latter as a realistic-constructivist Anti-Wilsonian coalition), the author offers his view of the current state of paradigmatic ?clashes? in the theory and practice of international relations.