Is International Relations a Discipline?

Abstract

IS INTERNATIONAL relations a distinctive discipline-different from sociology, for instance, in the same way in which sociology is distinctive from political science or economics? Can it be studied independently, or must it be studied as a sub-discipline of some other discipline such as political science? the subject matter of international relations susceptible to disciplinary study in some coherent fashion or is it a mere grab bag from which we pick and choose according to momentary interests and to which we can apply no coherent theory, sets of generalizations, or standardized methods? That we are asked to discuss the topic Is International Relations a Discipline? is indicative of a state of unease in the profession. One would find it difficult to imagine similar questions asked of economics, sociology, or political science in general. The practitioners in these fields assume that they practice a discipline and turn their attention immediately to the important substantive and methodological questions raised by their subject matter. They may be concerned with the proper methods of conducting research but not with their title to conduct research. The difficulties that cause students of international relations to raise such a fundamental question must be sought, I believe, in the nature of the subject matter and the history of the discipline. Before raising the problem in a more general way, I should like briefly and in an over-simplified fashion to mention one aspect of the history of international relations studies that is perhaps in part responsible for this state of affairs. When political science separated itself from historical or legal studies, it turned to factual studies of existing political institutions. Then it began to raise questions about comparative institutional differences and to study the inter-relationships between different kinds and levels of political organizations. When interdisciplinary political scientists came on the scene, they were able to apply their theories and insights to an established body of factual data and an established body of theory. Although in their time, they were controversial, they enriched both our factual knowledge and our theoretical understanding. They permitted us to de-