International Relations Theory Research Articles

American Presidential Elections 2024: The Core Point of Future Geopolitical Changes

Purpose: This research is focused on the ongoing Russia – Ukraine military conflict, which has already caused some significant changes in foreign policy priorities of major players of international political system. Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of U.S. 2024 elections to the Russia – Ukraine military conflict outcomes with the aim of analyzing different foreign policy philosophies the two potential candidates have, that can have an effect not only on current Russo-Ukrainian conflict but on the whole global geopolitical situation in the current world. Theoretical Framework: realism as an international relations theory with the system level analysis is used to explain current global geopolitical issues. Method: The issue of methodology is decided according to the necessities of tasks of this article and is mostly based on data analyses, comparison of similarities or differences and case study. Results and Discussion: the current work claims that the major war on the European continent disrupts the core security arrangements which has a shattering effects of unipolar liberal order and how much will this order be changed, is mainly depended on the dedication to it by the U.S.A, European union countries and their liberal democratic allies around the globe. Research Implications: the research findings contribute in raising awareness of the current Ukraine conflict and accumulate the type of knowledge that enriches the political science with theoretical and practical value.

Strategic principles for co-existence in a multinodal world

AbstractIn realist international relations theory, world order is assumed to be a vertical structure ordered by relative power, with the hegemon, or the contest of hegemons, at its apex. Power is viewed as the ability to coerce, and security lies in the avoidance of defeat. But the proportional changes in the globalized economy of this century have created a new reality, one in which effective pursuit of one’s own national interest is more complex than compelling or submitting. Differences in relative power and capabilities still matter, and differences in situations create conflicts of interests. But the horizontal dimension of continuing interaction among autonomous actors is more important than the vertical dimension of unilateral imposition. Without hegemony, states have agency, but they face greater uncertainty. The diplomatic calculus of each state is to pursue its national interests, but a major component of this pursuit lies in reducing uncertainty. Strategy for a post-hegemonic multinodal world stresses the complex ecology of action, the importance of relationships, the utility of partnerships, the encouragement of common interests, and the problems of conducting limited conflicts. These are principles of strategic prudence relevant to the global matrix of asymmetric international relationships.

Introduction: Marxifying IR, IRifying Marxism

Although the neglect of Marxism has been a pervasive characteristic of IR theory, there has been a marked revival of interest in Marxism. Marx’s materialist insights into the general historical development of societies, as well as his critique of capitalism and political economy, have served as alternative starting points for different critical approaches to IR and offers a welcome alternative to neorealism, constructivism, and poststructuralism that have dominated IR for several decades. Marxism provides a redefinition of IR by focusing on changes in material circumstances, historical conditions, and society instead of assuming unchanging and fixed structures of anarchy or the state. Marx’s analysis and insights into the dynamics of international relations have become even more important given the ongoing crisis of neoliberal capitalism, the rise of authoritarianism, right-wing nationalist populisms, and the racial and gendered subordinations accompanying them pointing to the importance of Marxifying IR and IRifying Marxism.

Hegel and the Theory of International Relations: General Paradigm of the Hegelian System

Hegel and the Theory of International Relations: General Paradigm of the Hegelian System

The United Nations (UN) at Crossroads in 2022: An Assessment of ‘Geopolitical Tensions’ in International Relations (IR)

Purpose: This paper is an alarming assessment of the keynote address and remarks at the opening of the 77th General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (UN) by the Secretary-General to world leaders. The alarm is that the world, from small to big, powerful to the less powerful are “gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction,” and are not ready or willing to tackle the challenges that threaten humanity’s future – and the planet’s. “Our world is in peril – and paralyzed,” the Secretary-General Antonio Gutiérrez laments. Do these remarks collaborate with the daily multiplying effects of the Russia-Ukrainian war; the climate emergencies and devastating weather conditions around the world; the dire financial situation amidst poverty in developing countries and the setbacks in the UN Sustainable goals for 2030? Methodology: The basic problem facing research today and to anyone who tries to understand contemporary world politics is that there is so much material to look at; such as, which things matter and which do not. For instance, where on earth would you start if you wanted to explain the most important political processes: How, for example, would you explain the recent failure of climate change negotiations at the UN, amidst Africa’s position? How will one theorize ‘Brexit’ from the EU or the ‘gridlock in ‘colossal global dysfunction’, where nations meeting at the United Nations cannot agree on challenges threatening humanity’s future? This research employs a qualitative approach involving the collection and analysing of primary and secondary documents; as well as non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences of plenaries of the UN; particularly, why this particular one - (the 77th Session) was alarming. Findings: For the first time in UN’s history, the international communities are undermining the work of the UN Security Council; of international law, peoples trust in democratic institutions, and most forms of international cooperation. There is ample evidence from the research findings that there is “a divergence between developed and developing countries; between North and South; between the privileged and that, the world becoming more dangerous by the day. In short, the world “is at the root of geopolitical tensions and the increasing lack of trust among countries, which is poisoning every area of global cooperation from vaccines to rid communicable diseases; sanctions to stop wars around the world; measures to reduce global temperature, and the need to reduce trade barriers for the benefit of particularly, developing countries in Africa. Unique contribution to theory, policy and practice: In IR theory, all nations work to increase their own power and not their opponents’. The nations that are able to manage and horde power most efficiently thrive; as they can easily eclipse the achievements of less powerful nations. In policy and practice, the UN is torn apart by gridlock within the plenary of the UN, as well as the Security Council, international institutions with powers to resolve international conflicts and misunderstandings are either paralyzed by division or have become undemocratic. The UN must therefore reform or be paralyzed by these colossal dysfunctions.  

Images of a Statist Ethic in “Western” and Chinese IR Theory: Locating (and Deciphering) the “Moral Realism” of the Tsinghua Approach

Abstract In this article, we identify—and interrogate—one thematic thread that is intricately woven through prominent positions within classical realism, normative international relations (IR) theory, and what Zhang Feng (2012) has called Chinese IR’s “Tsinghua approach.” This thread is the often-controversial notion of a statist ethic for international politics or an ethical perspective that grants priority to one’s state, fellow citizens, and the national interest. Positions within each of these theoretical traditions—what we label “egoistic realism” and “responsible realism” within the classical realist tradition, “communitarian realism” and “impartialist statism” within normative IR theory, and what others have described as “moral realism” within the Tsinghua approach—share a commitment to an ethical approach variously defined in terms of the protection of, and preference for, one’s state and compatriots. We take this rich collection of positions, and the points of comparison that it affords, as an opportunity to better understand the possibilities and limits of a statist ethic for international politics. Specifically, we endeavour to illustrate four points: (1) that a morality defined in terms of the priority of the state, one’s fellow citizens, and the national interest is neither impossible nor a contradiction in terms; (2) that such a perspective can constitute a sophisticated theoretical position; (3) that it can be conceived in radically different ways, including with respect to the source of value to which it appeals and who it deems to matter; and (4) that these differences have profound practical consequences. In terms of contributing to a conversation between Western and Chinese IR theory, this analysis helps us not only to explore how the “moral realism” of the Tsinghua approach relates to positions within classical realism and normative IR theory but also to evaluate the practical implications of its points of theoretical convergence and divergence.

PROSPECTS OF MATERIALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

One of the achievements of the reflectivist turn in international relations theory in the late 20th century was the attention given to the role of discourse and other ideational factors in international politics. In recent years, however, approaches critical of the discursive emphasis in international studies have emerged, seeking to restore the significance of non-discursive aspects of international relations such as geography, technology, and the non-human. This article offers a perspective on the development of international relations theory from the standpoint of the debate between materialism and idealism. Within this framework, it provides a brief overview of the historical evolution of international relations theory and subsequently delves into a detailed analysis of three strands of the new wave of materialist theorizing in the field - critical realism, new materialism, and neoclassical geopolitics. The article suggests considering the new materialist wave as, on the whole, a positive development, but also points out the necessity of taking into account the risk of “exiling” the human element from international relations research as such concepts proliferate. The possibility of collaboration between reflecivists and post-reflecivists, as well as between idealists and materialists in general, is underlined for the comprehensive study of contemporary international realities.

The Tension within Norms: Agency and Risks in Pursuit of Global Climate Justice

Abstract How can IR theory capture both the possibilities of agency for historically underrepresented groups and the limitations that different social struggles present for them? This paper proposes a framework based on relational approaches, decolonial perspectives, and the concept of “tension” between possibilities and risks of agency to analyze the dynamics of norm emergence and circulation. It builds on, but moves beyond, constructivist analyses of the norm life cycle and adopts a relational and decolonial lens in order to probe normative agency and its consequences within the context of international negotiations. Focusing on constructivist theories of socialization with multiple feedback effects, the paper calls for a fourth agentic turn in the study of norms and their genealogy and offers an analytical and empirical roadmap to chart a more complex scenario of co-constitution for norms. The paper refers to the case of climate justice to illustrate, empirically, the importance of employing the concept of tension to unveil agentic moments in norm circulation, while also highlighting, theoretically, the risks and limitations that are present in meanings that continue to reinforce colonial legacies.

The Development and Characteristic Analysis of China's International Relations Theory

This paper aims to analyze the development and characteristics of China's international relations theory. Firstly, it reviews the origin and evolution of China's international relations theory, then discusses its characteristics and main viewpoints during different historical periods. Finally, it examines the position and influence of China's international relations theory on the current international stage. Through a comprehensive analysis of China's international relations theory, this paper aims to deepen the understanding of China's thoughts and positions in international affairs, as well as its impact on the global political landscape.

The reality and power of international law: Georg Schwarzenberger’s forgotten theory of International Relations

Georg Schwarzenberger’s oeuvre has remained significantly underexplored in International Relations literature despite his status as one of the most important thinkers in International Relations and international law of the twentieth century. Ahead of their time, his works reveal a picture of law that transcends academic boundaries and challenges the traditional portrayal of both realist theory and international law. Through a detailed examination of the works of this theorist, this article offers an analysis of the fundamental aspects of his theory of International Relations and international law. It explores the elements at the heart of Schwarzenberger’s theory of International Relations, which, though examined infrequently and practically forgotten, retain their relevance in today’s international society. Through this exploration of Schwarzenberger’s works, this article argues that his theory of International Relations provides a powerful commentary on the fundamental structure, nature and problems of international law. It points to and reveals issues that have remained at the heart of international law until today, offering a sophisticated and self-conscious interrogation of the relationship between law, power and politics. In doing this, this article challenges our understanding of realism as a theory that is unable to account for international law and highlights Schwarzenberger’s continued relevance today.

The Chinese School of IR Theory: Ignored Process, Controversial Progress, and Uncertain Prospects

Abstract This article reviews issues relevant to the Chinese School of International Relations (IR) theory. After 20 or more years of relentless effort, the Chinese School has achieved concrete breakthroughs, evident in the emergence of Relational Theory, Moral Realism, and Symbiosis Theory. The Chinese School has thus entered a new stage, its primary task having been upgraded from theory innovation to theory development. But to proceed further, the Chinese School needs critical responses from its Western counterparts. Owing primarily to the language barrier, as well as to the non-confrontational academic tradition within Chinese IR, and the ethnocentrism that both sides practice, the few dialogues that have taken place between the Chinese School and Western theories have tended to be problematic, with important issues either ignored or misrepresented. In order to further study a comprehensive and intensive exchange of ideas between the Chinese School and Western theories, this article categorises issues relevant to the Chinese School into three areas. They are: process of evolution; progress in theoretical studies; and the Chinese School’s future relationship with other theoretical entities (in particular, Global IR). Predominantly reliant upon the discourse analysis of Chinese School publications, this contribution seeks to provide a foundation for further exchanges between Western theories and the Chinese School.

IR and the Global South: Revising Obstacles to a Global Discipline

The IR discipline is marked by a strong center-periphery inequality that is perpetuated through theories, methodologies, and concepts produced in the Global North that do not adequately capture the diverse experiences of Global South states and societies. In tandem with growing critiques of Western-centrism and calls for global IR, the discipline has now become more heterogeneous and inclusive, and IR scholars are more attentive to the global IR debate than ever before.  Yet, the discipline has not become truly global, as many Global South scholars are absent from the major debates in the field and there are still sharp geographic differences with respect to IR knowledge production. Even though Global South countries have enormous potential to enrich and globalize IR with their history, political thinkers, and religious and philosophical traditions, this potential remains largely untapped. While Global South scholars develop alternative perspectives and engage in theorizing practices, these efforts have not yet been embodied in the form of an IR theory that provides alternative explanations of world politics. Equally important, these perspectives are not echoed in much of the mainstream accounts in IR.  This study contributes to the global IR debate by problematizing the dynamics behind the insufficient development and representation of Global South IR theories and perspectives in the discipline. After delving into entrenched Western-centrism and the asymmetries of knowledge production in the discipline, the present study puts into spotlight the intellectual and material barriers that feed off each other and perpetuate the inequalities in IR knowledge production.

Cybernetic governance: implications of technology convergence on governance convergence

Governance theory in political science and international relations has to adapt to the onset of an increasingly digital society. However, until now, technological advancements and the increasing convergence of technologies outpace regulatory efforts and frustrate any efforts to apply ethical and legal frameworks to these domains. This is due to the convergence of multiple, sometimes incompatible governance frameworks that accompany the integration of technologies on different platforms. This theoretical claim will be illustrated by examples such as the integration of technologies on the “human platform” as it is referred to in the case of enhanced soldiers. Hence, successful governance might require new approaches borrowed from a distant relative, namely cybernetics. Insights gained from cybernetics for governance theories might be able to give guidance for a more efficient and adaptive governance approach that is able to deal with increasing complexity caused by technology and governance convergence. While cybernetics itself might be considered a governance approach, it has had surprisingly little reception in the wider field of governance within the area of social and political sciences. This article will develop cybernetic governance as a set of expandable governance principles that are applicable to an increasingly complex digital and smart society. It thereby tries to further galvanise what could be termed cybernetic governance theory as a subject of worthwhile insights from the combination of otherwise largely the disjoined fields of cybernetics and governance.

Theory of world politics: assessing the potential for transfer

In international studies, there are many borrowings from other disciplines at the level of metaphors, concepts, etc. In this regard, the question is raised about a possible reverse transfer, i.e. from the sphere of world politics to other scientific spheres, including not only socio-humanitarian, but also the natural sciences. The article analyzes a successful example of such a transfer given by R. Axelrod in the early 2000s, as well as subsequent attempts to theoretically validate the conditions for export from the field of international studies to other areas. Two approaches have been identified. Within the framework of the first approach, it is proposed to create an interdisciplinary theory, since international relations are able to integrate various humanitarian and social disciplines. The second approach allows for a “pluralistic” and “blurred” subject field of the theory of international relations, in which various theoretical and methodological lines can coexist and enter into discussion with each other (societal multiplicity), rather than remain isolated. It provides opportunities for its “export” to other scientific fields. A critical analysis of these approaches allows us to conclude that in both the first and second cases, the political focus of international research is lost. The article substantiates the subject area of world politics as the exertion of political influence in the international arena by state and non-state actors. Based on this, the authors of the article put forward a third direction. The essence of it is that the search for the possibility of exporting from international research to other scientific fields does not lie in the creation of an interdisciplinary theory, and not in the formation of a “blurred” subject field that ensures “societal multiplicity”, but in the similarity of the situations under consideration. The authors show that the degree of similarity of situations depends on a number of factors, including the behavior of actors/objects being in conditions that are relatively the same. Examples are given by comparing situations and theoretical concepts of international relations and world politics with situations and concepts in other scientific fields - meteorology, medicine, ethology. At the same time, the place of the “political” in other spheres is occupied by the dominant object/factor.

China’s Increasing Influence: What This Means for American Security

Purpose: With its growing domestic and international interest, China has solidified itself as a significant player in international relations, shaking up traditional geopolitics through its military and economic expansion and shifting focus in diplomatic relations. Consequently, it is crucial to understand China’s importance and effect on the United States’ own development in order to react to it correctly and efficiently.
 Methodology: This paper will detail the military, diplomatic, and economic aspects of the modern rise of China, respectively, including our recommendations for how the United States should respond to these three key areas in its relations with China. To do so, the International Relations Organization at Virginia Tech split into three initiatives, focusing on the three aspects of the modern rise of China as listed above. The Organization then spent several weeks conducting research using open-source intelligence and information from experts on the subject to understand the methods and strategies employed by China to expand its influence and power in other nations. After conducting research, the Organization began discussing the implications that the findings would have on U.S. national security and started synthesizing the research into our paper and recommendations.
 Findings: From our research, it is clear that China is seeking to build a strong military presence in Africa to expand their influence and reach in areas outside of Asia. Additionally, their maintenance of diplomacy with Russian and alliance with President Vladimir Putin makes it evident that they are desiring to position themselves as a contrasting force to the United States in terms of global military dominance. China’s goal of reunification with Taiwan furthers this notion, as in doing so they intend to increase its presence in the South Pacific arena. In terms of China’s diplomacy, we find their creation of the BRICS trade agreement to significantly increase their ties with the countries involved. We find China to be progressively focusing on their diplomatic relations with the BRICS countries, which in turn threatens the U.S. diplomatic relations with these countries and undermines their power and strength as a global superpower among the Eastern sphere. Lastly, China’s influence on the BRICS countries has lasting economic repercussions on the U.S. through the creation of BRICS itself, which we find to clearly be done to oppose the U.S.’ G7 trade agreement. We conclude that this, along with their Belt and Road Initiative and new presence in South American trade, is done as a method for China to compete with the trade dominance of the United States and widen the gap between these countries and the U.S. economically.
 Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: To combat China’s military involvement in Africa, we recommend for the United States to lean on its international allies to formulate an arms deal with other countries in order to formulate a better long-term arms deal, dismissing possible transactions with China. In terms of dealing with military expansion in the South Pacific, we recommend the U.S. to undertake policies to put an end to China’s maritime power in the Pacific and increase funding for the Air Force and Navy to invest in new technologies to deal with such power. We also recommend for the United States to promote diplomatic cooperation with Brazil, Russia, India, and South America to combat China’s increasing influence with these countries in BRICS. The United States must also focus on better positioning their diplomatic stance to be allied with nations continuing to push for bilateral issues and human rights conferences in Brazil and India, as well as support India in their push for UN Security Council membership. On the economic side, the United States must respond to China’s infrastructure plan for their economy by investing in other forms of development, such as agriculture, medicine, and digital infrastructure. This paper contributed to the theory of International Affairs and U.S.-China relations through analyzing various diplomatic, economic, and militaristic outlooks with the aims of providing a cohesive study on the level of threat towards American security. The theory of International Relations was augmented via the research and delineation of applicable studies and global conflicts. Thorough examination of included sources contributed to this theory and the practice of IR.

By What Jurisdiction? Law, Settler Colonialism, and the Geographical Assumptions of IR Theory

Abstract In this article, I consider critical writings on territory in International Relations, focusing on recent work on U.S. practices of extraterritorial jurisdiction. I suggest that, while such work has importantly traced the multiple ways in which U.S. authority often exceeds the supposed territorial boundaries of the United States, it has nonetheless failed to reckon with the contested and uneven nature of U.S. authority within such supposed boundaries. In particular, IR scholarship has failed to engage with the ways in which U.S. authority has been, and continued to be, contested by Indigenous people and nations. This failure is the product of an assumption that lies at the heart of the discipline—the assumption that Indigenous people are internal to colonizing or settler states. I suggest that the internalization of Indigenous people and Indigenous political organization that is at play in much IR scholarship is not simply a product of a generalized “state-centrism” or a product of histories of settler colonialism, writ large. Rather, at the heart of the territorial assignations and allotments of IR scholarship are assumptions about legal authority or jurisdiction—about who has jurisdiction to define and assign land, about who does not, and what law means at all. Critiquing these assumptions and their political implications, I show the importance of asking: “by what jurisdiction”? That is, what is the legal authority that we implicitly accept and assert when we designate territory in particular ways? The question insists that there are multiple laws (including multiple international laws) at play in global politics and opens up space for critical and postcolonial IR scholars to better take responsibility for their (often implicit) choices between multiple laws.

Causes and consequences of Israel-Palestine war

The war between Israel and Palestine is among the longest-lasting and most intricate geopolitical conflicts of the contemporary period. The dispute, which has its roots in a history of conflicting claims to land and national identity, has resulted in decades of violence, evictions, and political impasse. This study offers a thorough analysis of the Israel- Palestine conflict, emphasizing significant historical occurrences, underlying factors, and current dynamics influencing the conflict. The research follows the rise of rival nationalisms and the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel, starting with the early Zionist movement and the British Mandate era. It looks at the uprooting of Arab Palestinians, the Arab Israeli wars that followed, and the occupation of Palestinian lands, such as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the study explores the intricacies of religious, cultural, and geopolitical elements that intensify hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians. This research attempts to give a comprehensive view of the Israel-Palestine conflict using an interdisciplinary approach based on political science, historical analysis, and international relations theory. The research aims to provide insight into the historical foundations and current expressions of this ongoing struggle to support educated discourse and attempts to find a fair and durable settlement.

The Moving Spirit of Settler Colonialism: Temsula Ao, Counter-Sovereignty, and the Politics of Intervention in the Borderlands of India

Abstract This paper investigates the incursions, or more accurately, the interventions of the Indian state into what are often called its “Northeast borderlands.” It grapples with the specific space occupied by those who belong to this minoritized region in India. Theoretically, it works through conceptions of “sovereignty” and “intervention” to underscore what is at stake for those who lie within the remit of recognized state sovereignty but are nonetheless subject to brutal and invasive “intervention.” The article engages Naga author Temsula Ao’s writing on questions of “tribal” identity, globalization, and borders to situate India as a postcolonial “settler” state. Finally, it puts her work in conversation with Manu Karuka’s notion of “counter-sovereignty” to highlight the ways in which even critical International Relations (IR) theory risks falling into the trap of reifying “sovereignty” and unwittingly giving credence to Westphalian and Euro-centric understandings of sovereignty at the expense of alternative and prior imaginaries.

Conditional Effects of the Spotlight: Electoral Institutions and the Enforcement of Global Corporate Norms

Abstract Under what conditions do governments discipline powerful multinational companies for breaching global corporate norms? Existing international relations theories have shown that peer monitoring and transnational advocacy are crucial strategies that shine a spotlight on norm violations. Despite the importance of those strategies, governments in the Global North have not consistently condemned their home-grown multinational companies for breaking norms related to climate or human rights in the Global South. This paper argues that the effect of such spotlighting is crucially moderated by electoral institutions, and legislators in proportional representation systems are more likely than those in majoritarian systems to push multinational companies to comply with global norms when such issues are in the spotlight. I find supporting evidence from the OECD Guidelines’ Specific Instance process and case studies. This article shows that traditional strategies to promote norm compliance, such as transnational advocacy and peer pressure, work differently in different countries, and electoral systems in the Global North can have unintended distributional consequences for norm beneficiaries.

Textbooks on the international relations theory: What they talk about, what they keep silent about, and what to do about it

Theory represents the highest form of scientific knowledge in any discipline, a sort of certificate of maturity of the latter, and, at the same time, the key to its systematic teaching and understanding. From this point of view, international studies show a somewhat paradoxical picture. On the one hand, at the moment there is no shortage of either theoretical studies of international political issues or textbooks on the theory of international relations. On the other hand, their common leitmotif remains the idea that international studies either have not yet acquired a full-f ledged theory, or, due to their inherent complexity, dynamism and inconsistency are not subject to systematic generalization in principle. As a result, teaching of the IR theory turns out to be equally inconvenient for the lecturers, if they want to not just bombard students with terms and personalities, but teach them to effectively use different concepts and approaches, and for students. The author argues that these difficulties stem not only from the objective complexity of international processes and problems, but also from the subjective theoretical, methodological and philosophical specifics of the textbooks on the IR theory. To substantiate this claim this paper examines a selection of modern Russian and foreign textbooks on IR theory. The first section summarizes their key advantages, which include, first of all, the fact that they all successfully perform an educational function, introducing the reader to the key approaches, schools and theories that form the ‘body’ of modern IR theory. In this regard, one can easily find both textbooks specially designed for an unprepared audience which provide an introduction to the discipline, and publications containing an in-depth analysis of the driving forces and internal logic of the IR theory development. At the same time, as shown in the second section, all modern textbooks on IR theory share a number of common short-comings, which can be divided into methodological and philosophical ones. The former include not sufficiently substantiated logic of presentation, the lack of clear criteria for structuring the material and explicitly formulated principles for selecting approaches to be considered. The latter imply reliance on extremely shaky philosophical assumptions, which, consciously or not, reproduce post-modernist views on the problems of ontology and epistemology of international relations and international studies. And it is in a critical revision of these basic philosophical principles where, according to the author, lies the key to addressing the problems in both teaching the IR theory and formulating the theory of international relations in the strict sense.