Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract Practice Theory (PT) is one of the latest theoretical achievements in International Relations. This theory consists of different theoretical approaches that focus on studying international practices as stuff of international politics. This article argues that Practice Theory is based on specific meta-theoretical and philosophical foundations, that make it a distinct theory from other International Relations theories. Then, the main objective is to explore and explain the ontological, epistemological and methodological foundations of Practice Theory. It is argued that Practice Theory is based on “foundational pluralism”; a pluralistic and eclectic ontology, epistemology and methodology that go beyond dualistic metatheory of some other International Relations theories like Constructivism. So that, in relational ontology of Practice Theory dichotomies of reality/mind, theory/practice, structure/agency, constitution/causation, and materialism/ideationalism are all dissolved. Practice Theory epistemology is a pluralistic on implying explanation and understanding, simultaneously. Pluralistic methodology of Practice Theory is a combination of experimentalism, interpretivism and abduction or inference to the best explanation.

Abstract International Relations is a discipline that in comparison with other branches of Social Sciences, its research scope has the most dynamistic and changing feature. One of the most dynamistic features of this discipline at the academic level is changing its methodology and way of studying the physical environment by the IR researchers. This paper intends to explore the methodological developments in international studies and to evaluate its weaknesses as well as problems with a critical viewpoint.  The author with recognition of two Classic and Quantum approaches in Exact Sciences is of the view that in the twentieth century methodology of Social Sciences was mostly affected by the approach of Exact Sciences. However, the latter approach has not the capability to illustrate global developments in many aspects, but the theoretical Quantum framework, while having characteristics like relativity of research results and utilizing all possible methods to achieve more valid outcomes, has more relevance in the field of Social Sciences including International Relations.

Abstract Neo-idealism is among the salient and influential schools in the analysis of international security and relations. This school is distinguished from neo-realism because of its emphasis on the idea of limited state and trans-state community-based outlook. The school lacks the liberals' weakness and optimism given its sophistication and comprehensiveness. Neo-idealism seeks to extrapolate power relations and develop ideas for changing them so that all world inhabitants enjoy desirable security. Democratic governance, priority of absolute achievements and subjugation of security to sustainable public welfare constitute the foundations of this school. Neo-idealist scholars provoked hopes by developing such statements; but with the lapse of time and appearance of neo-idealist capacities, it became apparent that this outlook suffers from weaknesses in spite of significant innovations. Due to their propensity to rationalism, neo-idealists are no immune to mental biases and pre-judgments, they underestimate the reality of the state and hard power in shaping groups' identities and even in the drawing and repairing norms, and they tend to suffice to provide general and simplistic ideas in explaining the factors of changes.

Abstract

Faculty member of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies

This article examines methodological bases of the idealist school. The author maintains that idealist explanations of national security observe methods mostly and originally considered by Emanuel Kant. As the influential founder of idealism, Kant offered a new perception of human duties, the nature and mission of the state and the possibility of peaceful conduct on the part of political actors. Such perception, in contrast to the realist viewpoints, suggests a new order. The author initially explains the main claims of idealism and notes that the major claims of idealism include the belief in the desirable role of the environment in determining human behavior, utmost importance of public conscience and judgment, the reason’s efficient leadership, the priority of ethical aspiration over rational thinking, perfectionism, possible and necessary coordination of national interests of the national units, and international rights-duties. What is considerable in these claims from a methodological perspective involves the acceptance of the capability of reason and ethics in evaluating behaviors. In today’s world, mere reliance on the possibility and necessity of moralism is unable to eradicate insecurity and to secure national interests. Perhaps for this reason, idealist criteria are largely taken into account in the stage of making slogans and claims, because this outlook has a very rudimentary approach to power and casts doubt on the achievements and capabilities of the modernity.