« Introduction to critical approaches to international relations » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
Aucun résumé des modifications
 
(10 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
[[Fichier:La tentation de saint antoine.png|200px|vignette|droite]]
{{Infobox Lecture
| image = La tentation de saint antoine.png
| image_caption =
| faculté = [[Faculté des sciences de la société]]
| département = [[Département de science politique et relations internationales]]
| professeurs =
* [[Stephan Davidshofer]]<ref>[http://unige.academia.edu/StephanDavidshofer Page de Stephan Davidshofer sur Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/Experts/Guest-Experts/Davidshofer-Dr-Stephan-Davidshofer Page personnelle de Stephan Davidshofer sur le site du Geneva Centre for Security Policy]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/stedavids Compte Twitter de Stephan Davidshofer]</ref>
* [[Xavier Guillaume]]<ref>[http://edinburgh.academia.edu/XavierGuillaume Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/people/academic_staff/xavier_guillaume Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Édimbourg]</ref><ref>[http://www.sciencespo.fr/psia/users/xavierguillaume Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de Science Po Paris PSIA]</ref><ref>[http://edinburgh.academia.edu/XavierGuillaume Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://www.rug.nl/staff/x.guillaume/research Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Groningen]</ref> 
| enregistrement =
| assistants =
| cours = [[Critical approaches to international relations]]
| lectures =
*[[Introduction to critical approaches to international relations]]
*[[Sociology of the discipline of international relations]]
*[[Norms in international relations]]
*[[Globalizations: definition and situation]]
*[[Globalization: circulation between imperialism and cosmopolitan strategies]]
*[[Otherness in international relations]]
*[[The concept of domination in international relations]]
*[[Humanitarian action: between action and intervention]]
*[[The concept of development in international relations]]
*[[Security and international relations]]
*[[Surveillance and international relations]]
*[[War and international relations]]
*[[War, peace and politics in Africa since the end of the Cold War]]
*[[Borders in international politics]]
*[[The borders of Europe]]   
*[[Mobility and international relations]]
*[[To conclude the course of critical approaches to international relations]]
}}


We will deconstruct what we have learned, what is criticism a field and discipline?
We will deconstruct what we have learned, what is criticism a field and discipline?
{{Translations
| es = Introducción a los enfoques críticos de las relaciones internacionales
| fr = Introduction aux approches critiques de l’international
| it = Introduzione agli approcci critici alle relazioni internazionali
}}


= Why a course on critical approaches? =
= Why a course on critical approaches? =
Ligne 8 : Ligne 43 :
International relations as fields, disciples and objects is the result of conventions, forms of definitions. There are different perspectives on what "international relations" or "international" are, delineating a different subject of study.
International relations as fields, disciples and objects is the result of conventions, forms of definitions. There are different perspectives on what "international relations" or "international" are, delineating a different subject of study.


These different perspectives are therefore part of a "constant interplay between the real world and the world of knowledge"[Brown 2005: 1]. For Brown, the real world around us is not just something that exists independent of us and that we have a footprint on. The approaches we have allow us to have different perspectives. Analytical glasses help to ask different questions.
These different perspectives are therefore part of a "constant interplay between the real world and the world of knowledge" [Brown 2005: 1]. For Brown, the real world around us is not just something that exists independent of us and that we have a footprint on. The approaches we have allow us to have different perspectives. Analytical glasses help to ask different questions.


International relations are first of all a macro process as with States, then we begin to focus on increasingly micro processes. We look at the same complex reality from different angles.
International relations are first of all a macro process as with States, then we begin to focus on increasingly micro-processes. We look at the same complex reality from different angles.


When Brown talks about a "constant game between the real world and the world of knowledge", if we want to understand why researchers want to understand the world in a certain way, it's not a question of purpose, there are interactions that come into play. This "game" is also an issue between the different actors of "international relations" as a field or discipline.
When Brown talks about a "constant game between the real world and the world of knowledge", if we want to understand why researchers want to understand the world in a certain way, it's not a question of purpose, there are interactions that come into play. This "game" is also an issue between the different actors of "international relations" as a field or discipline.
Ligne 16 : Ligne 51 :
The dominant vision of this game is naturalizing and essentializing. In other words, the world around us has its own independence to which we can only have access externally. Typically, realists only look at the objectivity of the world, they see things as they are. Studies show that in foreign policy processes, if people share the same vision, they will be caught in this pattern. Thus there is an interaction between objective truth and perceptions that are part of a game.
The dominant vision of this game is naturalizing and essentializing. In other words, the world around us has its own independence to which we can only have access externally. Typically, realists only look at the objectivity of the world, they see things as they are. Studies show that in foreign policy processes, if people share the same vision, they will be caught in this pattern. Thus there is an interaction between objective truth and perceptions that are part of a game.


= Les relations internationales comme champ =
= International relations as a field =
Les relations internationales sont une « ''cible mouvante'' ». Ce qu’on entend par relations internationales dépend d’enjeux, des gens, d’institutions et de questions qui se posent se retrouvant au sein d’un champ. L’enjeu du champ est le phénomène dit des faits internationaux.
International relations are a "moving target". What we mean by international relations depends on the issues, people, institutions and questions that arise within a field. The challenge of the field is the phenomenon known as international facts.
Les  « relations internationales  ne définissent pas le champ des Relations Internationales, ce sont plutôt les chercheurs et les praticiens qui fournissent une telle définition » [Brown 2005: 3]. En reprenant la définition de Brown, il y a un monde matériel, mais il y a un espace où des gens cherchent à donner du sens aux événements.


[[Fichier:Pierre-Bourdieu-cover.jpg|250px|vignette|droite|Pierre Bourdieu]]
International relations does not define the scope of international relations, it is rather researchers and practitioners who provide such a definition"[Brown 2005: 3]. Taking Brown's definition, there is a material world, but there is a space where people seek to give meaning to events.[[Fichier:Pierre-Bourdieu-cover.jpg|250px|vignette|droite|Pierre Bourdieu]]
   
   
Il s’agit d’un champ d’études contesté parce que son objet est le fruit d’une définition conventionnelle, il n’y a pas de référent extérieur définissant de manière « ''objective'' » ce que sont les « ''relations internationales'' ».
This is a contested field of study because its object is the result of a conventional definition, there is no external referent defining in an "objective" way what "international relations" are.
   
   
{{citation bloc|Les stratégies des agents et des institutions qui sont engagés dans les luttes [académiques], c'est-à-dire leurs prises de position ..., dépendent de la position qu'ils occupent dans la structure du champ, c'est-à-dire dans la distribution du capital symbolique spécifique, institutionnalisé ou non (reconnaissance interne ou notoriété́ externe), et qui, par la médiation des dispositions constitutives de leur habitus, les incline soit à conserver soit à transformer la structure de cette distribution, donc à perpétuer les règles du jeu en vigueur ou à les subvertir|Bourdieu 1994: 71<ref>Pierre Bourdieu, "Pour une science des œuvres", Raisons pratiques. Sur la  théorie de l'action, Paris, Seuil, 1994, p. 71.</ref>.}}
{{citation bloc|The strategies of agents and institutions that are engaged in[academic] struggles, i.e. their positions..., depend on the position they occupy in the structure of the field, i.e. in the distribution of specific symbolic capital, institutionalized or not (internal or external recognition), and which, through the mediation of the constituent provisions of their habitus, inclines them either to preserve or transform the structure of this distribution, thus perpetuating the rules of the game in force or subvert them|Bourdieu 1994: 71<ref>Pierre Bourdieu, "Pour une science des œuvres", Raisons pratiques. Sur la  théorie de l'action, Paris, Seuil, 1994, p. 71.</ref>.}}The way we perceive and think it is most relevant to talk about international relations and how individuals are positioned. We are in a "moving target" where it is not clear who is doing international relations and who is not.


La façon dont on perçoit et la façon dont on estime qu’elle est la plus pertinente de parler de relations internationales et la manière dont les individus sont positionnés. Nous sommes dans une « cible mouvante » où il n’est pas clair de savoir qui fait des relations internationales et qui n’en fait pas.
There is also the idea of symbolic capital or people with more credibility to deal with international phenomena. Recognition is not only obtained for the intrinsic quality of the work itself, but also for who talks about it, how and where. These are internal power relations within a discipline.
 
Il y a aussi l’idée de capital symbolique ou des gens on plus de crédibilité pour traiter des phénomènes internationaux. On n’obtient pas une reconnaissance seulement pour la qualité intrinsèque du travail lui-même, mais aussi sur le fait de qui en parle, comment et où. Ce sont des relations de pouvoir internes au sein d’une discipline.
Mearsheimer wrote in 1991 Back to the future explaining that now that the USSR is over, we are again entering a multipolar world and in Europe the Germans will take power and dominate militarily with a return of German imperialism. However, he was mistaken and his legitimacy was not questioned. Its legitimacy comes from several factors such as its notoriety, its language, the institutions in which it is part, but also from personal enmities, budget logic, etc. We are facing power effects.
 
Mearsheimer a écrit en 1991 ''Back to the futur''<ref>[http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0017.pdf Back to the future - Instability in Europe after the Cold War]; John J. Mearsheimer</ref> expliquant que maintenant que l’URSS est terminée, on entre de nouveau dans un monde multipolaire et en Europe les allemands vont prendre le pouvoir et dominer militairement avec un retour de l’impérialisme allemand. Cependant, il s’est trompé et sa légitimité ne fut pas remise en cause. Sa légitimité provient de plusieurs facteurs comme sa notoriété, sa langue,  les institutions dans lesquelles il s’inscrit, mais aussi d’inimitiés personnelles, de logiques de budgets, etc. Nous sommes face à des effets de pouvoirs.
The very term "international relations" is contested, but it is a definitional issue:
Le terme même de « relations internationales » est contesté, mais c’est un enjeu définitionnel :
*international relations ;
*international relations ;
*interstate relations ;
*interstate relations ;
Ligne 41 : Ligne 72 :
*global politics.
*global politics.


= Les relations internationales comme discipline =
= International relations as a discipline =
Une discipline est un accord sur un noyau dur théorique de propositions de base sur un sujet d’étude, le champ délimité par ce noyau dur. La question de savoir si les relations internationales sont une discipline, Kaplan se la posait dès 1961 : « ''il s’agit plus d’une question ou d’un projet intellectuel que d’une affirmation'' ».
A discipline is an agreement on a theoretical core of basic proposals on a subject of study, the field delimited by this core. The question of whether international relations is a discipline was asked by Kaplan in 1961: "It is more of an intellectual question or project than an affirmation".
 
The question arises as to whether it is a discipline, whether international relations as a discipline makes it possible to understand specific phenomena. That is to say, it is the fact of having its own department, budgets, etc. For others it is a sub-discipline of political science, because we do not do analyses of social systems, etc., it is only one object of comparative politics. Until 2005, at the University of Geneva, international relations was not considered as a discipline in its own right.
 
Buazan and Little in 2001 raise the question of whether international relations is a metadiscipline. For them, the only way international relations could simplify the situation is to develop globalizing approaches in which other disciplines can draw.
 
If we talk about a discipline, it is because we have a vision of what it is. When we talk about a discipline, there is always a presupposition of what we expect behind it, there is no axiological neutrality. There is no agreement among researchers on the nature and purpose(s) of an international theory(s) or on the place of such theory(s) in this field of study.
 
Therefore, it is possible to make two observations:
#It is a divided and divisive discipline[Holsti 1985]
#<nowiki>Is it an international discipline? Hoffmann 1995 (1977), Wæver 1998] : American Discipline? [Tickner and Wæver 2009]</nowiki>
   
   
Se pose la question de savoir si c’est une discipline, si les relations internationales en tant que discipline permettent de comprendre des phénomènes spécifiques.  C’est-à-dire que c’est le fait d’avoir un département propre, des budgets, etc. Pour d’autres c’est une sous-discipline de la science politique, car on ne fait pas d’analyses de systèmes sociaux, etc., c’est un seulement un objet de politique comparé. Jusqu’en 2005, à l’université de Genève, les relations internationales n’étaient pas considérées comme une discipline propre.
To understand how international relations are taught, for example in Korea or Japan, you have to look at who the professors who are graduates in the United States are. For a field and ways of studying the world, we have particularistic visions that lead us to try to understand the world. From this perspective, we must understand what we are missing and what we gain.
 
Buazan et Little en 2001 se posent la question de savoir si les relations internationales sont une métadiscipline. Pour eux, la seule façon par laquelle les relations internationales pourraient simplifier la situation est de développer des approches globalisantes dans lesquelles les autres disciplines peuvent piocher.
= Why study critical international approaches? =
There are links between field and discipline. It is the approaches that largely define our vision of these two dimensions. The way we understand things is linked to processes that lead to understanding the world in a certain way that constitutes a certain social and political reality.
Si l’on parle d’une discipline, c’est parce que nous avons une vision de ce que c’est. Lorsqu’on parle d’une discipline, il y a toujours un présupposé de ce qu’on attend derrière, il n’y a pas de neutralité axiologique. Il n'y a pas d'accord parmi les chercheurs sur la nature et le/les but(s) d'une ou de théorie(s) de l'international ni sur la place des cette/ces théorie(s) dans ce champ d'études.
Dès lors, il est possible de faire deux constats :
#C’est une discipline divisée et divisante [Holsti 1985]
#Est-ce une discipline internationale ? [Hoffmann 1995(1977), Wæver 1998] : Discipline états-uniennes? [Tickner and Wæver 2009]
Pour comprendre comment les relations internationales sont enseignées, par exemple en Corée ou au Japon, il faut regarder qui sont les professeurs qui sont diplômés aux États-Unis.Pour un champ et des façons d’étudier le monde, nous avons des visions particularistes qui amènent à essayer de comprendre le monde. Dans cette optique, il faut comprendre ce qu’on loupe et ce qu’on y gagne.


= Pourquoi étudier les approches critiques de l'international ? =
These approaches lead us to select the facts in their multitude and provide them with meaning:
Il y a des liens entre champ et discipline. Ce sont les approches qui définissent en grande partie notre vision de ces deux dimensions. La façon dont on comprend les choses est liée à des processus qui mènent à comprendre le monde d’une certaine manière qui constitue une certaine réalité sociale et politique.
*the facts do not speak for themselves;
*establish criteria for "meaning" and "relevance";
Ces approches nous amènent à sélectionner les faits dans leur multitude et leur fournir un sens :
*"a series of facts, even if accepted as true and significant, still carry a variety of different interpretations"[Burchill and Linklater 2005: 16].
*les faits ne parlent pas d'eux-mêmes ;
*établir les critères de « signification » et de « pertinence » ;
*« ''une série de faits, même s'ils sont acceptés comme vrais et significatifs, sont porteurs malgré tout d'une variété d'interprétations différentes'' » [Burchill and Linklater 2005: 16].
   
   
Qu’est-ce que la théorie critique ?
What is critical theory?
*« ''reconnaître que l'état du monde actuel n'épuise pas tous les possibles'' » en vue d'une action sociale. Un autre monde est possible, c’est pour cela qu’il y a des gens qui se révoltent, de nouvelles approches. Le monde tel qu’il est n’est souvent pas un lien objectif, mais parce qu’il est présenté d’une manière spécifique.
*"recognize that the current state of the world does not exhaust all possibilities" for social action. Another world is possible, which is why there are people who revolt, new approaches. The world as it is is often not an objective link, but because it is presented in a specific way.
*offrir une « lecture des conditions historiques et culturelles [tant sociales que personnelles] dont dépend l'activité intellectuelle d'un [chercheur] ».
*provide a "reading of the historical and cultural conditions (both social and personal) on which the intellectual activity of a[researcher] depends".
*« ''un réexamen continu des catégories constitutives et des cadres conceptuels par lesquels un [chercheur] comprend, en incluant une construction historique de ces cadres'' ». Qu’est-ce que la souveraineté ? Un État failli ? Qu’est-ce que l’historicité de la souveraineté ou de l’État ? L’esprit critique est de remettre en cause ce dont on parle. Il faut s’interroger sur les agendas théoriques qui ne sont pas expliqués.
*"a continuous review of the constituent categories and conceptual frameworks by which a[researcher] understands, including a historical construction of these frameworks". What is sovereignty? A failed state? What is the historicity of sovereignty or the state? Critical thinking is about questioning what we are talking about. It is necessary to question the theoretical agendas that are not explained.
*une « ''confrontation'' » avec les présuppositions théoriques cachées et non soutenues déterminant la façon de comprendre le monde [Calhoun 1995: 35]
*a "confrontation" with hidden and unsupported theoretical assumptions that determine how the world is understood[Calhoun 1995: 35]


= Annexes =
= Annexes =
*[http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/dussouy_gerard/theories_rel_inter_tome_1/theories_rel_inter_t1_original.pdf Les théories géopolitiques Traité de Relations internationales (I)] - Gérard Dussouy, Pouvoirs comparés Collection dirigée par Michel Bergès Professeur de Science politique à l’Université Montesquieu de Bordeaux.
*[http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/dussouy_gerard/theories_rel_inter_tome_1/theories_rel_inter_t1_original.pdf Les théories géopolitiques Traité de Relations internationales (I)] - Gérard Dussouy, Pouvoirs comparés Collection dirigée par Michel Bergès Professeur de Science politique à l’Université Montesquieu de Bordeaux.


== Bibliographie ==
== Bibliography ==
*Bourdieu, Pierre (1994) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l'action. Paris: Seuil.
*Bourdieu, Pierre (1994) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l'action. Paris: Seuil.
*Brown, Chris with Kirsten Ainley (2005). Understanding International Relations. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 3rd ed. revised and updated.
*Brown, Chris with Kirsten Ainley (2005). Understanding International Relations. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 3rd ed. revised and updated.

Version actuelle datée du 20 septembre 2022 à 06:11

Introduction to critical approaches to international relations
Description de l'image La tentation de saint antoine.png.
Faculté Faculté des sciences de la société
Département Département de science politique et relations internationales
Professeur(s)
Cours Critical approaches to international relations

Lectures


We will deconstruct what we have learned, what is criticism a field and discipline?

Languages


Español Français Italiano



Why a course on critical approaches?[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

International relations" is not an obvious, indisputable or even obvious object of study. Talking about international relations is like talking about different realities that seem incompatible.

International relations as fields, disciples and objects is the result of conventions, forms of definitions. There are different perspectives on what "international relations" or "international" are, delineating a different subject of study.

These different perspectives are therefore part of a "constant interplay between the real world and the world of knowledge" [Brown 2005: 1]. For Brown, the real world around us is not just something that exists independent of us and that we have a footprint on. The approaches we have allow us to have different perspectives. Analytical glasses help to ask different questions.

International relations are first of all a macro process as with States, then we begin to focus on increasingly micro-processes. We look at the same complex reality from different angles.

When Brown talks about a "constant game between the real world and the world of knowledge", if we want to understand why researchers want to understand the world in a certain way, it's not a question of purpose, there are interactions that come into play. This "game" is also an issue between the different actors of "international relations" as a field or discipline.

The dominant vision of this game is naturalizing and essentializing. In other words, the world around us has its own independence to which we can only have access externally. Typically, realists only look at the objectivity of the world, they see things as they are. Studies show that in foreign policy processes, if people share the same vision, they will be caught in this pattern. Thus there is an interaction between objective truth and perceptions that are part of a game.

International relations as a field[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

International relations are a "moving target". What we mean by international relations depends on the issues, people, institutions and questions that arise within a field. The challenge of the field is the phenomenon known as international facts.

International relations does not define the scope of international relations, it is rather researchers and practitioners who provide such a definition"[Brown 2005: 3]. Taking Brown's definition, there is a material world, but there is a space where people seek to give meaning to events.

Pierre Bourdieu

This is a contested field of study because its object is the result of a conventional definition, there is no external referent defining in an "objective" way what "international relations" are.

« The strategies of agents and institutions that are engaged in[academic] struggles, i.e. their positions..., depend on the position they occupy in the structure of the field, i.e. in the distribution of specific symbolic capital, institutionalized or not (internal or external recognition), and which, through the mediation of the constituent provisions of their habitus, inclines them either to preserve or transform the structure of this distribution, thus perpetuating the rules of the game in force or subvert them »

— Bourdieu 1994: 71[9].

The way we perceive and think it is most relevant to talk about international relations and how individuals are positioned. We are in a "moving target" where it is not clear who is doing international relations and who is not.

There is also the idea of symbolic capital or people with more credibility to deal with international phenomena. Recognition is not only obtained for the intrinsic quality of the work itself, but also for who talks about it, how and where. These are internal power relations within a discipline.

Mearsheimer wrote in 1991 Back to the future explaining that now that the USSR is over, we are again entering a multipolar world and in Europe the Germans will take power and dominate militarily with a return of German imperialism. However, he was mistaken and his legitimacy was not questioned. Its legitimacy comes from several factors such as its notoriety, its language, the institutions in which it is part, but also from personal enmities, budget logic, etc. We are facing power effects.

The very term "international relations" is contested, but it is a definitional issue:

  • international relations ;
  • interstate relations ;
  • international studies ;
  • international politics ;
  • world politics ;
  • global politics.

International relations as a discipline[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

A discipline is an agreement on a theoretical core of basic proposals on a subject of study, the field delimited by this core. The question of whether international relations is a discipline was asked by Kaplan in 1961: "It is more of an intellectual question or project than an affirmation".

The question arises as to whether it is a discipline, whether international relations as a discipline makes it possible to understand specific phenomena. That is to say, it is the fact of having its own department, budgets, etc. For others it is a sub-discipline of political science, because we do not do analyses of social systems, etc., it is only one object of comparative politics. Until 2005, at the University of Geneva, international relations was not considered as a discipline in its own right.

Buazan and Little in 2001 raise the question of whether international relations is a metadiscipline. For them, the only way international relations could simplify the situation is to develop globalizing approaches in which other disciplines can draw.

If we talk about a discipline, it is because we have a vision of what it is. When we talk about a discipline, there is always a presupposition of what we expect behind it, there is no axiological neutrality. There is no agreement among researchers on the nature and purpose(s) of an international theory(s) or on the place of such theory(s) in this field of study.

Therefore, it is possible to make two observations:

  1. It is a divided and divisive discipline[Holsti 1985]
  2. Is it an international discipline? Hoffmann 1995 (1977), Wæver 1998] : American Discipline? [Tickner and Wæver 2009]

To understand how international relations are taught, for example in Korea or Japan, you have to look at who the professors who are graduates in the United States are. For a field and ways of studying the world, we have particularistic visions that lead us to try to understand the world. From this perspective, we must understand what we are missing and what we gain.

Why study critical international approaches?[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

There are links between field and discipline. It is the approaches that largely define our vision of these two dimensions. The way we understand things is linked to processes that lead to understanding the world in a certain way that constitutes a certain social and political reality.

These approaches lead us to select the facts in their multitude and provide them with meaning:

  • the facts do not speak for themselves;
  • establish criteria for "meaning" and "relevance";
  • "a series of facts, even if accepted as true and significant, still carry a variety of different interpretations"[Burchill and Linklater 2005: 16].

What is critical theory?

  • "recognize that the current state of the world does not exhaust all possibilities" for social action. Another world is possible, which is why there are people who revolt, new approaches. The world as it is is often not an objective link, but because it is presented in a specific way.
  • provide a "reading of the historical and cultural conditions (both social and personal) on which the intellectual activity of a[researcher] depends".
  • "a continuous review of the constituent categories and conceptual frameworks by which a[researcher] understands, including a historical construction of these frameworks". What is sovereignty? A failed state? What is the historicity of sovereignty or the state? Critical thinking is about questioning what we are talking about. It is necessary to question the theoretical agendas that are not explained.
  • a "confrontation" with hidden and unsupported theoretical assumptions that determine how the world is understood[Calhoun 1995: 35]

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Bibliography[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  • Bourdieu, Pierre (1994) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l'action. Paris: Seuil.
  • Brown, Chris with Kirsten Ainley (2005). Understanding International Relations. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 3rd ed. revised and updated.
  • Burchill, Scott and Linklater, Andrew (2005). Introduction, in Scott Burchill et al. (eds.) Theories of International Relations. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–28.
  • Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard (2001). Why international relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to doabout it. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 19–39.
  • Calhoun, Craig (1995). Critical Social Theory. London: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Hoffmann, Stanley (1995[1977]) An American social science: International Relations, in James Der Derian (ed.) International Theory. Critical Investigations. New York: New York University Press, 212–241.
  • Holsti K. J. (1985). The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Unwin Hyman.
  • Kaplan, M. A. (1961). Is International Relations a Discipline? The Journal of Politics, 23(3), 462–476.
  • Tickner, Arlene B. and Ole Wæver (eds.) (2009) International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London:Routledge.
  • Wæver, Ole (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments ininternational relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687–727.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Lectures[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  1. ↑ Page de Stephan Davidshofer sur Academia.edu
  2. ↑ Page personnelle de Stephan Davidshofer sur le site du Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  3. ↑ Compte Twitter de Stephan Davidshofer
  4. ↑ Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu
  5. ↑ Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Édimbourg
  6. ↑ Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de Science Po Paris PSIA
  7. ↑ Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu
  8. ↑ Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Groningen
  9. ↑ Pierre Bourdieu, "Pour une science des œuvres", Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l'action, Paris, Seuil, 1994, p. 71.
Récupérée de « https://baripedia.org/index.php?title=Introduction_to_critical_approaches_to_international_relations&oldid=51353 »