International Studies: Chaos or Pluralism?

International Studies:
Chaos or Pluralism?

Torkunov A.V.,

Rector, MGIMO University,

elibrary_id: 498974 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.05.02

For citation:

Torkunov A.V. International Studies: Chaos or Pluralism? – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No. 5. P. 7-18. (In Russ.).


The specifics of how scientific knowledge on international relations is formed have long been the subject of a discussion which is still ongoing. The author highlights the features of the relationship between the fundamental and applied levels of knowledge of international relations, analyzes the division of actual scientific knowledge and reflection upon practical international politics (which, in its most general form, is referred to as ‘big ideas’). The relationship between science and international practice is considered in the aspect that scientific knowledge and ‘big ideas’ intersect, having a different nature and, in fact, being incomparable. The author comes to the conclusion that the development of international relations – as an objective science that meets the criteria of science – is associated with difficulties, which also complicates the formation of the applied level of research. As the science of international relations finds solutions to its epistemological problems and accumulates knowledge, prerequisites are created for the formation of its theoretical and applied levels in the fullest sense of the word. However, this process is not instantaneous, but requires constant attention from researchers.

world politics, international relations, scientific knowledge, scientific criteria, political theory, methodology.


Carr E.H. 1946. The Twenty Years’ Crises: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 1919-1939. London: Macmillan.

Mearsheimer J.J., Walt S.M. 2013. Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypotheses Testing as Bad for International Relations. – European Journal for International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 427-457.

Safranchuk I. 2018. Russian-U.S. Relations: Torn Between the Practical and Ideational Agendas. – Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 96-121.

Wohlforth W.C., Zubok V.M. 2017. An Abiding Antagonism: Realism, Idealism, and the Mirage of Western-Russian Partnership after the Cold War. – International Politics. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 405-419.


Alekseeva T.A. 2019. Sovremennaya politicheskaya mysl’ (ХХ-ХХI vv.). Politicheskaya teoriya i mezhdun­arodnye otnosheniya [Modern Political Thought (XX-XXI Centuries). Political Theory and International Relations]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Bull H. 2002. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: primer klassicheskogo podkhoda [Theory of International Relations: An Example of the Classical Approach]. – Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Theory of International Relation]. Pod red. P.A. Tsygankova. Moscow: Gardariki. P. 190-191. (In Russ.)

Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Contemporary International Relations]. 2018. Ed. by A.V. Torkunov, A.V. Mal’gin. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Content No. 5, 2019

See also:

Chugrov S.V.,
Moscow University Bulletin. Series 25. International relations and world politics: 5 years on track. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No5

Alekseyeva T.A.,
Reflections on modern world politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No3

Lebedeva M.M., Melville A.Yu.,
Comparative Political Science, World Politics, International Relations: Development of the Subject Spheres. – Polis. Political Studies. 1999. No4

Introducing the «Moscow University Bulletin. Series 25. International relations and world politics». – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1

Alekseyeva T.A.,
Political philosophy as «Usable» knowledge. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1



   2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991