National schools of diplomatic training: divergences in the global epistemology of international relations

National schools of diplomatic training:
divergences in the global epistemology of international relations



Article received: 2024.07.11 15:43. Accepted: 2024.08.13 15:43


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.05.08
EDN: UYDPRU


For citation:

Sushentsov A.A., Neklyudov N.Y., Pavlov V.V. National schools of diplomatic training: divergences in the global epistemology of international relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.05.08. EDN: UYDPRU (In Russ.)


The study was supported by MGIMO University grant no. 2025-04-05.


Abstract

The proposition of establishing “global international relations” (Global IR) as an amalgamation of diverse national epistemologies in the field of international relations, potentially superseding the Western-centric paradigm, presents significant challenges. A critical inquiry emerges: Is it possible to form a discipline based on the polyphony of national approaches, despite the fact that the ontology of international relations has remained fundamentally unchanged since the mid-17th century? This study evaluates the thesis of extant national epistemologies in international relations by examining national traditions of diplomatic training. The primary research question is formulated as follows: What are the foundational approaches employed by leading states in the training of IR specialists, and can these approaches be considered reflective of national epistemologies regarding the nature of international relations? The research methodology involves a synthesis of findings from an examination of diplomatic training institutions across a diverse sample of countries. This sample encompasses Western nations (United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, United States, Finland, France, and Germany), Asian countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, India, China, and the Republic of Korea), Middle Eastern states (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey), African nations (Nigeria and South Africa), and Latin American countries (Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba). The article is structured in two principal sections. The theoretical section explores the hypothesis of “global international relations” within the context of existing literature and theoretical frameworks. The second section synthesizes the empirical findings from the study of national approaches to diplomatic training, testing the hypothesis of its correlation with national epistemologies in the field of international relations.

Keywords
Global International Relations, epistemology of knowledge, diplomatic training, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


References

Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: a new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly. 58(4), 647-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171

Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing gobal IR: challenges, contentions, and contributions. International Studies Review, 18(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viv016

Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of global international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647670

Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (Ed.) (2010). Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York; London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861431

Andersen, M.S., & Neumann, I.B. (2012). Practices as models: a methodology with an illustration concerning wampum diplomacy. Millennium, 40(3), 457-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829812441848

Bdrdny, A., Barta, R., Gyorkos, A., P6sdn, L., Schrek, K., & Takdcs, L. (2020). A nemzetkozi kapcsolatok tortdnete — Egyetemi tankonyv. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Tortdnelmi Intdze.

Barnett, M., & Zarakol, A. (2023). Global international relations and the essentialism trap. International Theory, 15(3), 428-444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971923000131

Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2001). Why International Relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829 8010300010401

Cohen, R. (2001). The great tradition: the spread of diplomacy in the ancient world. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 12(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406186

Crawford, R.M.A., & Jarvis, D.S.L. (Ed.). (2001). International relations - still an American social science? New York: SUNYPress.

De Carvalho, B., Lopez, J.C., & Leira, H. (Ed.). (2021). Routledge handbook of historical international relations. New York: Routledge.

Dobrzycki, W. (2007). Historia stosunkdw mi^dzynarodowych 1815-1945. Warszawa: Wydanie Nowe.

Dunne, T., Hansen, L., & Wight, C. (2013). The end of international relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485

Eun, Y. (2020). Going beyond parochialism and fragmentation in the study of international relations. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315161334

Fudan erudite and international politics and international relations series: contemporary history of international relations. (2013). Fudan University Press.

Galganek, A. (2015). Historia stosunkdw mi^dzynarodowych. Warszawa: ELIPSA.

Hoffman, M. (1987). Critical theory and the inter-paradigm debate. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298870160022801

Hoffmann, S. (1959). International relations: the long road to theory. World Politics, 11(3), 346-377.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2009198

Holsti, H. (1985). The dividing discipline: hegemony and diversity in international theory. London: Allen and Unwin.

Lakatos, I. (1980). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Vol. 1. Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgenthau, H.J. (1978). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Neumann, I.B. (2012). At home with the diplomats: inside a European foreign ministry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9780801449932.001.0001

Reus-Smit, Ch., & Snidal, D. (Ed.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rosenberg, J. (2016). International relations in the prison of political science. International Relations, 30(2), 127-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662

Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. London: Penguin Books.

Saraiva, J.F.S. (2007). Histdria das Relagoes Internacionais Contemporaneas. Editora Saraiva. https://doi.org/10.47695/hegemonia.vi1.10

Scoville, R.M. (2019). Unqualified ambassadors. Duke Law Journal, 71, 71-196.

Shahi, D. (2023). Global IR research programme. Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39121-7

Shani, G. (2008). Toward a post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and critical international relations theory. International Studies Review, 10(4), 722-734. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144544477

Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00042

Waver, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687-727. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550725

Xuetong, Yan. (2016). Political leadership and power redistribution. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pow002

Alekseeva, T.A., & Lebedeva, M.M. (2016). What is happening to the theory of International Relations. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 29-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.01.03

Bogaturov, A.D. (Ed.). (2000). Sistemnaya istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii, 1918-2000 [Systemic history of international relations, 1918-2000]. In 4 vols. Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii. (In Russ.)

Kharkevich, M.V (2023). Grounding ontology ofthe “international” in terms ofradical consructivism. World Economy and International Relations, 67(6), 36-46. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2023-67-6-36-46

Torkunov, A.V., Narinskii, M.M., & Revyakin, A.V. (Ed.). (2012). Istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [History of international relations]. In 3 vols. Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russ.)

Content No. 5, 2024

See also:


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

Torkunov A.V.,
International Studies: Chaos or Pluralism?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No5

Lebedeva M.M., Zinovieva E.S.,
Methods of neuroscience in studying world politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No5

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

Khudaykulova A.V.,
Contemporary International Relations: Implications of the New Context of Interdependence. – Polis. Political Studies. 2005. No6

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
3 2003


Kiselyov I.Yu.
The Images of States in International Relations: Mechanisms of Transformation

 The article text (электронная версия)
 

Archive

   2024      2023      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