Search

The paper maintains that interdisciplinarity has been a factor in causing fragmentation in International Relations. However, interdisciplinarity is also a positive factor, deserving a place in IR. To make interdisciplinarity an asset in re-integrating IR (and international studies in general) interdisciplinary efforts must be organized in practice more systematically and carefully than usually done. Mere term 'interdisciplinary' does not cause or produce anything, it tends to remain just an empty slogan. If interdisciplinary efforts are really wished to pursue at the level of research programs, interdisciplinarity must be paid serious attention and thought. Instead of a theoretical model for a working interdisciplinary program, the paper suggests that we can learn from earlier and existing interdisciplinary programs. Three cases are discussed in this paper: 1) problem-oriented neodisciplinarity, where certain social and political problem(s) define the 'program or the field'; 2) core discipline-oriented multidisciplinarity, where a sort of active force of gravity of the core science draws separate disciplines together; 3) and research program-oriented multidisciplinarity, where a given research program itself is multidisciplinary. The cases are represented, respectively, by (Galtungian, i.e. Nordic) Peace Research, the interdisciplinary materialism of the Frankfurt School (of the 1930s), and theoretical and methodological pluralism of the English School. In comparison, Peace Research emerges as the weakest case, and the Frankfurt School as the strongest; however the English School is suggested as the best model for inter- and multidisciplinary research program in IR and international studies. It is claimed, finally, that the discussed cases are not contending alternatives but together teach us important insights for building an interdisciplinary program able to deal with important questions (of war and peace etc.), with normative orientation and flexibility in further development of the program along the lines of positive heuristics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current debate on the post-9/11 world is heavily concentrated on the foreign policy of the United States; that is, it is based on the reductionist approach (Waltz 1979). The nature and potential change of the international system has been ignored. It is clear that the current hegemony of the United States in international system justifies one to ask whether international system is changing from anarchical towards hierarchical. This is a big question of high theoretical, empirical and practical value. In order to find any answers to that question, a lot of extensive and intensive systematical research is required. Therefore, instead of suggesting a solid thesis, the present paper is a survey of ideas and findings on which the suggested project might be based on. First, the paper discusses the basic concepts of the systemic approach as introduced by Waltz (1979) as well as his analysis of the existing international system both before and after the end of the Cold War. Second, the problematic of the study of power in international system is briefly discussed. Third, major features of the current international system are examined. It is maintained that some clear features of hierarchical international system can be recognized; at least it is possible to share Tim Dunne?s (2003) view that even if the present tendencies do not establish ?a new global order but altogether they have forced us to confront its becoming.? It is claimed that the United States? position as the lead state of the emerging hierarchical system is based on its overwhelming military power (the ?command of the commons? as suggested by Posen 2003), the strategic doctrine and political will to use that power, and the justification obtained for war on terrorism from the 9/11 attacks. War does not disappear from the new system, but instead of anarchy, there is only one enmity; that between the terrorists (and the rogue states that support them)) and the defenders of freedom, of which the United States is the leader. ?War on terrorism? is the ordering principle of the new system; it is the United States?s function to define the terrorists, whereas the others? function is to support the United States in this war. Finally, it is suggested that more research into the basic issues of the new system is required, particularly on 1) theory and analysis of international system/politics in Waltzian sense, looking beyond his ideas by adopting more recent knowledge and approaches of the field; and 2) the bases and mechanisms of the present international system, with emphasis on military and ?constructionist? power, with main reference to international law and war on terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]