A JIGSAW VS A GAME OF CHESS: THEORETICAL ECLECTICISM IN EXPLAINING EU-RUSSIA RELATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/CJPS.2021.005Keywords
EU-Russia relations, theoretical pragmatism, eclecticism, liberalism, realism.Abstract
In this article, we reflect on analytical eclecticism as a research approach and apply it to EU-Russia relations. First, we sketch the conceptual contours of theoretical eclecticism in international relations. Next, we consider its explanatory potential, discuss some of the present criticism and conduct a brief exemplary analysis of its use. In the process, we focus on EU-Russia relations using the theoretical perspectives of both liberalism and realism. In this view, the EU’s and Russia’s decision makers are conceptualized as looking at their mutual relations (and international relations in general) through the lenses of both perspectives. The empirical case is “diversity management” between the EU and Russia including issues of states/territories with limited recognition (Crimea, Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
References
RBenett, A. (2013). The Mother of All Isms: Causal Mechanisms and Structured Pluralism in International Relations Theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 459–481.
Bersick, S., Stokhof, W., & Velde, P. (Eds.). (2006). Multiregionalism and Multilateralism: Asian-European Relations in a Global Context. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Byman, D. L., & Pollack, K. M. (2001). Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in. International Security, 25(4), 107–146.
Cain, P. J., & Jobson, J. A. (1978). Cobdenism, and the Radical Theory of Economic Imperialism, 1898-1914. The Economic History Review, 31(4). 565–584.
Cooper, A., Hughes, C. W., & De Lombaerde, P. (Eds.). (2008). Governance: The Taming of Globalisation? Abingdon: Routledge.
Cornut, J. (2015). Analytic eclecticism in practice: A method for combining international relations, theories. International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), 50–66.
Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151–1169.
Dunne, T., Hansen, L., & Wight, C. (2013). The End of IR Theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405–425.
Fearon, J. (1998). Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 7–53.
Friedrichs, J., & Kratochwil, F. (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization 2009, 63(4), 701–731.
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest, 16, 3–18.
Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R.O. (Eds.). (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Guzzini, S. (1998). Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold. Abingdon: Routledge.
Harmes, A., (2011). The Rise of Neoliberal Nationalism. Review of International Political Economy, 19(1), 59–86.
Herbut, M., & Chwedczuk-Szulc, K. (2018). The Trump Effect on Russia Foreign Policy. In J. Dixon, M. J. Skidmore (Eds.), Donald J. Trump’s Presidency: International Perspectives (pp. 185–207). Washington: Westphalia Press.
Higgins, A., & Baker, P. (2014, 6 Feb). Russia Claims U.S. Is Meddling Over Ukraine. Nytimes.com,. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/world/europe/ukraine.html
Hirschman, A. (1970). The search for paradigms as a hindrance to understanding. World Politics, 22(3), 329–343.
Human Rights Watch. (2018). No Support: Russia’s Gay Propaganda Law Imperils LGBT Youth. Retrieved from https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/2012024/russia1218_web2.pdf
Jackson, P. T. (2011). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jackson, P. T., & Nexon, D. H. (2009). Paradigmatic faults in international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 907–930.
Jervis, R. (1999). Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate. International Security, 24(1), 42–63.
Keohane, R. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the Word Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. (1989). Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics. In R. Keohane (Ed.), International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (pp. 379–396). Boulder: Westview.
Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security 20(1), 39–51.
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Lake, D. A. (2011). Why „isms” are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 465–480.
Lake, D. A. (2013). Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 567–587.
Lamoreaux, J. W. (2013). Acting small in a large state's world: Russia and the Baltic states. European Security, 23(4), 565–582.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994/1995). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.
Moravcsik, A. (2012). Liberal Theories of International Law. In J. M. Pollock (Ed.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of Art (pp. 83–118). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Morgenthau, H. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morse, E. (1976). Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations, New York: Free Press.
Nau, H. R. (2011). No alternative to „isms”. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 487–491.
Newnham, R. (2011). Oil, Carrots, and Sticks: Russia’s Energy Resources as a Foreign Policy Tool. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 2(2), 134–143.
Paul, R. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. Special Issue: Critical Thinking: Unfinished Business, 130, 27–38.
Phelan, W. (2012). What Is Sui Generis About the European Union? Costly International Cooperation in a Self-Contained Regime. International Studies Review, 14(3), 367–385.
Powell, R. (1991). Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relation Theory. The American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1303–1320.
Powell, R. (1993). Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory. In D. A. Baldwin (Ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism. The Contemporary Debate (pp. 1303–1320). New York: Columbia University Press.
Quackenbush, S. (2010). The Rationality of Rational Choice Theory. International Interactions, 30(2), 87–107.
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.
Ruggie, J. G. (1992). Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution. International Organization, 3(46), 3–36.
Schweller, R. (1997). New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting, Waltz’s Balancing Proposition. The American Political Science Review, 91(4), 927–930.
Schweller, R. (2014, 14 Jun). The Age of Entropy. Why the New World Order Won’t Be Orderly. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014-06-16/age-entropy
Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 411–431.
Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2011). De-centering, not discarding, the „isms”: Some friendly amendments. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 481–485.
Simpson, J. (2014, 19 Mar). Russia’s Crimea plan detailed, secret and successful. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26644082
Snyder, J. (1991). Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Steil, B. (2018, 12 Feb). Russia’s Clash with the West is about Geography, not Ideology. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/12/russias-clash-with-the-west-is-about-geography-not-ideology/
Telò, M. (Ed.). (2009). The European Union and Global Governance. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Waltz, K. (2008). Realism and International Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
de Wet, E. (2006). The Emergence of International and Regional Value Systems as a Manifestation of the Emerging International Constitutional Order. Leiden Journal of International Law, 19(3), 611–632.
Zajączkowski, J. (2015). Strategie morskie Indii, Chin i USA w regionie Oceanu Indyjskiego: analiza w kategoriach realizmu ofensywnego. Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations, 51(2), 37–70.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 The Copernicus Journal of Political Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 447
Number of citations: 0
