The Great debates in the realm of IR:

Great debate was debates between IR scholars on their theories.

The history of international relations has been narrated in terms of great debates.
There is 4 key debates basically. First im defining what is great debate? by great
debates, We understand that There are series of this agreement between
Scholars of international relations. the great debate are also a reflection of the
historical narrative that is a part of international relations. one idea that comes
forward as we try to understand, The great debate is no single Idea has been
influential in international relations. So therefore International relations and
academic discipline comes after the end of the First World War. The end of the
first world war sees that the first debates in the realm of International Relation
comes up. and then the discipline witnesses series of debate and these debates
are important because they are a reflection on history. They are a reflection on
Nature of operation of politics and the contemporary times. They are a reflection
of the the multidisciplinary perspective that a part of international relations. So
therefore IR theory is witnessing constant change It is under constant
modification. when we start international relations, we can see the idealism and
realism were debated in the interwar period.
Therefore later as time preceded the new debate emerged was between
traditionalism and behaviorism. And then which time one could even see the
coons development that the idea of paradigm also enter the realm of great
debates and in the post behavior Revolution face of early 1970s. What we see
here is rise of international political economy, new-marxist, structural
dependency theory in the late 1970s and early 1980s. All of it, these debate are a
reflection of history of international relations. these debate tell us the narrative of
international relation with time has moved from singular status Idea to a much
more plural non state actors are in competition with the state.

Great debates: first debate was about idealism versus realism in the 1940s. The
Second debate: traditionalism versus behavioralism in the 1950s followed by that
one also witness debate between new-realism and New-liberalism as the new
debate. And also the debate like inter paradigm debate and then the discipline
takes new turn that is rationalism versus reflectivism.

Introducing of these debates one by one:

First debates (Idealism versus Realism) which was over the type of international
system and government’s behavior motivation.
In this debate, the basic disagreement was over the nature and legitimacy of
international system. It means is the International system anarchic or not, it’s a
regulated system? And second matter was over that, what is the type of
government’s behavior motivation in international system?
According to realists; governments pursue their own interests and they do not
care about others profits but Liberals argue that; governments are in share
interests and they consider other benefit too. Or Idealists argue that; with
creating international institutions, unhide diplomacy and generalization of foreign
policy we can achieve peace and world security but Realists argue that; fighting
for interests is usual and it’s impossible to root-out the war because conflict for
benefit is usual.
Detailed…!
As we know, after the end of the first world war league of nations was formed.
The world witnessed a great international organization which tried to get
countries together in order to getting peace. on the same time as the aftermath of
the first world war. The Treaty of Versailles was signed. How about you see here
is that the impact of the first world war, late the seeds of the starting of the
second world war. This why often argued failure of League of Nations, The really
clauses of Treaty of Versailles give the impetus became the real cause of the
start of the second world war. So therefore in this perspective realist really
argued against the idealist principles. So therefore according to realist the
historical context of international relations is characterized by conflict contrary to
the idea of how many conveyed by the idealist. The relationship between the
states are governed by power. So here we see that, one word but different
interpretations coming forward of that. The idealist believing that democracies
promote peace. the very fact that they can be existence of peaceful Cooperative
relations and also suppose to that the realist saying that is only statisim living to
self help, living to surviver. So therefore, in this idealist realist debate an
important work that emerges as a cretic of the idealism and taking way for new
ideas of realism.

what to see here is that utopianism features a proactive vision that believes in
progress and evolution. However the realist accept reality without the possibility
of change or evolution characterized by recurrent determinism. The idea that
idealism believes in progress, model progress evolution. However, the reality it is
Stark contrast with the believe Ideal school of thought stands for, so therefore
looking at things from q rational perspective the realist give forward to the idea of
state interest prevailing the idea of interest power leading to be the mean facts in
international relations. and here what comes out there is that utopia and reality
there are two faces of Political Science and these bifurcation of utopia versus
reality has an impact on other disciplines also.

Andreas Aslender’s says that, idealist author definitely are familiar with the
Realist theses But what distinguish them above all was the different way of
looking at the history of Philosophy. for the idealist We have a philosophy of
directional history while in the case of the realists it is cyclical.
Robert Crawford: he says; Idealism-Realism debate is a debate of Ideas that are
in open apposition and can not be reconciled, because they are based in
different ontologies.
Now here we go that released approach looks at rivalry strive among Nations
struggle for power among nation is seen as Natural as well rational. rational
power interest are justiciable as well as reasonable gold. Now with these believe
some of the well-known International relations realists thinkers are: Thucydides,
Hobbes, Machiavelli. Hans J Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger and to add the list
here are very old from the Indian political thought Kutilia, who wrote the magnum
Arthashastra. In that he was trying to represent to us the movements of the state
craft looking at think as it is and giving privacy to the idea of interest of the state
and the government .

another idealist thinker Emmanuel Kant; who in his work worked for perpetual
peace, he gave the idea that democracies do not go to war. another Woodrow
Wilson American presidents who gave the 14 peace points Agreement looking
into trade navigation commercial toys, respecting sovereignty among other and
Aldous huxley, so what would like to see here is that Idealist have an important
stay and sake in the realm of International Relation and one of the broad
understanding that comes from the Idealist school of thought that is it is an
optimistic ideology.
Someone transience the fear of the international Anarchy and more
Cosmopolitan and harmonious world order is presented to us by the Hobbs
generated by the Idealist school of thought. Now what we see here is that when
will you look at narrow understanding of what Idealist debate that the interwar
period 1990 to 1939 It did dominate the first phase of his history. It tell us about
interdependence and unity of humankind and of course an example of
internationalism was presented to us by League of Nations know, this was not
understanding of idolism. We have to say that a great definition of idolism
cosmopolitanism internationalism liberalism. So frequently labels along with
idolism and they have been of involved while discussing the first debate in
international relations.
So therefore Idealism gives importance to the power of reason to overcome. It
looks and democracy democratic control of foreign policy That is the how it will
empower the world public opinion.

so therefore Idealism has contrast to the real school of thought looks at war as a
disease of the international body politic. it give importance to Universal bodies
such as League of Nations, the United Nations in galvanizing world public
opinion. and true that means to believe that existence natural how many of
interest between all peoples is possible? now when we contrasted to the real
school for realism, the state is the national actor and the state exist in a system
where in the classical release believe that the human nature is in definitely
contradictory and in competitive terms with each other. and the new-realist
believe that state exist in a system, where does no centralising authority which is
marked and called as anarchy.

In short term;
The school of Idealism in international relations has always been opposed to the
dominant school of international relations, realism.
The most important aspect of liberal theories is the belief in the potential for
change in international relations in the form of 'cooperation', 'conflict reduction'
and 'achievement of world peace'. While acknowledging the chaos of the
international system, liberalism believes that cooperation-based arrangements
are also possible in international relations.

Liberals generally define security as far broader than the realists, excluding it
from the limited geopolitical and military realm, emphasizing wealth, prosperity,
and environmental issues.
Liberalism emphasizes principles such as "freedom", "public support for state
regulation", "the priority of ethics in the pursuit of power", and "the priority of
institutions over interests" as the forces that shape relations between
governments. For liberals, man is a rational and good-natured creature who can
change the environment around him and morally help his fellow man. Liberals
value the freedom of the individual above all and challenge the distinction
between domestic and international. According to liberals, reforming the internal
political system of governments can lead to peace in the international
environment.

In sum, four main axioms are recognizable among liberal theories; the first,
known as "democratic peace", emphasizes the need for a change in the political
structure of societies to achieve peace, and the emergence of conflict and
violence between democratic regimes because of their existence. The same
rules and the collective decision-making system are almost impossible.
The second line, "Transnationalism," emphasizes the emergence of new non-
state actors in the international arena and consequently a change in international
politics. The third pillar of liberal theories in international relations emphasizes
the role of international institutions and is known as liberal institutionalism. The
fourth axis also deals with the role of trade, communication, and interdependence
in reducing wars and creating peace.
—————-

The second great debate that was on the question of methodology, took place in
1950s-1960s, between two groups ( Behaviorist and Traditionalist).
the second great debate just happened after the second world war and it was
also reflection for the need for new analysis tools .For doing research in
international relations and therefore this need led to the second grade debate.
in international relations Cold War exhausted after the second world war , cold
world war was often seen as a propaganda war, which highlighted towards
importance of ideology in International Relation.

this debate was essentially a methodological debate revolving around the belief
of Behaviouralists that IR could only advance itself by applying the methods of
naturalist science. They believed that the field was too dominated by historians,
who they labelled Traditionalists (or Classicists), who took the view that IR should
be developed through more interpretive historicist methods. Behaviouralist focus
was on the observation of systems and that those analyses, and any subsequent
hypotheses and/or implying of causality, should be subject to empirical testing,
mainly via falsification. That way knowledge in IR could be progressively built up,
allowing for greater intuitions and progress in theory development

The battle lines were drawn between the likes of Hedley Bull on the Traditionalist
side, and Morton Kaplan on the Behaviouralist. There were other recognisable
figures on either side, such as Carr and Schelling, as well as divisions within
opposing camps, but Bull and Kaplan’s arguments get to the heart of the matter.
Though acknowledging the swift rise of scientific methods in America,
Traditionalists maintained that the ebbs and flows of global politics were
necessarily interpretive, as one could not impose a neat system on a field with so
many variables. An opposing Bull wrote of the method, that with such ‘‘strict
standards of verification and proof there is very little of significance that can be
said about international relations’’ (Bull 1966, p. 361). Kaplan countered that
Traditionalism’s inherent breadth of analysis meant that its ‘‘generalizations are
applied indiscriminately over enormous stretches of time and space. They are
sufficiently loosely stated so that almost no event can be inconsistent with them’’
(1966, p.388) and thus would do nothing to enhance understanding or develop
theory. For Behaviouralists, a theory that was not falsifiable was not a theory at
all, more a subjective notion to be believed or disbelieved as suited (Sanders
2002, p. 50).
Behaviouralism was also critiqued over what its perceived weaknesses could
bring to IR study. It had roots in positivism and so strict application would mean
rejecting factors that could not be measured, such as human perception and
motivation and would also prevent the development of normative theories since
they focused on empirically non-testable ‘what ought to be’ (Sanders 2002, p.
51). As well as a charge of failing to grasp societal nuances, criticism was also
levelled at Behaviouralism’s early practice of supposedly separating theory and
values from observations. Behaviouralists countered these criticisms by largely
recognising the potential value of knowledge produced by other methods of
research, such as Kaplan’s acknowledgment of Bull’s contributions to arms
control literature for example (1966, p. 388), but they reserved the right to test
their own assumptions empirically. Behaviouralists even recognised and rectified
their own perceived weaknesses, such as Hempel and Popper’s criticism of
‘narrow inductivist’ views and the impossibility of some kind of theory or values
remaining absent from observation (not that it meant all theories were equal of
course) (Sanders 2002, p. 52), thus placing positivism on a more deductive than
inductive path.
Behaviouralism never sought to be a replacement theory, but a means of
discovering one and facilitating Thomas Kuhn’s idea that ‘‘a new area of research
spins off from an established one on the basis of a new exemplar’’ (Sharrock and
Read 2002, p. 46). Whether its proponents intended it or not however,
Behaviouralism became orthodoxy and Debate victor, its key strength over
Traditionalism being the ability of researchers to replicate and analyse their
colleagues’ processes and findings, with impacts including the encouragement of
diligent and detailed work by IR theorists, and that positivist America came to be
seen as a greater engine of political theory discourse.

During the cold war somewhere the discipline witness that there was a need for
objective and universal Norms instead of subjective norms Political Science and
other disciplines were asked to examine that can natural science method be
applied to social science Method? can the way physics chemistry natural
Sciences how they are accurate exact? Can Social Sciences be also molded as
per those Aspects. There was lots of rethinking that was being done. So
therefore behavioralist thought that International relations is a science and
method of IR should be scientific. So sciences employ here data, analysis,
number.
An attempt was made to mold the study of international relations on a scientific
tourist and tourism was the dominant medical social science is told about unity of
Sciences unity of human behaviour scientific quantitative methodologies.
This Also open this discipline to wide range of new standard for the formulation of
concepts hypothesis theories.

——————
The third debate was realist - pluralist and structuralist.

(Third Great debate) = Its inter-paradigm debate that was among Neo-Realism &
Neo-Liberalism. The debate has also been described as being between realism,
institutionalism and structuralism. We can say it took place after 1960s.

This is arguably one of the important debate which we can see on one side
Rationalists, inclusive of Realist and Liberalist positions, are positivistic in
methodology, and while accepting the complexities of the social world, prefer to
measure and analyse what can be observed. The opposition Reflectivists reject
these positivist methods of knowledge generation, preferring interpretive and
subjective study and a belief that values cannot be separate from observation
(Kurki and Wight 2010, pp. 24-25). Given Rationalist paradigms have emerged
through supposedly flawed and biased positivistic methodology, Reflectivists
reject that system and any theorising within it.
Reflectivism includes such alternative approaches to IR theory as post-
modernism, feminism, constructivism and critical theory (with emancipatory
positions such as anti-colonialism capable of falling under the umbrella of the
latter). Post-Modernism defies the self-fulfilling link between the status quo and
the knowledge it generates, asking how ‘real truth’ can be discovered inside such
a weighted system, while feminism views issues in IR through the lens of women,
their place in world politics and gender issues (Smith and Owens, 2008, pp. 181-
187). Critical theory is a Marxian spin-off that attempts to analyse, identify and
assist emancipatory social changes (Hobden and Wyn Jones, 2008, p. 151).
Constructivism is a social theory and has diverse facets itself, but is generally of
the view that social ideas define the world and impact on material reality (Barnett
2008, pp. 162-163).
These are very basic presentations of positions that are far deeper and more
complex, but the range of views is clear. Most agree on their opposition to the
establishment but each has a distinct identity and priorities, and each theory can
be diverse within itself. Richard Devetak observes that ‘‘the meaning of post-
modernism is in dispute not just between proponents and critics, but also among
proponents’’ (2001a, p. 181), while feminism alone comes in liberal, socialist,
standpoint and post-modern varieties (Smith and Owens, 2008, pp. 181-184).
One criticism levelled at Reflectivists, that they seek to tear down the established
order but fail to suggest anything new of their own, is unfair. For instance, post-
modern IR theorists have suggested new conceptual language, so called
‘political prosaics’, to describe, for instance, the political dynamics of non-state
groups or movements (Devetak 2001a, pp.198-199); while through critical
theory’s analysis and interpretation of the state and communities, it has
advocated normative arrangements for improving societies (Devetak 2001b,
p.175). Rationalists like Keohane also suggest that if Reflectivists wish their
views to be taken seriously then they should move beyond criticism into actually
testing the validity of their claims through some form of research process (Kurki
and Wight 2010, p. 25), though this of course is anathema to Reflectivists thus
challenging them to a game they cannot participate in.
Given their differing group positions, internal discourses and inability to challenge
Rationalists on their own terms, it has been difficult for Reflectivists to truly
undermine the former; a difficult enough task without these issues, given the
unlikelihood that Rationalists would ever willingly deconstruct their fundamental
assumptions of IR. Yet over the duration of this Debate, some change has
occurred. Kurki and Wight observe the significant rise of scientific realism, a
complex position but essentially one that recognises a methodological pluralism
between quantitative and qualitative methods, and has been incorporated in most
constructivist thinking, giving rise to claims it now occupies a middle ground
(2010, pp. 25-27). As Wæver also notes, an initial ‘‘polarised
rationalism/reflectivism mutated into an axis, with more and more people located
towards the middle, but still defining themselves in relation to this axis’’ (Wæver
2009, p. 217).

Introduction of Third debate:

(Realist, Pluralist and Structuralist):
for the realist the state is the only actor in the realm of International Relation. for
the pluralist the state is important. However, along side other non state actors
also that are important.
for the structuralist the state is a reflection of the exploiting of the capitalist
tendencies that are in (herant) the world class.
For the realist the Ultimate aim is power and power which is measured by
National interest.
For pluralist of course power is important. But power is not seen in a absolute
sense what realist sees but in relative sense that in terms of other (games) also.
Power is always seem in the realm of how the structures of capitalism and the
process is going on led to exploitation of the poor Nations by the rich countries.
So therefore we were trying to say, realist, structuralist and pluralist in this inter
paradigm debate, IR during 1917 1918 saw that, approaches or speaking to each
other the discipline was in lively face of communicative to each other and in
same time IR witness the new new debate
=

The similarities between Neo-liberalism and Neo-realism are; both are rational
theories. Secondly both are states scues theories and thirdly both give
importance to state as a rational actor in international relations.

Difference between Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism:

1:- for the Neo-realist anarchy is defining feature of international relations and
There is no centralizing authority. for the Neo-liberals, the Neo-Realist give too
much in faces to anarchy and ignore how cooperation can exist.
The Neo-realist give primacy to absolute gains. relationships are seen in the
sense of power gains. It means your gains employ my loss and my loss employs
your gain. However for the Neo-liberals power is definitely important but gains
are in a different manner where in possibilities of cooperation can led two mutual
gains also. for the Neo-realist what we seeing here is that important attached to
military issues. Where as for the Neo-liberals important also attached to no
military issues namely economics, human resources among other. So we saying
here is that again with integral of international relations, the disciplines the
porches are being compared and contrast. the last debate that took place in the
discipline of international relations, That is about rationalism (worses)
reflectivism. Now reflect approaches post positivism and some of the examples
of reflective approaches Critical theory, post structuralism, post modernism,
constructivism, feminism. and some examples of the rational theories which we
saw New-realism, New-liberalism. So therefore in the fourth debate, the debate
was about between explaining that is scientific and understanding that is
interpretive. and therefore the new dimension was between positivism empiricist
and post positivism and therefore between rationalism versus reflectivism. so
before these debates tell us how the discipline of international relations through
these debates is an example of the historical narrative and it shows that how
discipline as always engaged with the emerging and contemporary contextual
forces.
The explained theories they attempt to emulate the natural Sciences scientific
method. as appose to explain it with theories the interpreter, they try to situated
the social life and try to get the focus on understanding the international
meanings, reasons, believes which the actress hold.
positivism: in the philosophy of science discipline it is about empiricist
epistemology.
empiricism: holding that all knowledge originates in empirical observation.
The scientific knowledge from their think is secure and valid only When is based
on empirical validation and their advocates hypothesis testing.

now when you are trying to look at the positivist approach, the certain important
things that we have to look at and why this is also part of important components
of research methodology for several disciplines the possible nuksan scientific
observation rigorous guidelines regularity. And today there are multiple post
positive approaches to before a new challenges also to the post positive
approach the positivist approach to social enquiry some draw on interpreter
storing something to articulate. Unknown positive is version of time and therefore
the national reflective debate. Therefore come to the idea that those who apply
rational choice and positive is method and those that Richard these methods and
advocate interpretive and reflective methodologies and therefore in i, r
approaches such as critical theory constructivism post structuralism feminism are
3 and called as reflective is theory, for example, if you just look at how ideas and
normal shape the world work of Alexander when is that is an Arc is what States
make of to refer to that is very important to reflect on the Political Theory work of
Michel foucault is important to understand to understand postmodernism looking
at our knowledge aspects and constructivism where in it is being said that how
you know world is an example of work. When will you come in a very important to
ask us to reflect on known as the actors that make up the system is I'm trying to
look at how the systems even in the value of international relations. They are
singing the empowerment of women. They are reflections of the actor of the
patriarchal and gendered nature of society and our thinking how state as an
organisation as a n to take always as compare the idea that go in the formulation
of state by the realist. This course is gender. It is one sided it difficult to see the
mail experience and idea of power

Power that International relations puts forward it is to masculine which gives

importance to vala current over there nurture women really value all these
approaches that became a part of the fourth place where an effective is the same
here is something in the discipline at challenge the framing of the fourth grade
and have also instead advocated scientific reason that someone one term that
you must learn more about it is philosophy of science critical of positivism. So in
this audio thing that observation and generalization are conceptualization of the
nature of of an observable social forces at logically and logically scientific
awareness day for school because the Advocate the use of variety of methods
and ways of knowing explain it with you before it is another problem solving to
read it explains events by speaking courses in the temperate sequence critical
theories question particular social structure and their outcomes normative
theories on the other hand examine, ethical moral questions constituted there for
social object at State Tower interest. How are they constituted dual is known as
as we try to some of our lecture and important work that you must refer to why
can't you understand International relations theory while trying to understand the
four great debates and also which has a huge link is understanding research
methodology that is referred baldvinsson devil are important for but for research
in other avenues, in other disciplines also do the work by Dun and Steve