Knowledge, international relations, constructivists, positivists, laws, international exchanges, behavior, interstate cooperation
In a research article entitled Paradigms and methodologies for Knowledge Building, researcher Josep Gallifa explains that there are different approaches to the search for "knowledge" in international relations. Through a literature review, the author demonstrates that two antagonistic approaches can be highlighted: the positivist approach and the constructivist approach (Gallifa, 2018).
From the point of view of international relations, positivism and constructivism represent, first and foremost, schools of thought. Indeed, these two approaches can be defined according to how they view the world and the relationship between international actors in international relations. Positivism aims to explain reality in terms of its very essence. As such, it is a method of observing reality in a way that cannot necessarily be acted upon. Constructivism, on the other hand, aims to co-construct reality with the actors involved. These are therefore two completely different and antagonistic searches for "truth": one seeks truth as it would exist in the world, while the other approach seeks to explain it by taking into account the influence of its actors (Mackenzie, 2011).
[...] For constructivists, the preferred mode of action is international law and international institutions. Indeed, international law is the source of knowledge, and it is therefore a question of changing this source in order to modify knowledge. However, positivists do not believe in this thesis, and prefer a more concrete approach: that of changing relations directly rather than law, and thus modifying knowledge (Charreire & Huault, 2008). There is therefore a difference in perception of "knowledge" between these two schools of thought. [...]
[...] Indeed, actors produce acts that have effects in international law, which are considered as "knowledge" in international relations. The example of the European Union, a sui generis organization under international law, confirms this approach, since this organization is a producer of international law, as highlighted by researcher Anastasia Chebakova (Chebakova, 2008). Thus, we can deduce the intermediate conclusion that, for constructivists, actors in international relations influence knowledge and truth, for example through the establishment of international norms. For positivists, however, actors have no influence on the world. [...]
[...] - Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). (1996). International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge University Press. - Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics (Vol. 67). Cambridge University Press. [...]
[...] Thus, for constructivists, actors in international relations influence knowledge and truth, for example through the establishment of international norms. For positivists, on the other hand, actors have no influence on the world. It is not, therefore, through sources of law that "knowledge" can be ascertained. Finally, there are other schools of thought that could also be studied. Bibliography - Adler, E. (2013). Constructivism in international relations: Sources, contributions, and debates. Handbook of international relations 112-144. - Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2009). Understanding international relations. [...]
[...] Macmillan International Higher Education. - Bull, H. (2012), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 4th edition: this is a seminal book. - Charreire Petit, S., & Huault, I. (2008). From practice-based knowledge to the practice of research: Revisiting constructivist research works on knowledge. Management learning, 73-91. - Chebakova, A. (2008, September). Theorizing the EU as a global actor: a constructivist approach. In The Maturing European Union-ECSA-Canada Biennial Conference Paper (pp. 1-16). - Gallifa, J. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
