There is tension in some countries of the Global South as a result of a lack of understanding between those who “theorize” international policy and those who “decide or implement” it.
This dichotomy – which sometimes arises mutually – offers greater depth when analyzed in terms of how the system of international relations emerged and how it positively influenced the design of the foreign policies of countries that became middle, regional or global powers.
The proposal that sparked this thinking was recently proposed by Stacey Goddard and Joshua D. Kurtzer wrote in their article, “How to Put International Relations Theory into Practice. American strategists must think more like social scientists.”
Authoritarians don’t like this
The practice of professional and critical journalism is an essential pillar of democracy. This is why it bothers those who believe they are the bearers of the truth.
This interconnection between international reality, thinking about it and working to change it – or preserve it – is not always the original matrix of international relations as an academic discipline.
At the same time, although we recognize the lineage of its constitution in the entanglement of history, diplomacy, international law and finally political science, at a certain moment very specific contextual conditions for its origin were created.
As Goodwin (1951) delved into “University Teaching of International Relations”; It was the horrific experience of the First World War that fostered this new field of study, at its conclusion at the Peace of Paris in 1919. In this year, the first chair of international relations was established at the University of Wales (Aberystwyth). In addition, the Royal Institute of International Relations was established in London as an intellectual institution that influenced the establishment of many other institutions in various countries around the world.
In the United Kingdom, a disciplinary training was created that initially had a strong historical element that was reinforced and systematized by the French school in authors such as Aron, Durosel, and Renovin. The latter left a legacy of this understanding in France’s contribution to the study of international relations; It was also analyzed by Marcel Merle in Sur ‘la problématique’ de l’étude des International Relations in France. These authors anticipated many of the dynamics of the international system, prior to the influence of North American political science on the international system.
Thus, the original matrix as the incubator for its creation was shaped by an ontological reality in crisis, a proto-system existing in universities, the practice of decisions in foreign policy and diplomacy, and meeting spaces serving as think tanks that brought it together. Finally, the normative orientation sought moral answers that defined the primary concepts of order, order, and international peace.
With this background and in the face of the current moment of systemic entropy and cognitive reactionism, a return to the core of the encounter between thought and decision-making is imperative.
It is notable that while policymakers tend to focus too narrowly on “the problems of the day,” academics often tend to rely on abstract and abstract discussions. Likewise, foreign policy strategists might benefit from thinking more like sociologists and historians, which involves not only clarifying their typical assumptions but also seeking to explain why opposing views might be wrong.
Finally, to generate scientific knowledge. But if we apply to the needs of countries, more spaces are needed that bring together academics and those responsible for formulating foreign policies. We will only be able to reach the path of development through this harmonious dynamic between thinking and action.
* Professor of International Relations and Foreign Policy at the University of Buenos Aires and the Austral University.
About The Author
