CALL FOR PAPERS

Issue 37 / “History and International Relations Theory: Dialogue and absences in a scientific debate”

To be published in February 2018

The judgment of History by most international relations theorists, especially from USA, is strongly influenced by their training in social sciences. Generally, their research represents models constructed from historical contexts. However, despite this fact, many academics -including some influential intellectuals- have been criticized for postulating laws by ignoring the nuances of history (e.g., Kenneth Waltz).

In many cases, history is included as a mere illustration, not as proof. In fact, particular episodes are used to the extent that if they aid to build theories. The "historical case" is not important in itself, which generates the sense that the evidence is easily interchangeable. Moreover, political scientists in order to be available to develop broad generalizations, transforms any war, crisis or alliance system in manifestation of wider phenomenon.

Likewise, researchers in both disciplinary fields appeal to history and theory, but in a very different way. Political scientists believe that their purpose is to identify recurrent patterns of behavior and make generalizations about why certain kinds of events recur over time. Therefore, on many occasions they show no interest in explaining why a particular event was developed in such a way. On the contrary, they seek general theories to show how the evidence fits in with everything. Likewise, International Relations theorists are often willing to explain individual cases to construct a great theory that explains the basic parameters of many other cases from few causal factors. So, they tend not to over-complex historical events in order to easily classify them with others.

On the other hand, international historians consider a particular case to explain a wider range of similar phenomena. But the cases are interpretations. According to Carr, data don't speak for themselves (“they are fish on the fish market counter”, as Carr literalally wrote). Historians select the data according to their relevance or not, their explanatory capacity (which is not in the data themselves but in its usefulness to the historian), hierarchizes them according to that and structures a story. Without this story the IR theory would not be possible. At the same time, explicitly or implicitly the historians turn to theory and philosophy of history, which allows them to extract everything pertinent from the immense and unfathomable complexity of the past.

The IR theory must consider the weight of the past. How the present, a conceptual and imaginary line between past and future, is history. How history creates identities that tend to determine the international performance of the actors. According to Carr, the important is to understand, not to explain; that is, being able to situate ourselves in the mental universe and the visions of the actors: “(…) History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is writing”. Minds must be taken into account; "(...) the collective coloration of the psyche, the particular way of thinking and feeling of a people, of a certain group of people (...)"; social imaginaries, vocabularies, etc.

Thus, we expected in this issue to have contributions that contrast the nomothetic and ideographic dimensions of Political Science and History, respectively, in the study of international politics. Likewise, proposals will be welcomed to analyze the contribution of different historiographical currents in IR theory: History of Present Time, Critical History, Global History, Economic History, etc.

We are interested in IR theoretical contributions, particularly, reflections in which the History is crucial to develop them within the desert of scientific spirit.

Finally, all those proposals that examine the contributions of International History to Foreign Policy Analysis will be positively valued. In this case, contributions will account for the implications of national and diplomatic history of states on foreign policy decision-making process; as well as in setting the leaders’ worldview.

 

Coordinators
Eduardo A. Carreño Lara (Universidad de Chile)
Pedro A. Martínez Lillo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
Jesús Nieto González (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
Francisco J. Peñas Esteban (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)

 

DUE DATE:

ABSTRACTS:
The abstracts (max. 250 words) should be sent via email no later than June, 15 2017 to this e-mail address:
ecarreno@uchile.cl (Eduardo Carreño)

Notification of acceptance or refusal will be done along the week following the deadline.

 

ARTICLES:
The articles accepted must be sent no later than September 10, 2017 and abide by the Style Guide (in Spanish, Manual de Estilo) of our journal for submission to a double blind peer-review. The articles must be uploaded on the Relaciones Internacionales website (https://revistas.uam.es/relacionesinternacionales), after registering as an author.  

For further information and questions please contact:
ecarreno@uchile.cl (Eduardo Carreño)
franciscojavier.pennas@uam.es (Francisco J. Peñas Esteban)

 

LANGUAGES:

Articles in Spanish or English will be accepted, and will be translated into Spanish for publication.