TEHRAN – Political expert Marco Cesa is of the opinion that approaches such as realism, liberalism, and Marxism are basically European schools of thought.

“However, when those traditions of thought were transformed into theories of Political Science, most of the work was done -- is still done -- in the U.S.,” Cesa said in an exclusive interview with the Mehr News Agency.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: There are four major intellectual discussions in international relations theories: realism versus liberalism; behaviorism versus traditionalism; neo-realism versus neo-liberalism; and rationalism versus constructivism. What is the main debate?
A: Currently, the main debate is rationalism vs constructivism. This does not mean, however, that this is the most important debate for IR theory. In historical and theoretical terms, the realist-liberal debate has probably been the most typical and long-lasting cleavage in the field. Q: Why most of the major international relations theories failed to predict the global economic crisis?
A: Most IR theories deal with political issues; it is not surprising, therefore, that the global financial crisis was not predicted.
Q: Professor Christian Reus-Smit argues that there is no longer a great debate over international relations theories. Do you accept this view? If that is the case, which international relations theories can explain the current issues in the area of international relations?
A: I tend to disagree with prof. Reus-Smit. The constructivist-rationalist debate permeates much of the literature today; similarly, realists are badly divided over crucial issues of power, security and anarchy. Nuclear proliferation, in addition, has been seen differently by different scholars. And the list could be longer. In my view, realism has still much to say about current affairs. It says quite a lot about U.S. unilateralism after the Cold War, about the minor role played by international organization in containing U.S. policies, about U.S. preferences in nuclear matters, about relations between the U.S. and the European allies. Again, the list could be longer than this.
Q: Constructivism is one of the renowned theories in the field of international relations. What are the main advantages of this theory in comparison to other world-class international relations theories?   A: To be honest, I don’t see any particular reason why constructivism should be seen as a useful tool in analyzing international affairs. Constructivism is a fantastic ex post explanation for any type of phenomenon. In other words, it cannot be falsified. To which, a constructivist would reply that falsification is part of the rationalist/neopositivist methodology that constructivism rejects. End of any serious debate between constructivism and the rest.
Q: Some scholars assert that international relations is an Anglo–American discipline, but others claim that international relations has some roots in continental countries. What is your viewpoint about this division? To what extent do developing countries contribute to the discipline of international relations?   A: The roots of international thought are indeed European -- the realist, liberal, grotian, marxist traditions are European traditions of thought. However, when those traditions of thought were transformed into theories of Political Science, most of the work was done -- is still done -- in the U.S. As for developing countries, their contribution has always been modest. I don’t see how this can change in the foreseeable future.
Marco Cesa serves as professor of international relations at the University of Bologna, Johns Hopkins University. He is author of many books such as lleati ma rivali: Teoria delle alleanze e politica estera settecentesca (2007); Politica e economia internazionale: Introduzione alle teorie di international political economy (1996); Defining Security: The Case of Southern Europe and the Superpowers in the Mediterranean (1989).