TEHRAN, April 26 (MNA) – Nicholas Onuf says that the main debate in international relations theories is between positivist and post/nonpositivist ontologies and their methodological entailments.

The Florida International University professor emeritus made the remarks during an e-mail interview with the Mehr News Agency conducted by Hossein Kaji and Javad Heiran-Nia.
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: The main debate is between positivist and post/nonpositivist ontologies and their methodological entailments. Constructivists straddle this divide. Many in the US favor the former; many elsewhere favor the latter. I count myself among the latter.
Q: As we know, we experienced a global economic crisis. Why were most of the major international relations theories not able to predict it?
A: Because all IR theories are stated in very general terms, enabling them to postdict but not predict events, and most of them do not account for economic phenomena, which are left to economists in the scholarly division of labor.
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: If there is no debate (a plausible claim), it is because there are no IR theories in the usual positivist/scientific sense of the term, to be debated. In the absence of theory, what passes for explanation is description.
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: Constructivism is properly viewed as a framework, not a theory. It's main advantage as a framewok is that it directs attention to language, rules and rule in all kinds of social relations,, including international relations .
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: While most IR 'theories' have Anglo-American roots, constructivism draws extensively on Continental social theory. Scholar from developing countries contribute by assessing theory claims critically.
Q: Do you think international relations theories in 20th century directly depend on philosophical changes?
A: Only from the late 1980s on, and then only for some few of us.
Q: Do international relations theorists need to have a good background knowledge of philosophy?
A: Some background has to help. But immersion in philosophy will succeed only in making you a philosopher. Enlightenment philosophy has always provided the general background for modern IR theory. Postmodern theorists are inclined toward Continental philosophy. The recent turn to international ethics shows considerable influence from analytical philosophy, not to mention the Enlightenment tradition I already mentioned. In my own case, I am increasingly turning back to Aristotle, but have been influenced by both Continental and analytic traditions.
Nicholas Onuf is one of the primary figures among Constructivists in international relations. His best known contribution to Constructivism is set out in World of Our Making (University of South Carolina Press, 1989)