By H. Kaji and J. Heirannia

@T= TEHRAN - Harry D. Gould, an assistant professor at Florida International University, says continental political thought has had a great influence on the international relations discipline over the course of history.
“There has historically been a great deal of influence from continental political thought, but that influenced has waned significantly in the last 50 years,” Harry D. Gould told 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: Neorealism vs Neoliberalism probably remains the main debate.
Q: Why major international relations theories failed to predict global economic crisis?
A: IR Theories would not predict economic crises because they are theories of politics, not theories of economics. They are simply analyzing a different and only tangentially related set of issues.
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: Professor Reus-Smit is probably correct inasmuch as no single debate currently dominates; however, I would still maintain that the Neorealist-Neoliberal debate -- in one form or another -- still dominates the literature.
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's primary benefit lies in its ability to provide greater explanatory depth than other theories. Its emphasis on MEANINGS allows for much more robust conceptualizations of the key concepts of the field than the rather threadbare operational conceptualizations used in the other theories.
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: There has historically been a great deal of influence from continental political thought, but that influenced has waned significantly in the last 50 years. Most continental IR thought seems to be reactions to Anglo-American theories. There have been no significant theories to come from developing countries YET. They are mostly adapting existing Anglo-American theories to their own circumstances. However, I am VERY confident that entirely new and unique theories will come from developing states in the next few decades.
Harry D. Gould is assistant professor at Florida International University. His areas of expertise are international relations theory, international law, ethics and politics. He is author of The Legacy of Punishment in International Law.