TEHRAN - McGill University professor Stephen M. Saideman says that there is no single dominant debate in international relations theories.

Saideman made the remarks in an e-mail interview with the Mehr News Agency conducted by Hossein Kaji and Javad Heiran-nia last week.
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: I am not sure there is a single dominant debate these days. Perhaps rationalism versus constructivism still resonates, but I would say right now IR scholars are probably more divided by their interests—security vs. economics vs. environment, etc. These debates are usually pretty useful for sharpening people’s understanding of the different approaches, but no one ever “wins.”
Q: As we know, we are in the middle of a global economic crisis. Why were most of the major international relations theories not able to predict it?
A: Not so clear that it was not predicted by some. And the question is: predict what? Like the arguments about the end of the cold war, there are two processes here—the actual event and then the reactions to it. So, we have the steep decline in markets and fluidity and then we have the reactions to it. Most of IR theory is not geared to predicting variations in global economic cycles. What IR theory should be able to do is account for how countries and institutions reacted. One’s assessment of IR theory then turns on how one would view the reactions—do we see countries cooperating or do we see aggressive, competitive behavior? I am not an IPE person, but my old training suggests a couple of theories that capture some of this stuff:
Hegemonic Stability Theory—the relative decline of the U.S. (what happened to its auto industry and to the economy in general) limits its willingness and its ability to support the international economy. So, we see some steps towards protectionism.
But there actually has not been the kind of trade war or competitive devaluation that occurred during the Great Depression.
So, we can rely on institutionalism to explain why international institutions still matter, despite the changing balance of power, to limit the willingness of countries to act too competitively.
We can also rely on Helen Milner’s work and those like it (Liberals)—that domestic actors’ preferences matter the most, and that powerful actors still have ties to the international economy and prefer not to increase barriers (Microsoft, Apple, Hollywood, etc).
So our theories can explain how countries have and will react, but they may not be able to explain why there were various bubbles in the U.S. economy and elsewhere—but that is not our job.
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 think there is more of an emphasis on problem-centered theories and research—why do countries intervene in civil wars? How do countries cooperate to manage a particular issue? This middle range work is informed by people’s orientations towards the big IR theory debates, but the debates are a bit more in the background these days for most people.
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 focuses on some big concepts and issues largely ignored by other approaches—identity, norms, relationships, the social stuff that gets ignored. The distinction between logics of consequences and logics of appropriateness is quite useful. So, the older traditions are mostly about costs and benefits, disagreeing about what counts as a cost or benefit whereas constructivism reminds us that people also do or do not act in particular ways because those ways are appropriate or inappropriate.
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: As an American residing in Canada, I am a lousy judge of this. I think our root concepts come from all over, but American scholars tend to study the IR literatures that are written in English. I am not sure how influential or different Anglo-American ideas are from those being studied elsewhere in the world.
Professor Stephen M. Saideman specializes in issues related to political competition and international security and the international and domestic politics of ethnic conflicts.
His teaching focuses on international security. He teaches the very large course called State Behaviour, and alternate more advanced classes in Civil-Military Relations and the International Relations of Ethnic Conflict.
JH/HK END MNA