|
MAIN PAGE
> Back to contents
Politics and Society
Reference:
Grachev B.
On correlation between the paradigms of international relation and classical theories of integration
// Politics and Society.
2016. № 7.
P. 870-873.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0684.2016.7.19433 URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=19433
О соотношении парадигм международных отношений и классических теорий интеграции
Grachev Bogdan
PhD in Politics
Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences
109240, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12, str.1
|
BogdanGrachev@gmail.com
|
|
 |
Other publications by this author
|
|
|
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0684.2016.7.19433
Received:
10-06-2016
Published:
14-08-2016
Abstract:
This article is dedicated to comparison of the paradigms of the theory of international relations with the theories of classical integration. The principles of two main paradigms, political realism and liberalism, were taken as the basis for comparison with the two classical approaches to integration: federalism and functionalism. The goal of this work is determine whether or not there is a correlation between these theoretical constructs, as well as to test a hypothesis that the international concepts are located on a lower level of political research. This work provides a brief historical review of the establishment of paradigms of the theory of international relations, and determines their fundamental positions. As a result of this research the author demonstrates a secondary nature of the approaches towards integration with regards to the theory of international relations, which means that the theories of integration should be viewed as the byproduct of the highest political theories.
Keywords:
International relations, Political realism, Liberalism, Integration theories, Functionalism , Federalism, Theories of regional integration, Paradigms of international relations, Low-level theories, High-level theories
References
1. Libman A.M. Issledovaniya regional'noi integratsii v SNG i Tsentral'noi Azii: Obzor literatury. SPb., 2012. 64 s.
2. Pestsov S.K. Sovremennyi mezhdunarodnyi regionalizm: sravnitel'nyi analiz teorii i praktiki regional'nogo sotrudnichestva i integratsii. dis. … dok. polit. nauk. SPb.: SPBGU, 2006. 422 s.
3. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: Khrestomatiya / Sost., nauch. red. i komment. P.A. Tsygankova. – M.: Gardariki, 2002. 400 s.
4. Tsygankov P.A. Metodologiya. Tendentsii klassicheskikh paradigm v zapadnoi teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. 2004. № 2. S. 119-130
5. Ettsioni A. Ot imperii k soobshchestvu. Novyi podkhod k mezhdunarodnym otnosheniyam. M., 2004. 384 s.
6. Ashworth L.M. A history of international thought. NY: Routledge. – 2014. – 320 p.
7. Haas E.B. International integration: The European and the Universal process // Limits and Problems of European Integration. Hogue, 1963. p. 6-36.
8. Hörber T. The Foundations of Europe: European Integration Ideas in France, Germany and Britain. Weisbaden: VS Verlag., 2006. p. 116/
9. Laursen F. Theory and Practice of Regional Integration Jean Monnet // Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8 No. 3. 2008. p. 22.
10. Lindberg L.N. The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. – London: Oxford University Press, 1963. p. 256
11. Mitrany D. A Working Peace System. Chicago, 1966. p. 221
12. Mitrany D. Delusion of regional unity // Limits and Problems of European Integration. Hogue, 1963. p. 37-46
13. Schmitter P.C. Autonomy or dependence as regional integration outcomes: Central America Institute of International Studies. University of California, 1972. 87 p.
Link to this article
You can simply select and copy link from below text field.
|
|
