- The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science
- About the Contributors
- Between Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of International Relations
- The State and International Relations
- From International Relations to Global Society
- The Point is Not Just to Explain the World but to Change It
- A Disabling Discipline?
- Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations
- The Ethics of Realism
- The Ethics of Marxism
- Neoliberal Institutionalism
- The Ethics of Neoliberal Institutionalism
- The New Liberalism
- The Ethics of the New Liberalism
- The English School
- The Ethics of the English School
- The Ethics of Constructivism
- Critical Theory
- The Ethics of Critical Theory
- The Ethics of Postmodernism
- The Ethics Of Feminism
- Methodological Individualism and Rational Choice
- Sociological Approaches
- Psychological Approaches
- Quantitative Approaches
- Case Study Methods
- Historical Methods
- International Political Economy
- Strategic Studies
- Foreign‐Policy Decision‐Making
- International Ethics
- International Law
- Scholarship and Policy‐Making: Who Speaks Truth to Whom?
- International Relations: The Relevance of Theory to Practice
- International Relations from Below
- International Relations Theory from a Former Hegemon
- The Concept of Power and the (Un)discipline of International Relations
- Locating Responsibility: The Problem of Moral Agency in International Relations
- Big Questions in the Study of World Politics
- The Failure of Static and the Need for Dynamic Approaches to International Relations
- Six Wishes for a More Relevant Discipline of International Relations
- Name Index
- Subject Index
Abstract and Keywords
Historically speaking, the study of international relations has largely concerned the study of states and the effects of anarchy on their foreign policies, the patterns of their interactions, and the organization of world politics. However, over the last several decades, the discipline as begun moving away from the study of ‘international relations’ and toward the study of ‘global society’. This shift from ‘international relations’ to ‘global society’ is reflective of several important developments that are the focus of this article. The article begins with a discussion of the anarchy thematic and what John Agnew (1994) has called ‘the territorial trap’, and surveys some of the critical forces that compelled international relations scholars to free themselves from this trap. It then explores the shifts in the what, who, how, and why of the study of international relations. It considers the terminological shift from the study of international governance to the study of global governance, justified because the purposes of global governance no longer reflect solely the interests of states but now also include other actors, including international organizations, transnational corporations, nongovernmental organizations, and new kinds of networks.
Michael Barnett is University Professor of International Affairs and Political Science, George Washington University.
Kathryn Sikkink is a Regents Professor and McKnight Distinguished University Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.