ABSTRACT
An intense debate between contending approaches to the understanding of world politics has characterised the theoretical scene in International Relations1 since the late 1980s. Various reasons can be proposed to explain this theoretical ferment: a ‘linguistic turn’ in many of the social sciences; dissatisfaction with the positivist approaches that have been dominant in the discipline; or a reaction to the rise of social movements concerned with sexism, racism and the environment. A further factor contributing to this intellectual tumult is the scale of the changes that have happened worldwide over the past decade. These have included the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the apparent discrediting of Marxism, and the impacts of globalisation. It is hard to argue with the view that ‘international theorists are now condemned to live in interesting times’ (Smith, S. 1992:490). The dominant theoretical framework of the discipline, Realism, has been singularly unsuccessful in offering guidance to explain these global developments. As a result there has been a splintering of the discipline. Although many have retained their loyalty to Realism (arguing that, despite its weaknesses, Realism still provides the best explanation of the ‘core’ issues of international politics, war and peace), others have sought alternatives.
