Evolution of IR as an Academic Discipline

International Relations became a formal academic discipline after World War I. Scholars wanted to understand why wars happened and how to prevent them.

First Great Debate (1930s–1940s): Idealism vs Realism

Idealists (later called Liberals): believed in international law, morality, and international organizations to prevent war.
Realists: argued that power politics and national interest are the core reality of international relations.

After World War II, Realism became dominant because idealist institutions like the League of Nations had failed.

Second Great Debate (1950s–1960s): Traditionalism vs Behavioralism

• Traditional approaches used history, philosophy, and legal analysis to study IR
• Behavioralists pushed for scientific methods, statistics, and empirical data

This debate focused on whether IR should be more like a social science with measurable laws.

Third Great Debate (1980s): Neorealism vs Neoliberalism

• Neorealists argued that the international system is anarchic and states always pursue power
• Neoliberals argued that international institutions and cooperation can reduce conflict and promote stability

This debate centered on whether institutions really matter in an anarchic world.

Fourth Great Debate (1990s–Present): Positivism vs Post-Positivism

• Positivists: believe IR should be studied using scientific, objective methods
• Post-positivists: (including Constructivists, Feminists, Critical Theorists) argue that IR theories are shaped by power, identity, and social structures, and cannot be fully objective

This debate expanded IR beyond just states and power, focusing on ideas, identity, gender, and discourse.