policy-making and its implementation require a form of positivist belief in the underlying regularity of human affairs. Despite the regularities in human affairs, however, I do not accept the idea that we can construct a completely neutral theory that valid across time and space. It is too difficult to formulate the International Relations theory that allows us to predict in the same way as takes place in the natural science. A multitude of diversity and transition of the International Relations theories so far have testified this difficulty. Hence, positivist attempt of is effective only in “generalization” a limited sense that we can recognize a pattern within international relations and to formulate a general proposition. The possibility of prediction of actual human behavior by theories, which is a starting point in examining international relations, is fairly limited, much less of control of the action. In this regard, I assume that classical approaches are more suitable in raising a theory by adapting the complicated international phenomena with flexibility and grasp the core factors of them. In addition, positivism implies an image of the world in which some things are regarded as central in relation to international events whereas others are seen as specific and as such irrelevant. As a result, it becomes virtually impossible to think of a way in which any International Relations paradigms could be tested against one another. It is not simply because they have different views of the world but because they define what is the evidence in a different way. If it is not possible to provide an objective test against which explanations may be verified or falsified, it is likely that we prefer one theory to another for other non-factual reasons: normative considerations. The international system of states is related to one another in terms of common practices, customs, norms, principles and rules. They provide the basis for determining what is just or unjust on human behavior in the context of international relations. Therefore, it is crucial to have a comprehensive International Relations theory which incorporate the normative aspects with the positivist approaches. [Bibliography] Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve eds, International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995)
policy-making and its implementation require a form of positivist belief in the underlying regularity of human affairs. Despite the regularities in human affairs, however, I do not accept the idea that we can construct a completely neutral theory that valid across time and space. It is too difficult to formulate the International Relations theory that allows us to predict in the same way as takes place in the natural science. A multitude of diversity and transition of the International Relations theories so far have testified this difficulty. Hence, positivist attempt of “generalization” is effective only in a limited sense that we can recognize a pattern within international relations and to formulate a general proposition. The possibility of prediction of actual human behavior by theories, which is a starting point in examining international relations, is fairly limited, much less of control of the action. In this regard, I assume that classical approaches are more suitable in raising a theory by adapting the complicated international phenomena with flexibility and grasp the core factors of them. In addition, positivism implies an image of the world in which some things are regarded as central in relation to international events whereas others are seen as specific and as such irrelevant. As a result, it becomes virtually impossible to think of a way in which any International Relations paradigms could be tested against one another. It is not simply because they have different views of the world but because they define what is the evidence in a different way. If it is not possible to provide an objective test against which explanations may be verified or falsified, it is likely that we prefer one theory to another for other non-factual reasons: normative considerations. The international system of states is related to one another in terms of common practices, customs, norms, principles and rules. They provide the basis for determining what is just or unjust on human behavior in the context of international relations. Therefore, it is crucial to have a comprehensive International Relations theory which incorporate the normative aspects with the positivist approaches. [Bibliography] Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve eds, International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995)
positivist%20approaches%20to%20international%20relations.docx