Postgraduate Student, Department of International Organisations and Diplomatic Service, Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Abstract. The article deals with diplomacy as an object of scientific research and the fundamental institution of daily international life, as opposed to other institutions, such as war. The author proceeds from the assumption that diplomacy is often neglected in international studies and is considered methodologically redundant. Therefore, the article examines approaches to diplomacy and security currently used in scientific circulation and proposes ways of combining and further refining them in order to enhance their explanatory potential and rectify numerous theoretical and methodological shortcomings in traditional paradigms of international relations theory, to wit: an excessively generalised division of international actors into ‘security seekers’ and ‘greedy states’ as well as ‘revisionist states’ and ‘power-seekers,’ which lacks detail and fails to provide a complete understanding of a certain state’s strategy; a noticeable focus on the role of great powers; a superficial perception of the significance of ideas, values and identities. With this in mind, the author analyses scientific publications of scholars representing the English school of international relations (Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, Barry Buzan, etc.) and praxeology, also known as the theory of social practices, introduced into academic parlance by Pierre Bourdieu.
The article concludes that utilising innovative findings of praxeology with the ontology of the English school results in creating a new view on diplomacy, trespassing the confines of classical rationality and overcoming causal determinism inherent in the English school. Drawing upon the concepts used in Pierre Bourdieu’s theory (habitus, doxa, field, hysteresis), the author infers that both Ukraine and russia do not recognise the doxa of the European security order, thus finding themselves in the state of hysteresis. The conclusion therefore has practical significance for further research into the russian-Ukrainian war and its security implications.
Keywords: diplomacy, security, English school, praxeology, practices.
1. Adler, E. (2005). Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations. London and New York: Routledge.
2. Adler, E. (2008). The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post-Cold War Transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 220.
3. Adler-Nissen, R. (ed.). (2013). Bourdieu in International Relations. Rethinking key concepts in IR. London and New York: Routledge, 98.
4. Balzacq, T. et al. (2010). Security Practices. International Studies Encyclopedia Online, 2.
5. Barry, B. (2015). The English School: a neglected approach to International Security Studies. Security Dialogue, 46 (2), 131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010614555944
6. Berling, T. (2012). Bourdieu, International Relations and European Security. Theory and Society, 41(5), 451–478. DOI: 10.1177/096701061455594
7. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and Immigration. Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease, Alternatives, 27(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105
8. Bueger, C. (2013). Communities of Security Practice at Work? The Emerging African Maritime Security Regime. African Security, 6(3–4), 301. DOI: 10.1080/19392206.2013.853579
9. Bueger, C. (2016). Security as practice, in Dunn Cavelty, M., Balzacq, T. (eds). Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 126–135 from https://www.academia.edu/24761698/Security_as_practice DOI: 10.4324/9781315753393
10. Cohen, R. (1998). Putting diplomatic studies on the map. DSP Newsletter, 4 May, 1.
11. Costa-Buranelli, F. (2014). The English School and Regional International Societies: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections, in Karmazin, A., Costa-Buranelli, F., Zhang, Y., Merke, F. (eds). Regions in International Society: The English School at the Sub-Global Level. Brno: Masaryk University Press, 22–44. DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-6787-2014
12. Huysmans, J. (2002). Shape-Shifting NATO: Humanitarian Action and the Kosovo Refugee Crisis. Review of International Studies, 28(3), 599–618. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210502005995
13. Kranser, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 71.
14. Law, J. (2009). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics, in Turner, B. (ed.). The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, p. 6 from http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf DOI: 10.1002/9781444304992.ch7
15. Melissen, J. (2011). Diplomatic studies in the right season. International Studies Review, 13(4), 723–725.
16. Neumann, I. (2002). The English School on Diplomacy. Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael). Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, 79, 9.
17. Suganami, H. (1983). The Structure of Institutionalism: an Anatomy of British Mainstream International Relations. International Relations, 7(5), 2367, 2375, 2379. DOI: 10.1177/004711788300700508
18. Swidler, A. (2001). What anchors cultural practices, in Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., Von Savigny, E. (eds.). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge, 85. DOI: 10.4324/9780203977453
19. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Wight, M. (1991). International Theory. The Three Traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 137.
21. Marx, K., Engels, F. (1955). Sochineniya: v 30 t. [Collected Works: in 30 Volumes]. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1. (in Russian)