The “End of IR Theory?” Symposium

9 September 2013, 0906 EDT

The European Journal of International Relations-Duck of Minerva symposium on “The End of International Relations Theory?” has concluded.

This is an informational post that will remain at the top of the page for the duration of the event.

The symposium runs 7 September-18 September. It features twenty-five planned posts consisting mostly of teasers of articles in the special issues and responses to those articles. Each teaser appears at 9.15am Eastern. The response to the article at 10.00am Eastern.

You can view all of the available entries in the symposium — in reverse chronological order — via the “EJIR Special Issue Symposium” tag. The schedule (below) also has links.

SAGE has ungated the special issue through early October, which means that you can download every article for free.

We encourage readers to take a look at the articles and join the conversation.

The Schedule

1. “The end of International Relations theory?“ Tim Dunne, Lene Hansen and Colin Wight. Response: Inanna Hamati-Ataya. 6 September 2013.

2. “Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations.” John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Response: Dan Reiter. 7 September 2013.

3. “The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured
pluralism in International Relations theory.” Andrew Bennett. Response: Stacie E. Goddard. 8 September 2013.

4. “The poverty of Grand Theory.” Chris Brown. Response: David Edelstein. 9 September 2013.

5. “Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in International Relations.” Charlotte Epstein.Response: Vivienne Jabri. 10 September 2013.

6. “The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing.” Stefano Guzzini. Response: Cameron Thies. 11 September 2013.

7. “International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wagers to scientific ontologies.”Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Daniel Nexon. Response: Janice Bially Mattern. 12 September 2013.

8. “Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations.” David A. Lake. Response: Phil Arena. 13 September 2013.

9. “Beyond metatheory?” Christian Reus-Smit. Response: Milja Kurki. 14 September 2013.

10. “Experiencing the end and afterlives of International Relations/theory.” Christine Sylvester. Response: Lauren Wilcox. 15 September 2013.

11. “Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations.” Arlene B. Tickner. Response: Naeem Inayatullah. 16 September 2013.

12. “In the beginning: The International Relations enlightenment and the ends of International Relations theory.” Michael C. Williams. Response: Daniel Levine. 17 September 2013.

13. Response to the Special Issue. Felix Berenskoetter. 18 September 2013.

Dan Nexon

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.