Koniec zimnej wojny, transformacja Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej a moc eksplanacyjna i prognostyczna teorii stosunków międzynarodowych

Abstrakt: The aim of the article is to show the explanatory and prognostic power of theories of international relations (neorealism, neo-liberal institutionalism and social constructivism) in the situation of visible problems with predicting the end of the Cold War and explaining the democratization process in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and other parts of the world. In the face of significant changes that have influenced the formation of a new post-Cold War international order, it is necessary to consider the importance of the theory in adopting appropriate research strategies so that on the one hand, it is possible to predict the course of events with some degree of probability and on the other, to explain their essence and importance. The end of the Cold War and the process of transforming the countries of Central and Eastern Europe thus pose a general and extremely important question about the possibility of developing a scientific approach to the analysis of international relations, which goes beyond only short-term observation of current events. The article analyzes the most important theoretical approaches in the context of adopting such a research strategy, thanks to which one could depart from the dominance of extreme, mutually exclusive positions. The great debates that have been held so far have shown that wealth in science is not a one-sided approach, even if at some point or time we are dealing with the supremacy of a particular theory or a methodological approach. The fiasco of the science of international relations in predicting the end of the Cold War has shown the necessity of ndertaking such activities whose task would be to combine rather than exclude. The end of the Cold War and the transformation process of Central and Eastern Europe are therefore treated as case studies that help in testing the theory of international relations as adequate instruments for analyzing the changing international situation.

Bibliografia:

Albert M., Cederman L.-E., Wendt A.(eds), New Systems Theories of World Politics, Basingstoke 2010.
Betts R. K., Conflict or Cooperation? Three Visions Revisited, „Foreign Affairs” 2010, vol. 89, no. 6.
Biela A., Psychologiczne aspekty pielgrzymki Jana Pawła II do Polski w dniach od 2 do 10 czerwca 1979 r., „Śląskie Studia Historyczno-Teologiczne” 1980, nr 13.
Czaputowicz J., System międzynarodowy jako poziom analizy w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych, [w:] E. Haliżak, M. Pietraś (red.), Poziomy analizy stosunków międzynarodowych, Warszawa 2013.
Czaputowicz J., Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych. Krytyka i systematyzacja, Warszawa 2008.
De Mesquita B. B., The End of the Cold War: Predicting an Emergent Property, „The Journal of Conflict Resolution” 1998, vol. 42, no. 2.
Fukuyama F., Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, London 2018.
Fukuyama F., The End of History?, „The National Interest” 1989, no. 16.
Gaddis J. L., International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, „International Security” 1992/1993, vol. 17, no. 3.
Giddens A., Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Berkley – Los Angeles 1979.
Homilia Jana Pawła II w Warszawie na pl. Zwycięstwa w dniu 2 czerwca 1979, http://sanctus.pl/index.php?grupa=66&podgrupa=449&doc=398 [2.01.2019].
Hopf T., Getting the End of the Cold War Wrong, „International Security” 1993, vol. 18, no. 2.
Huntington S. P., The Clash of Civilizations?, „Foreign Affairs” 1993, vol. 72, no. 3.
Huntington S. P., Trzecia fala demokratyzacji, Warszawa 2009.
Huntington S. P., Zderzenie cywilizacji i nowy kształt ładu światowego, Warszawa 1998.
Jackson R., Sørensen G., Wprowadzenie do stosunków międzynarodowych. Teorie i kierunki badawcze, Kraków 2006.
Jackson R., Sørensen G., Møller J., Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Seventh Edition, Oxford 2018.
Jervis R., Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation. Understanding the Debate, „International Security” 1999, vol. 24, no. 1.
Kennedy P., The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York 1988.
Keohane R. O., Foreword, [w:] M. Telò, International Relations: A European Perspective, London – New York 2009.
Keohane R. O., Martin L. L., The Promise of Institutionalist Theory, „International Security” 1995, vol. 20, no. 1.
Kondrakiewicz D., System międzynarodowy jako kategoria w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Teka Politologii i Stosunków Międzynarodowych” 2016, vol. 11, no. 3.
Lebow R. N., Risse-Kappen T., Introduction: International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, [w:] R. Ned Lebow, T. Risse-Kappen (eds), International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, New York 1995.
Łoś-Nowak T., O potrzebie rekonstrukcji przestrzeni badawczej w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Refleksje natury polityczno-normatywnej, systemowej i metaforycznej, „Przegląd Politologiczny” 2011, nr 1.
Mearsheimer, J., Back to the Future. Instability in Europe After the Cold War, „International Security” 1990, vol. 15, no. 1.
Morgenthau H. J., Polityka między narodami. Walka o potęgę i pokój, Warszawa 2010.
Nau H. R., Why ‘The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers’ Was Wrong, „Review of International Studies” 2001, vol. 27, no. 4.
Nye J., Konflikty międzynarodowe. Wprowadzenie do teorii i historii, Warszawa 2009.
Parsons T., The Role of Theory in Social Research, „American Sociological Review” 1938, vol. 3, no. 1.
Podraza A., Geopolitical and Strategic Causes and Implications of the Syrian Civil War and the Refugee Crisis, „Nação e defesa” 2018, nr 149.
Podraza A., The decline of the United States and the survival of NATO in the post-Cold War period – a theoretical discussion, [w:] A. Podraza (ed.), Transatlantic or European perspective of world affairs: NATO and the European Union towards problems of international security in the 21st century, Alcala de Henares – Madrid 2018.
Podraza A., Unia Europejska w procesie reform traktatowych, Lublin 2007.
Quester G. H., Before and After the Cold War: Using Past Forecasts to Predict the Future, London 2002.
Sprinz D. F., Wolinsky-Nahmias Y. (eds), Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, Ann Arbor 2004.
Sterling-Folker J., Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared, „International Studies Quarterly” 2000, vol. 44, no. 1.
Turowski J., A. Giddensa teoria strukturacji a teoria konstruktywizmu strukturalnego P. Bourdieu, „Roczniki Nauk Społecznych” 2005, t. 33, nr 1.
Walt S. M., A Model Disagreement, „International Security” 1999, vol. 24, no. 2.
Waltz K., Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power, [w:] R. O. Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, New York 1986.
Waltz K., Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, New York 2001.
Waltz K., The Emerging Structure of International Politics, „International Security” 1993, vol. 18, no. 2.
Wawrzonkowski K., Koniec historii Francisa Fukuyamy z perspektywy dwudziestu lat od ukazania się dzieła, „Studia z Historii Filozofii” 2013, t. 4, nr 1.
Wendt A. E., The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory, „International Organization” 1987, vol. 41, no. 3.

PDF: Pobierz