mgimoreviewВестник МГИМО-УниверситетаMGIMO Review of International Relations2071-81602541-9099MGIMO Universty Press10.24833/2071-8160-2015-6-45-30-39mgimoreview-446Research ArticleМИРОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКА. ТЕОРИЯ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙ.WORLD POLITICS. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY.Рождение мифа: начало первых «великих дебатов» в теории международных отношенийThe Creation of Myth: Starting the First "Great Debate" in International Relations TheoryАлексееваТ. А.AlekseevaT. A.Ataleks@mail.ruМосковский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) МИД РоссииРоссияMosraw State Institute of International Relations (University)Russian Federation20152812201506(45)3039Copyright © Алексеева Т.А., 20152015Алексеева Т.А.Alekseeva T.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/jour/article/view/446

Из учебника в учебник кочует рассказ о трёх (реже-четырёх) «Великих дебатах», сформировавшими каноническую историю теории международных отношений. Реальность была существенно сложнее, а теоретическое богатство многократно шире повторяющихся антиномичных пар - реализм vs. идеализм, традиционализм vs. модернизм, рационализм vs. рефлективизм. В статье рассматриваются дискуссии между представителями разных течений политической мысли в предвоенный период, позднее названных Первыми «Великими дебатами», по мнению автора статьи, носившими предпарадигмальный характер.

From one textbook to another wanders the story about three (sometimes - four) Great debates, which formed the canonical history of the theory of international relations. In reality everything was much more complicated, and the theoretical richness much wider than many times repeated antinomic pairs - realism vs. idealism, traditionalism vs. modernism, rationalism vs. reflectivism The author regards the discussions between different trends of the political thought in the interwar period, which were later called the First "Great Debates", which, according to the author's view were pre-paradigmal.

теория международных отношенийидеализмреализмсилаЛига нацийtheory of international relationsidealismrealismpowerLeague of nationsReferencesКун Т.Структура научных революций. М.: АСТ, 2009. 310 с.Кун Т.Структура научных революций. М.: АСТ, 2009. 310 с.Ashworth, Lucian M. Of Great Debates and the History of IR: Why the “Great Debate” Story is Wrong//E-International Relations Publishing. 12.02.2014. Режим доступа: www.e-ir-info/2014/02/12/of-greatdebates-and-the history of IR (дата обращения: 14.12.2015)Ashworth, Lucian M. Of Great Debates and the History of IR: Why the “Great Debate” Story is Wrong//E-International Relations Publishing. 12.02.2014. Режим доступа: www.e-ir-info/2014/02/12/of-greatdebates-and-the history of IR (дата обращения: 14.12.2015)Banks, Michael. The Evolution of International Relations Theory // Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations. Ed. by Michael Banks. Brighton: Wheatsheaf. 1984. 256 p.Banks, Michael. The Evolution of International Relations Theory // Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations. Ed. by Michael Banks. Brighton: Wheatsheaf. 1984. 256 p.Banks, Michael. The Inter-Paradigm Debate // International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory. Ed. by Light, Margot and A.J.R. Groom. London: Pinter. Pp. 7-26.Banks, Michael. The Inter-Paradigm Debate // International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory. Ed. by Light, Margot and A.J.R. Groom. London: Pinter. Pp. 7-26.Bull, Hedley. The Theory of International Politics. 1919-1969 // The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics. 1919-1969. Ed. By Brian Porter. London: Oxford University Press. 1969. Pp. 30-55.Bull, Hedley. The Theory of International Politics. 1919-1969 // The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics. 1919-1969. Ed. By Brian Porter. London: Oxford University Press. 1969. Pp. 30-55.Carr E.H. The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. NY: Perennial. 2001. 244 p.Carr E.H. The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. NY: Perennial. 2001. 244 p.Holsti, K.J. The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin. 1985. 176 p.Holsti, K.J. The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin. 1985. 176 p.International Relations and the First Great Debate. Ed.by Brian C. Schmidt. London: Routledge University Press. 2012. 192 p.International Relations and the First Great Debate. Ed.by Brian C. Schmidt. London: Routledge University Press. 2012. 192 p.Kahler, Miles. Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945 //New Thinking in International Relations Theory.Ed.by Doyle, Michael and G.John Ikenberry. Boulder: Westview Press. 1997. Pp. 395-414.Kahler, Miles. Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945 //New Thinking in International Relations Theory.Ed.by Doyle, Michael and G.John Ikenberry. Boulder: Westview Press. 1997. Pp. 395-414.Lasswell, Harold D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. NY: Meridian Books. 1958. 264 p.Lasswell, Harold D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. NY: Meridian Books. 1958. 264 p.Maghroori, Ray. Introduction: Major Debates in International Relations //Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate. Ed. by Bennet Ramberg. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1982. 237 p.Maghroori, Ray. Introduction: Major Debates in International Relations //Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate. Ed. by Bennet Ramberg. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1982. 237 p.Osiander, Andreas. Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited //International Studies Quarterly. 1998. 42 (3). P. 415. Pp. 409-432.Osiander, Andreas. Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited //International Studies Quarterly. 1998. 42 (3). P. 415. Pp. 409-432.Porter, David. David Davies and the Enforcement of Peace // Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crises: Inter-War Idealism reassessed. Ed. By Long, Davis and Peter Wilson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1995. Pp. 58-78.Porter, David. David Davies and the Enforcement of Peace // Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crises: Inter-War Idealism reassessed. Ed. By Long, Davis and Peter Wilson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1995. Pp. 58-78.Quirk, Joel and D. Vigneswaran. The Construction of an Edifice. The Story of a First Great Debate// Review of International Studies. 2005. Vol.31. № 5. Pp. 89-107.Quirk, Joel and D. Vigneswaran. The Construction of an Edifice. The Story of a First Great Debate// Review of International Studies. 2005. Vol.31. № 5. Pp. 89-107.Reus-Smit, Christian. A Strange Death of Liberal International Theory // European Journal of International Law. 2001. Vol.12. No. 3. Pp. 573-593.Reus-Smit, Christian. A Strange Death of Liberal International Theory // European Journal of International Law. 2001. Vol.12. No. 3. Pp. 573-593.Waever, Ole. Still a Discipline After All These Debates// International Relations Theories: Discipline And Diversity. Ed. by Dunne, Tim, Milja and Steve Smith ( Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. Pp. 297-318.Waever, Ole. Still a Discipline After All These Debates// International Relations Theories: Discipline And Diversity. Ed. by Dunne, Tim, Milja and Steve Smith ( Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. Pp. 297-318.Wilson, Peter. Carr and his Early Critics: Responses to The Twenty Years Crises,, 1939-1946.// Cox, Michael. (Ed.) E.H. Carr. A Critical Appraisal. London: Palgrave. 2000. Pp.165-197.Wilson, Peter. Carr and his Early Critics: Responses to The Twenty Years Crises,, 1939-1946.// Cox, Michael. (Ed.) E.H. Carr. A Critical Appraisal. London: Palgrave. 2000. Pp.165-197.Wilson, Peter. The Myth of the First Great Debate // Review of International Studies (Special Issue). 1998. Pp. 1-16.Wilson, Peter. The Myth of the First Great Debate // Review of International Studies (Special Issue). 1998. Pp. 1-16.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.