The relevance of International Relations (IR) theory to policymaking has been a subject of ongoing scholarly debate. A widespread yet problematic assumption persists in policy discourse that theories are purely abstract constructs, lacking practical applicability. Addressing this assumption, the article critically evaluates the extent to which IR theories hold practical value and significance for policymakers engaged in international politics.

To substantiate this analysis empirically, the authors conducted a field survey involving 50 active and retired diplomats representing 32 countries across five continents. The survey examined respondents' perceptions of the utility, applicability, and limitations of IR theories in the context of their diplomatic and policymaking practices. Complementing these primary findings, the article integrates scholarly discussions and casebased examples from international politics, thereby providing a comprehensive assessment of how IR theories serve as analytical tools for both practitioners and scholars. The study identifies central arguments underpinning the perceived limitations of IR theories, while simultaneously emphasizing their practical strengths. According to survey results, the majority of diplomats affirmed the continuing relevance of IR theories, noting their utility in diagnosing international events, elucidating causal relationships, assessing impacts, and informing strategic analysis. Furthermore, the findings highlight the inherent international applicability of dominant IR paradigms, which broadly encompass contemporary global political developments.

Respondents advocated for stronger interaction between academia and policymakers, underscoring the necessity of making IR theories more accessible and comprehensible for diplomatic practitioners. Additionally, the diplomats suggested that IR theorists should pursue greater intellectual and ideological neutrality to enhance the practical value of their analytical frameworks.

In conclusion, the field survey and subsequent analysis demonstrate that characterizing IR theories as merely abstract constructs is inaccurate. On the contrary, IR theories constitute indispensable analytical instruments enabling policymakers to interpret, assess, and effectively navigate the complexities of contemporary international politics.

This article examines the interaction between the political elites of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) and the Kingdom of Poland in the context of the emergence of the Westphalian system of international relations during the seventeenth century. Applying a systemic approach, the composite-state concept, and the theory of confessionalization, the study investigates how the international environment influenced political dynamics between the Lithuanian and Polish elites.

From the moment of signing the Union of Lublin in 1569, the elites of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania sought to affirm their equal status with their Polish counterparts and consistently defended their political interests, particularly in foreign affairs. These interactions intensified notably during the seventeenth century due to significant political and confessional transformations in Europe, culminating during and after the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), which were institutionalized by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

The study demonstrates that, despite periodic disagreements between the elites of Poland and the GDL, neither side viewed the other as an adversary. Instead, they were united by a shared constitutional structure, a common cultural identity forged through the process of Polonization in the GDL, and the necessity to uphold the international standing of the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth within the emerging Westphalian order in Europe.

The author concludes that the formation of the Westphalian system significantly shaped interactions between the Lithuanian and Polish elites. The international environment of that period fostered integration rather than the disintegration of the two components of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Although confessional and political alliances often shifted rapidly and internal disputes emerged regularly, shared external challenges—particularly those posed by powerful rivals such as the Tsardom of Muscovy and Sweden—encouraged the elites of both constituent parts to reconcile their interests and strengthen unity. Thus, mid-seventeenth-century international developments served as a crucial external factor, shaping the political interactions between the Polish and Lithuanian elites and reinforcing internal consolidation within the Commonwealth in the context of the newly established Westphalian international order.

The article presents an in-depth examination of previously unexplored historical materials regarding the role of Russian naval forces in supporting Russia's first diplomatic mission established in Greece shortly after the country gained independence. Drawing on a range of newly discovered archival documents from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this research sheds light on the activities and contributions of Russian warships belonging to the Black Sea Fleet, which operated near the Peloponnese in close proximity to the Greek diplomatic establishments in Nafplio and Athens. Due to the restrictive conditions set forth by earlier Russian-Turkish treaties, Russia required special permission from the Ottoman Empire to pass its naval vessels through the Black Sea straits. This unique arrangement allowed a limited number of light warships to provide logistical support, facilitate urgent diplomatic assignments, and ensure secure diplomatic correspondence.
The Russian naval presence was notably concentrated on the island of Poros, strategically located near the port of Piraeus. This location served as a vital operational base, fostering closer diplomatic and maritime cooperation between Russia and the newly formed Greek state. Noteworthy among the commanders who annually rotated into this diplomatic naval service were future prominent figures in Russian naval history: young lieutenants Vladimir Kornilov, Vladimir Istomin, and Yevfimiy Putyatin. These officers, who would later gain widespread recognition as distinguished admirals and diplomats, gained invaluable early career experience through their assignments in Greek waters.
The study further emphasizes the multifaceted role of Russian naval forces, not only in providing diplomatic and logistical support but also in conducting critical surveillance, intelligence gathering, and protection of merchant shipping throughout the Greek Archipelago. Ultimately, this detailed investigation underscores the significant yet largely unrecognized contribution of the Russian Black Sea Fleet to Russian-Greek diplomatic relations, illuminating an important chapter in maritime and diplomatic history during Greece's formative years as an independent state.

The State Archives of the Russian Federation and the Manuscript Department of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) hold a significant collection of previously unpublished letters written by Russian diplomat Mikhail Alexandrovich Khitrovo (1837–1896) to his senior colleague and notable statesman Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev (1832–1908). This article represents the first detailed scholarly analysis of this historically valuable epistolary corpus, comprising 76 letters, with a focused examination of 66 letters dating from Khitrovo’s tenure as a diplomatic official attached to the Governor-General of Novorossiya and Bessarabia from 1868 to 1871.

The study begins by presenting essential biographical information about Khitrovo, emphasizing his distinguished lineage as a great-grandson of Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov, and provides contrasting assessments of his character and professional capabilities as recorded by his contemporaries. After situating Khitrovo within the broader historiographical context and reviewing existing scholarly works dedicated to his diplomatic career, the author turns to a thorough examination of the archival materials. The letters are carefully characterized, with particular attention given to their thematic richness, which includes detailed reporting on regional developments, incisive observations on Russian foreign policy, evaluations of local administrative authorities, and reflective commentary on significant political events unfolding in and around Odessa.

Through careful textual analysis, the article highlights the letters' value in elucidating the multifaceted responsibilities and day-to-day realities of a Russian diplomatic official in the late 19th century. Moreover, these personal correspondences are shown to complement and enrich Khitrovo’s published articles and essays, thereby deepening our understanding of his intellectual and political stances. The article concludes by underscoring the broader significance of this epistolary collection, asserting that its publication and further study would offer critical insights into the operational complexities of Russian diplomacy, as well as provide a more comprehensive portrait of Khitrovo as a prominent yet controversial figure within the diplomatic milieu of his era.

The contemporary volatility in U.S.–Turkish relations underscores the need to revisit their historical underpinnings. The Turkish domestic crisis of 1977–1980 unfolded against the backdrop of deteriorating bilateral relations with Washington and was embedded within a wider spectrum of global instability. This conjunction of events prompted U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to articulate the notion of an “Arc of Crisis” spanning the Eastern Mediterranean and the broader Middle East.

This article examines the evolution of U.S. perceptions of the Turkish political crisis during the initial phase of the Carter administration (1977–1978), with particular attention to the intersection of domestic turmoil in Turkey and American strategic calculations in the region. The analysis draws on a diverse set of primary sources, including declassified documents from the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series, internal State Department cables, National Security Council memoranda, and Central Intelligence Agency assessments.

The findings suggest that, up until the declaration of martial law in December 1978, the Carter administration treated the Turkish crisis not as a self-contained domestic development but as a component of broader programmatic foreign policy goals. These included the stabilization of NATO’s southeastern flank and the management of geopolitical realignment following détente. However, Washington's delayed recognition of the severity of the Turkish crisis, coupled with a lack of coherent policy engagement, contributed to missed opportunities for early mitigation.

From a longer-term perspective, the article argues that the Carter administration’s hesitant and inconsistent approach helped entrench a pattern of mistrust in Ankara toward U.S. policy, laying the foundations for structural tensions that continue to shape U.S.–Turkish relations in the post-Cold War era.

The article explores narratives of traumatic historical events presented in Japanese museums of historical memory, with a particular focus on representations related to Japan's involvement in World War II and its colonial past. Utilizing theoretical frameworks of historical memory as a form of social construction and symbolic politics, the authors analyze museum exhibitions as tools for disseminating specific historical narratives, which significantly influence contemporary public discourse and collective identity in Japan. The research is structured around an analysis of four representative case studies: the Yushukan Museum, the Memorial Museum for Soldiers, Detainees in Siberia, and Postwar Repatriates, the Northern Territories Museum, and the Women's Active Museum on War and Peace. Each museum reflects distinct mnemonic traditions—radical conservative, moderate conservative, and progressive—and employs varied strategies and methodologies to convey their particular historical narratives. Through these case studies, the article identifies five ideal-typical memory models as defined by Matteo Dian: glorification of the past, self-victimization, historical amnesia, acknowledgment of guilt, and genuine repentance. The analysis demonstrates how each museum utilizes different representational mechanisms—such as textual information, visual displays, personal narratives, and emotional appeals—to foster specific interpretations of history. The authors argue that the diversity of historical narratives within Japanese memory museums results from competing mnemonic traditions and actors within society, including political parties, government institutions, religious organizations, and civic groups. The coexistence of state-supported and private museums further reinforces narrative pluralism. This pluralism reflects ongoing societal debates around Japan's wartime actions and continues to shape national identity, historical consciousness, and international relations.

The article examines the World Council of Churches' (WCC) response to the Ukrainian crisis (2022–2024) through the lens of critical international relations theory. The author conceptualizes the WCC as a distinctive form of transnational 'organic intellectuals' within global Christianity, operating via its established bureaucratic apparatus and relying primarily on financial resources provided by Protestant churches in Europe and North America. The methodological approach is based on qualitative analysis of the WCC’s official documents and public statements, highlighting how the Council, in its capacity as organic intellectuals, actively promotes and institutionalizes universalist values aligned with the Western liberal model of modernity. Particular attention is given to the Council’s decision to refrain from excluding the Russian Orthodox Church despite strongly criticizing Russia’s actions in the Ukrainian conflict. The author argues that this decision reflects the WCC’s aim to preserve interchurch dialogue and maintain influence over the Russian Orthodox Church, thus expanding its position and role within the global Christian community. The article concludes that the institutional characteristics and Western orientation of the WCC constrain its capacity to act as a neutral mediator.