print

International political thought:
challenges and renewal. Dialogue of political scientists

Alekseyeva T.A.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, ataleks@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 1361 |

Lebedeva M.M.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, mmlebedeva@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 250953 | ORCID: 0000-0003-4162-0807 | RESEARCHER_ID: C-2309-2013

Article received: 2025.06.09 19:38. Accepted: 2025.07.16 19:38


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.05.02
EDN: LUGSTQ

Rubric: Political theory (To the anniversary of RAS Academician A.V. Torkunov)

For citation:

Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M. International political thought: challenges and renewal. Dialogue of political scientists. – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.05.02. EDN: LUGSTQ (In Russ.)

This article was prepared under the RSF grant No. 23-18-01045 “The Transfer of Potential of Political Science in the System of Socio-Humanitarian Knowledge.”

Abstract

The presented discussion addresses new challenges which political science and international studies face in the contemporary world: what is happening and what are the trends in their development? The authors approach these questions from two perspectives: that of the development of reality itself and that of the evolution of political science and international studies. It is noted that in the Soviet Union and in Western countries these fields evolved in different ways. In the 20th century, western political science and international studies developed largely parallel to each other, whereas in the USSR, there were only international relations, which were largely based on historical science. Political science as a separate academic and educational discipline did not exist in the Soviet Union, which resulted in numerous contradictory consequences, including negative ones. However, later in Russia, this did not lead to the formation of the rigid institutional barriers between the two disciplines – political science and international relations. In the Soviet Union, issues of international relations theory were studied largely through the lens of criticism of bourgeois doctrines. At the same time, for example, in MGIMO, IMEMO, and a number of other centres, theoretical questions were raised. The discussion shows that scientific knowledge is a product of a specific socio-cultural environment; it depends on language and cultural-historical meanings. At the same time, it is noted that it is inevitable to transcend the patterns established not only in the scientificbureaucratic dialect, but also in the description and comprehension of problems. Three more issues were raised during the discussion. Two of them are largely traditional. These are questions of theory and practice in research, as well as the relationship of scientists with authority, society and business. The third problem is a relatively new one: digital technologies and the way in which they affect, on the one hand, the world of politics, on the other – international research and political science.

Keywords

political science, international research, challenges of science, methodology, theory, practice, scientific revolutions, identity.

Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (Ed.). (2010). Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York; London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861431

Dahlström, C., & Lapuente, V. (2022). Comparative bureaucratic politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 43-63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 314. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2226592

Heinzel, M. (2022). Divided loyalties? The role of national IO staff in aid-funded procurement. Governance, 35(4), 1183-1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12650

Kurer, Th., & Palier, B. (2019). Shrinking and shouting: the political revolt of the declining middle in times of employment polarization. Research and Politics, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019831164

Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. (2010). Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics. 8(2), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1537592710001179

Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400825998

Zartman, I.W. & Berman, M.R. (1982). The practical negotiator. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Arbatov, G.A. (1991). Speech. Materials of the scientific discussion “The Place and Role of the USSR in the World Civilization Process.” Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, 3, 3-17. (In Russ.)

Balatskiy, E.V. (2010). Crisis in humanities and the “old” markets competition. Sociological Journal, 2, 118-133. (In Russ.)

Danilin, I.V. (2020). The impact of digital technologies on leadership in global processes: from platforms to markets? MGIMO Review of International Relations, 13(1), 100-116. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-1-70-100-116

Fenenko, A. (2023). International order as a category of international studies: theoretical foundations. International Trends, 21(1), 6-42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.1.72.8

Gantman, V.I. (Ed.). (1976). Sovremennye burzhuaznye teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Modern bourgeois theories of international relations]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)

Irkhin, Yu.V. (2015). Formation of faculties of moral and political sciences at Russian universities. Central Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 10(4), 56-64. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.12737/11972

Kosevich, Ye.Yu. (2020). Mexico in the system of geopolitical coordinates at the beginning of the 21st century. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya. (In Russ.)

Lebedeva, M.M., & Lobanov, S.I. (1988). Training of qualified diplomats. USA: Economics, Politics, Culture, 5, 106-109. (In Russ.)

Torkunov A.V. (2019). International studies: chaos or pluralism? Polis. Political Studies, 5, 7-18. (In Russ). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.05.02

Torkunov A.V. (2025). MGIMO phenomenon. Post-anniversary notes. MGIMO Review of International Relations,18(1), 7-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2025-1-100-7-21

Zinovieva, E., & Bulva, V. (2021). EU digital sovereignty. Contemporary Europe, 2, 40-49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/soveurope220214049

Zinovieva, E.S., & Shitkov, S.V. (2024). Is the BRICS on the way of gaining digital sovereignty? National Strategy Issues, 2, 144-163. (In Russ.)

See also: