Patrick James, Realism and international relations: a graphic turn toward scientific progress

Abstract

Patrick James occupies a somewhat unique position among contemporary realist international relations scholars. First, unlike most realists, James is actively involved in quantitative research on war and conflict, acting as one of the current co-directors of the International Crisis Behavior project. Second, James takes the criticisms of the realist paradigm seriously. A previous theoretical treatise, International Relations and Scientific Progress (James 2002) offered a carefully considered response to the arguments of Vasquez (1997) that the realist research programme on the balance of power is degenerative, unable to account for the failure of balances to form among states without endless ad hoc emendation, producing numerous incompatible variants of realism. Offering a very detailed interrogation of the core axioms of the theory, James argued that structural realism is worth the effort to reconstruct and elaborate. Twenty years later, James continues this project in Realism and International Relations: A Graphic Turn Towards Scientific Progress, restating the argument that it would be unwise for the international relations discipline to jettison realism, due to the power of the core intuitions underpinning the paradigm and the long history of realist theorising. Acknowledging that the international relations discipline is overwhelmed with alternative theories—claims about the death of IR theory notwithstanding—James avers that a detailed, systematic comparison of realist theories is overdue (113, 150). The aim is to clarify the causal mechanisms proposed by alternative realist theories to meet the challenge of critics such as Vasquez. This is accomplished through a careful reconstruction and defense of the realist paradigm, engaging with the past two decades of debates about philosophy of social science in international relations, as well as through a ‘systemist’ method of representing theories graphically. In terms of the philosophy of social science, James draws on analytical eclecticism, which calls for breaking down paradigmatic barriers in building theoretical explanations. His project shares its concern with mechanisms, middle-range explanations and bridge-building across theoretical traditions. Yet although analytical eclecticism can be ‘part of the way forward’ (91), James wishes to retain elements of paradigmatic research, integrating mechanisms into coherent causal explanations. The framework for this integrative project is the philosopher Mario Bunge’s ‘systemism’, which examines social processes in terms of a set of causal connections: macro-macro, macro-micro, micro-macro, micro-micro, from the environment and to the environment. A fully elaborated theory of international relations would specify each of these connections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2023