The relationship between critical international relations (IR) and the conventional mainstream or alleged ‘orthodoxy’ needs to be better articulated. Without connecting to previous theory it cannot logically seek to introduce new ‘turns’ for disciplinary development, and intellectual movement remains isolated choreography contributing to a field that is global only in the scope of its dispersion. Proceeding from this argument, the article undertakes some of the ‘groundwork’ so often neglected in the interests of coming up with new theory and approaches or of presenting the ‘next stage’ for disciplinary discussion. A reexamination of ‘post-positivism’ as a corporate self-definition of critical IR produces an identification of the disciplinary mainstream that highlights the legacy of IR theory in theory-centred approaches and universal taxonomy, thereby providing a locus for a pragmatist turn in the study of IR. Although pragmatist approaches have already won a place in the field, the challenge remains of transcending the dichotomies of the episteme that leaves this research at the margins of the mainstream. Pragmatism is a way of inquiry opposed to dogmatism and can facilitate communication through which a more global discipline can be created. The way proposed by the author combines Deweyan ethics with C. S. Peirce’s logic of the sign.
This article asks what opportunities are available to start untying the persistent deadlock in the Nagorny Karabakh (NK) conflict when we take into account not only the positions of the conflict parties but also the fact that Russia’s strategic interests define its stance on the negotiation process and promote certain conditions for settlement. These conditions recognize Russia’s existing military presence in the region as well as the political and economic influence embedded in its Eurasian integration projects. The article does not advocate any parties’ interests, and it does not claim to present conditions which are acceptable to any of the parties. Instead, it examines how Russia’s interests in the wider region, which includes Turkey and Iran, relate to the basic elements of settlement which have been identified in the Minsk Process as the elaboration of the “Basic Principles”. We argue that understanding how these two action frames are interconnected in the Russian policy argumentation is the key to understanding its approach to conflict settlement in NK. Our main analytical point of departure is to unfold strategic perspectives by examining immediate and strategic goals in the policy argumentation. Empirically, the article concentrates on analysing the policy discourse connected with the major incidents of ceasefire violations in July–August 2014 and April 2016.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.