Colombia Internacional

Colomb. int. | eISSN 1900-6004 | ISSN 0121-5612

Las máquinas nomológicas de las relaciones internacionales: el cuento de las explicaciones tipo-ley de la síntesis neo-neo

No. 117 (2024-01-01)
  • Enzo Lenine
    Universidade Federal da Bahia (Brazil)
    Identificador ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5280-4252
  • Mariana Lyra
    Universidade da Integração Internacional da Lusofonia Afro-Brasileira (Brasil)
    Identificador ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6519-9469
https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint117.2024.05

Resumen

Objetivo/contexto: este artículo presenta los debates sobre el concepto de máquinas nomológicas de Nancy Cartwright aplicado a la teoría de las relaciones internacionales. Lo que la síntesis neo-neo reivindica como esencia del sistema internacional es un conjunto de condiciones impuestas a los fenómenos internacionales para que estos encajen en las propias teorías. El artículo sostiene que las explicaciones tipo-ley diseñadas por el neorrealismo y el neoliberalismo no son en absoluto una representación del mundo tal y como es, sino más bien una predicción del mundo tal y como estas teorías quieren que sea. Metodología: el estudio revisa de manera crítica los fundamentos de las teorías neo-neo, sugiriendo una metodología filosófica al replantear los términos ontológicos del neorrealismo y neoliberalismo basándose en el concepto de máquinas nomológicas. Conclusiones: este artículo propone que las teorías neo-neo podrían beneficiarse de un enfoque orientado a las capacidades, que ofrece una comprensión menos categórica de cómo se adaptan las explicaciones de los fenómenos internacionales, permitiendo que principios alternativos proporcionen valiosas perspectivas sobre el sistema internacional. Originalidad: este trabajo innova al entrecruzar las ideas de las máquinas nomológicas con el debate metateórico sobre las relaciones internacionales, permitiendo así un avance teórico.

Palabras clave: nomological machines, philosophy of science, philosophy of IR, IR theory, neo-neo synthesis

Referencias

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Axelrod, Robert, and Robert O. Keohane. 1985. “Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38 (1): 226-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010357 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010357

Baldwin, David A. 1993. “Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics.” In Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, edited by David A. Baldwin, 3-25. New York: Columbia University Press.

Banks, Michael. 1985. “The Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory, edited by Margot Light and A. J. R. Groom, 7-26. London: Frances Pinter.

Bergman, Theodore L., Adrienne S. Lavine, Frank P. Incropera, and David P. Dewitt. 2011. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (7th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley & Sons Inc.

Burchill, Scott, and Andrew Linklater. 2001. “Introduction.” In Theories of International Relations (3rd ed.), edited by Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True, 1-28. New York: Palgrave.

Cartwright, Nancy. 1998. “Capacities.” In The Handbook of Economic Methodology, edited by John B. Davis, D. Wade Hands, and Uskali Mäki, 45-48. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167093

Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618758

Chernoff, Fred. 2007. Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230606883

Chernoff, Fred. 2014. Explanation and Progress in Security Studies: Bridging Theoretical Divides in International Relations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Dowding, Keith. 2016. The Philosophy and Methods of Political Science. London: Palgrave. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-57270-7

Farr, James. 1995. “Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science.” In Political Science in History, edited by James Farr, John Dryzek, and Stephen Leonard, 198-224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fearon, James, and Alexander Wendt. 2006. “Rationalism vs. constructivism: a skeptical view.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 52-72. London: SAGE Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608290.n3

Gintis, Herbert. 2009. Game Theory Evolving (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Griecco, Joseph M. 1993. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” In Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, edited by David A. Baldwin, 485-507. New York: Columbia University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027715

Hawkesworth, Mary. 2015. “Contending Conceptions of Science and Politics: Methodology and the Constitution of the Political.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, 27-49. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315703275-3

Hédoin, Cyril. 2014. “Models in Economics Are Not (Always) Nomological Machines: A Pragmatic Approach to Economists’ Modeling Practices.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (4): 424-459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393112458715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393112458715

Herrmann, Richard K. 2006. “Linking Theory to Evidence in International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 119-136. London: SAGE Publications.

Hindmoor, Andrew, and Brad Taylor. 2015. Rational Choice (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-42744-1

Holsti, K. J. 1985. The dividing discipline: hegemony and diversity in international theory. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Jervis, Robert. 1999. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate.” International Security 24 (1): 42-63. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560040

Kaplan, Morton. 1969. “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations.” In Contending Approaches to International Politics, edited by James Rosenay, 39-61. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400886005-004

Keohane, Robert O. 1986. “Reciprocity in International Relations.” International Organization 40 (1): 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004458

Keohane, Robert O. 1994. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph Nye Jr. 2012. Power and Interdependence (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Kirkpatrick, Evron. 1962. “The Impact of the Behavioral Approach on Traditional Political Science.” In Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics, edited by Austin Ranney, 1-30. Urbana Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 2017. A estrutura das revoluções científicas (13th ed.). São Paulo: Perspectiva.

Kurki, Milja. 2008. Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491481

Kurki, Milja, and Colin Wight. 2021. “International Relations and Social Science.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 13-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0001

Lamy, Steven. 2008. “Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, 124-141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lapid, Yosef. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457

Lebow, Richard Ned. 2014. Constructing Cause in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107256538

Lebow, Richard Ned. 2022. The Quest for Knowledge in International Relations: How do we know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009106573

Lebow, Richard Ned, and Thomas Risse-Kappen. 1996. “Introduction: International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War.” In International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, edited by Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen, 6-19. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lenine, Enzo. 2018. “Explanation as prediction: The raison d’être of formal models in political science.” Revista Política Hoje 27 (1): 152-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51359/1808-8708.2018.234392

Lenine, Enzo. 2020. “The pulse-like nature of decisions in rational choice theory.” Rationality and Society 32 (4): 485-508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463120961578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463120961578

Nicholson, Michael. 1992. Rationality and the Analysis of International Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598739

Mearsheimer, John J. 2021. “Structural Realism.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 51-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0003

Nye Jr, Joseph. 1988. “Neorealism and Neoliberalism.” World Politics 40 (2): 235-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010363 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010363

Powell, Robert. 1999. In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691213989

Quirk, Joel, and Darshan Vigneswaran. 2005. “The construction of an edifice: the story of a First Great Debate.” Review of International Studies 31 (1): 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210505006315 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210505006315

Shapere, Dudley. 1964. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Philosophical Review 73 (3): 383-94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183664 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183664

Smith, Steve. 1996. “Positivism and Beyond.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 11-44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.003

Smith, Steve. 2021. “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 1-12. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0018

Snyder, Glenn H. 1971. “‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ and ‘Chicken’ Models in International Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 15 (1): 66-103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3013593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3013593

Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2021. “Neoliberalism.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 89-107. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0005

Suganami, Hidemi. 1996. On the Causes of War. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198273387.001.0001

Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. London: Addison-Wesley.

Waltz, Kenneth N. 2008. Realism and International Politics. New York: Routledge.

Wæver, Ole. 1996. “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 149-185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.009

Wæver, Ole. 2021. “Still a Discipline After All These Debates?” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (5th ed.), edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 322-343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491764

Wight, Colin. 2013. “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations (2nd ed.), edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 29-56. London: SAGE.

Wilson, Peter. 1998. “The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate.’” Review of International Studies 24 (5): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210598000011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210598000011

Licencia

Derechos de autor 2023 Enzo Lenine, Mariana Preta Oliveira de Lyra

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.