[1]
Acharya, A. and Buzan, B. 2010. Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia. Routledge.
[2]
Adam Jones 1996. Does ‘Gender’ Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations. Review of International Studies. 22, 4 (1996), 405–429.
[3]
Adler, E. and Pouliot, V. 2011. International practices. International Theory. 3, 01 (Mar. 2011), 1–36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X.
[4]
Alexander Wendt 1992. Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization. 46, 2 (1992), 391–425.
[5]
Axelrod, R. and Keohane, R.O. 1985. Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics. 38, 01 (Oct. 1985), 226–254. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2010357.
[6]
Baldwin, D.A. 1993. Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. Columbia University Press.
[7]
Barkawi, T. and Laffey, M. 2002. Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 31, 1 (Jan. 2002), 109–127. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310010601.
[8]
Barry Buzan 2001. The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR. Review of International Studies. 27, 3 (2001), 471–488.
[9]
Baylis, J. et al. eds. 2014. Chapter 7 - Liberalism. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
[10]
Baylis, J. et al. eds. 2014. Chapter 9 - Marxist Theories of International Relations. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
[11]
Beardsworth, R. 2011. Cosmopolitanism and international relations theory. Polity.
[12]
Bellamy, A.J. ed. 2004. International Society and its Critics. Oxford University Press.
[13]
Beth A. Simmons, Frank Dobbin and Geoffrey Garrett 2006. Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism. International Organization. 60, 4 (2006), 781–810.
[14]
Biccum, A.R. 2005. Development and the ‘New’ Imperialism: a reinvention of colonial discourse in DFID promotional literature. Third World Quarterly. 26, 6 (Sep. 2005), 1005–1020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590500139656.
[15]
Bieler, A. and Morton, A.D. 2004. A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations. Capital & Class. 28, 1 (Mar. 2004), 85–113. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/030981680408200106.
[16]
Björkdahl, A. 2002. Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reflections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 15, 1 (Apr. 2002), 9–23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570220126216.
[17]
Bloomsbury Collections - International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/international-society-and-the-development-of-international-relations-theory/.
[18]
Booth, K. and Smith, S. 1995. Chapter 11 - Neorealism in Theory and In Practice. International relations theory today. Polity Press.
[19]
Brock, G. 2009. Global Justice. Oxford University Press.
[20]
Brooke Ackerly and Jacqui True 2008. Reflexivity in Practice: Power and Ethics in Feminist Research on International Relations. International Studies Review. 10, 4 (2008), 693–707.
[21]
Brown, C. and Ainley, K. 2009. Introduction: Defining International Relations. Understanding international relations. Palgrave Macmillan. 1–17.
[22]
Brown, G.W. 2009. Grounding cosmopolitanism: from Kant to the idea of a cosmopolitan constitution. Edinburgh University Press.
[23]
Brown, G.W. and Held, D. eds. 2010. Editor’s Introduction. The cosmopolitanism reader. Polity.
[24]
Brown, G.W. and Held, D. eds. 2010. The cosmopolitanism reader. Polity.
[25]
Bull, H. 2002. The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. Palgrave.
[26]
Bulmer, S. 2013. Patriarchal Confusion? Making Sense of Gay and Lesbian Military Identity. International Feminist Journal of Politics. 15, 2 (Jun. 2013), 137–156. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.746565.
[27]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Chapter 2 - Realism. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[28]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Chapter 3 - Liberalism. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[29]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Chapter 4 - The English School. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[30]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Chapter 5 - Marx and Marxism. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[31]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Chapter 7 - Critical Theory. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[32]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Chapter 8 - Post-Structuralism. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[33]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Chapter 9 - Constructivism. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[34]
Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. 2013. Introduction. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
[35]
Burnham, P. 2001. Marx, international political economy and globalisation. Capital & Class. 25, 3 (Oct. 2001), 103–112. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/030981680107500109.
[36]
Buzan, B. 2014. An introduction to the English school of international relations: the societal approach. Polity.
[37]
Buzan, B. 2004. From International to World Society?: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge University Press.
[38]
Buzan, B. and Little, R. 2001. Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do About it. Millennium. 30, 1 (Jan. 2001), 19–39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298010300010401.
[39]
Callinicos, A. 1989. Chapter 3 - The Aporias of Poststructuralism. Against postmodernism: a marxist critique. Polity Press. 62–91.
[40]
Callinicos, A. 2004. Marxism and the International: The Future of the Capitalist State, Historical Materialism and Globalisation. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 6, 3 (Aug. 2004), 426–433. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00148.x.
[41]
Campbell, J.L. and Pedersen, O.K. 2001. The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. Princeton University Press.
[42]
Caney, S. 2010. Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 13, 1 (Mar. 2010), 203–228. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230903326331.
[43]
Carlsnaes, W. et al. 2013. Chapter 1 ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’. Handbook of international relations. SAGE.
[44]
Carlsnaes, W. et al. 2013. Chapter 3 - Ethics and Norms in International Relations. Handbook of international relations. SAGE.
[45]
Carlsnaes, W. et al. 2013. Chapter 5 - Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions and Debates. Handbook of international relations. SAGE.
[46]
Carpenter, R.C. 2006. Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations. Security Dialogue. 37, 1 (Mar. 2006), 83–103. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010606064139.
[47]
Charvet, J. and Kaczynska-Nay, E. 2008. The Liberal Project and Human Rights: The Theory and Practice of a New World Order. Cambridge University Press.
[48]
Checkel, J.T. 1998. The Constructive Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics. 50, 02 (Jan. 1998), 324–348. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100008133.
[49]
Chowdhury, G. and Nair, S. 2002. Introduction: Power in a postcolonial world: race, gender and class in international relations. Power, postcolonialism, and international relations: reading race, gender, and class. Routledge. 1–32.
[50]
Cox, R.W. 1983. Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Millennium : journal of international studies. 12, 2 (1983), 162–175.
[51]
Cox, R.W. 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 10, 2 (Jun. 1981), 126–155.
[52]
Cynthia Weber 1992. Reconsidering Statehood: Examining the Sovereignty/Intervention Boundary. Review of International Studies. 18, 3 (1992), 199–216.
[53]
Darby, P. 2004. Pursuing the Political: A Postcolonial Rethinking of Relations International. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 33, 1 (Jan. 2004), 1–32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298040330010101.
[54]
David Campbell 1990. Global Inscription: How Foreign Policy Constitutes the United States. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 15, 3 (1990), 263–286.
[55]
Davis, N. 2014. A rose by any other name. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 25, (Jul. 2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2014.04.021.
[56]
Della Porta, D. and Keating, M. eds. 2008. Chapter 5 - Constructivism: What It Is (Not) and How It Matters. Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: a pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press.
[57]
Dietzel, A. Global Justice. International Relations Theory: A Practical Introduction.
[58]
Dietzel, A. 2017. The Paris Agreement - Protecting the Human Right to Health? Global Policy. 8, 3 (Sep. 2017), 313–321. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12421.
[59]
Doty, R. 1996. The Logic of Differance in International Relations: US Colonization of the Philippines. Post-realism: the rhetorical turn in international relations. F.A. Beer and R. Hariman, eds. Michigan State University press. 331–345.
[60]
Doyle, M.W. and Ikenberry, G.J. 1997. Chapter 2 - Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945’. New thinking in international relations theory. Westview Press.
[61]
Dunn, B., ‘Can Marxism Explain the Crisis?’ The Socialist Review, 363 (November), 2011: http://socialistreview.org.uk/363/can-marxism-explain-crisis.
[62]
Dunne, T. et al. 2013. Chapter 1 - International Relations and Social Science. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[63]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 3 - Classical Realism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[64]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 4 - Structural Realism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[65]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 5 - Liberalism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[66]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 6 - Neoliberalism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[67]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 8 - Marxism and Critical Theory. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[68]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 9 - Constructivism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[69]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 10 - Feminism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[70]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 11 - Poststructuralism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[71]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Chapter 12 - Postcolonialism. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[72]
Dunne, T. et al. 2013. Chapter 16 - Still a Discipline After All these Debates? International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[73]
Dunne, T. et al. eds. 2016. Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
[74]
Dunne, T. 1998. Inventing international society: a history of the English school. Macmillan in association with St Anthony’s College, Oxford.
[75]
Dunne, T. et al. 2013. The end of International Relations theory? European Journal of International Relations. 19, 3 (Sep. 2013), 405–425. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485.
[76]
Edkins, J. and Pin-Fat, V. 2005. Through the Wire: Relations of Power and Relations of Violence. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 34, 1 (Aug. 2005), 1–24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298050340010101.
[77]
Edkins, J. and Vaughan-Williams, N. 2009. Critical theorists and international relations. Routledge.
[78]
Enloe, C.H. 2014. Chapter 5 - Gender makes the World Go Round: Where are the Women? Bananas, beaches and bases: making feminist sense of international politics. University of California Press.
[79]
Epstein, C. 2014. The postcolonial perspective: an introduction. International Theory. 6, 02 (Jul. 2014), 294–311. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971914000219.
[80]
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. 2001. Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science. 4, 1 (Jun. 2001), 391–416. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.391.
[81]
Foucault, M. and Rabinow, P. 1986. The Foucault reader. Penguin Books.
[82]
Franceschet, A. 1999. The Ethical Foundations of Liberal Internationalism. International Journal. 54, 3 (1999). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/40203406.
[83]
Fukuyama, F. 2012. The end of history and the last man. Penguin Books.
[84]
G. John Ikenberry 2009. Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order. Perspectives on Politics. 7, 1 (2009), 71–87.
[85]
G. John Ikenberry 2011. The Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism After America. Foreign Affairs. 90, 3 (2011), 56–68.
[86]
Gallagher, A.M. 2012. A Clash of Responsibilities: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P. Global Responsibility to Protect. 4, 3 (Jan. 2012), 334–357. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00403004.
[87]
Gardiner, S.M. 2010. Climate ethics: essential readings. Oxford University Press.
[88]
Gardner, R.N. 1990. The Comeback of Liberal Internationalism. The Washington Quarterly. 13, 3 (Sep. 1990), 23–39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01636609009445391.
[89]
Gill, S.R. and Law, D. 1989. Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital. International Studies Quarterly. 33, 4 (Dec. 1989). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2600523.
[90]
Gramsci, A. et al. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Lawrence and Wishart.
[91]
GROVOGUI, S.N. 2002. Regimes of Sovereignty: International Morality and the African Condition. European Journal of International Relations. 8, 3 (Sep. 2002), 315–338. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066102008003001.
[92]
Gruffydd Jones, B. ed. 2006. Decolonizing international relations. Rowman and Littlefield.
[93]
Guzzini, S. 2004. The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations. 10, 4 (Dec. 2004), 533–568. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104047848.
[94]
Hansen, L. 2006. Discourse Analysis, Identity and Foreign Policy. Security as practice: discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. Routledge. 17–36.
[95]
Hayden, P. 2005. Cosmopolitan global politics. Ashgate.
[96]
Held, D. 2003. Cosmopolitanism: globalisation tamed? Review of International Studies. 29, 04 (Oct. 2003). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210503004650.
[97]
Held, D. 2010. Cosmopolitanism: ideals and realities. Polity Press.
[98]
Hoffmann, S. 1995. The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism. Foreign Policy. 98 (Spring 1995). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1148964.
[99]
Hollinger, R. 1994. ‘Chapter 7 - Modernity, Post-Modernism and International Relations’. Postmodernism and the social sciences: a thematic approach. Sage.
[100]
Hooper, C. 2001. Manly states: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics. Columbia University Press.
[101]
Hopf, T. 1998. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security. 23, 1 (Summer 1998). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267.
[102]
Immanuel Wallerstein 1974. The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 16, 4 (1974), 387–415.
[103]
J. Ann Tickner 1997. You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists. International Studies Quarterly. 41, 4 (1997), 611–632.
[104]
Jabri, V. 2000. Reflections on the Study of International Relations. Issues in international relations. Routledge. 289–313.
[105]
Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. 2010. IR as an academic subject. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford University Press. 28–57.
[106]
Jackson, R.H. 2000. The global covenant: human conduct in a world of states. Oxford University Press.
[107]
Jackson, R.H. and Sørensen, G. 2010. Chapter 5 - International Society. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford University Press.
[108]
Jean-Yves Haine 2009. The European Crisis of Liberal Internationalism. International Journal. 64, 2 (2009), 453–479.
[109]
Jervis, Robert Hans Morgenthau, Realism, and the Scientific Study of International Politics. Social Research. 61, 4.
[110]
Joseph M. Grieco 1988. Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization. 42, 3 (1988), 485–507.
[111]
Justin Rosenberg 1990. What’s the Matter with Realism? Review of International Studies. 16, 4 (1990), 285–303.
[112]
Kenneth N. Waltz 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security. 25, 1 (2000), 5–41.
[113]
Keohane, R.O. 1988. International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly. 32, 4 (Dec. 1988). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589.
[114]
Keohane, R.O. and Martin, L.L. 1995. The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security. 20, 1 (Summer 1995). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2539214.
[115]
Keohane, R.O. and Waltz, K.N. 1986. Neorealism and its critics. Columbia University Press.
[116]
Koivisto, M. and Dunne, T. 2010. Crisis, What Crisis? Liberal Order Building and World Order Conventions. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 38, 3 (May 2010), 615–640. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829810363509.
[117]
Lawrence, P. 2014. Justice for future generations: climate change and international law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[118]
Lawson, S. 2015. Chapter 5 - Liberal International Theory. Theories of international relations: contending approaches to world politics. Polity.
[119]
Lebow, R.N. 2005. Tragedy, Politics and Political Science. International Relations. 19, 3 (Sep. 2005), 329–336. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117805055410.
[120]
Linklater, A. 2011. The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations. Cambridge University Press.
[121]
Linklater, A. and Suganami, H. 2006. The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge University Press.
[122]
Lisa L. Martin and Beth A. Simmons 1998. Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions. International Organization. 52, 4 (1998), 729–757.
[123]
LITTLE, R. 2000. The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations. 6, 3 (Sep. 2000), 395–422. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006003004.
[124]
Lu, C. 2000. The One and Many Faces of Cosmopolitanism. Journal of Political Philosophy. 8, 2 (Jun. 2000), 244–267. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00101.
[125]
Maclean, J. 1988. Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 17, 2 (Jun. 1988), 295–319. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298880170021201.
[126]
Martha Finnemore 2001. Exporting the English School? Review of International Studies. 27, 3 (2001), 509–513.
[127]
Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization. 52, 4 (1998), 887–917.
[128]
Matin, K. 2013. Redeeming the universal: Postcolonialism and the inner life of Eurocentrism. European Journal of International Relations. 19, 2 (Jun. 2013), 353–377. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066111425263.
[129]
Mearsheimer, J., ‘Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism Versus Neoconservatism.’: https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp.
[130]
Mearsheimer, J.J. 1990. Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security. 15, 1 (Summer 1990). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2538981.
[131]
Michael C. Williams 1993. Neo-Realism and the Future of Strategy. Review of International Studies. 19, 2 (1993), 103–121.
[132]
Michael W. Doyle 2005. Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace. The American Political Science Review. 99, 3 (2005), 463–466.
[133]
MILLIKEN, J. 1999. The Study of Discourse in International Relations: European Journal of International Relations. 5, 2 (Jun. 1999), 225–254. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066199005002003.
[134]
Morgenthau, H.J. 1952. Another "Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States. American Political Science Review. 46, 04 (Dec. 1952), 961–988. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1952108.
[135]
Moss, J. ed. 2015. Climate Change and Justice. Cambridge University Press.
[136]
NICHOLSON, M. 2000. What’s the use of International Relations? Review of International Studies. 26, 2 (Apr. 2000), 183–198. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500001832.
[137]
Nye, J.S. 1988. Neorealism and Neoliberalism. World Politics. 40, 02 (Jan. 1988), 235–251. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2010363.
[138]
el-Ojeili, C. 2015. Reflections on Wallerstein: The Modern World-System, Four Decades on. Critical Sociology. 41, 4–5 (Jul. 2015), 679–700. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513497377.
[139]
Onuf, N.G. 2013. Making sense, making worlds: constructivism in social theory and international relations. Routledge.
[140]
Pinar Bilgin 2008. Thinking past ‘Western’ IR? Third World Quarterly. 29, 1 (2008), 5–23.
[141]
Powell, R. 1994. Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate. International Organization. 48, 02 (Mar. 1994). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028204.
[142]
R. Charli Carpenter 2011. Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms. International Organization. 65, 1 (2011), 69–102.
[143]
Randall D. Germain and Michael Kenny 1998. Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians. Review of International Studies. 24, 1 (1998), 3–21.
[144]
Reus-Smit, C. 2002. Imagining Society: Constructivism and the English School. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 4, 3 (Oct. 2002), 487–509. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00091.
[145]
Reus-Smit, C. and Snidal, D. 2008. Chapter 11 - Neoliberal Institutionalism. The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press.
[146]
Richard K. Ashley 1984. The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization. 38, 2 (1984), 225–286.
[147]
Richard Price 1995. A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo. International Organization. 49, 1 (1995), 73–103.
[148]
Rita Abrahamsen 2003. African Studies and the Postcolonial Challenge. African Affairs. 102, 407 (2003), 189–210.
[149]
Robert G. Gilpin 1984. The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism. International Organization. 38, 2 (1984), 287–304.
[150]
Robert Jervis 1999. Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate. International Security. 24, 1 (1999), 42–63.
[151]
Roff, H.M. 2016. Gendering a Warbot. International Feminist Journal of Politics. 18, 1 (Jan. 2016), 1–18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2015.1094246.
[152]
Ronen Palan 2000. A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations. Review of International Studies. 26, 4 (2000), 575–598.
[153]
Rosenau, P. 1990. Once Again Into the Fray: International Relations Confronts the Humanities. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 19, 1 (Mar. 1990), 83–110. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298900190010701.
[154]
Schroeder, P.W. 1997. History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit. International Security. 22, 1 (Summer 1997). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2539329.
[155]
Seth, S. ed. 2013. Postcolonial theory and international relations: a critical introduction. Routledge.
[156]
Shapiro, M. 1989. Textualising Global Politics. International/intertextual relations: postmodern readings of world politics. Lexington Books. 11–22.
[157]
Shapiro, M.J. and Der Derian, J. 1989. International/intertextual relations: postmodern readings of world politics. Lexington Books.
[158]
Shepherd, L.J. ed. 2015. Gender matters in global politics: a feminist introduction to international relations. Routledge.
[159]
Shue, H. 2014. Climate justice: vulnerability and protection. Oxford University Press.
[160]
Smith, S. et al. 1996. Chapter 2 - The Timeless Wisdom of Realism. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press.
[161]
Smith, S. et al. 1996. ’Chapter 11 - The Achievements of Poststructuralism. International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge University Press.
[162]
Smith, S. et al. 1996. Chapter 16 - The future of international relations: Fears and hopes. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press.
[163]
Smith, S. et al. 1996. Chapter 18 - All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up: Theory, Theorists, Theorising. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press.
[164]
Steans, J. 2003. Engaging from the Margins: Feminist Encounters with the ‘Mainstream’ of International Relations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 5, 3 (Aug. 2003), 428–454. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00114.
[165]
Steans, J. 2006. Gender, Feminism, and International Relations. Gender and international relations: issues, debates and future directions. Polity. 7–19.
[166]
Tan, K.-C. 2004. Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism. Cambridge University Press.
[167]
TAYLOR, L. 2012. Decolonizing International Relations: Perspectives from Latin America. International Studies Review. 14, 3 (Sep. 2012), 386–400. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01125.x.
[168]
Terrell Carver, Molly Cochran and Judith Squires 1998. Gendering Jones: Feminisms, IRs, Masculinities. Review of International Studies. 24, 2 (1998), 283–297.
[169]
Tickner, A.B. 2013. Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations. 19, 3 (Sep. 2013), 627–646. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323.
[170]
Tickner, J.A. 1992. Chapter 1 - Engendered Insecurities: Feminist Perspectives on International Relations. Gender in international relations: feminist perspectives on achieving global security. Columbia University Press.
[171]
Vasilaki, R. 2012. Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 41, 1 (Sep. 2012), 3–22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829812451720.
[172]
Wallerstein, I. 2004. Chapter 2 - The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy. World-systems analysis: an introduction. Duke University Press. 23–41.
[173]
Walt, S.M. 1998. International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy. 110 (Spring 1998). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1149275.
[174]
Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
[175]
WAYLEN, G. 2006. You still don’t understand: why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE. Review of International Studies. 32, 01 (Feb. 2006). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506006966.
[176]
Weber, C. 1994. Good girls, little girls and bad girls: Male paranoia in Robert Keohane’s critique of feminist international relations’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 23, (1994), 337–349.
[177]
WEISS, T.G. 2010. How United Nations ideas change history. Review of International Studies. 36, S1 (Oct. 2010), 3–23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051100009X.
[178]
Weldes, J. 1996. Constructing National Interests’. European journal of international relations. 2, (1996), 275–318.
[179]
Wheeler, N.J. 1992. Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 21, 3 (Dec. 1992), 463–487. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298920210030201.
[180]
Wheeler, N.J. 2000. Saving strangers: humanitarian intervention in international society. Oxford University Press.
[181]
William Bain 2000. Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered. Review of International Studies. 26, 3 (2000), 445–464.
[182]
Considine, L., ‘Back to the Rough Ground! A Grammatical Approach to Trust and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(1)1 (2015), pp. 109-127.
[183]
Guzzini, G., ‘Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis’ International Organization, 47(3), 1993, pp. 443-478.
[184]
Peterson V. S., ‘Feminist Theories Within, Invisible To, and Beyond IR’ Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10(2), 2004, pp. 1-11.
[185]
Seth, Sanjay (2011), ‘Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40 (1), pp. 167-183. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811412325?journalCode=mila.
