Revisionismo, triángulos y duelos: la paradójica teoría implícita en Martin Wight
Autores/as
-
Hugo Harvey-Valdés
Universidad de las Américas
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7184-1670
-
Javier Castro Arcos
Universidad San Sebastián
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0052-6825
Resumen
Este artículo examina el legado teórico de Martin Wight y su impacto en la disciplina de las Relaciones Internacionales (RR.II.), centrado especialmente en su asociación con la Escuela Inglesa (EI). A pesar de las críticas hacia la EI por su supuesto eurocentrismo y falta de rigurosidad teórica, Wight enriqueció el análisis de la política internacional a través de un enfoque que integraba perspectivas históricas, filosóficas y éticas. Aunque Wight eludía cualquier asociación con las aproximaciones positivistas de las RR.II., desarrolló constructos alineados con todos los requisitos exigibles a una teoría internacional, proponiendo un marco analítico para comprender la coexistencia de conflictos y cooperación en un sistema internacional cambiante. Este trabajo destaca la relevancia de revalorizar las contribuciones de Wight para enriquecer las RR.II., subrayando la necesidad de explorar sus aportes implícitos como una vía para revitalizar la disciplina y abordar las dinámicas contemporáneas del sistema internacional.
Palabras clave:
Martin Wight, Escuela inglesa de las relaciones internacionales, Teoría implícita, Revisionismo internacional, Triángulos y duelosReferencias
Bellamy, A., J. (2007). The English School. En M. Griffiths (Ed.), International Relations Theory for the twenty-first century: An introduction (pp. 75–87). Taylor & Francis.
Borg, S. (2024). “A Battle for the Soul of this Nation”: How domestic polarization affects US foreign policy in post-Trump America. International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207020241232986
Bourantonis, D., y Παναγιώτου (2004). Russia’s attitude towards the reform of the United Nations Security Council, 1990–2000. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 20(4), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352327042000306066
Bramlett, J. C., Reed, J. L., y McKinney, M. S. (2024). The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates. Communication and Democracy, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/27671127.2024.2311936
Bull, H. (1966). International Theory: The case for a Classical approach. World Politics, 18(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009761
Bull, H. (1976). Martin Wight and the theory of international relations: The Second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture. British Journal of International Studies, 2, 101-116.
Bull, H. (1977a). Martin Wight and the study of international relations. En M. Wight Systems of States (pp. 1-20). Leicester University Press.
Bull, H. (1977b). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Columbia University Press.
Buzan, B. (1993). From international system to international society: structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47(3), 327-352.
Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society?: English School Theory and the social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., y Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Casier, T. (2017). The different faces of power in European Union–Russia relations. Cooperation and Conflict, 53(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836717729179
Cherif, Y. (2024). The BRICS+ takes all? Not yet, but maybe soon. En Mediterranean Yearbook 2024. European Institute of the Mediterranean. https://www.iemed.org/publication/the-brics-takes-all-not-yet-but-maybe-soon/
Copeland, D. C. (2003). A Realist critique of the English School. Review of International Studies, 29(3), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210503004273
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
Dougherty, J. E., y Pfaltzgraff, R. L. (1971). Contending theories of international relations. Lippincott.
Dunne, T. (1993). Mythology or methodology? Traditions in international theory. Review of International Studies, 19(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210500117450
Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dunne, T., Hansen, L., y Wight, C. (2013). The end of International Relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485
Goldgeier, J., y Shifrinson, J. R. (2023). Evaluating NATO enlargement. Palgrave Macmillan.
Grader, S. (1988). The English School of International Relations: evidence and evaluation. Review of International Studies, 14(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210500113439
Griffiths, M. (1999). Fifty key thinkers in International Relations. Routledge.
Hall, I. (2002). History, Christianity and diplomacy: Sir Herbert Butterfield and international relations. Review of International Studies, 28(4), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210502007192
Hall, I. (2006). The International Thought of Martin Wight. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamilton, D. S., y Renouard, J. (2024). The transatlantic community and China in the age of disruption: Partners, Competitors, Rivals. Routledge.
Holbraad, C. (1973). The triangular system. Cooperation and Conflict, 8(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/001083677300800201
Holbraad, C. (1979). Superpowers and International Conflict. The Macmillan Press.
Holbraad, C. (1984). Middle Powers in International Politics. The Macmillan Press.
Iida, M., Arakaki, H., y Hasegawa, T. (2023). NIDS China Security Report 2024: China, Russia, and the United States Striving for a New International Order. National Institute for Defense Studies of Japan.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2024). Three Worlds: the West, East and South and the competition to shape global order. International Affairs, 100(1), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad284
Jackson, R. (2002). Martin Wight's Thought on Diplomacy. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 13, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000351
Jackson, R. (1996). Is there a classical international theory? En S. Smith, K. Booth, y M. Zalewski (Eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 203–218). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511660054.011
Jones, R.E. (1981). The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure. Review of International Studies, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210500115086
Kaplan, M.A. (1966). The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations. World Politics, 19(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009840
Keohane, R. (1992). International Theory: The Three Traditions. By Martin Wight. American Political Science Review, 86(4), 1112–1113. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964428
Keohane, R.O., y Nye, J.S. (1987). Power and interdependence revisited. International Organization, 41(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300027661
Knutsen, T. L. (1992). A history of International Relations Theory: An introduction. Manchester University Press.
Kratochwil, F. (1989). Rules, Norms,and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge University Press.
Leffler, M. P. (2024). Challenging American hegemony. The American Historical Review, 129(1), 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhad494
Libman, A., y Obydenkova, A. (2018). Regional international organizations as a strategy of autocracy: the Eurasian Economic Union and Russian foreign policy. International Affairs, 94(5), 1037–1058. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy147
Linklater, A., y Suganami, H. (2006). The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge University Press.
Little, R. (2000). The English School's Contribution to the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(3), 395-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006003004
Marston, H. (2023). Navigating great power competition: a neoclassical realist view of hedging. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 24(1), 29–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcad001
Mearsheimer, J.J., y Walt, S.M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 427-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320
Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513-553. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447
Navari, C. (2009). Methods and Methodology in the English School. En C. Navari (Ed.), Theorising International Society: English School Methods (pp. 1-20). Palgrave Macmillan.
Okada, Y. (2023). Locating the Veto Power in the International Legal Order: When a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council Becomes an Aggressor. En S. Furuya, H. Takemura, y K. Ozaki (Eds.), Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict. Perspectives from International Law (pp. 71–91). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_4
Özdemir, Ç. (2024). The rise and fall of the Eagle: An Assessment of the Liberal World Order. Taylor & Francis.
Patrick, S. (2024). BRICS Expansion, the G20, and the Future of World Order. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Recuperado 17 de noviembre de 2024, de https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/brics-summit-emerging-middle-powers-g7-g20?lang=en
Porter, B. (1972). The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics, 1919-1969. Oxford University Press.
Porter, B. (1978). Patterns of Thought and Practice: Martin Wight’s “International Theory.” En M. D. Donelan (Ed.), The reason of states. A Study in International Political Theory (pp. 64–74). Allen & Unwin.
Putin, V. (2022, February 24). Address by the President of the Russian Federation. Presidential Executive Office. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. Routledge.
Skinner, Q. (1969). Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. History and Theory, 8(1), 3-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/2504188
Spegele, R., D. (2005). Traditional Political Realism and the Writing of History. En A. J. Bellamy (Ed.), International society and its Critics (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
Thomas, S. M. (2001). Faith, history and Martin Wight: the role of religion in the historical sociology of the English school of International Relations. International Affairs, 77, 905-929. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00225
Thompson, K. W. (1980). Masters of International Thought: Major Twentieth-century Theorists and the World Crisis. Louisiana State University Press.
Tully, J. (1989). The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner’s analysis of politics. En J. Tully (Ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his critics (pp. 7-25). Princeton University Press.
Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: one world, many theories. Foreign Policy, 110, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149275
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Wight, M. (1966). Why Is There No International Theory? En H. Butterfield y M. Wight (Eds.), Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of international politics (pp. 37-54). Allen and Unwin.
Wight, M. (1977). Systems of States. Leicester University Press.
Wight, M. (1992). International theory: The Three Traditions (G. Wight y B. Porter, Eds.). Holmes & Meier Publishers.
Wight, M. (1994). International theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester University Press.
Wight, M. (2022). International Relations and political Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
World Economic Forum. (2024). Global Risks Report 2024: Insight Report (19th ed.). Marsh McLennan and Zurich Insurance Group. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/
Twitter