Abstract:The “International Relations” (“IR”) discipline is going through a double-disciplinary crisis. Once again, there is a general feeling of increasingly fragmenting common ground within the discipline (the first crisis) and the acknowledgment that the “IR” only imports concepts and methods from other disciplines but does not export any (the second crisis). Both crises share the same origin. The subject matter – “international” – has not been rooted in any social ontology. The discipline is now searching for the social ontology of “international.” The most discussed candidate for such a role is “societal multiplicity”, a product of “uneven and combined development”. The article offers an alternative variant of the social ontology for “international,” which is based on Niklas Luhmann’s system theory and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s social theory. It argues that “international” is rooted in the segmentary systemic differentiation between inside and outside and in the struggle for recognition of these segments. The semantic marker for this ontology is “sovereignty.” In this way, “sovereignty” turns into a systemic program (in Luhmann’s terms) of international politics (as a subsystem of the world society political system), designating the common ground for the discipline and marking social processes and phenomena, which can be studied within the “IR”. This will allow the “International Relations” to export some of its concepts and methods to other social science disciplines. The article critically engages with the Theory of World Politics by Mathias Albert, reconstructing it to meet the challenge of the double-disciplinary crisis. The “balance of power” is criticized with the help of Michel Foucault, who showed: that among European powers in 19th-century Europe, the balance of power, responsible for producing international order, was linked with the police inside states, responsible for producing domestic order. Nevertheless, to keep the balance of power and to secure the domestic order, states and police used the same technique of observation – statistics, making the “balance of power” a non-autopoietic system program incapable of producing an autopoietic system of international relations. “Sovereignty” also spans both realms of the inside/outside divide but is observed mainly through external recognition and is rooted in the social ontology of “international.” The article argues that “sovereignty” is better suited for the system program of international politics than the “balance of power”.

From Paradigms to Research Programs: The Structure of IR Theory

Approaches and Paradigms in International Relations Studies

On the Internal and External Debates of Positivist IR Research

The study of Chinese scholars in foreign policy analysis: an emerging research program

Research programs and the progress of theory in sociology: the post-positivist conception of J. Berger, M. Zelditch Jr. and D. Wagner

Micro Research Method for System Theory of International Relations

Development of IR Theoretical Studies in the United States:On the Basis of Articles in International Organization and International Studies Quarterly

Domains and Limitations of Structural Analysis

Research Paradigms and Model Structuring of Educational Sociology

International System, not International Structure: Against the Agent-Structure Problematique in IR

International Systems and Domestic Politics: Linking Complex Theories with Empirical Models in International Relations

Theories and Explanations in IR Studies

International Relations in the prison of Political Science

Metaphor and Construction of IR Theory

Luhmann Reconsidered: Steps Towards an Empirical Research Programme in the Sociology of Communication?

Methods and Paths:Methodological Thinking on Discipline Development of Postgraduate Pedagogy

Urban land use, mobility and theory of science: exploring the potential for critical realism in empirical research

Innovation-driven Development, Innovation Paradigm and the Rise of Innovation Science

The Influence of Lakatosism on the Methodology of Western Economics

On the Evolution of Research Paradigm in the International STS Field

Grounding Ontology of the “International” in Terms of Radical Constructivism