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”.

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

The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis

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

International Relations in the prison of Political Science

The Premise of Definition and Basic Characteristics of International Structure

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

From Paradigms to Research Programs: The Structure of IR Theory

"Symbiosis of International Society"and IR Theory of Peace and Development

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

Analyzing international organizations: How the concepts we use affect the answers we get

Reconciliation and the Remaking of Anarchy

Structural power and political science in the post-crisis era

International Relations in a Relational Universe

The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations

Social Integration and System Integration: Developing the Distinction

The Other in European self-definition: an addendum to the literature on international society

Moving Forward Beyond the Paradigms of Structuralism and Agentialism

Rethinking the nation and international relations: The space of nation states

A Case against the Constructivist–Critical Theory Synthesis

Structural problems require structural solutions

The Reaches of the Social System: Six Channels