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”.

Towards a new research agenda?

Building Indigenous Australian Social Work

Rethinking Indigeneity: Scholarship at the Intersection of Native American Studies and Anthropology

Conducting research with Indigenous peoples in Canada: ethical and policy considerations

Trust in Scholarly Communications and Infrastructure: Indigenous Data Sovereignty

Indigenous community psychologies, decolonization, and radical imagination within ecologies of knowledges

Indigenous research methodology – weaving a research interface

Centring Indigenous peoples in knowledge exchange research-practice by resetting assumptions, relationships and institutions

The tensions between Indigenous sovereignty and multicultural citizenship education: Toward an anticolonial approach to civic education

Unsettling Feminism in Social Work: Toward an Indigenous Decolonial Feminism

Framing an Indigenous Food Sovereignty Research Agenda

Thoughts On Indigenous Research Of Educational Sociology

Knowledge, Spirit, Reason: An Essay in Comparative Philosophy

On the other side of the rabbit proof fence: decolonizing social work education - a framework for change

Ethical Futures in Art Education Research: Unlocking Interlocking Injustices in Academia

Is indigenisation a social justice risk? Exploring indigenisation of social work in Africa through the lens of universalism versus relativism of social work ethics and values

Ecological research 'in a good way' means ethical and equitable relationships with Indigenous Peoples and Lands

Researching the Powerful: A Call for the Reconstruction of Research Ethics

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

Indigenous Methodologies in International Research on Indigenous Family and Community Engagement

Toward a non-extractive research ethics for transcultural, translingual research: perspectives from the coloniser and the colonised