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”.

Complexity and practical knowledge in the social sciences: a comment on Stehr and Grundmann.

Complex Systems Theory: Some Considerations for Sociology

Conceptualization of the Social within Sociological Knowledge:Doxa and Bourdieu's sociological knowledge theory

Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism

Niklas Luhmann's Magnificent Contribution to the Sociological Tradition: the Emergence of the Knowledge-Based Economy As an Order of Expectations

Making Quantitative Research Work: From Positivist Dogma to Actual Social Scientific Inquiry

Interdisciplinarity in Socio-economics, mathematical analysis and predictability of complex systems

Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective

The Knowledge Content of Science and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

"Social science is explanation or it is nothing." Introduction to a debate

Between Sweet Harmony and a Clash of Cultures: Does a Joint Academic–Practitioner Review Reconcile Rigor and Relevance?

Care and affective relations: Social justice and sociology

The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science

From subjects to objects: Knowledge in International Relations theory

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

Being critical: the practical logic of Bourdieu's metanoia

Revisiting the Role of Formal and Practical Knowledge from a Sociology of the Professions Perspective

Insider apology for microeconomic theorising?

The Citation Impact of German Sociology Journals: Some Problems with the Use of Scientometric Indicators in Journal and Research Evaluations

Common Sense and Sociological Explanations