TEHRAN - Oxford University Professor Andrew Hurrell says the most important divide in international relations theories is between those theories that stress material interests on the one hand and varieties of constructivism on the other. Hurrell made the remarks in an e-mail interview with the Mehr News Agency conducted by Hossein Kaji and Javad Heiran-Nia.

Following is the text of the interview:
Q: There are four major intellectual discussions in international relations theories: realism versus liberalism; behaviorism versus traditionalism; neo-realism versus neo-liberalism; and rationalism versus constructivism. What is the main debate?
A: The most important divide is between those theories that stress material interests on the one hand and varieties of constructivism on the other. This does not in itself mean that either side has a straightforward view of the character of IR. Those who stress material interests can come out as either more realist or liberal in their view of the system. Equally, although constructivism has been taken up by liberals, my own work has tried to show why a constructivist view of power is more problematic for order than the rather easy balancing of material interests favoured by most neo-realists. Hence if we are analysing emerging powers, the most important issues have to do with questions of status and recognition, rather than with rankings of material power. Equally, as is obvious from the clash between the U.S. and Iran, the problem is not hard facts but rather contested meanings and interpretations.
Q: Why did most of the major international relations theories fail to predict the global economic crisis?
A: This failure came from the narrow focus on interests and the neglect of structures. So economic governance was seen in the 1990s almost exclusively as about the analysis of how self-interested actors behave (whether within IR or Economics); and there was an almost complete forgetting of the instability of the structures of global capitalism.
Q: Professor Christian Reus-Smit argues that there is no longer a great debate over international relations theories. Do you accept this view? If that is the case, which international relations theories can explain the current issues in the area of international relations?
A: No, I do think that there are both real and on-going debates - both about constructivism and rationalism; but also about the role of structures and the relationship between structures and ideas. Constructivists have stressed the relationship between ideas and interests. But the big structural side of the story has been neglected. True, neorealists talk about the system but they work with a very narrow view of the international political system. True, globalization was seen as a systemic force, but the mythology of the end of history meant that the structures of western capitalism were mistakenly viewed as stable and the range of ideas was mistakenly viewed as limited to a dominant western liberalism and how other societies would react to it.
Q: Constructivism is one of the renowned theories in the field of international relations. What are the main advantages of this theory in comparison to other world-class international relations theories?
A: Rationalist approaches work well when identities and interests are stable and reasonably well understood. But in periods of systemic change there is an enormous amount of ''churning'' and the reconfiguration of what interests are all about. Equally, as I have argued in On Global Order, the unavoidability of questions of justice mean that the constructivist emphasis on norms and values is analytically also unavoidable.
Q: Some scholars assert that international relations is an Anglo-American discipline, but others claim that international relations has some roots in continental countries. What is your viewpoint about this division? To what extent do developing countries contribute to the discipline of international relations?
A: This is precisely one part of the processes of change that we are witnessing, as ideas about order and justice are becoming more global - or, rather, as power shifts away from the Greater West and as we see a process of the Provincializing of Westphalia, the dominance of Anglo-American approaches will inevitably come under greater challenge.
********* Professor Andrew Hurrell is Montague Burton Professor of International Relations and a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, since 2007. He is Director of the Centre for International Studies at the Department of Politics and International Relations of the University of Oxford. He is a leading theorist of the “International Society” approach pioneered at Oxford by Hedley Bull, and has published widely on a vast range of international issues, from the United Nations and humanitarian intervention to international law