From Structure to Complexity: Exploring the Relationship Between History and International Relations Theory through the Falklands & Iraq Conflicts

当国际关系（IR）在20世纪初开始作为一门学科出现时，许多最杰出的学者，如E.H.卡尔，本身就是历史学家，早期的国际关系理论深深扎根于历史领域（Duke, 1993）。然而，在二战后，随着冷战的开始，现实主义的历史焦点被一种新的强调结构所取代（华尔兹，1979）。尽管如此，冷战的结束是历史与国际关系之间关系的一个转折点，它与弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama）关于历史终结的新黑格尔主义方法（Fukuyama, 1992）重叠，为国际关系理论回归历史奠定了基础（Welsh, 2016）。同样，在后冷战时期，作为结构现实主义批判的现实主义建构主义的出现表明，有空间重新评估历史和ir之间更密切的关系可以为这两个学科提供什么（Barkin, 2003，第325页）。

When International Relations (IR) began to emerge as an academic discipline in the early 20th Century,many of its most prominent scholars, such as E.H. Carr, were themselves historians and early IR theorywas deeply rooted in the field of history (Duke, 1993). However, in the post-Second World War erawith the onset of the Cold War, the historical focus of realism was replaced with a newfound emphasison structure (Waltz, 1979). Nonetheless, the end of the Cold War was a transition point for therelationship between history and IR which, overlapping with Francis Fukuyama's neo-Hegelianapproach to the end of history (Fukuyama, 1992), laid the foundations for a return to history in IRtheory (Welsh, 2016). Equally, the emergence of realist constructivism as a critique of structuralrealism in the post-Cold War period illustrates that there is room to re-evaluate what a closerrelationship between history and I.R. can offer both disciplines (Barkin, 2003, p.325).