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

当国际关系在20世纪初开始作为一门学科出现时，它的许多最著名的学者，如E·H·卡尔，本身就是历史学家，早期的国际关系理论深深植根于历史领域(杜克，1993)。然而，随着冷战的爆发，在二战后的时代，现实主义的历史焦点被一种新的强调结构所取代(Waltz，1979)。尽管如此，冷战的结束是历史和国际关系之间关系的一个转折点，与弗朗西斯·福山的新黑格尔的历史终结方法重叠(福山，1992)，为国际关系理论的回归历史(威尔士，2016)奠定了基础。同样，现实主义建构主义在后冷战时期作为对结构现实主义的批判而出现，表明有重新评估历史和IR之间的密切关系能够提供这两个学科的空间(Barkin，2003，p.325)。

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).