الف ) فارسی
- 1. مشیرزاده، حمیرا. (1377) «واقعگرایی و سه مناظره در روابط بینالملل،» مطالعات حقوقی و ی، 1: 185 ـ159.
- مشیرزاده، حمیرا. (1390) «تحولات جدید نظری در روابط بینالملل: زمینه مناسب برای نظریهپردازی بومی،» پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی، 6، 2: 204-165. در: http://www.ipsajournal.ir/article_147.html (12 خرداد 1401).
ب) انگلیسی
- Adler, Emanuel; and Vincent Pouliot. (2011) “International Practices,” International Theory 3, 1: 1-36, <DOI:10.1017/S175297191000031X>.
- Adler, Emanuel. (1997) “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, 3: 319-63, <DOI:10.1177%2F1354066197003003003>.
- Ashley, Richard. (1981) “Political Realism and Human Interests,” International Studies Quarterly 25: 204-236, <DOI:10.2307/2600353>.
- Bennett, Andrew. (2013) The Mother of All Isms: Causal Mechanisms and Structured Pluralism in International Relations Today,” European Journal of International Relations 19, 3: 459-481, <DOI:101177/1354066113495484>.
- Bleiker, Roland; and Emma Hutchinson. (2008) “Fear No More: Emotions and World Politics,” Review of International Studies 34, 1: 115–135, <DOI:10.1017/S1752971914000232>.
- Bohm, David, et al. (n.d.) “Dialogue- A Proposal,” Dialogue Associates. Available at: https://www.dialogue-associates.com/files/files/ DIALOGUE%20A %20PROPOSAL% 2026-3-14(2).pdf (Accessed 23 June 2019).
- Bull, Hedley. (1966) “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” World Politics 18, 3: 361-377, <DOI:10.2307/2009761>.
- Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2013) “Theoretical Pluralism in IR: Possibilities and Limits,” in Walter Carlsnaes, et al., eds. The Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage, 220-241, 2nd ed.
- Der Derian, James. (1998, May) “The Scriptures of Security,” Mershon International Studies Review 42: 117-122, <DOI:10.2307/254447>.
- Dunne, Tim, et al. (2013) “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19, 3: 405-425, .
- Feyerabend, Paul. (1993) Against Method. London: Verso, 3rd ed.
- Gunnlaugson, Olen. (2014) “Bohmian Dialogue: A Critical Retrospective of Bohm’s Approach to Dialogue as a Practice of Collective Communication,” Journal of Dialogue Studies 2, 1: 25-34. Available at: http://dialoguestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Bohmian_Dialogue_a_Critical_Retrospective_of_Bohm_s_Approach_to_Dialogue_as_a_Practice_of_Collective_Communication.pdf (Accessed 23 April ).
- Hollis, Martin; and Steve Smith. (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Hutchison, Emma; and Roland Bleiker. (2014) “Theorizing Emotions in World Politics,” International Theory 6, 491-514, <DOI:10.1017/ S1752971914000232>.
- Inayatullah, Naeem; and David Blaney. (2004) International Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York and London: Routledge.
- Kristensen, Peter. (2018) “International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy,” International Studies Quarterly 62, 2: 245-259, <DOI:10.1093/ isq/sqy002>.
- Kurki, Milja; and Colin Wight. (2006) “International Relations and Social Science,” in Tim Dunne et al., eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, <DOI:10.1093/hepl/ 9780198707561. 003.0002>.
- Lake, David. (2013) “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 19, 3: 567-587, <DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00661.x>.
- Lake, David. (2011) “Why ‘‘isms’’ Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress,” International Studies Quarterly 55, 465-480, <DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00661.x>.
- Moravscik, Andrew. (1997) “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization 51, 4: 513-553, <DOI:10.1162/ 002081897550447>.
- Morgenthau, Hans. (1952) “Another ‘Great Debate’: The National Interest of the US” The American Political Science Review 46, 4: 961-988, < DOI:10.2307/ 1952108>.
- Moshirzadeh, Homeira. (2020) “The Idea of Dialogue of Civilizations and Core-Periphery Dialogue in International Relations,” All Azimuth 9, 2: 211-227, <DOI:10.20991/allazimuth.725234>.
- Nau, Henry. (2011) “No Alternatives to ‘Isms’,” International Studies Quarterly 55, 487-491, <DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00658.x>.
- Ray, Larry. (2004) “Pragmatism and Critical Theory,” European Journal of Social Theory 7, 3: 307-321, <DOI:10.1177/1368431004044195>.
- Ree, Gerard van der. (2014) “Saving the Discipline: Plurality, Social Capital, and the Sociology of IR Theorizing,” International Political Sociology 8: 218-233, <DOI:10.1111/ips.1205>.
- Rengger, Nicholas. (2015) “Pluralism in International Relations Theory: Three Questions,” International Studies Perspective 16: 32-39, <DOI:10.1111/ insp.12090>.
- Schweller, Randall L. (1994, June) “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In,” International Security 19, 1: 72-107, <DOI:10.2307/2539149>.
- Sil, Rudra; and Peter Katzenstein. (2011a) Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Sil, Rudra; and Peter Katzenstein. (2011b) “De-Centering, Not Discarding, the ‘‘Isms’’: Some Friendly Amendments,” International Studies Quarterly 55: 481-485, <DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00657.x>.
- Smith, Steve. (1996) “Positivism and Beyond,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Waltz, Kenneth. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.
- Wendt, Alexander. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.>
|
