During our latest meeting, we engaged in a captivating discussion that revolved around the intriguing relationship between the fields of International Relations (IR) and history. The focal point of our conversation delved into the distinctive methodologies and research approaches employed by these disciplines, prompting us to explore avenues for bridging the gap between them.

The first, and most obvious thing we remarked is that history goes deeply into the sociohistorical context of a certain process/event. We illustrated this point with a seemingly strange phenomenon: the ever-increasing support for Russia in African states, especially the Sahel region. But this development can be elucidated when we look at the deep historical roots Russia has in said region.

When anticolonial sentiments came afore in such countries, Russia supported them without expecting any ideological or normative commitments. Now, anti-French sentiments continue to increase as French firms dominate these countries, which are all former French colonies, whilst living conditions of the local population have worsened to unbearable conditions. Again, Russia shows support in the form of the recently decapitated Wagner Group and Putin continues to tap into the anticolonialism sentiment with his speeches. Thus, by looking at the sociohistorical context, we can make sense of the world we live in today.

International relations theorists are more interested in general patterns and behaviour, instead of the agency-focused historians. These generalizations are more suitable to uncover patterns and ‘predict’ the future.

For example, by tracking certain democratic parameters (electoral process, civil liberties, etc.) of states around the globe with indexes of organisations such as V-Dem, Freedom House or Economist Intelligence Unit, political scientists have shown how democracies are on a decline. And considering their quantitative data, it is likely to do so.  However, we recognise a serious danger: IR fails to into account the ever-changing sociohistorical background, especially when research spans several hundreds of years. Democracies today differ enormously from 18^th century democracies; where now all citizens older than eighteen can vote, only rich and elite men could vote back then. 

However, we remarked how this is mainly a problem with classical theories like realism and liberalism. Newer IR-trends like feminism and Critical Theory do add this historical context to show how seemingly natural categories like race and gender are actually social practices. Though it remains difficult to create a fit-for-all general law when it comes to complex processes embedded in deep historical roots.

The second theme discussed was the agency vs. structure debate: do actors have significant influence in IR, or is it subordinate to overarching structures. This debate is of significance as there is a difference of research inquire, which I have already mentioned shortly, between the two disciplines: where historians focus on agency, IR-theorists have structure and behaviour at its core.

Our first thought was that agency of actors was decisive. Whilst we felt that structure limits the actors’ options, it is ultimately the actors who makes the choice and can even transform structures to some extent. The geopolitical situation seemed to make the outbreak of major interstate war unlikely with theorists like Francis Fukuyama even touting the so-called ‘end of history’ with the emergence of what theorists later called the Liberal International Order. And in a globalized world where war would seriously harm one’s own economy, Putin still decided to invade Ukraine. We realise that he may have had good motives for justifying such a move, but our point still stands that he as an agent was decisive in the occurrence of such a war.

Though we must also realise that there are processes where the actions of actors have little to no effect or are seemingly insignificant in the big picture. Even though technological innovations have sped up the process of globalisation, we cannot attribute it to a single act of agency. Furthermore, while actors have the possibility to transform and change structures to a certain extent, it seems near impossible to stop globalisation at its current stage. Furthermore, globalisation has fundamentally changed the power dynamics in the world: where states used to be only players in town, now intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, and multinational companies are able to significantly influence policymaking.

In this article, we have explored the fascinating intersection of history and International Relations (IR). We began by examining the contrasting methodologies and objectives of the two fields. While history provides valuable insights into the past and helps us make sense of the present, IR offers a framework for analyzing global affairs and developing impactful policies.

Throughout the discussion, we have emphasized the importance of incorporating both historical analysis and IR perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of international dynamics. By bridging the gap between the two disciplines, we can harness the power of interdisciplinary research to generate innovative insights and foster meaningful conversations.

In conclusion, while history and IR may differ in various aspects, they both contribute valuable perspectives to the study of international relations. By embracing an interdisciplinary approach and leveraging the strengths of each field, we can deepen our understanding of complex global issues and work towards creating a more informed and harmonious world.