Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:21:04.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IR in France: state and costs of a disciplinary variety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2014

MATTHIEU CHILLAUD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses the issue of disciplinary variety in French International Relations (IR) from the perspective of Bourdieu's scientific field theory. The tug of war between ‘dominants’ and ‘pretenders’ for the control of IR as ‘their’ discipline in French academia originates from the difficulty of (only) one discipline, that is, political science, monopolising IR. Compared to other subfields of political science, IR is the field of research that borrows most from other scholarly disciplines. These difficulties strengthened the imperviousness of French IR to the works of IR scholars from the Anglo-American world; until very recently, insularity and particularism could not proceed much further. This period matches roughly to one in which IR was dominated, in France, by law and history. Today there is still a very strong influence of this period when scholars from disciplines other than political science distrusted IR theories. Other reasons related to the issue of the disciplinary variety of IR, for instance the absence of a general acknowledgment of the peer-review system, may contribute to the complexity, if not confusion, which characterises the identify of French IR.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 803 - 824
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

** Translations of French texts quoted in this article are unofficial translations by the author.

1 If the author of this article is French, he has presently no position in France. Participant-observer indeed, he does not defend any ‘schools’ and does not belong to any networks.

2 Keep in mind that this article focuses on the state of IR in France and not in French-speaking countries. It might be confusing for non French-speakers to make the distinction to the extent that the language is the same. In Africa, in Canada, in Belgium, in Luxembourg and in Switzerland, the situation is absolutely incomparable to France. Additionally, some French academics have made a significant international breakthrough in IR abroad, chiefly in Québec or in Africa but do not qualify for inclusion in this article. On the other hand, some academics that do not have the French citizenship but have always been working in France will be included.

3 Vennesson, P., ‘Les Relations Internationales dans la Science Politique aux États-Unis’, Politix, 11:1 (1998), pp. 181–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For instance, note the existence of the Association des internationalistes (Association of IR scholars) set up in 2010. It gathers most of French IR scholars notwithstanding their original disciplines (political science, geography, history, economics, and law).

5 In order to understand the peculiarities of French IR, it is necessary not to underestimate consequences of the numerous internal conflicts. According to Constantin: ‘The current situation results, first of all, in the history of a subject planned in certain curricula of universities; and like all subjects, international relations has been the object of covetousness, provoking its appropriation by fraternities or parishes who claim the monopoly of useful knowledge and attempt to neutralize, or even excommunicate, all applicants not acknowledged by the inner circle, according to power struggles between faculties, if not between colleagues.’ Constantin, F., ‘Les Relations Internationales dans le Champs Scientifique Français ou les Pesanteurs d'une Lourde Hérédité’, La Revue Internationale et Stratégique, 47:3 (2002), pp. 91–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Let's mention also the Heisbourg Report (2000), titled officially Mission d'Analyse et de Proposition Relative à l'Enseignement et à la Recherche en ‘Relations Internationales’ et ‘Affaires Stratégiques et de Défense’, in which the word ‘barony’ is bluntly penned for describing the natural tendency of IR scholars to claim a monopoly of IR by the yardstick of their own discipline. Appointed in November 1998 and led by François Heisbourg, this commission had to make some propositions inter alia for reforming IR curricula in French universities. See François Heisbourg, Mission d'Analyse et de Proposition Relative à l'Enseignement et à la Recherche en ‘Relations Internationales’ et ‘Affaires Stratégiques et de Défense’ (2000), available at: {http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics//004001058/0000.pdf} accessed 2 October 2013.

6 See the illuminating introduction of the book edited by Tickner, Arlene B. and Wæver, Ole on IR outside the US. ‘Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies’, International Relations Scholarship Around the World (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 1–31Google Scholar. The authors have edited a brilliant book examining the ways in which IR has evolved and is practised based on 16 cases. Incidentally, notice that this piece of work belongs to the growing documentation on IR outside the Anglo-American mainstream. See also Tickner, Arlene and Blaney, David L. (eds), Thinking International Relations Differently (Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar.

7 This is the observation made by Brown, Chris in his chapter ‘Fog in the Channel: Continental International Relations Theory Isolated’, in Crawford, Robert M. A. and Jarvis, Darryl S. L. (eds), International Relations – Still an American Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), pp. 203–19Google Scholar.

8 In French, let us list Dario Battistella's analysis in the acute chapter, which ends the last edition of his manual. Battistella, Dario, ‘Les Relations Internationales en France’, in Battistella, Dario (ed.), Théories des Relations Internationales (4th edn, Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po, 2012), pp. 689–721Google Scholar. The author, professor at Sciences po Bordeaux and well-known for being one of the few academics committed in favour of theories in IR, by analysing the evolution of IR (in political science) within the French academia, deals especially with the issue of theories; he argues that ‘theories … remains at the fringe compared to what is agreed to call the sociology of international relations’. There are also all the very interesting articles in the issue of the journal Revue Internationale et Stratégique dedicated on the state of IR in France. ‘Relations Internationales. La Tentation d'Exister’, La Revue Internationale et Stratégique, 47:3 (2002), pp. 77–167. N. Ragaru, ‘L'État des Relations Internationales en France’, pp. 77–81; M.-C. Smouts, ‘Entretien. Les Relations Internationales en France: Regard sur une Discipline’, pp. 83–9; F. Constantin, ‘Les Relations Internationales dans le Champ Scientifique Français ou les Pesanteurs d'une Lourde Hérédité’, pp. 90–9; J. J. Roche, ‘L'Enseignement des Relations Internationales en France: les Aléas d'une “Discipline-Carrefour”’, pp. 100–7; A.J.R. Groom, ‘Les Relations Internationales en France: un Regard d'Outre-Manche’, pp. 108–17; J. Laroche, ‘La Mondialisation: Lignes de Force et Objets de Recherche’, pp. 118–32; P. Ryfman, ‘Vers une “École Française” d'Analyse de l'Humanitaire?’, pp. 133–44; F. Petiteville, ‘L'Union Européenne, Acteur International “Global”? Un Agenda de Recherche’, pp. 145–57; G. Mink, ‘La Conversion de la “Soviétologie” Française après la Disparition de son Objet d'Étude’, pp. 158–67. Indeed, most of these authors are both judges and parties. In that sense, by analysing IR as an objet and as a subject, their axiological neutrality might be dubious. Yet, their analysis remains very relevant.

9 For instance, Henrik Ø. Breitenbauch carried out an intriguing doctoral dissertation at the University of Copenhagen under the supervision of Ole Wæver on the difficulties of the disciplinary field of IR in France go beyond a certain Cartesianism. By showing how French IR has evolved less comprehensively than transnational-American IR research practices toward an ideal-type form of the modern social science article, one of his main proposition is that compulsory standards of forms (chiefly the famous French school essay, la dissertation) have a central role in this area. Henrik Ø. Breitenbauch, Cartesian Limbo. A Formal Approach to the Study of Social Sciences: International Relations in France, PhD Thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen 92008). His dissertation was recently published under the title International Relations in France: Writing between Discipline and State (London: Routledge, 2013). For his part, Chillaud published a policy-oriented paper in the journal European Political Science analysing the development of IR within French academe and reviewing the scholarly output of IR teaching. Chillaud, M., ‘International Relations in France: The “Usual Suspects” in a French Scientific Field of Study?’, European Political Science, 8 (2009), pp. 239–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In a chapter in an edited volume, Giesen, by taking stock of the development of IR in France but also in other French-speaking countries, between 1945 and 1994, touches upon in a very fragmentary fashion our problematic issue. The author, who explores the Francophone particularities (not only in France), identifies the scholarly practice as one of the main reason of the peculiarities in France. Giesen, Klaus-Gerd, ‘France and other French-speaking Countries (1945–1994)’, in Jørgensen, Knud Erik, (ed.), International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Schools and Perspectives (London: Routlege, 2006), pp. 19–46Google Scholar. Last but not least, let's mention the chapter on IR in Western Europe written by Jörg Fridrichs and Ole Wæver in the intriguing book edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver. Friedrichs, Jörg and Wæver, Ole, ‘Western Europe. Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels’, in Tickner, Arlene B. and Wæver, Ole (eds), International Relations Scholarship Around the World (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 261–86Google Scholar. There is also the chapter on France in the book penned by Jörg Fridrichs. In the two texts, the authors, by examining the development of IR studies in France, have a similar approach: they try to identify the reasons which contribute to the construction of the ‘French mansion’ as a part of many ones into a wider community. Friedrichs, Jörg, ‘International Relations Theory in France: three Generations of Parisian Intellectual Life’, in Friedrichs, Jörg (ed.), European Approaches to International Relations Theory. A House with Many Mansions (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 29–46Google Scholar.

10 Bourdieu, P., ‘Le Champ Scientifique’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 2:2–3 (1976), p. 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Hoffmann, S., ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus, 106:3 (1977), pp. 41–60Google Scholar.

12 The very stimulating book International Relations – Still An American Social Science (2001) is telling. The very few references to French IR are made by the Francophone and Francophile British IR scholar A.J.R. Groom. See A.J.R Groom and Peter Mandaville, ‘Hegemony and Autonomy in International Relations: The Continental Experience’, in Crawford and Jarvis (eds), pp. 157–63.

13 Bourdieu, ‘Le Champs Scientifique’, p. 91.

14 Duroselle, J.-B., ‘La Nature de la Politique Internationale’, Politique internationale, 4 (1979), p. 111Google Scholar.

15 Jörg Friedrichs and Ole Wæver, ‘Western Europe. Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels’, in Tickner and Wæver (eds), p. 263.

16 M.-C. Smouts, ‘Les Relations Internationales en France. Regards sur une Discipline’, p. 84.

17 Jörg Friedrichs, ‘International Relations Theory in France: three Generations of Parisian Intellectual Life’, in Friedrichs (ed.), p. 29.

18 F. Constantin, ‘Les Relations Internationales dans le Champs Scientifique Français ou les Pesanteurs d'une Lourde Hérédité’, p. 90.

19 Friedrichs and Wæver, ‘Western Europe. Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels’, p. 263.

20 Ole Wæver, ‘Aberystwyth, Paris: Copenhagen. The Europeanness of New “Schools” of Security Theory in an American Field’, in Tickner and Blaney (eds), pp. 48–71.

21 This could astonish foreigners who usually take for granted that the ‘Paris School’ is a major school of thought in France.

22 See, for example, the contributions in the forum dedicated to Foucault and IR in the journal International Political Sociology. IPS forum contribution, ‘Assessing the Impact of Foucault on International Relations’, International Political Sociology, 4:2 (2012), pp. 196–215. Broadly speaking, the philosophers who became so influential in Anglo-Saxon social sciences had little impact on IR scholarship in France itself.

23 A quick glance at the works of French IR scholars shows that – with the exception of Didier Bigo's – Foucault is very rarely quoted. Of course, this is absolutely not the case in philosophy and in sociology.

24 Bigo, D., ‘Security’ in Adler-Nissen, Rebecca (ed.), Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR (London and New York, Routledge, 2012), pp. 114–30Google Scholar.

25 Battistella, D. and Cornut, J., ‘Des RI Françaises en Émergence. Les Internationalistes Français dans le Sondage TRIP 2011’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 63:2 (2013), p. 309Google Scholar.

26 Well shown by the chapter penned by Favre, Pierre and Dada, Nadine, ‘La Science Politique en France’, in Commission Européenne and IEP de Paris (eds), La Science Politique en Europe. Formation, Coopération, Perspectives, Conférence d'Évaluation (Paris: Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1996), pp. 214–49Google Scholar.

27 Have in mind that political science – including IR – is taught in two kinds of institutions. The first, comprising the nine Instituts d'Études Politiques (IEPs), constitutes the most prestigious institutions of graduate education and research in French political science. IEPs that are considered to be Grandes écoles (literally ‘Great Schools’) are higher education establishments outside the mainstream system of public universities. Unlike French public universities, which have an obligation to accept all candidates in the same academic field, the selection criteria of Grandes écoles are competitive. The most prestigious IEP is the one in Paris (Sciences po Paris). Semi-autonomous public establishment, it arose from the old École libre des Sciences politiques in 1945. Afterwards, eight other IEPs were created. These institutions with selective recruitment are relatively independent in comparison with the universities to which they are administratively attached. The other type of institution where teaching takes place is the faculties of law, in which there are some law curricula but also often political science curricula (usually on the master level). This dates back to 1954, when a national regulation introduced political science as a compulsory discipline. Note that in law curricula, (which usually also include courses in other social sciences, such as sociology and political science), IR courses are usually run by lawyers, whereas in political science curricula they are run either by lawyers or political scientists. What is really odd in the French system is that political science is not exclusively taught in either IEPs or faculties of law.

28 It is usually taken for granted that IR emerged in 1919 and developed through the first great debate between realists and idealists. Yet, some scholars have contested this ‘myth’. This benchmark has been called into question, for instance, by Barry Buzan who has been carrying out an intriguing research programme on ‘the long 19th century’ as axial time of world politics. See Buzan, Barry and Lawson, George, ‘The Global Transformation: the Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 59:1 (2013), pp. 1–15Google Scholar. Nonetheless, without challenging the rise of IR before World War I, we prefer to stick to that date as a starting point to assess the trajectory of French IR in view of the fact that it has been since 1919 that IR has been considered as an academic field of research within universities.

29 We are extremely well informed about the various disciplines that dealt with international issues during the interwar period, thanks to the chapter by Pierre Renouvin in the fascinating book edited by UNESCO in 1950. Renouvin, Pierre, ‘La Contribution de la France à l'Étude des Relations Internationales’ in UNESCO (ed.), La Science Politique Contemporaine. Contribution à la Recherche, la Méthode et l'Enseignement (Paris: UNESCO, 1950), pp. 578–92Google Scholar. This book is a real mine of information on the institutionalisation of political science all over the world.

30 Friedrichs, ‘International Relations Theory in France: three Generations of Parisian Intellectual Life’, p. 30.

31 There were, however, some attempts to give IR its spurs. Aron, Raymond, a pioneer in that regard, published Paix et Guerre entre les Nations (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1962)Google Scholar. In English, Aron, Raymond, Peace and War. A Theory of International Relations, trans. Howard, Richard and Backer, Annette (Garden City, New York: Double Day, 1966)Google Scholar. Nevertheless, this was more of an essay than a manual. Marcel Merle (1923–2003) published La Vie Internationale in 1963, and afterwards Sociologie des Relations Internationales. Merle, Marcel, Sociologie des Relations Internationales (4th edn, Paris: Dalloz, 1988)Google Scholar. Step-by-step manuals integrating debates on major IR theories were published. Some of these were written by academics coming from Sciences po and the CERI (Centre d'Études et de Recherche internationale). Originating from inside political science, this trend transposed its methods and approaches from the national to the international level. It is worth mentioning Badie, Bertrand and Smouts, Marie-Claude, Le Retournement du Monde. Sociologie de la Scène Internationale (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, Dalloz, 1992)Google Scholar and Badie, B. and Smouts, M.-C., ‘The Turnaround of the World’, Geopolitics, 5:2 (2000), pp. 85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Smouts, Marie-Claude (ed.), Les Nouvelles Relations Internationales. Pratiques et Théories, (Paris: Presses de Sciences po, 1998)Google Scholar and Smouts, M.-C., ‘The Meanings of Violence and Its Role in Legitimation. Cultures et Conflits’, Mershon International Studies Review, 39:1 (1995), pp. 111–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the launching of the review Cultures et Conflits by Bigo. Other work was conducted in the framework of realism and strategic issues. The main advocate of this approach is Jean-Jacques Roche. Roche, Jean-Jacques, Théories des Relations Internationales (8th edn, Paris: Montchrestien, 2010 [orig. pub. 1994])Google Scholar and Relations Internationales (Paris: L.G.D.J., 2001). Dario Battistella published a very stimulating manual, which comes from his teachings at Sciences po Bordeaux. Dario Battistella, Théories des Relations Internationales. Josepha Laroche, professor of political science at La Sorbonne, espouses a sociological approach to IR, chiefly from the perspective of international political economy. Laroche, Josepha, Politique Internationale (2nd edn, Paris: LGDJ, 2000 [orig. pub. 1998])Google Scholar. Pascal Vennesson took an interest in military sociology. Vennesson, Pascal, Les Chevaliers de l'Air. Aviation et Conflits au XXe siècle (Paris: Presses de Sciences po and Fondation pour les Études de Défense, 1997)Google Scholar. See also Caplow, Theodore and Vennesson, Pascal, Sociologie militaire (Paris: Armand Colin, 2000)Google Scholar. Frédéric Ramel, elected recently as professor of IR at Sciences po Paris, published an interesting book, with David Cumin, Philosophie des Relations internationales and a fascinating essay on the concepts of ‘polarisation’ and ‘seduction’ in IR. Ramel, Frédéric and Cumin, David, Philosophie des Relations Internationale (2nd edn, Paris: Presses de Sciences po, 2011 [orig. pub. 2002])Google Scholar; and Ramel, Frédéric, L'Attraction Mondiale (Paris: Presses de Sciences po, 2012)Google Scholar. Thomas Lindemann is almost certainly the only scholar in France to work exclusively on constructivism, a research agenda neglected by most French researchers. Lindemann, Thomas, Penser la Guerre. L'Apport Constructiviste (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2008)Google Scholar. Sabine Saurugger from Sciences po Grenoble wrote what is probably the first manual to make the link between theory and European Union studies. Saurruger, Sabine, Théories et Concepts de l'Intégration Européenne (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2009)Google Scholar. Franck Petiteville who teaches at the same place, got interested on the concept of mu ltilateralism in IR. Petiteville, Franck, Le Multilatéralisme (Paris: Montchrestien, 2009)Google Scholar.

32 Roche, ‘L'Enseignement des Relations Internationales en France’, p. 101.

33 Ibid., p. 104.

34 There are three major French ‘think tanks’ (Institut français de Relations internationales/IFRI, Fondation pour la Recherche stratégique/FRS and Institut de Relations internationales et stratégiques/IRIS) to which one may add a research centre integrated into the military administration (Institut de Recherche stratégique de l'École militaire/IRSEM) and another one that depends on the Centre national de Recherche scientifique (CNRS), the Centre d'Étude de Recherches internationales (CERI). If the latter is certainly the most open to theories, this is probably because it belongs to the CNRS (a state organ) and as such it does not fear the paymasters' vagaries.

35 We might point out, nevertheless, that some significant French academic institutions were set up thanks to American foundations. For example, the prestigious La Maison des Sciences de l'Homme was mainly financed by the Ford Foundation. Let's also mention the Fondation nationale des Sciences politiques, which was financed inter alia by the Rockfeller Foundation.

36 J. Hubert-Rodier, ‘Enquête: le Pays Manque de Laboratoires d'Idées en Matière de Relations Internationales’, Les Echos (25 April 2007).

37 Even in the US, the problem is similar. In a Washington Post column, Joseph Nye has lamented the growing gap between theory and practice in the field of IR. ‘Scholars are paying less attention to questions about how their work relates to the policy world, and in many departments a focus on policy can hurt one's career. Advancement comes faster for those who develop mathematical models, new methodologies or theories expressed in jargon that is unintelligible to policymakers’. Joseph Nye, ‘Scholars on the Sidelines’, Washington Post (13 April 2009). One of the reasons is that there is a persistent chasm between what ‘suppliers’ of social research offer and what the prospective ‘users’ of this research seek.

38 See the intriguing rapport made by Marc Loriol , Françoise Piotet, and David Delfolie, Le Travail Diplomatique. Un Métier et un Art, Rapport de recherche pour le ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes (MAEE), Laboratoire Georges Friedmann – UMR 8593 (December 2008), available at: {http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/rapportfianl_sociologue.pdf} accessed 2 October 2013.

39 Friedrichs and Wæver, ‘Western Europe. Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels’, p. 267. Jean-Michel Emery-Douzans, a prominent French scholar at Sciences Po Toulouse, has conducted extensive works on French elites and particularly on énarques (graduate of ENA). He addressed chiefly the issue of their atheoritical curriculum in his book, La Fabrique des Énarques (Paris: Économica, 2001).

40 Friedrichs and Wæver, ‘Western Europe. Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels’, p. 263.

41 Chillaud, M., ‘Strategic Studies in France. Plus Ça Change’, Res Militaris (an online social science journal), 3:1 (2012), pp. 6–7, available at: {http://resmilitaris.net}Google Scholar.

42 Bourdieu, ‘Le Champ Scientifique’, p. 91.

43 We might mention inter alia the Revue Française de Science Politique, Critique Internationale, Culture et Conflit, Revue d'Étude Comparative Est/Ouest, Politique Européenne. The journal Politique Étrangère has adopted a hybrid system. Some of the articles are selected through a process of peer review, others are not.

44 Smith, A., ‘French Political Science and European Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:4 (2000), p. 663CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Even though it is really annoying that some expressions in English are lost in translation in French. The most illustrative example is the neologism securitisation translated absurdly in French by sécurisation, which means in English (as well as in French) the action to make safe.

46 There is an excellent synthesis on this issue by d'Aoust, A.-M., ‘Accounting for the Politics of Language in the Sociology of IR’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 15:1 (2012), pp. 120–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It's worth noting that the author is French-Canadian and not French.

47 This aspect has been analysed by Bourdieu and Wacquant. See Wacquant, Loïc and Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Sur les Ruses de la Raison Impérialiste’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 121:121–2 (1998), pp. 109–18Google Scholar.

48 It is worth noting that a new journal, the European Review of International Studies, is to be launched in 2014. Published in English by the German publisher Barbara Budrich and sponsored inter alia by the Association of the Internationalistes and the Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l'Ecole Militaire, the editors are the Francophone British academic A.J.R. Groom and the director of CERI, the French Christian Lequesne. Indeed, this journal cannot be considered as being sensu stricto part of the IR French community. Nonetheless, the fact that it integrates international standards, chiefly the peer-review one, may bode a positive evolution.

49 It would be interesting to carry out a thorough study on the problematic issue of publication and advancement in academic careers. It seems it is thanks to their extremely protected status that French academics can possibly pursue a career without being obliged to publish. Jobard's study, which concerns only researchers from the Centre national de recherche scientifique, offers a few comments to add to the discussion. Jobard, Fabien, ‘Combien Publient les Politistes, la Productivité des Politistes du CNRS et leurs Supports de Publication’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 60:1 (2010), pp. 117–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Incidentally, the first to host papers in IR was precisely the Revue Française de Science Politique (founded in 1951). Battistella and Cornut notice that in the TRIP survey, 22 per cent of the respondents who are IR scholars say the Revue française de science politique is the journal where they would like to publish. That journal is the second one after International organization (41 per cent). Batisttela and Cornut, ‘Des RI Françaises en Émergence. Les Internationalistes Français dans le Sondage TRIP 2011’, p. 317.

51 CERI is a research centre in political science with strong links between IR and area studies, and between domestic political systems and the sociology of international ones. The meaning of its earlier acronym was Centre d'Études des Relations internationales. To stress the complementarity between IR and comparative political sociology, it was eventually decided, in 1976, to change the name to Centre d'Études de Recherches internationales, with an alteration of ‘Relations’ to ‘Recherches’ (research).

52 The CNU, which is made up of academics, is the state organ in charge of accreditation for PhD scholars who intend to continue in the academic world just after they defend their doctoral dissertation. Without the ‘passport’ granted by the CNU, it is not possible to apply for a position in a university or in an IEP. The CNU is divided into groups of sections. There are as many sections (77) as there are disciplines – but IR is not among them. It is worth noting that, from a strictly legal perspective, all theses – whatever their discipline – can be qualified by any kind of sections. In addition, a qualification granted for a section is worth legally for a qualification granted by all the sections. Nevertheless, this is evidently a legal fiction. Because of the scarcity of positions, the candidate will have no chance of being hired if his qualification does not match the discipline of the position. It is technically possible for a non-politist to be ‘accredited’ by the section in political science. The doctrine of section 04 accepts for qualification theses, which are not political science theses, if three conditions are met. Firstly, ‘beside the excellence of the dissertation’, it must deal with subjects of direct interest to the discipline of political science. Secondly, the PhD, through the doctoral dissertation and scientific articles, must show that s/he masters ‘tools and methods of research of the discipline. He must demonstrate his capacity to mobilize the scientific literature and theories used in political science.’ Thirdly, ‘the presence of a politist among the members of the jury’ is essential. Conseil national des universités, section 04, Rapport annuel d'activité. Qualification aux fonctions de maître de conférences et de professeur des universités (Session 2012), p. 17, available at: {http://www.afsp.info/omasp/cnu/rapports/rapportcnu2012.pdf} accessed 2 October 2013. The problem had been acute with lawyers who supervised doctoral dissertations labelled IR but in political science. If there is no legal hindrance for a professor of public law to supervise PhD candidates in political science, it is, according to Pierre Sadran the former president of the CNU with whom the author of these lines had an interview in January 2012 ‘on behalf of deontological grounds that the CNU demand that supervisors be politists’. Before the introduction of the agrégation of political science in 1973 which constituted de jure the autonomy of political science, academics wore two hats: public law and political science. They could supervise doctoral dissertations in either of the two disciplines.

53 Phone interview with Jacques de Maillard, member of the AERES Commission, 2 January 2012.

54 See Communiqué de presse en date du 14 octobre 2008 of the French association of political science in which it ‘questions the criteria initiated’ available at: {http://www.afsp.msh-paris.fr/activite/2008/afsp141008aeres.pdf.} accessed 2 October 2013.

55 Liste des revues AERES pour le domaine SCIENCE POLITIQUE (Mise à jour le 29 January 2010) available at: {http://www.afsp.msh-paris.fr/activite/2008/afsp141008aeres.pdf.} accessed 14 June 2012.

56 For instance, in the public law list (Annuaire Français de Relations Internationales) or in the geography one (Hérodote).

57 Another aspect of the problem is that international rankings include rarely non English-speaking journals.

58 Renouvin, Pierre and Duroselle, Jean-Baptiste, Introduction à l'Histoire des Relations Internationales (Paris: Armand Colin, 1964)Google Scholar.

59 Duroselle, J.-B., ‘L'Étude des Relations internationales: Objet, Méthode, Perspectives’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 2:4 (1952), pp. 676–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Histoire des Relations Internationales’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 6:2 (1956), pp. 399–405.

60 Duroselle, J.-B., ‘Pierre Renouvin et la Science Politique’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 25:3 (1975), pp. 561–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Duroselle, Jean-Baptiste, Tout Empire Périra (Paris: Armand Colin, 1992), p. 17Google Scholar.

62 Quoted by Merle, M., ‘Sur la “Problématique” de l'Étude des Relations Internationales en France’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 33:3 (1983), p. 406CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Laroche, Josepha, ‘Science Politique et Relations Internationales: Mettons les Pendules à l'Heure’, in Darras, Éric and Philippe, O. (eds), La Science Politique, Une et Multiple (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2004), pp. 210–1Google Scholar.

64 Smouts, M.-C., ‘The Study of International Relations in France’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 16:2 (1987), p. 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is worth mentioning that Marie-Claude Smouts, like Marcel Merle, were initially both lawyers.

65 Smith, A., ‘French Political Science and European Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:4 (2000), p. 666CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 An intriguing work on the link between IR and international law is made in the book Droit international et relations internationales, published after a colloquium in 2008 dedicated to this issue. Société française de Droit international, Droit International et Relations Internationales. Divergences et Convergences (Paris: Pedone, 2010)Google Scholar.

67 It is worth mentioning André Sigfried (1875–1959), who was among the founding fathers of political science in France and a disciple of the famous French geographer Paul Vidal de La Blache (1845–1918). His major book, Le tableau politique de la France de l'Ouest (1913) was a geographical and sociological explanation of electoral behaviour that set the foundation for political science.

68 Gottmann, Jean, La Politique des États et leur Géographie (Paris: CTHS, 1951, re-edited in 2007)Google Scholar. See also his intriguing article, in English, ‘Geography and International Relations’, World Politics, 3:2 (1951), pp. 153–73.

69 Lévy, Jacques, Géographies du Politique (Paris: Presses de Sciences po, 1991)Google Scholar and ‘Geopolitics after Geopolitics: A French Experience’, Geopolitics, 5:3 (2000), pp. 99–113.

70 Foucher, Michel, Fronts et Frontières: Un Tour du Monde Géopolitique (Paris: Fayard, 1991)Google Scholar, ‘La Fin de la Géopolitique? Réflexions Géographiques sur la Grammaire des Puissances’, Politique étrangère, 61:1 (1997), pp. 19–31 and ‘The Geopolitics of Front Lines and Borderlines’, Geopolitics, 5:2 (2000), pp. 159–70.

71 Dussouy, Gérard, Quelle Géopolitique au XXIe siècle? (Paris: Les Éditions Complexe, 2001)Google Scholar.

72 Dussouy, Gérard, Traité de Relations Internationales: Tome 1, Les Théories Géopolitiques (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2006)Google Scholar, Traité de Relations Internationales: Tome 2, Les Théories de l'Interétatique (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2007) and Traité de Relations Internationales: Tome 3, Les Théories de la Mondialité (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2009).

73 Yves Lacoste, La Géographie, ça Sert, d'abord, à Faire la Guerre (Paris: Maspéro, 1976).

74 The anecdote is described by G. Minassian, ‘La Révolution Géopolitique Inachevée’, Le Monde (3 August 2010).

75 Vernant, J., ‘Une Sociologie des Relations Internationales’, Politique Étrangère, 17:4 (1952), p. 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Aron, Paix et Guerre entre les Nations, p. 62.

77 Aron, R., ‘Une Sociologie des Relations Internationales’, Revue française de Sociologie, 4:3 (1963), pp. 307–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Merle, Sociologie des Relations Internationales, p. 3.

79 Badie and Smouts, Le Retournement du Monde. Sociologie de la Scène Internationale, p. 19 and Badie and Smouts, ‘The Turnaround of the World’, p. 93.

80 Charillon, Frédéric (ed.), Politique Étrangère. Nouveaux Regards (Paris: Presses de Sciences po., 2002)Google Scholar.

81 Devin, Guillaume, Sociologie des Relations Internationales (Paris: La Découverte, 2007), pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

82 Smouts, ‘The Study of International Relations in France’, p. 283.

83 Friedrichs, ‘International Relations Theory in France: three Generations of Parisian Intellectual Life’, p. 32. See also Duroselle, J.-B., ‘Les “Area Studies”. Problèmes de Méthodes’, Bulletin International des Sciences Sociales, 4:4 (1952), pp. 674–84Google Scholar. The article is a bit old but still very relevant in order to understand the consubstantiality between the French colonial legacy and the precocious study of area studies. Yet, it did not avoid a belated emergence of IR in French academia.

84 See, for instance, Feuer, Guy and Cassan, Hervé, Droit International du Développement (Paris: Dalloz, 1985)Google Scholar.

85 Ryfman, ‘Vers une “École Française” d'Analyse de l'Humanitaire?’, pp. 133–44.

86 Deriennic, Jean-Pierre and Moïsi, Dominique, ‘France’, in International Studies in Six European Countries, A Report to the Ford Foundation (Ford Foundation publisher, 1976), p. 44Google Scholar.

87 Gonidec, Pierre-François, Relations Internationales (Paris: Montchrestien, 1977)Google Scholar.

88 A small but very telling detail is that Edmond Jouve, supervised the doctoral thesis of the daughter of Gaddafi until recently.

89 Jouve, Edmond, Relations Internationales (Paris: PUF, 1992)Google Scholar.

90 Mink, ‘La Conversion de la “Soviétologie” Française après la Disparition de son Objet d'Étude’, pp. 158–67.

91 Bouthoul, Gaston, Traité de Polémologie. Sociologie des Guerres (3rd edn, Paris: Payot, 1991)Google Scholar.

92 Coutau-Bégarie, Hervé, Traité de Stratégie (7th edn, Paris: Économica, Institut de Stratégie comparée, 2011 [orig. pub. 1999])Google Scholar.

93 Sur, Serge, Relations Internationales (Paris: Montchrestien, 1995), p. 41Google Scholar.

94 Roche, Jean-Jacques, Relations Internationales (Paris: L.G.D.J., 2001), p. 5Google Scholar.

95 Bourdieu, ‘Le Champ Scientifique’, p. 96.

96 The atheorism in IR is, in France, inversely proportional to the place of theories in other disciplinary fields of research such as philosophy. Even if this is not the place in that paper to pursue the debate, it would be, however, interesting to carry out research on the whys and the wherefores of this paradox.

97 Wæver, O., ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), p. 709CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Roche, Jean-Jacques, ‘Relations Internationales (théorie des)’, in Mesure, S. and Savidan, P. (eds), Le Dictionnaire des Sciences Humaines (Paris: PUF, 2006), p. 990Google Scholar.

99 Ibid.

100 Colas, Dominique, ‘La Recherche entre Sciences Juridiques et Sciences Politiques’, in Godelier, Maurice (ed.), Les Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société en France. Analyse et Propositions pour une Politique Nouvelle. Rapport Remis à Jean-Pierre Chevènement, Ministre d'État, Ministre de la Recherche et de l'Industrie, sur l'État des Sciences Sociales en France (Paris: Collection des rapports officiels. La Documentation Française, 1982), p. 365Google Scholar.

101 The most intriguing article on that issue is undoubtedly the one written by Guzzini, S., ‘The Significance and Roles of Teaching Theory in International Relations’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 4:2 (2001), pp. 98–117Google Scholar.

102 A telling example is the way, not really respectful, that Jean-Baptiste Duroselle talks about IR theorists. ‘They invent obscure concepts, with grandiose names, and a simple purpose: smoke screen hiding the objective … I see haughtily running wild so many under-Lyssenkos, so many fanatic intolerant, so many obscurantists, or simply so many naives and gulls.’ Duroselle, ‘La Nature de la Politique Internationale’, p. 111 and p. 112. Remember that Lysenkoism – in reference to the Soviet alleged biologist and agronomist – is usually used as a metaphor for describing the manipulation of a scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological skewness.

103 Aron, R., ‘Qu'est-Ce Qu'une Théorie des Relations Internationales?’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 17:5 (1967), pp. 837–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Smouts, ‘Les Relations Internationales en France. Regards sur une Discipline’, p. 85.

105 Galtung, J., ‘Structure, Culture and Intellectual Style. An Essay Comparing Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic and Nipponic Approaches’, Social Science Information, 20:6 (1981), p. 830CrossRefGoogle Scholar.