Albeit fashionable in some academic circles, the idea that International Relations theory should influence practice is based on the problematic view that scholars allegedly have a privileged epistemological standpoint making them more qualified than laymen and decision-makers alike to understand how international politics works. The present article tries to show why this assumption is mistaken and suggests that the so-called theory-practice gap should not be bridged. The fact that International Relations theory should not directly influence policy does not mean, however, that students of international politics are of no political use. Their work can be justified not in terms of the direct application of their findings, but rather by virtue of its indirect and unintended consequences on policymaking. Relying on a liberal view of political knowledge, the article claims that the role of International Relations scholars is not to suggest to policymakers what action to take, but rather to prevent foreign policy being formulated in the absence of rival theoretical conclusions.they that have no Science, are in better, and nobler condition with their naturall Prudence; than men, that by mis-reasoning, or by trusting them that reason wrong, fall upon false and absurd generall rules. For ignorance of causes, and of rules, does not set men so farre out of their way,

International Relations and the European Union takes a unique approach by incorporating the study of the EU's world role into the wider field of international relations. The text explains the EU's role in the contemporary world. Beginning with an examination of theoretical frameworks and approaches, the text goes on to address the institutions and processes that surround the EU's international relations. Key policy areas, such as security and trade, are outlined in detail, alongside the EU's relations with specific countries, including the United States, China, India, and Russia. Updates for the third edition include expanded discussions of three key perspectives to provide a rounded picture of the EU's place in the international system: as a sub-system of international relations, as part of the process of international relations, and as a power in its own right.

Ever since the conventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turned into irregular conflicts, both students of war and practitioners have furiously debated counterinsurgency's logic, goals, and chances of success. 1 Counterinsurgency doctrine, however, has experienced no radical change since its original development. It was originally, though not systematically, formulated in the twentieth century by none other than the British officer, T.E. Lawrence, and later extended, on the basis of the writings of Mao, by a variety of counterrevolutionary strategists such as the French theorists of la guerre revolutionnaire. Even the new counterinsurgency doctrine devised by General David Petraeus in Iraq and Afghanistan does not represent a fundamental shift away from its traditional understanding, which sees this type of conflict as a contest for the support and control of population and, in turn, places the security of the populace at the hub of military operations. 2 While at present there is general agreement on how to carry out counterinsurgency, 3 a clear analysis of the tradeoffs that all counterinsurgents have to deal with is still lacking. While challenges within the field remain, counterinsurgency still faces numerous challenges in theory. Neither scholars nor practitioners have developed a theoretical framework that has been able to explicitly specify the existing tradeoffs among the three typical goals involved in this doctrine.

While a superb scholarship on Morgenthau as a political theorist has literally exploded over the past ten years, his analysis of foreign policy has been generally neglected, overlooking the intimate relationship between theory and policy in his practical philosophy. This article presents Morgenthau's public opposition to the Vietnam War by placing it in the broader framework of his theoretical work. In doing so, I illustrate and clarify the meaning of three theses that are at the very centre of his political reflection: the critique to any type of universalistic understanding of world politics; his claim about the intangible roots and social bases of political order; and, finally, the dangers of the ‘military displacement of politics’. Writing about Morgenthau's critique of American intervention in Vietnam today is neither a purely academic exercise, nor a mere historical reconstruction of a great scholar's position on one of the most important military conflicts of the twentieth century. In fact, this article aims to shed light on some intellectual categories which seem to be useful in order to understand current political phenomena, and to criticise philosophies and faulty modes of thought that still enjoy a predominant but unjustified political status.

This study argues that warfare is permeated by attitudes toward death, and that the history of war is also a history of these changing attitudes. By focusing on body disposal and burial practices, the article traces when and how soldiers-once regarded as simple military instruments-started to be conceived as individuals qua individuals, eventually becoming the hardly expendable beings that we know today. Although a focus on disposal and burial practices might sound fanciful, how corpses are dealt with can suggest whether, and in what ways, individuals are important to the living. It can also shed light on the origins of a variety of current phenomena, such as casualty sensitivity, post-heroic warfare, and risk-transfer militarism.Author's note: This study is part of a broader inquiry on the changing meaning of soldiers' death. For extensive comments on the overall research, I'd like to thank Ted Hop, Konstantin Vo ¨ssing, and Alex Wendt. A previous version of this article was delivered at the Annual Conference of the Italian Standing Group on International Relations (SGRI), Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trent, Italy (June 23, 2016). I am thankful to Michele Chiaruzzi for inviting me to contribute to the panel "Questioni di suprema importanza" and to the other participants, especially to Filippo Andreatta. I also owe particular thanks to Lelio Pallini for his helpful suggestions. Thanks also to the editors of International Political Sociology and to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful criticisms. Funding was provided by the Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita a e della Ricerca (2015FR7MKM).