Historical IR and the promise of renewed dialogue between IR and history

While International Relation (IR) has long relied on historical cases and data, in recent years the Historical IR subfield has moved beyond banal recognition of this relationship to help overcome IR’s presentism and encourage reflexivity on the historical foundations of IR theory. Yet, despite its successes, Historical IR has primarily distinguished itself via its contributions to IR, rather than as an interdisciplinary bridge between IR and History. This article sketches a path for Historical IR to cultivate new dialogue between IR and History. This bridge would not only benefit IR by bringing historians’ insights to IR in a more sustained manner but also facilitate opportunities for IR to contribute to History. Although this bridge necessarily implicates historians, our argument focuses on moves the Historical IR subfield could make to become more attractive to History. To foster deeper dialogue, we argue that Historical IR should both work to synthesize the historical elements it brings to IR to make itself more recognizable to historians and engage historiography to target IR’s contributions to historical debates. Doing so, we argue, will not only enhance Historical IR’s contributions to IR, but also make it a more suitable interdisciplinary bridge.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Cooperation and Conflict
Published
2026-01-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367251407452
Citations
1
Primary Topic
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
64.82
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Historical IR and the promise of renewed dialogue between IR and history

Adam B. Lerner, Jarrod Hayes
1 citations
Cooperation and Conflict
International Relations and Foreign Policy
64.82
article

Historical IR and the promise of renewed dialogue between IR and history

Adam B. Lerner, Jarrod Hayes
article en
1 citations

Abstract

While International Relation (IR) has long relied on historical cases and data, in recent years the Historical IR subfield has moved beyond banal recognition of this relationship to help overcome IR’s presentism and encourage reflexivity on the historical foundations of IR theory. Yet, despite its successes, Historical IR has primarily distinguished itself via its contributions to IR, rather than as an interdisciplinary bridge between IR and History. This article sketches a path for Historical IR to cultivate new dialogue between IR and History. This bridge would not only benefit IR by bringing historians’ insights to IR in a more sustained manner but also facilitate opportunities for IR to contribute to History. Although this bridge necessarily implicates historians, our argument focuses on moves the Historical IR subfield could make to become more attractive to History. To foster deeper dialogue, we argue that Historical IR should both work to synthesize the historical elements it brings to IR to make itself more recognizable to historians and engage historiography to target IR’s contributions to historical debates. Doing so, we argue, will not only enhance Historical IR’s contributions to IR, but also make it a more suitable interdisciplinary bridge.

Cooperation and Conflict
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
International Relations and Foreign Policy
64.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.