Along with the end of Cold War and the global Internet revolution, the concept of ‘I(i)nternational R(r)elations’ began to be used intensively in public space. It became so popular that passed academic debating borders or foreign policy news section. We see it used in the daily speech of ordinary people. If we write ‘I(i)nternational R(r)elations’ on Google, we receive more than two hundred thirty million results. Those people who wanted a deeper and clearer understanding searched for a concept of ‘I(i)nternational R(r)elations.’ Soon they found themselves in the position to face several versions that caused a terminological confusion. In this paper I will explore the concept of I(i)nternational R(r)elations, hoping that I will eliminate the existent terminological confusion. In so doing, in this paper I propose two versions and two meanings of the concept of I(i)nternational R(r)elations. Through this paper: (i) I return to theorizing the concept of I(i)nternational R(r)elations but from his etymological bases and (ii) I respond to the crisis of ideas that haunts science. Most people accept the traditional versions, but (i) I was not satisfied with the existing research evidences and (ii) I decided to make an attempt. The present paper addresses those Earth citizens who read ‘I(i)nternational R(r)elations’ and (i) do not know what it means; (ii) they found what it means but are not satisfied with the existing research evidences and (iii) those who hear for the first time about the ‘I(i)nternational R(r)elations.’ If you started reading this paper, it means that it is time to look with greater clarity and objectivity to all the elements of a concept, in our case of I(i)nternational R(r)elations. To see it as it is and as it should be used.
View Less