A Theory of Contestation — A Concise Summary of Its Argument and Concepts

Abstract

As background for this symposium’s discussion of A Theory of Contestation, this article sets out to summarize the book’s main claims and central concepts. Later, at the end of the symposium, I will provide a “A Reply to My Critics” article that will address the points raised by my fellow contributors. That contribution will also discuss the theory’s potential for further development and lay out some paths that I consider promising for future research on contestation, such as the theory’s engagement with culture, pragmatism, and agonistic theories. Before I get to that, however, this article proceeds in three steps. First, I present A Theory of Contestation’s central argument about the dual approach to the study of international relations, which seeks to develop a substantial link between the “is” and “ought” questions of global governance. The next section focuses on key definitions of the core concepts used by the book as building blocks for research on contestation, a research area seen as spanning public philosophy and international relations. The last section discusses potential research areas that stand to benefit from the theory and ways to advance the concept of contestation in on- going conversations among public philosophers and students of international relations.