Critical junctures in International Relations: antecedents, contingency, and change in world politics

Abstract

Theories and historical narratives in International Relations (IR) often highlight the role of momentous events in disrupting continuity and catalyzing change. IR scholars frequently invoke the concept of “critical juncture” in their engagement with history, drawing (at least implicitly) on debates in comparative-historical analysis and historical institutionalism. Most notably, IR accounts often identify turning points—the “big bangs” of 1648, 1815, 1919, 1945, and 1989—in the development of international order. However, IR’s uses of critical junctures and related terms often differ from conceptualizations and applications in cognate fields. Despite this, there has been limited debate in IR about competing conceptions of critical junctures or the analytical trade-offs they entail. To address this gap, the article makes three contributions. First, it assesses the use of critical junctures in IR research, focusing on the role of antecedents, contingency, the dynamics within these junctures, and their relationship to outcomes. Second, it connects IR’s discussion of change with debates on the concept of “critical junctures” elsewhere in the social sciences. Third, it proposes a typology of critical junctures, outlining four pathways for institutional development: (1) path-breaking change, (2) institutional continuity, (3) reinforced antecedents, and (4) backlash against antecedents. The implications of the framework are illustrated with reference to the paradigmatic case of the First World War and its aftermath. The article speaks to the growing salience of historical institutionalism in IR, to debates on critical junctures across the social sciences, and to broader theoretical reflections on continuity and change in world politics.