International relations theory is the study
of international relations from a theoretical
perspective; it attempts to provide a conceptual
framework upon which international relations
can be analyzed. Ole Holsti describes international
relations theories as acting like pairs of
coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer
to see only salient events relevant to the
theory; e.g. an adherent of realism may completely
disregard an event that a constructivist might
pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. The
three most popular theories are realism, liberalism
and constructivism.
International relations theories can be divided
into "positivist/rationalist" theories which
focus on a principally state-level analysis,
and "post-positivist/reflectivist" ones which
incorporate expanded meanings of security,
ranging from class, to gender, to postcolonial
security. Many often conflicting ways of thinking
exist in IR theory, including constructivism,
institutionalism, Marxism, neo-Gramscianism,
and others. However, two positivist schools
of thought are most prevalent: realism and
liberalism; though increasingly, constructivism
is becoming mainstream.
Introduction
The study of International relations as theory
can be traced to E.H. Carr's The Twenty Years'
Crisis which was published in 1939 and to
Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations published
in 1948. International relations as a discipline
is believed to have emerged after the First
World War with the establishment of a Chair
of International Relations at the University
of Wales, Aberystwyth. Early international
relations scholarship in the Interwar years
focused on the need for the balance of power
system to be replaced with a system of collective
security. These thinkers were later described
as "Idealists". The leading critique of this
school of thinking was the "realist" analysis
offered by Carr.
Explanatory and constitutive approaches in
international relations theory is a distinction
made when classifying international relations
theories. Explanatory theories are ones which
see the world as something external to theorize
about it. A constitutive theory is one which
believes that theories actually help construct
the world.
Realism
Realism or political realism has been the
dominant theory of international relations
since the conception of the discipline. The
theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition
of thought which includes writers such as
Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Early
realism can be characterized as a reaction
against interwar idealist thinking. The outbreak
of World War II was seen by realists as evidence
of the deficiencies of idealist thinking.
There are various strands of modern day realist
thinking. However, the main tenets of the
theory have been identified as statism, survival,
and self-help.
Statism: Realists believe that nation states
are the main actors in international politics.
As such it is a state-centric theory of international
relations. This contrasts with liberal international
relations theories which accommodate roles
for non-state actors and international institutions.
This difference is sometimes expressed by
describing a realist world view as one which
sees nation states as billiard balls, liberals
would consider relationships between states
to be more of a cobweb.
Survival: Realists believe that the international
system is governed by anarchy, meaning that
there is no central authority. Therefore,
international politics is a struggle for power
between self-interested states.
Self-help: Realists believe that no other
states can be relied upon to help guarantee
the state's survival.
Realism makes several key assumptions. It
assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically
based actors in an anarchic international
system with no authority above capable of
regulating interactions between states as
no true authoritative world government exists.
Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states,
rather than IGOs, NGOs or MNCs, are the primary
actors in international affairs. Thus, states,
as the highest order, are in competition with
one another. As such, a state acts as a rational
autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest
with a primary goal to maintain and ensure
its own security—and thus its sovereignty
and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit
of their interests, states will attempt to
amass resources, and that relations between
states are determined by their relative levels
of power. That level of power is in turn determined
by the state's military, economic, and political
capabilities.
Some realists believe that states are inherently
aggressive, that territorial expansion is
constrained only by opposing powers, while
others believe that states are obsessed with
the security and continuation of the state's
existence. The defensive view can lead to
a security dilemma where increasing one's
own security can bring along greater instability
as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms,
making security a zero-sum game where only
relative gains can be made.
Neorealism
Neorealism or structural realism is a development
of realism advanced by Kenneth Waltz in Theory
of International Politics. It is, however,
only one strand of neorealism. Joseph Grieco
has combined neo-realist thinking with more
traditional realists. This strand of theory
is sometimes called "modern realism". Waltz's
neorealism contends that the effect of structure
must be taken into account in explaining state
behavior. Structure is defined twofold as
a) the ordering principle of the international
system which is anarchy and b) the distribution
of capabilities across units. Waltz also challenges
traditional realism's emphasis on traditional
military power, instead characterizing power
in terms of the combined capabilities of the
state.
Liberalism
The precursor to liberal international relations
theory was "idealism". Idealism was viewed
critically by those who saw themselves as
'realists', for instance E. H. Carr. In international
relations, idealism is a school of thought
that holds that a state should make its internal
political philosophy the goal of its foreign
policy. For example, an idealist might believe
that ending poverty at home should be coupled
with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism
was a precursor to liberal international relations
theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders"
after World War II.
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather
than state capabilities, are the primary determinant
of state behavior. Unlike realism, where the
state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism
allows for plurality in state actions. Thus,
preferences will vary from state to state,
depending on factors such as culture, economic
system or government type. Liberalism also
holds that interaction between states is not
limited to the political/security, but also
economic/cultural whether through commercial
firms, organizations or individuals. Thus,
instead of an anarchic international system,
there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation
and broader notions of power, such as cultural
capital. Another assumption is that absolute
gains can be made through co-operation and
interdependence—thus peace can be achieved.
The democratic peace theory argues that liberal
democracies have never made war on one another
and have fewer conflicts among themselves.
This is seen as contradicting especially the
realist theories and this empirical claim
is now one of the great disputes in political
science. Numerous explanations have been proposed
for the democratic peace. It has also been
argued, as in the book Never at War, that
democracies conduct diplomacy in general very
differently from nondemocracies.realists disagree
with Liberals over the theory, often citing
structural reasons for the peace, as opposed
to the state's government. Sebastian Rosato,
a critic of democratic peace theory points
to America's behavior towards left-leaning
democracies in Latin America during the Cold
War to challenge democratic peace. One argument
is that economic interdependence makes war
between trading partners less likely. In contrast
realists claim that economic interdependence
increases rather than decreases the likelihood
of conflict.
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism, liberal institutionalism or
neo-liberal institutionalism is an advancement
of liberal thinking. It argues that international
institutions can allow nations to successfully
cooperate in the international system.
Post-Liberalism
One version of post-liberal theory argues
that within the modern, globalized world,
states in fact are driven to cooperate in
order to ensure security and sovereign interests.
The departure from classical liberal theory
is most notably felt in the re-interpretation
of the concepts of Sovereignty and Autonomy.
Autonomy becomes a problematic concept in
shifting away from a notion of freedom, self-determination,
and agency to a heavily responsible and duty
laden concept. Importantly, autonomy is linked
to a capacity for good governance. Similarly,
sovereignty also experiences a shift from
a right to a duty. In the global economy,
International organizations hold sovereign
states to account, leading to a situation
where sovereignty is co-produced among 'sovereign'
states. The concept becomes a variable capacity
of good governance and can no longer be accepted
as an absolute right. One possible way to
interpret this theory, is the idea that in
order to maintain global stability and security
and solve the problem of the anarchic world
system in International Relations, no overarching,
global, sovereign authority is created. Instead,
states collectively abandon some rights for
full autonomy and sovereignty. Another version
of post-liberalism, drawing on work in political
philosophy after the end of the Cold War,
as well as on democratic transitions in particular
in Latin America, argues that social forces
from below are essential in understanding
the nature of the state and the international
system. Without understanding their contribution
to political order and its progressive possibilities,
particularly in the area of peace in local
and international frameworks, the weaknesses
of the state, the failings of the liberal
peace, and challenges to global governance
cannot be realised or properly understood.
Furthermore, the impact of social forces on
political and economic power, structures,
and institutions, provides some empirical
evidence of the complex shifts currently underway
in IR.
Constructivism
Constructivism or social constructivism has
been described as a challenge to the dominance
of neo-liberal and neo-realist international
relations theories. Michael Barnett describes
constructivist international relations theories
as being concerned with how ideas define international
structure, how this structure defines the
interests and identities of states and how
states and non-state actors reproduce this
structure. The key element of constructivism
is the belief that "International politics
is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective
values, culture, and social identities." Constructivism
argues that international reality is socially
constructed by cognitive structures which
give meaning to the material world. The theory
emerged from debates concerning the scientific
method of international relations theories
and theories role in the production of international
power. Emanuel Adler states that constructivism
occupies a middle ground between rationalist
and interpretative theories of international
relations.
The failure of either realism or liberalism
to predict the end of the Cold War boosted
the credibility of constructivist theory.
Constructivist theory criticises the static
assumptions of traditional international relations
theory and emphasizes that international relations
is a social construction. Constructivism is
a theory critical of the ontological basis
of rationalist theories of international relations.
Whereas realism deals mainly with security
and material power, and liberalism looks primarily
at economic interdependence and domestic-level
factors, constructivism most concerns itself
with the role of ideas in shaping the international
system. By "ideas" constructivists refer to
the goals, threats, fears, identities, and
other elements of perceived reality that influence
states and non-state actors within the international
system. Constructivists believe that these
ideational factors can often have far-reaching
effects, and that they can trump materialistic
power concerns. For example, constructivists
note that an increase in the size of the US
military is likely to be viewed with much
greater concern in Cuba, a traditional antagonist
of the US, than in Canada, a close US ally.
Therefore, there must be perceptions at work
in shaping international outcomes. As such,
constructivists do not see anarchy as the
invariable foundation of the international
system, but rather argue, in the words of
Alexander Wendt, that "anarchy is what states
make of it". Constructivists also believe
that social norms shape and change foreign
policy over time rather than security which
realists cite.
Marxism and Critical Theory
Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations
theories are structuralist paradigms which
reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict
or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic
and material aspects. Marxist approaches argue
the position of historical materialism and
make the assumption that the economic concerns
transcend others; allowing for the elevation
of class as the focus of study. Marxists view
the international system as an integrated
capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation.
A sub-discipline of Marxist IR is Critical
Security Studies. Gramscian approaches rely
on the ideas of Italian Antonio Gramsci whose
writings concerned the hegemony that capitalism
holds as an ideology. Marxist approaches have
also inspired Critical Theorists such as Robert
W. Cox who argues that "Theory is always for
someone and for some purpose".
One notable Marxist approach to international
relations theory is Immanuel Wallerstein's
World-system theory which can be traced back
to the ideas expressed by Lenin in Imperialism:
The Highest Stage of capitalism. World-system
theory argues that globalized capitalism has
created a core of modern industrialized countries
which exploit a periphery of exploited "Third
World" countries. These ideas were developed
by the Latin American Dependency School. "Neo-Marxist"
or "New Marxist" approaches have returned
to the writings of Karl Marx for their inspiration.
Key "New Marxists" include Justin Rosenberg
and Benno Teschke. Marxist approaches have
enjoyed a renaissance since the collapse of
communism in Eastern Europe.
Criticisms of Marxists approaches to international
relations theory include the narrow focus
on material and economic aspects of life.
Feminism
Feminist approaches to international relations
became popular in the early 1990s. Such approaches
emphasize that women's experiences continue
to be excluded from the study of international
relations. International Relations Feminists
who argue that gender relations are integral
to international relations focus on the role
of diplomatic wives and marital relationship
that facilitate sex trafficking. Early feminist
IR approaches were part of the "Third Great
Debate" between positivists and post-positivists.
They argued against what they saw as the positivism
and state-centrism of mainstream international
relations. Christian Reus-Smit argues that
these approaches did not describe what a feminist
perspective on world politics would look like.
The feminist international relations scholar
Jacqui True differentiates between empirical
feminism, analytical feminism and normative
feminism. Empirical feminism sees women and
gender relations as empirical aspects of international
relations. It is argued that mainstream international
relations emphasis on anarchy and statecraft
mean that areas of study that make the reproduction
of the state system possible are marginalized.
Analytical feminism claims that the theoretical
framework of international relations has a
gender bias. Here gender refers not to the
"biological" differences between men and women
but the social constructs of masculine and
feminine identity. It is claimed that in mainstream
international relations masculinity is associated
with objectivity. Analytical feminists would
see neo-realism's dislike of domestic explanations
for explaining interstate behaviour as an
example of this bias. Normative feminist sees
theorizing as part of an agenda for change.
Criticisms of feminist international relations
theory include its portrayal of third world
women.
Feminist International Relations is sometimes
oversimplified into a women's issue or simply
a need to 'add women and stir'. "Masculinities,
IR and the 'gender variable': a cost-beneﬁt
analysis for gender sceptics", an article
by Charlotte Hooper, makes the case that looking
at international relations through a gendered
lens is important for all genders. The article
illustrates that the hyper-masculinity used
in international relations has a negative
impact on all genders. It privileges only
a certain kind of man, forcing all others
to fit into the constraints of one vision
of masculinity. Hooper also argues that this
gendered lens requires a complete overhaul
of traditional methods, rather than just adding
women to the study. "In order to investigate
the intersections between gender identities
and international relations, one cannot rely
on approaches which would take gender identities
as 'givens' or as independent, externally
derived variables". Traditional methods do
not meet the needs of men or women. They attempt
to reduce our needs to security, failing to
take into account class, education level,
gender, or experience. Hooper argues that
traditional studies of international relations
are causing us to miss many factors for more
than just women and children.
To appeal to sympathetic sceptics, Hooper
explains that international relations shapes
masculinity in a way that affects us all.
To establish this she explains that masculinity
and femininity are social constructs that
can be influenced by theories and discourse.
Hooper turns so called feminist international
relations into gendered international relations,
which brings in all people and highlights
the importance of new methods to the field.
Genders just like class, ethnicity, age, etc.
can help inform our understanding of how people
and nations act and if we ignore the range
of masculinities and femininities we are only
working with half the puzzle. The system that
Feminist International Relations is trying
to subvert affects us all and influences many
of our traditional theories. Hooper offers
the example of war which has shaped the male
body; it has created men as takers or life
and women as givers of it. We proceed to tell
men they simply have more natural aggression.
Hooper also illustrates the ways masculinity,
like femininity, has been influenced by colonization.
The hierarchy formed by colonization labels
Asians as effeminate, Africans as savage and
white men as the proper balance at the top
the hierarchy. War and colonialism still influence
international relations to a huge extent.
It is important to realize that Feminist International
Relations or a gendered lens is not just for
women, but is a relevant theory that can help
us all.
Green Theory
Alternative approaches
English School
The 'English School' of international relations
theory, also known as International Society,
Liberal Realism, Rationalism or the British
institutionalists, maintains that there is
a 'society of states' at the international
level, despite the condition of 'anarchy'.
Despite being called the English School many
of the academics from this school were neither
English nor from the United Kingdom. A great
deal of the work of the English School concerns
the examination of traditions of past international
theory, casting it, as Martin Wight did in
his 1950s-era lectures at the London School
of Economics, into three divisions: 1. Realist
or Hobbesian, 2. Rationalist, 3. Revolutionist.
In broad terms, the English School itself
has supported the rationalist or Grotian tradition,
seeking a middle way between the 'power politics'
of realism and the 'utopianism' of revolutionism.
The English School reject behavioralist approaches
to international relations theory. The international
relations theories have become a typical learning
of the fundamental insight and origin of international
relations.
Functionalism
Functionalism is a theory of international
relations that arose principally from the
experience of European integration. Rather
than the self-interest that realists see as
a motivating factor, functionalists focus
on common interests shared by states. Integration
develops its own internal dynamic: as states
integrate in limited functional or technical
areas, they increasingly find that momentum
for further rounds of integration in related
areas. This "invisible hand" of integration
phenomenon is termed "spill-over." Although
integration can be resisted, it becomes harder
to stop integration's reach as it progresses.
This usage, and the usage in functionalism
in international relations, is the less common
meaning of functionalism.
More commonly, however, functionalism is an
argument that explains phenomena as functions
of a system rather than an actor or actors.
Immanuel Wallerstein employed a functionalist
theory when he argued that the Westphalian
international political system arose to secure
and protect the developing international capitalist
system. His theory is called "functionalist"
because it says that an event was a function
of the preferences of a system and not the
preferences of an agent. Functionalism is
different from structural or realist arguments
in that while both look to broader, structural
causes, realists say that the structure gives
incentives to agents, while functionalists
attribute causal power to the system itself,
bypassing agents entirely.
State Cartel Theory
State cartel theory in international relations
is derived from an old institutional theory
of economics, from the theory of private or
enterprise cartels. It has a German background,
because Germany was formerly the land of highest
developed economic cartels and the motherland
of classical cartel theory. State cartel theory
uses a mix of methods ranging from positivist
data evaluation to critical socioeconomic
analyses or reflexive methods like criticism
of thinking or ideology. Among the other theories
of International Relations, State cartel theory
has most in common with Functionalism in international
relations. A bit more than the latter, state
cartel theory has its focus on a theory of
international organizations.
Post-structuralism
Post-structuralism differs from most other
approaches to international politics because
it does not see itself as a theory, school
or paradigm which produces a single account
of the subject matter. Instead, post-structuralism
is an approach, attitude, or ethos that pursues
critique in particular way. Post-structuralism
sees critique as an inherently positive exercise
that establishes the conditions of possibility
for pursuing alternatives.
Post-modernism
Post-modernist approaches to international
relations are critical of metanarratives and
denounces traditional IR's claims to truth
and neutrality.
Postcolonialism
Postcolonial International relations scholarship
posits a critical theory approach to International
relations, and is a non-mainstream area of
international relations scholarship. Post-colonialism
focuses on the persistence of colonial forms
of power and the continuing existence of racism
in world politics.
Evolutionary perspectives
Evolutionary perspectives, such as from evolutionary
psychology, have been argued to help explain
many features of international relations.
Humans in the ancestral environment did not
live in states and likely rarely had interactions
with groups outside of a very local area.
However, a variety of evolved psychological
mechanisms, in particular those for dealing
with intergroup interactions, are argued to
influence current international relations.
These include evolved mechanisms for social
exchange, cheating and detecting cheating,
status conflicts, leadership, ingroup and
outgroup distinction and biases, coalitions,
and violence. Evolutionary concepts such as
inclusive fitness may help explain seeming
limitations of a concept such as egotism which
is of fundamental importance to realist and
rational choice international relations theories.
See also
Diplomatic history
International legal theory
List of scholarly journals in international
relations
Foreign interventionism
References
Further reading
Baylis, John; Steve Smith; and Patricia Owens.
The Globalisation of World Politics, OUP,
4th edition.
Burchill, et al. eds. Theories of International
Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave, ISBN 1-4039-4866-6
Chernoff, Fred. Theory 
and Meta-Theory in International Relations:
Concepts and Contending Accounts, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Guilhot Nicolas, ed. The Invention of International
Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller
Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory.
Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, Columbia
University Press.
Jackson, Robert H., and Georg Sørensen Introduction
to International Relations: Theories and Approaches,
Oxford, OUP, 5th ed.
Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations
Pettman, Ralph World Affairs. An Analytical
Overview, World Scientific Publishing Company,
ISBN 9814293873.
Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics
Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State, and War, Columbia
University Press.
Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory.
A Critical Introduction, 2nd edition, Taylor
& Francis, ISBN 0-415-34208-2
Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International
Politics, Cambridge University Press.
External links
Theory Talks Interviews with key IR theorists
The Martin Institute
A Discussion and Overview of IR Theory and
its Historical Roots at American University
