International relations theory is the study
of international relations (IR) 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 prominent theories are realism,
liberalism and constructivism. Sometimes,
institutionalism proposed and developed by
Keohane and Nye is discussed as an paradigm
differed from liberalism.
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. Constructivism, however, is increasingly
becoming mainstream.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.
However, a more recent study, by David Long
and Brian Schmidt in 2005, offers a revisionist
account of the origins of the field international
relations. They claim that the history of
the field can be traced back to late 19th
Century imperialism and internationalism.
The fact that the history of the field is
presented by "great debates", such as the
realist-idealist debate, does not correspond
with the historic evidence found in earlier
works: "We should once and for all dispense
with the outdated anachronistic artifice of
the debate between the idealists and realists
as the dominant framework for and understanding
the history of the field". Their revisionist
account claims that, up until 1918, international
relations already existed in the form of colonial
administration, race science, and race development.A
clear distinction is made between explanatory
and constitutive approaches when classifying
international relations theories. Explanatory
theories are ones which postulates the world
is something external to theorize about. A
constitutive theory is one which suggest 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 intergovernmental organizations,
non-governmental organizations, or multinational
corporations, 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, known as human nature realists
or classical realists, believe that states
are inherently aggressive, that territorial
expansion is constrained only by opposing
powers, while others, known as offensive/defensive
realists, 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 (or utopianism)
was viewed critically by those who saw themselves
as "realists", for instance E. H. Carr. In
international relations, idealism (also called
"Wilsonianism" because of its association
with Woodrow Wilson who personified it) 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 I.
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 ("high politics"),
but also economic/cultural ("low politics")
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
(for example, the influence of films leading
to the popularity of the country's culture
and creating a market for its exports worldwide).
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 (or almost 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 non-democracies.
(Neo)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.
=== Complex interdependence ===
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response
to neorealism, develop an opposing theory
they dub "complex interdependence." Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye explain, "... complex
interdependence sometimes comes closer to
reality than does realism." In explaining
this, Keohane and Nye cover the three assumptions
in realist thought: First, states are coherent
units and are the dominant actors in international
relations; second, force is a usable and effective
instrument of policy; and finally, the assumption
that there is a hierarchy in international
politics.
The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is
that in international politics there are,
in fact, multiple channels that connect societies
exceeding the conventional Westphalian system
of states. This manifests itself in many forms
ranging from informal governmental ties to
multinational corporations and organizations.
Here they define their terminology; interstate
relations are those channels assumed by realists;
transgovernmental relations occur when one
relaxes the realist assumption that states
act coherently as units; transnational applies
when one removes the assumption that states
are the only units. It is through these channels
that political exchange occurs, not through
the limited interstate channel as championed
by realists.
Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there
is not, in fact, a hierarchy among issues,
meaning that not only is the martial arm of
foreign policy not the supreme tool by which
to carry out a state's agenda, but that there
are a multitude of different agendas that
come to the forefront. The line between domestic
and foreign policy becomes blurred in this
case, as realistically there is no clear agenda
in interstate relations.
Finally, the use of military force is not
exercised when complex interdependence prevails.
The idea is developed that between countries
in which a complex interdependence exists,
the role of the military in resolving disputes
is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on
to state that the role of the military is
in fact important in that "alliance's political
and military relations with a rival bloc."
=== 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.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; indeed it is possible there is some
overlap between constructivism and realism
or liberalism, but they remain separate schools
of thought. 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 U.S. military
is likely to be viewed with much greater concern
in Cuba, a traditional antagonist of the United
States, than in Canada, a close U.S. 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. J. Ann Tickner 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 women in developing
countries.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 (sympathetic)
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 of 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 large extent.
== Green theory ==
Green theory in international relations is
a sub-field of international relations theory
which concerns international environmental
cooperation.
== Alternative approaches ==
Several alternative approaches have been developed
based on foundationalism, anti-foundationalism,
positivism, behaviouralism, structuralism
and post-structuralism. These theories however
are not widely known.
Behaviouralism in international relations
theory is an approach to international relations
theory which believes in the unity of science,
the idea that the social sciences are not
fundamentally different from the natural sciences.
== 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",
i.e., the lack of a ruler or world state.
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:
Realist or Hobbesian (after Thomas Hobbes)
Rationalist (or Grotian, after Hugo Grotius)
Revolutionist (or Kantian, after Immanuel
Kant)In broad terms, the English School itself
has supported the rationalist or Grotian tradition,
seeking a middle way (or via media) 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 "spillover". 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 (and structuralists more
broadly) say that the structure gives incentives
to agents, while functionalists attribute
causal power to the system itself, bypassing
agents entirely.
== 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. It states that
"Every understanding of international politics
depends upon abstraction, representation and
interpretation". Scholars associated with
post-structuralism in international relations
include Richard K. Ashley, James Der Derian,
Michael J. Shapiro, R. B. J. Walker, and Lene
Hansen.
== 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 (IR), 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 inter group 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.
== Neuroscience and IR ==
In recent years, with significant advances
in neuroscience and neuroimaging tools, IR
Theory has benefited from further multidisciplinary
contributions. Prof. Nayef Al-Rodhan from
Oxford University has argued that neuroscience
can significantly advance the IR debate as
it brings forward new insights about human
nature, which is at the centre of political
theory. New tools to scan the human brain,
and studies in neurochemistry allow us to
grasp what drives divisiveness, conflict,
and human nature in general. The theory of
human nature in Classical Realism, developed
long before the advent of neuroscience, stressed
that egoism and competition were central to
human behaviour, to politics and social relations.
Evidence from neuroscience, however, provides
a more nuanced understanding of human nature,
which Prof. Al-Rodhan describes as emotional
amoral egoistic. These three features can
be summarized as follows: 1. emotionality
is more pervasive than rationality and central
to decision-making, 2. we are born neither
moral, nor immoral but amoral, and circumstances
decide how our moral compass will develop,
and finally, 3. we are egoistic insofar as
we seek to ensure our survival, which is a
basic form of egoism. This neurophilosophy
of human nature can also be applied to states
- similarly to the Realist analogy between
the character (and flaws) of man and the state
in international politics. Prof Al-Rodhan
argues there are significant examples in history
and contemporary politics that demonstrate
states behave less rationality than IR dogma
would have us believe: different strategic
cultures, habits, identity politics influence
state conduct, geopolitics and diplomacy in
profound ways.
== Queer and transgender perspectives ==
Queer international relations scholarship
aims to broaden the scope and method of traditional
international relations theory to include
sexed and gendered approaches that are often
excluded in the discipline at large. While
affiliated with feminist theory and gender
studies, as well as post-structuralism, queer
IR theory is not reducible to any other field
of international relations scholarship. Queer
international relations theory works to expose
the many ways in which sexualities and gender
affect international politics. This includes
the ways in which queer subjects and practices
are disciplined, normalized, or capitalized
on by traditional sites of power; how queer
identities have often been the focus of domestic
and foreign policy in heteronormative states;
and how the order-versus-anarchy dichotomy
in traditional international relations theory
socially manifests itself in normal-versus-perverse
and hetero/homo-normative versus queer dichotomies.
Queer IR theory takes sites of traditional
international relations scholarship (war and
peace, international political economy, and
state and nation building) as its subjects
of study. It also expands its scope and methods
beyond those traditionally utilized in Realist
IR scholarship. Ontologically, queer IR utilizes
a different scope from traditional IR, as
it aims to non-monolithically address the
needs of various queer groups, including trans-,
inter-, cross-, and pan- gendered, sexed,
and sexualized bodies. Epistemologically,
queer IR explores alternative methodologies
to those traditionally used in IR, as it emphasizes
the sexual dimension of knowledge within international
relations.Criticism for queer theory in general,
and queer international relations in particular,
addresses worries of the minimization or exclusion
of certain groups. While queer IR incorporates
transgender individuals in its expanded scope,
some argue its emphasis on sexuality fails
to adequately capture transgender experiences.
Susan Stryker contests that queer theory’s
approach merely treats the ‘T’ in LGBT
as another, detached genre of sexual identity,
“rather than perceived, like race or class,
as something that cuts across existing sexualities,
revealing in often unexpected ways the means
through which all identities achieve their
specificities.” While queer theoretical
spaces remain friendly to transgender work,
Stryker argues that ‘queer’ often acts
as code for ‘gays’ or ‘lesbians,’
implicitly excluding transgender issues by
privileging sexual orientations and identities.
This leads Stryker to advocate that transgender
studies follows its own trajectory.Laura Sjoberg
advocates for allying trans-theorizing and
feminist theorizing in IR. She suggests some
possible improvements that trans-theorizing
may offer for feminist IR theory, which include
a more nuanced understanding of gender hierarchy
through a pluralist approach to sex, a holistic
view of gender that resists viewing gender
entirely either as a social construction or
as biologically essential, and an increased
awareness of gender as involving power relations
among different sexes and genders. Additionally,
Sjoberg argues, trans-theorizing makes important
contributions to traditional IR’s understanding
of global politics. Discussions of ‘outness,’
visibility, invisibility, and hypervisibility
in transgender theorizing are applicable to
questions of identity, relations between individuals
and groups, and the enforcement of norms in
IR. Additionally, transgender understandings
of transition and liminality can fill the
gap in traditional IR’s need for an account
of change and unrest in the international
system. Moreover, talk of “crossing” and
“passing” in trans-theorizing may assist
in explaining the process, logic, and consequences
of states shifting identities. Finally, transgender
disidentification, either from exclusionary
movements or from their assigned sex, can
help in unpacking “the problem of difference”
in international relations. As such, Sjoberg
advocates for the inclusion of trans-theorizing
in feminist IR theory in the interests of
improving explanations and understandings
of global politics.
== Theory in international relations scholarship
==
Several IR scholars bemoan what they see as
a trend away from IR theory in IR scholarship.
The September 2013 issue of European Journal
of International Relations and the June 2015
issue of Perspectives on Politics debated
the state of IR theory. A 2016 study showed
that while theoretical innovations and qualitative
analyses are a large part of graduate training,
journals favor middle-range theory, quantitative
hypothesis testing and methodology for publishing.
== See also ==
Diplomatic history
International legal theories
List of international relations journals
Foreign interventionism
Philosophy of war
