International relations

:Foreign affairs redirects here. For other things named Foreign Affairs, see Foreign affairs (disambiguation).

Dominant theories

IR theory vary greatly, from positivist/rationalist theories which focus on narrow state-level analysis to postpositivist/reflectivist ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, 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, Social-Constructivism is becoming mainstream and postpositivist theories are increasingly popular, particularly outside the United States.

Related Topics:
Constructivism - Institutionalism - Marxism - Neo-Gramscianism - Positivist - Realism - Liberalism - Postpositivist - United States

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Realism

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 that security, 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 and economic capabilities.

Related Topics:
Anarchic - World government - Sovereign - State - Rational - Self-interest - Security - Survival - Resource - Power

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Moreover, Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The term Realism is often associated with the German term realpolitik. Realpolitik is a combination of two words: the German "real", meaning "real" or "substantive," as in the German "Realität" (meaning "reality"), and "politik" (meaning "politics" or "policy"). Otto von Bismarck used the term after following Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power meant keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid an arms race. However, during the early-20th century, arms races (and alliances) occurred anyway, culminating in World War I.

Related Topics:
Realpolitik - Otto von Bismarck - Metternich - World War I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The principal Realist theorists are Carr, Morgenthau and Waltz.

Related Topics:
Carr - Morgenthau - Waltz

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There are two sub-schools of realism: maximal realism and minimal realism:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The former holds that the most desirable position to be in is that of the hegemon, the most powerful entity in the world, and that smaller entities will align themselves with the hegemon out of political self-interest. Under maximal realism, the position where there are simultaneously two equally powerful co-hegemons (such as was the case during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union) is an inherently unstable one and that situation will inevitably collapse into a more stable state where one nation is more powerful and one is less powerful.

Related Topics:
Hegemon - Cold War - United States - Soviet Union

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The latter holds that non-hegemonic states will ally against the hegemon in order to prevent their own interests from being subsumed by the hegemon's interests. Under the minimal-realism theory it is possible to have two equally powerful co-hegemons with whom a smaller entity may ally in turn depending on which hegemon better fits with the smaller entity's policies at the moment (playing both sides against the middle).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There is also a distinction between structural realism and liberal realism:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The former emphasize the permanent condition of conflict. Thus, to ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The latter holds that while the system is anarchical, through diplomacy, international law and society, order can be promoted. (English School) This gives credence to establish IGOs such as the United Nations.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Neo-realism

Neo-Realism resembles Classical Realism on most accounts. However, Neo-Realism predominantly focuses on the international system rather than human nature. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through a Levels of Analysis or Structure-Agency debate - with the international system as a structure acting on the state and individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Criticisms of realism

With increased globalization, some argue that the statist nature of realism has proven wrong, as states cannot be considered as unitary actors in pursuit of rational self-interest. Examples include the reality that many states have an economy smaller than many MNCs and some MNCs even employ their own quasi-military forces to protect their own installations and thus are more powerful than the state. Realists maintain that MNCs are legitimized by other states and thus cannot be considered as independent entities. Yet, this places doubt on the state as a unitary actor - as surely interaction between non-state actors (for example, between MNCs) is becoming increasingly commonplace.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Critics also argue that the success of the European Union (EU) shows that states are capable of cooperation and indeed the European Union is an example of a supranational government - above the level of the state. Realists respond that as the divisions within the EU on everything from agreeing on a constitution to agricultural policies, states may just be joining in pursuit of their own rational self-interest. Yet, laws of the European Parliament and court decisions of European Courts are applicable across all EU nations - suggesting that the EU is indeed a supranational government rather than an IGO.

Related Topics:
European Union - European Parliament - European Courts

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Liberalism and neo-liberalism

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 (high politics), but also economic (low politics) whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are ample opportunities for cooperation rather than conflict, and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of American films leading to the popularity of American culture and creating a market for American exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-operation and interdependence - thus peace can be achieved.

Related Topics:
Culture - Economic system - Government type

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many different strands of liberalism have emerged; some include commercial liberalism, liberal institutionalism, idealism, and regime theory. Two forms of liberalism predominate, liberal internationalism and idealism:

Related Topics:
Commercial liberalism - Liberal institutionalism - Idealism - Regime theory

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The former suggests that with the right factors, the international system provides opportunities for cooperation and interaction. Examples include the successful integration of Europe through the European Union or regional blocs and economic agreements such as ASEAN or NAFTA. Ramifications of this view is that if states cannot cooperate, they ought to be curbed; whether through economic sanctions or military action. For example, before the invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom in 2003, the governments' claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction could be seen as claims that Iraq is a bad state that needs to be curbed rather than an outright danger to American or European security. Thus, the invasion could be seen as curbing a bad state under liberal internationalism. A variant is Neo-liberal institutionism (USA) which shifts back to a state-centric approach, but allows for pluralism through identifying and recognizing different actors, processes and structures.

Related Topics:
European Union - ASEAN - NAFTA - Economic sanctions - Military action - Iraq - United States - United Kingdom - 2003 - Weapons of mass destruction

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The latter holds a view to promote a more peaceful world order through international organizations or IGOs; for example, through the United Nations (UN).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Criticisms of liberalism

While liberalism increases the scope of study, it makes no attempt to question the status quo. It holds international institutions as benevolent forces - when in fact, they may act in pursuit of rational self-interest which may be at odds with those for peace.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Realists argue that liberalist arguments can be grounded in realism - and raw economic and military power still trumps cultural and other broader notions of power.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Neo-neo debate?

The neo-neo debate is the debate between the two aforementioned schools of thought - realism and liberalism. The core concepts are as follows:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ultimately, different schools of thought can predict the same events. The theories are differentiated by the assumptions they make in their reasoning toward predictions. For example, following each event, both realists and liberals claim that events as disparate as World War I, the Cold War, and the relatively conflict-free post-Cold War Europe could be explained by their theories. The theories differ in the fundamental assumptions they make in explaining state behavior: It is possible that one liberal theorist will predict war while another liberal theorist will predict peace; their disagreement arises from how they interpret events, but their fundamental assumptions are the same. Similarly, it is possible that a realist theorist and a liberal theorist could both predict peace, but their fundamental assumptions as to why that occurs would be different.

Related Topics:
World War I - Cold War - War - Peace

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

;Neo-neo synthesis

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Instead of a neo-neo debate, postpositivist theorists (see International relations#Postpositivist theories)argue that there is more of a neo-neo synthesis than a debate, as both realism and liberalism:

Related Topics:
Postpositivist - International relations#Postpositivist theories

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Are based on positivist foundationism
• Views state as a rational actor in pursuit of self-interest
• Focuses on how power is exercised - not how it is experienced
• Maintains sanctity of the existing status-quo (attempts to use a positivist, scientific process to analyze a clearly human-created international system)
• Views various phenomenon as various problems that require solutions (problem-solving) without considering how the problem came into being (problematizing)