There are also major theoretical approaches that endeavour to explain regional and international organizations. It must be emphasised at the outset that theories do not determine and designate politics. International actors such as States, organizations and other emerging non-State actors do shape politics. Theories simply claim to explain politics from usually solely a certain angle.

Realism argue that organizations are a result of States’ seek of security. They, as the main if not the sole actor of international relations, simply want to maximise their interests and survive in a world of homo homini lupus.

Liberals (idealists, rationalists) think differently. They suggest that States are not (potential) enemies but (potential) partners, as they basically stand for providing welfare and peace to their respective citizens. It then means that cooperation especially in between economically coherent States is vital.

Regional organizations in particular are established to foster common interests and thus realise the win-win principle. Mutual interdependence thus fixed intensifies and deepens over time in such a fashion that war and even conflict becomes needles and even undesired. The most advanced version of this approach is represented by the functionalist integration theories. As used to explain supranational regional organizations such as the EU, it is argued that a close cooperation on non-controversial practical, technical, economic and legal issues rather than political and military ones would not only create a “common peace and welfare zone”, but also strengthen a sense of commonness and togetherness in between citizens. 

Critical theories usually emphasises the uneven and hegemonic nature of international and regional relations. They argue that organization of relations at all social and political levels has a hierarchical rather than cooperative character.

As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is E. All statements related to theoretical approaches given are correct.