Chapter 3: Theories of International Relations

Classical International Relations Theories

The most important classical theories are realism and idealism/liberalism. Contemporary alternatives are neorealism, neoliberalism, and the English School of thought.

Realism: Many date realism’s initial formulation back to the writer Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian Wars (341-301 BCE). The most often mentioned section of Thucydides’ book is “The Melian Dialogue”, which lays out relations between powerful states and those with less power. It also mentions why military might and economic power, but not morality, is important in government.

Machiavelli and Hobbes are considered by some experts to be the forefathers of today’s realist approaches to IR. The ongoing struggle for power was what they believed international relations were all about: one did not have to go to war, but one should always be ready to do so to preserve or, even better, to gain power. Niccolò Machiavelli followed Thucydides’ initial premises in theoretical realism. Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century English philosopher, also wrote about the concepts of realism. Hobbes argues that the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan, the undivided, sovereign government, through social contract. Hobbes based this conclusion on three assumptions:

• All men are equal;
• They interact in anarchy;
• They are driven by competition, distrust of others (egoism), and glory.

Anarchy is considered one of the defining characteristics of the international system. The term anarchy simply means the absence of a worldwide government. There is no authority above states to enforce contracts, adjudicate disputes among states, or prevent the outbreak of war.

Domestic governments or entities (sovereign states) control the instruments of violence. This is one reason why there is no higher authority in the international system. This also explains why anarchy persists in the system.

The concepts of (a) the strong sovereign (the “Leviathan”), (b) sovereign states, and (c) the social contract were three of Hobbes’s important contributions to realism. Civil peace and social unity are best achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract.

Commonwealth is formally defined as a group of sovereign states associated by their own choices, and linked by common interests and objectives.

In its purest terms, Hobbesian realism is a theory of great power politics rather than one of international relations, for it focuses on the power accruing to an individual sovereign state.

John Locke, too, considered the state of nature. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free “to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.” Locke believes that reason teaches that “no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property”. This view of the state of nature and its laws is partly deduced from Christian beliefs (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology).

Hans Morgenthau wrote on realist theoretical lines after World War II. Morgenthau clearly set out six assumptions underpinning realism, based largely on political history. He argued that international relations are best viewed through the lens of the state quest for power.

Power is defined as the capability to induce or force another to comply with one’s wishes: either to start or continue an activity, or to cease that behaviour.

• Political realism argues that politics is governed by objective laws.
• The main indicator of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
• Realism recognizes that a state’s interest varies.
• Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action.
• The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere.

To Morgenthau, realism is a power politics theory. at is, it focuses on how power contributes to a variety of political outcomes and to a state’s security.

Edward H. Carr wrote on realism after World War I. Carr argued that any potential political theory that ignored the issues of power and security would be doomed, not able to result in desired reforms in the international system.

Realism is the dominant and most effective framework today to explain world politics. However, it does have both strengths and weaknesses when used in the real world because it is a theoretical account of how the world works.

Moreover, Realism does not explain major cooperative developments and efforts among states after World War II. It can be applied as a framework of analysis for peaceful purposes. Realism as a perspective cannot explain everything. As Kenneth Waltz indicated, the contribution of realism to international relations lies is telling us “a small number of big and important things”. One critic of realism, Alexander Wendt, argued that it was unclear that realism explains the deep matters, even when it does apply.

Idealism and Classical Realism: Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and other famous philosophical thinkers in the French Enlightenment were key to the development of idealism as a theoretical alternative.

Idealism promotes toleration, reason and progress, equality before the law, and an open economy. It suggests that states would search for long-term mutual gains instead of short-term individual gains if their security and sovereignty were not significantly diminished or threatened. Idealism’s terms underlie liberal political thought.

John Locke and Adam Smith were two who had significant influence on the assumptions of idealism, the foundation of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedoms of the individual and limiting the power of the government.

It advocated for strong individual civil liberties with limited government under the rule of law.

One of the driving forces behind the development of idealism and classical liberalism was the devastation of World War I.

One of the most prominent developments within liberal theory has been the phenomenon known as the democratic peace (Doyle). First imagined by Immanuel Kant, the democratic peace describes the absence of war between liberal States, defined as mature liberal democracies.

The current international system includes aspects of idealism. There are communities and cooperation, often expressed in modern international institutions such as the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Mutual gains are more important in idealism and people do matter in liberalism.

Modern International Relations Theories

Neorealism: Neorealism assumes that international relations and the patterns they tend to follow are shaped by the system’s structure , not so much by human characteristics. Neorealism is also called “structural realism” because it emphasizes the design and structure of the world system rather than stressing man’s nature and the states as units, as realism does.

Neorealism focuses on using the international system’s structures to explain war, the avoidance of war, power balancing and power seeking, the death of states, security competition and arms races, alliance formation, and related matters.

There are two basic principles underlying neorealism: first, the international system’s ordering principle is anarchy. Anarchy means absence of a world power over states, the absence of any higher power than a state itself. It does not necessarily imply chaos, violently overthrowing governments, or an absence of order or structure. It does imply that a state must always be prepared to defend or protect itself from other states.

The second defining principle of the structure of international politics is the distribution of capabilities (power) across the units inhabiting the international system.

Kenneth Waltz, who is most often associated with neorealism, explained structural realism as follows: International structure emerges from the interaction of states and then constrains them from taking certain actions while propelling them toward others. Waltz also lays out the central conclusion of structural realism: in anarchy, states “balance” rather than “bandwagon”.

Bandwagoning: According to classical and neorealist balance-of-power theories, bandwagoning refers to the practice of forging an alliance with a more powerful adversary or joining the stronger of two coalitions.

Balance-of-power theory suggest that, all other things being equal, states prefer not to bandwagon. Balance-of-power theory: Balance-of-power is a major concept in classical realism and in contemporary neorealism. In general, balance-of-power theory holds that an extreme concentration of material power in the hands of single state or attempts by a state to conquer a region will provoke countervailing actions. These countervailing actions are called balancing. While balancing does not always operate efficiency to prevent the outbreak of war, it does help to maintain the stability of relations among states in the long-term.

Polarity is also related to the structure of the international system, in that it addresses the second principle of Waltz’s neorealism: the distribution of capabilities.

John Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago is firmly in the neorealist camp, and has expanded its terms to include offensive and defensive realism.

Offensive realism assumes that states focus on maximizing their power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony.

Defensive realism claims that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive neorealists upsets the tendency of states to balance power against more powerful entities, thereby diminishing the primary objective of the state, which is to ensure its security.

Neoliberalism tends toward more of an economic theory than a socio-political one. Neoliberalism is essentially about making trade between nations easier. It is about freer movement of goods, resources and enterprises in a bid to find cheaper resources, to maximize profits and efficiency. To do this, controls such as tariffs, regulations, certain standards, laws, legislation and regulatory measures and restrictions on capital flows and investment should be removed. e underlying hypothesis comes from Adam Smith: all forms of government manipulations and artificial controls regarding economic issues should be removed.

One of the other traits of neoliberalism is usually close affiliation with neomercantilism. Mercantilism meant a form of economic nationalism, and part of international political economy theory, wherein a state sought to increase exports, decrease imports and accrue greater wealth. To those who favor mercantilism, foreign policy should be state-centered. Neomercantilism is a “revived” version of mercantilism.

Neoliberalism is not only an economic theory or explanatory effort. It is also a social and moral philosophical and political theory which focuses on the complex interdependencies of the international system.

Marxism: Marxism, developed by Karl Marx in the mid1800s, is based upon principles related to social class and to economics. Marxism identifies the causes of war as class conflict, especially conflict between and within the capitalist class. Class, not the state or the individual, is the major unit of analysis in Marxist theory. The bourgeoisie or capitalist class dominates the era of capitalism, according to Marx. Ths era of capitalism will inevitably produce a proletarian, or working class, revolution. An era of socialism will follow, in which workers own the means of production. Marxism holds that all significant political phenomena are grounded in underlying economic forces.

The English School: International Relations as a study was American in its roots. Indeed, it continues to be dominated by American academics and scholars. More recently, American scholars began taking a strongly methodological approach to International Relations, utilizing behavioral science processes and procedures.

Following the end of the Cold War, non- Americans also felt confident enough to take on leadership. The English School rose to prominence, emphasizing a more traditional and humanistic approach and methodology to international relations. The English School’s theory of International Relations is posited on several sets of principles.

• The International System or social order is about power politics.
• International Society or order between states in a system or society of states.
• World Society—from Kantian philosophy regarding the liberal aspects of the state system – places individuals, along with non-state actors and the entire world population as vital to global societal identities.

One of the most influential intellectuals associated with the English School was Hedley Bull, author of The Anarchical Society (1977). Bull argued that even in anarchy (absence of a global governing entity), there is far more order than realists recognize.

Within the English School, there are two distinct accounts; the first is the pluralist account, the second interpretation is the solidarist one.

The English School is a middle way in theory: it locates itself between classical realism and classical liberalism— and builds itself a distinctive approach.

Postmodern International Relations Theories

Three of the more well-known postmodern International Relations theories are Critical Theory, Constructivism, and Feminism.

Critical theory: Critical theory, an ontological approach to International Relations, is sometimes referred to as “postmodern” theory as if it is the only postmodern political endeavor. This is inaccurate, as there are other theories and ontologies that can be considered postmodern, including Constructivism, Feminist Theory, and Green Theory.

Ontology is the study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Constructivism is often considered an ontology instead of a theory. “...ontology is about what is true and epistemology then is about methods of figuring out those truths”.

Critical theory does not seek to understand and explain like traditional theories do, but rather to analyze and change society. It seeks to remove domination, and to increase peace, freedom, justice, and equality. Its roots are to some extent in Marxism, with its approaches to the economy and society.

One of the drawbacks of critical theory is that it tends to take a specific, individual society or persons as a focus, and evades relations between and across societies.

Critical theory is an attempt to rethink political community along three dimensions: the normative, the sociological and the “praxeological” (meaning developing practical possibilities for revamping International Relations to put into practice more emancipatory and cosmopolitan lines). One of the main positions of critical theory is that theory must be connected to practice.

Constructivism: Its foremost theorist is Alexander Wendt. More accurately called social constructivism, one of its premises is that humans construct ideas and concepts; these are of human origin. In social constructivism, what other theorists assume— identities, interests, specific actors—are constructed and subject to change by the actors themselves. States will not necessarily go on competing for power, economically and militarily. International Relations should focus on ideas and belief sets, along with shared understandings, among actors in the international system.

Constructivism has several iterations: it is a social theory; the degrees of cooperation and internalization by actors affect international relations.

Critiques of constructivism vary, depending on the theoretical framework held. Neorealism is considered the most oppositional to constructivism. Neorealists believe that constructivism overemphasizes international norms. A state disregards such norms if they are not in its interests. Powerful states are most prone to do so.

Neorealists indicate that constructivism is unable to address a key aspect of the international system: uncertainty.

Neorealism and constructivism also argue over change and what drives change; how norms form; the ways in which identities and interests are defined.

It is undeniable that constructivists do bring important issues in international relations to the forefront: they stress the importance of social interactions and social theory, and emphasize the role of internal state norms.

Feminist Theory/Feminism: Feminist theories shift the focus from the traditional theories (on power, economics, and knowledge) to a more encompassing analysis that includes transnational actors and structures, and their transformations in global politics.

Feminist scholars asked important questions: where do people referred to as “women” and “men” fit in International Relations? How does the social construction of the male and female genders impact International Relations? How, indeed, is the international system and IR studies gendered? The three approaches to IR are:

Empirical feminism, focusing on women or examining gender as a specific dimension of International Relations;

Analytical feminism, taking up gender as a theoretical category to reveal and explore the gender biases of concepts, and to further explain the constitutive characteristics of International Relations;

Normative feminism, which reflects on the process of “theorizing as part of a normative agenda for sociopolitical change”

Feminists adopt a view from below, a focus on politics at what are called the margins—not the power that comes from armaments or from edicts of political elites. Instead, feminist scholarly reinterpretations of power suggest that power is pervasive at every level of society and the system. There are two strands of feminism that tend to be utilized in theoretical analysis based on feminism: (1) difference feminism, and (2) liberal feminism. Difference feminism values the unique contributions of women as women. Liberal feminists allege that difference feminist assertions are based on stereotypes of gender roles.

More recently, feminism has examined broad areas of concern, including: the actions of states, international organizations, transnational actors, race, and class.