In this context, the first great debate is vested in between idealism and realism; the second in traditionalism and behaviourism; and the third in positivism and post-positivism. The debate on idealism and realism primarily focuses on numerous evaluations of the nature and the functioning of international relations; whereas traditionalist and behaviourist debates deliberate
on the clash of different methodologies concerning the scientific aspect of international relations. The positivist and post-positivist debates on the other hand, compromise the differences of opinion forming the basis for various unravelling aspects of IR theories such as the questioning of all their outpresence, validity and efficacy, and the advancement of alternative perspectives.

In addition, debates on IR theories can, at times, be subject to different
classifications such as rationalist vs. reflectivist, traditionalist vs. critical, formative vs. explanatory, foundationalist vs. anti-foundationalist etc.

Feminism is the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of men and women. In its own right, feminism is considered to be a part of the cause of making women more visible. Whilst doing so, feminism provides that women have been absent from decision-making and institutional structures that represent the public sphere indicating that they have been mostly present in
the private sphere (Smith, 2017: 62-63; Tickner and Sjoberg, 2011).

Equally, feminist IR represents not only how international politics influences men and women but also how it is influenced by them. Despite the dissensus among different feminist approaches in IR, all of them accommodate certain central
components that can be regarded as common feminist traits. These involve:

i) the centrality of the concept of “gender” in debates and discussions on feminism;

ii) the problematization of gender relations within research framework;

iii) the formulation of hypothesis that gender relations are not intangible; and

iv) the belief that feminism is a form of commitment to change and/or transition.

The first “wave” of the feminist movement was observed in the 19th century (1800s and early 1900s); and it was concentrated on the fight for the same legal and political rights as men, such as women’s suffrage, equal opportunity rights,
parenting rights, as well as rights related to marriage and their right to vote (Evans, 1997: 25). Although the feminist movements in that period took place
in different parts of the world, the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) had become crucial geographical points for women to fight for equal rights with men. Whilst in the 1800s women in the USA fought for the
fulfillment of their individual rights under the guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, the women in the UK campaigned for suffrage.

The “second wave” of feminism started in the latter part of the 20th century (1960s and 1980s); and it advocated not only for the guarantee of political rights but also for the strengthening of women’s cultural and political presence in
societies. The second wave primarily focused on issues such as the legal equality between men and women, women’s liberation movements with the theme of women liberation, inequalities in the work place, as well as family and reproduct-ive rights (Becky, 2002: 347). The second wave of feminism is considered to be important in the sense that it aimed to shed light on the internalizing disorders attributable to the societal roles and modalities undertaken by women purely based on the biological differences they feature (Doğan and Özlük, 2016: 57). 

Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes
encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female.

“Hegemonic masculinity” maintains that “international politics is such a thoroughly masculinized sphere of activity that women’s voices are considered inauthentic. The values and assumptions that drive the contemporary interna-tional system are intrinsically related to concepts of masculinity; privileging these values constrains the options available to states and their policy-makers” (Tickner, 1992: 408).

There are different types of feminist approaches and debates in IR. Although these typologies are useful in that they present the perceptive distinctions between feminist approaches, it is stressed that this multi-character of feminism
in IR is likely to imperil its theoretical integrity (Friedman, 2001: 125). In a nutshell, the world of feminist thinking compromises liberal, socialist and Marxist, radical, postmodern, constructivist, postcolonial, and cultural feminism. Furthermore, feminism in IR is also analyzed epistemologically within three categories: empirical, analytical, and normative. According to True, feminist IR, through empirical, analytical and normative epistemologies, aims to deconstruct and transform the mainstream hypotheses and main IR concepts formulated in a
sexist manner, subordinating women to a secondary level (2001).

Liberal feminism advocates for equality between the sexes through social and political reforms, and legal means; they argue that only with the attainment of equal rights between men and women, feminism can reach its objective
(Maynard, 1995: 260; Walby, 1990: 4; Brenner, 1987: 448-449).

As a point of departure, liberal feminism explores the personal interactions of men and women in order to find ways in which societies are transformed into
a more “gender-equitable” places. Liberal feminism rejects the claim that the inclusion of women in the power structure of international society would
change the nature of IR. On the contrary, they believe that their inclusion in the power structure would amount to comparable results. Liberal feminists, in that respect, support the idea of integrating women into the male dominant fields
such as foreign policymaking and the military (Tür and Aydın Koyuncu, 2010: 14).

Socialist and Marxist feminism asserts that the union of capitalism and patriarchy are the two main reasons why women are oppressed domestically through domestic labor as a reflection of “capital workforce” (Heywood 1997: 30). Marxist feminism asserts that the oppressed status of women can be attributed to the unequal treatment at both the workplace and in the house
(Jaggar, 1983). Socialist feminism suggests that socialism handles the problem of the oppressed andexploited people; henceforth, it habitually takes the
problems of women into consideration. It argues that with the perception on women as individuals with solitary responsibility of reproduction, they will continue to be marginalized at the societal level (Peterson and Runyan, 1991: 78).

Radical feminism primarily aims to formulate new ways of understanding the relationship between men and women; and believes that it is the maledominated hierarchy (or patriarchy) that is responsible for the oppressed status of women
today (Maynard, 1995: 260; Walby, 1990: 3). Therefore, it believes in “going to the root” or the source (of the problem). According to this branch of feminism, if changes are not brought about in this hierarchy, there can be no equality between men and women, and that a total reconstruction of the society is necessary to bring about the desired reforms. In that respect, radical feminists
support the idea of dismissing the patriarchal societal structure and suggest the establishment of a matriarchal order in which women would not have a secondary legal status (Donovan, 2010: 267-269).

In contrast to the other feminist typologies, cultural feminism overlooks developments in political sphere and focuses on cultural sphere instead. Cultural feminism stresses that the “male supremacist culture” is the main problem of
courses of actions defining women by men. It is assumed that this type of process is misleading and devaluing feminine characteristics that can only be improved by adopting a feminist description for more accuracy (Alcoff, 1988: 406-407). Furthermore, cultural feminism believes that the qualities present in women are not only unique, but also superior to those present in men. These
qualities are more of a psychological and cultural nature than biological.

The epistemological categories of feminism involve: (1) empirical feminism which examines the conditions and the role of women in societies and concentrates on “gender” issue as an “empirical component” of international relations; (2) analytical feminism which formulates “gender” as a “theoretical category” whilst exploring the hidden “gender bias” of main IR concepts and
whilst discussing the structural aspects of relations; and (3) normative feminism which presents a “normative agenda” for the theorization process of social and political changes (True, 2001).

The first international women’s conference on peace and freedom took place in 1915 where the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) was established with the aim of bringing together women to oppose war, violence and global militarization (Tickner, 2018: 2; Pettman, 2004: 85).  Despite various ventures and attempts to make women and their movements more visible in this period, they remained at the marginal level until 1970s, when feminists started to organize cultural, historical, political, social or economic movements and organizations based on gender inequalities (Doğan and Özlük, 2016: 57-58).

Cyntia Enloe is one of the most prominent feminist scholars, best known for her work on gender and the role of women. Her work Bananas, Beaches and Bases (1989) is considered as one of the upmost works on feminist international relations. Enloe in her work, seeks to find a legitimate answer to the question “Where are the women?”; and casts unacknowledged different public roles
to women who involve themselves as plantation sector workers, diplomatic wives etc. (Enloe, 1989).

J. Ann Tickner is an Anglo-American feminist IR theorist whose works predomin-antly argue that IR theories and practices connote “gender inequality”; and hence there are “gendered perceptions” in IR concealed by the claimed notions of “gender neutrality” and “objectivity” (Tickner, 2014; 2005; 2001; 1999; 1997; 1992). In that respect, Tickner became famous for her attempts to challenge the mainstream IR theories and through her contributions to the sub-discipline of feminist IR by projecting innovative theoretical debates and introducing new areas of analysis (Narain, 2014). In her work Gender in International Relations:
Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, Tickner applies various feminist perspectives to international politics and calls to mind the constructive criticisms of mainstream IR theories such as realism, liberalism and Marxism. Tickner persistently claims that there are gender differences and inequalities in the formation of “state identities” and “citizen responsibilities”; and therefore, they should be integrated in the analytical framework of IR studies (Tickner, 1992).

Cynthia Sylvester, a renowned scholar of political science, focuses on the historical development of feminist efforts in integrating gender and gender relations into the study of international relations (Sylvester, 2010; 2002; 1994a, 1994b). For the most part, Sylvester explores the “three debates” in the context of feminist theorizing with particular emphasis on empirical and post-modernist stances of knowledge construction. Accordingly, Sylvester puts forward three kinds of epistemologies as: i) empiricism and liberalism; ii) standpoint and
radical-cultural politics; and iii) social feminist practice and postmodern scepticism (Sylvester, 1994a).

One of the most pronounced examples for the feminist critiques of classical concepts and assumptions brought to the fore by realist theory is J. Ann Tickner’s criticism of Hans J. Morgenthau’s “six principles of political realism” presented in his prominent work Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace first published in 1967. Tickner expressively revaluates Morgenthau’s
principles through the feminist lenses and significantly contributes to the critical evaluation of the mainstream IR theories (Hutchings, 2008: 100). According to Hans J. Morgenthau, the six principles of political realism are: i) politics is governed by objective laws which have roots in human nature; ii) national interest defined in terms of national power; iii) interest is always dynamic;
iv) abstract moral principles cannot be applied to politics; v) difference between moral aspirations of a nation and the universal moral principles; and vi) autonomy of international politics (Morgenthau, 1978: 4-15).

Morgenthau’s second principle, defining the national interest with national power which was opposed by Tickner, who remarked that in today’s world, the concept of national interest cannot be equated with national power, that not every subject can be evaluated with zero-sum within the framework of power, and that national interest should be considered with a view to fields of common interest concerning the concept of power. In other words, Tickner suggests that national interests should be addressed based on cooperative relations on mutual interests that would be multidimensional in scope and that would involve all actors (Tickner, 1988: 437-438).

Feminist approaches to IR have introduced the concept of “gender” as an indispensable means for analyzing the interactions between states in the international framework. However, in spite of these efforts to construct a better IR theory, feminist analysis has had little impact on international politics. As a matter of fact, policymakers and decision-makers are still inclined to dismiss the ideas of feminists to a great extent. Furthermore, it is observed that women’s roles in the creation and sustainability of international politics are still considered as insignificant issues not worthy of investigation (Tickner, 1992; True, 2001; 2003; Hutchings, 2008).

Feminist IR paved the way for the critical assessment of international politics by shedding light on the subjects such as gender and gender relations which were unexplored by the mainstream IR theories. Therefore, the feminist approach contributed to the study of international relations by granting prominence to women as important actors impacting upon structures in international politics. Overall, feminist IR’s general contribution to mainstream IR studies involves the introduction of gender analysis as an alternative to the male-stream view of traditional high politics issues; the redefinition of key IR concepts that are
traditionally defined with a masculine logic such as state, man, power, rationality and security; and the ethical commitment for inclusivity and self-reflectivity in power relationships involving men and women in the field of IR.