Hurrell (1993:50) argues that regime theories introduce the possibility of cooperation in an environment of anarchy in which sovereign states are struggling for power and interest.

Hidemi Suganami (1983) agreed with Jones on the existence of a distinct school and called it as “British institutionalist approach”. He identified five factors that united the authors of this approach: 1) aspiration to werthfreiheit (morally neutral analysis), 2) rejection of behaviourism or scientism, 3) reliance on sociological methods (institutional analysis), 4) unity and specificity of the statessystem (autonomy of IR), and 5) rejection of utopianism. Suganami however disagreed with Jones and considered the contribution of the School to be significant and consequently he did not call for a closure.

The liberal approach can perhaps be best summarized by the writings of Adam Smith (1723- 1790), a famous English economist. Smith argues that the key to national wealth, and therefore national power, is economic growth. The key to economic growth is free trade, the free flow of goods, services and investment across borders.

Economic nationalism, as another major approach to IPE, refers, in a generic sense, to an ideology that favors state interventionism in the economic sphere. The nationalists also believe that closing off an economy to external influences can be beneficial to growth and economic progress. Thus, economic nationalism can be defined as a mixture of trade protectionism and economic planning, with an aim to preserve national interests in the context of world markets.

The main theorists of economic nationalism are Alexander Hamilton (1780-1804), the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, who wrote The Report on the Subject of Manufactures (1791) and Friedrich List (1789-1846), a Prussian economist, who wrote The National System of Political Economy (1841). According to them, the simple formula is that industrial power equals national power and national power equals independence (Hamilton, 2001; List, 1991).

The rise of economic nationalism in recent history occurred particularly in the first part of the 20th century and it was essentially a response to the economic crises, nationalist movements, and enlarged states. In this respect, economic nationalism emerged as a criticism of economic liberalism as well. It is argued that states compete economically. This is very different from liberalism. The liberals believe that companies compete economically, but states do not. However, the nationalists see companies as elements of state power. So from this point of view, while Ford and McDonald’s, for example, contribute to United States power, Honda and Fuji contribute to Japanese power. The nationalists also believe that free trade only benefits the wealthiest, most advanced nations. In headto-head competition, the advanced or “mature” industries can easily defeat the less advanced or “infant” industries.

As also understood from the information given, the correct answer is C. The arguments in the option III “Closing off an economy to external influences can be beneficial to growth and economic progress.”, in the option IV “The simple formula is that industrial power equals national power and national power equals independence.” and in the option V “In headto-head competition, the advanced or “mature” industries can easily defeat the less advanced or “infant” industries.” can be used by a debater who advocates economic nationalism. The arguments in the option I “Political leaders should allow trade among nations to expand and keep government intervention in that trade down to a minimum.” and  “The government should be out of foreign trade, as well as domestic economy, as much as possible.” are the arguments in favor of economic liberalism.

A principle of international law that treaties and other international engagements are binding upon the nations that accede to them, and obligations accepted under such engagements must be performed, or reparations made in the event of a breach.

For the liberals, nations can and should be specialized in certain arenas. For instance, the United States has huge amount of land and great soil, thus it can produce food. Gulf countries have oil, so they can produce oil. Japanese and South Korean companies can get into shipbuilding, while Chinese can make inexpensive, labor-intensive products. David Ricardo (1772-1823) calls this “comparative advantage”. That is, states should produce and export those products which they can produce most efficiently, relative to other states.

According to Hobbes, good or bad are relative concepts and consequently there is no absolute good and absolute bad. There are no sensible and objective criteria to divide the good and bad; in contrast, it depends subjectively to the individuals themselves. 

In particular, according to realist writers, in a real world, sovereign state seeks to increase its power. States looking for power and national interest are not expected to be ethical. Moreover, since there must be numerous moral principles depending on the number of sovereign states, a universal normative theory which is valid for all states is not plausible to establish. 

Adam Smith argued that the key to national wealth and therefore national power is economic growth, which could be ensured through free trade, free flow of goods, services and investments across borders.

Furthermore, Truman Doctrine declared in the aftermath of the Second World War, was expressed as an “help to free nations”.

Scholars like Michael Doyle and Bruce Russett share the idea that democracies can maintain peaceful relations among themselves due to their shared values and common approach in their domestic republican governance.

Normative theories rest on value preferences which cannot be tested or verified with factual experiments and this is an important difference from empirical/positivist theories. Moreover, they are not concerned with the proposition related to “what is” but “what ought to be, what should be”.

The liberal approach can perhaps be best summarized by the writings of Adam Smith (17231790), a famous English economist. Smith argues that the key to national wealth, and therefore national power, is economic growth. The key to economic growth is free trade, the free flow of goods, services and investment across borders. Hence, political leaders should allow trade among nations to expand and keep government intervention in that trade down to a minimum. This means that imports and exports should flourish with as little restriction as possible (Smith, 2003).

As also undertsood from the information given the arguments in the option III and in the option IV are the arguments of economic liberalism approach and can be evaluated as the ones which do not not conflict with the arguments of economic nationalism by the one who advocates economic nationalism, so the correct answer is D.

The ones in the option I “Free trade only benefits the wealthiest, most advanced nations.” and in the option II “The simple formula is that industrial power equals national power and national power equals independence.” are the arguments of economic nationalism.

Yurdusev (1996) argued for the existence of a distinct school and outlined basic premises as follows: 1) concern for history, historical explanation and classical works, 2) international relations being an orderly realm, 3) the view of the whole, 4) the adherence to a via media (middle way) approach, in other words, precaution and refrain from the extremes 5) the significance of and emphasis upon cultural/ civilizational factors in international relations, 6) the volitional/voluntaristic conceptualization of international society/system against mechanical/ structural conception, 7) a broad historical perspective and the use of historical parallels to current problems (rejection of presentism), and 8) avoidance of scientific jargon.

Many critics, nevertheless, see the NorthSouth inequalities as one main cause for the reflashing of terrorism in the 21st century. The correct answer is B.

Transnationalism as a new paradigm was encouraged by the developments such as emergence of new actors and state-centric approach lost its attractiveness. In the field of IR, the number of actors increased and differentiated extending from individual to the larger international social organizations. The critics focusing on state-centric paradigm intensify as international relations get more transnational and the numbers of actors increase. After 1970’s a group of scientists led by J. Nye, R. Keohane and K. J. Holsti claimed clearly the invalidity of the state-centric approaches as a result of globalization and emerging non-state actors. While state-centric paradigm focused on subjects such as security and stability, Wallerstein and Galtung proposed “dependency” and Keohane and Nye offered interdependency and transnationalism as conceptual frameworks whereby military and security issues are no longer main subjects. The correct option is E.

The correct answer is B.