International Relations: Convincing Theories

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Realism
Liberalism
English school theory
Rationalism versus Reflectivitism
World society theory
Postmodernism and critical theory
Gender and International Relations
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

Theories of international relations provide a model upon which the international relation can be analyzed. Each theory is different and has its own assumptions that are used to look into international relations. Due to the different interpretations people have about international relations they behave differently towards one another. The assumptions of the various theories also determine their usefulness and restrictions in explaining historical events.

Realism

The theory of realism is among the dominant theories that have been guiding international relations. It has also influenced foreign policy since world war two ended (Realism, n.d, para.1). It is a conservative theory and has retained its place during the period of development of modern political science. Its notion is “that all states are rational actors and their main goal is to attain power to survive” (Grant, 2008, para. 2). The theory has five assumptions that explain it.

The first assumption is anarchy. This means that the world has no global government and therefore is anarchic. The role of the government is to protect its citizens from internal and external threats that may be produced by other nations or terrorists. The importance of a powerful government that can protect its citizens comes in because we do not have a global government (Grant, 2008, para. 3).

Maintaining sovereignty is the second assumption. Every nation desires to rule itself to pursue its own domestic affairs. This means that such a nation can go about its business without undue interference from other nations. The citizens are able to pursue their goals and build their country as well.

The third assumption is that a country’s military is its greatest resource of power. A country needs a strong military to protect it and ensure its domestic freedom. With a strong military a country is protected and this reduces the chances of an attack. Countries may have a defence type of military. This kind of military protects the country from attacks. The other type is both defence and offensive military which will defend its country and if need be attack other countries that are a threat to its security. Therefore, countries aim to have a strong military and this has led some countries to acquire nuclear weapons in the name of self protection and this has led to tensions in the world (Grant, 2008, para. 2).

Transparency is the other assumption. The intentions of a nation need to be known so that the other nations can know how to act. A country needs to be open about its actions such as building arms. Transparency does not always convince other nations that the intentions are good. For instance, Iran said it was building nuclear technology to produce domestic energy. Other nations were sceptical even though that was the government’s official declaration. It is difficult for nations to tell their true intentions as doing so would give their enemies an advantage over them so nations carry on knowing that other nations may not have revealed their true intentions (Trochim, 2006, para. 3).

The last assumption is survival in the global arena. Every nation’s basic goal is to survive. To do so a nation must look for ways to survive and stay ahead of the other nations. In this regard, realists do not see any room for ethics in the global arena. This is because nations do what they have to do to gain power and sustain it.

The nature of human beings is the fundamental element that makes individuals and states to act in considerations of interests above ideologies. Classical realism means “drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature” (Grant, 2008, para. 4). On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes came up with the idea of neorealism. It shifted its focus to the international system and conflict. Therefore, states ought to be ready for conflict and they do this by ensuring that they have a strong army and economy.

Realism is also contrasted with idealism. Realism means an inclination towards reality or literal truth as well as pragmatism. Realist accept life the way it is and often people fail to aim for perfection because they believe it can never be achieved. On the contrary, idealism means to envision things in an ideal way. Idealist aim for perfection and this often leads to disappointment because human beings have a universal characteristic of imperfection. Therefore, a realist may become out of touch with the reality as they aim for perfection. They get lost in their dreams and often leave projects they start unfinished. On the other hand realist may fail to achieve their full potential because they aim for average things that are often achieved hence that fail tom purse excellence. Realists can be said to be pessimistic and idealist optimistic. There are two political view points that emerged from the two theories. The realists are conservatives and believe in fairness, justice and equality for all. They believe that if anyone breaks the law they should be punished n the other hand, liberals believe in mercy, goodness and equality. They are of the belief that all human behaviour has a reason and before punishing anyone the reason behind their crime should be identified (Idealism Vs Realism, n.d, para. 1.2, 3).

Positivism rejects metaphysics. It holds “that the goal of knowledge is implied to describe the phenomena that we experience” (Trochim, 2006, para. 3). It says that we must limit knowledge to the things we can observe as well as measure. Positivists say that knowledge beyond that would not be possible. According to positivists science was the only way to get the truth. This was the notion of BF Skinner in his behavioural theory. Thus by observing behaviour we will be able to predict things that might happen as well as control them. Positivists were realists.

On the other hand, post positivism shifted from the thinking of positivism and they believe that there is an independent reality in our thinking that can be measured by science. Their philosophy is critical realism. They recognize errors can be made in observation and thus the theory is revisable. They are critical of the ability to know with certainty. Unlike positivists who believed that science had the of uncovering the truth post positivists believe that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal” (Trochim, 2006, para. 5).

Liberalism

The theory of liberalism is of the belief that man is a free being and it is very important that an individual has freedom. This notion is accepted the world over today. The theory has many proponents of the ancient world. John Locke is attributed with modern liberalism. He believed that a human being should not harm another human being in his liberty, life, health or even possessions (Cynthia, 2001, p. 57).

Liberalism has many forms and the essence is that human beings should tolerate one another despite their different beliefs and ideas. Therefore for a country to give individual freedom it must have a strong democracy system. Such a system gives its citizens their human rights. Thus, liberalism’s main notion is freedom and this notion was advanced by people who believed that human beings out to be free. This led to movements fighting for human rights. Liberalism fought for social equality.

At the international level there is anarchy however due to the interaction between states they control their behaviour towards each other. In liberalism states can cooperate beyond politics and there is cooperation in economics. The cooperation lead to plurality in states and preferences come in depending on culture; type of government and so on (Cynthia, 2001, p. 57).

There is need to pursue peace in the world fro the cooperation to be possible and profitable for the states. This has led to formation of bodies such as the United Nations. When states fail to comply with the regulations stipulated in the international charter a country may face sanctions or ramifications such as being invaded like Iraq was invaded by the USA due to alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction

The fundamental tenets of liberalism are intellectual liberalism, economic liberalism and freedom of conscience. Locke also came up with the notion of natural rights and today this is the basis of human rights. In this area, the theory was successful because today many governments try to ensure that human rights are not violated. The countries that violate human rights are held accountable. In fact, there is an international criminal court that tries individuals from various countries who violate human rights through acts such as genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Neo liberalism means a new era of capitalism. Due to the free market advocated by liberalism the gap between the poor and the rich is getting bigger. The rich air becoming richer and the poor poorer. This is because the bourgeoisie class has spread their laws to the rest of the world and this has led to domination. The few people who control the market are able to control even the strongest states. In this case states cannot protect their citizens; they are at the mercy of the market. This is seen well when there is an economic crisis; citizens lose jobs, they are forced to accept pay cuts or go home. Thus workers are exploited while the wealthy continue making a profit (Goument, n.d, para 3)

Neo structural realism explains that the behaviour of state is “explained in structural terms” (Cynthia, 2001, p. 13). Waltz uses an analogy of an oligopolistic market : within an oligopolistic market, the ability of firms to arrive at some convergence regarding prices… cannot be adequately understood either by examining negotiations among firms …rather it is the structure of the market itself, in which a few key actors collectively hold the dominant share (Patrick, 1995, p. 182).

English school theory

English theory is also referred to as liberal Realism. The theory insists that there is a society of states at the international level despite the realism belief in anarchy where there is no ruler of the world. The theory believes in an international state that is detectable. The state has regulations that guide their international relations. Theses are: diplomacy, war, power balance, international law and the recognition of sovereignty of states. The theory has two main elements that make it unique: its theoretical pluralist approach and its three main concepts (Buzan, 2004, p.6). The three main concepts are; international society, world society, and international system.

International system deals with power politics among the states. This puts the process as well as the structure of anarchy in the international relations theory. This position is parallel to typical neorealism and realism and is more developed and understood. Tilly (1990) defines international states as system to the extent to which the states interact on a regular basis and the degree to which the interactions affect the behaviour of the other states (162). The definition is “based on ontology of sates and generally approached with a positivist epistemology, materialist and rationalist methodologies and structural theories” (Buzan, 2004, p. 7).

International society concept or Grotius or Rationalism concerns the institutionalisation of interests that are shared among states as well as their identity. The main idea is the creation and the maintenance of the shared rules and norms. The position is deeper and has constructive implications rather than having merely instrumental implications. This is the main thinking of the English school theory and has a constructivist epistemology approach.

Pluralists and solidarists debate has been going on. The pluralists are of the opinion that sovereignty limits a country to the minimal rule of coexistence (Buzan, 2004, p. 8). Therefore, a country runs its own affairs with minimal interruption. On the other had, solidarists believe that due to international system countries can expand their cooperation to pursue common interests. The theory is not fully developed and has problems which spin around its weakly developed pillar of world society.

Rationalism versus Reflectivitism

Rationalism means applying rational choice as well as positive methods. Some of the theories in this school of thinking are neoliberalism and neorealism. On the other hand, reflectivism means rejecting the methods applied in rationalism and advocates for reflective and interpretive methodologies. The theories that use these methods are feminism and critical theory (Kurki & Wight, rationalism Vs. Reflectivsm, para.1).

World society theory

World society or revolutionism or Kant differs from the two concepts above and takes individuals instead of states. The world population is seen as a whole and it is the focus of global societal identities as well as arrangements. The view of revolutionism is about Universalist cosmopolitanism. This notion could also mean communism. This position is similar in some ways to transnational political supposition. It is not based on ontology of states and at the same time it is not based entirely on individuals (Buzan, 2004, p. 9).

The main drive of the English school theory has been to expose the historical development of international societies, their nature as well as their function. The basic idea of an international society is simple. Just like human beings live in societies, they are shaped and shape them, so are states, they live in an international society that they shape and that shape them. Therefore, a state (Buzan, 2004, p. 13) cannot live in isolation because it is affected by the behaviour of other states.

Immanuel Wallestein has been a vocal in talking about world affairs. He is particularly concerned about globalisation and it effects. He focuses on the intellectual foundations of the modern world in which everything has been turned into a commodity including human labour and this has led to the stripping of the intrinsic value of human relations. Capitalism has spread to almost every part of the globe. This is in the world economy that is capitalist. Yet, there are fundamental differences between the cultures of the world that the capitalist economy has not taken into consideration. The differences lead to unequal terms of term and the nations at the periphery sell their goods cheaply to those at the core and buy finished products at very high prices. According to Wallestein the gap will continue to widen and can only be resolved when the modern world system comes to an end and be replaced by a new order.

Postmodernism and critical theory

Post modern and critical theories are intellectual movements instead of specific theories. The theories arose as a criticism to the sructuralist movement of the early 1960s. Postmodernism developed as a reaction to modernism. This was because of the disillusionment that was experienced in Western Europe after world war two. It offers a critique and a reaction against some intellectual trends that had begun during the renaissance period (Lemke, n.d. para.1).

Postmodernism criticizes those of the belief that there can be objective knowledge because knowledge is made with meaning making resources of a specific culture. Therefore, different cultures see things differently and when one culture believes that their view of the world is universally true they are wrong. Postmodernism states that this was convenient assumption by Europe’s imperial ambitions and had no intellectual basis. They further urge that the Europeans imposed their cultures on others and they have dominated the natural as well as social sciences (Buzan, 2004, p. 68).

Critical theory on the other hand, seeks “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkerheimer, 1982, p. 244). A critical theory aims at reducing domination and increasing freedom. The critical theories have emerged in different forms and are connected to a number of social movements. Critical theory has been successful to some extent. Some of the movements seeking human emancipation have been successful and human beings have greater freedoms. Through critical theory the world politics have been restricted (Jones, 2001, p. 1).

Gender and International Relations

Gender is a term that is used interchangeably with sex. The gender differences are deep rooted in the ‘natural’ according to may people. This has led to prejudice against one gender due these beliefs. However, gender refers to the ideological relations rather than biological and shows how they exist between women and men. Masculinity and femininity refer to gender terms instead of natural characteristics. In every society there are characteristics that are considered either female or male. Thus one is expected to behave according their gender as prescribed by the society. Behaving in an opposite manner leads one to be regarded as queer (Steans, 2006, p. 8).

In gender studies emphasis is laid on the social aspect of gender. Gender is very important because it determines what one can get or not in a certain society. Gender, therefore leads to formation of poor relations in the society (Enloe, 2004, p.56). Feminism has been associated with unequal status that women have in society compared to men. The society is patriarchal and masculine hegemony rules. Men are born with privileges and women without. This has led them to being denied power. They are not active in politics and economic activities. The feminist movements have been fighting for the emancipation of women. In the 1960s the women challenged the way gender was viewed using the critical theory (Steans, 2006, p. 9).

Conclusion

In the international relations women seek to be given equal opportunities as the men. They realise that they can come from the periphery and take an active role. Women have been discriminated against in terms of cultural, social and economic structures of the society (Bechler, 2008, para. 1). This has been due to gender dichotomisation that has led to association of certain characteristics with a certain gender. For example, women are associated with weakness, emotionality, dependency and so on while men are associated with power activity, autonomy, rationality and so on. This stereotype has been reinforced by social structures and has influenced people’s thinking profoundly. Thus the women have been absent in the world of military, foreign policy making and military. The reason for this the ideal of the male warrior espoused by western political theory in hegemonic masculinity. This thinking excluded women from the public life and confined them in private. They accepted this arrangement because they were socialised in a patriarchal society. The thinking has been challenged by critical theorists and postmodernists and more women are taking part in international relations (Tickner, 2001, p 34).

Reference

Bechler, R 2008. Hegemonic Masculinity. [Online] Open Democracy. Web.

Buzan, B 2004. From International to World Society: English School Theory And The Social Structure of Globalisation, Cambridge University Press, London.

Cynthia, W 2001. International Relations Theory. A Critical Introduction, 2nd edition, Taylor & Francis, New York.

Enloe, C 2004, The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire (Paperback), University of California Press, California.

Grant, SC, 208, Realist Theory in World Affairs. [Online]. Suite 101.com. Web.

Gounet,T n.d. Is Neo-Liberalism a Neo-Reformism theory? [online]. 2009. Web.

Horkheimer, M 1992, Critical Theory, New York: Seabury Press, New York.

Idealism Vs. Realism, n.d, [online]. Kingswayfalcon.tripod.com. 2009. Web.

Jones, RW 2001 Critical theory and world politics, Lynne Rienner Publishers, New York.

Kurki, M & Wight, C n.d, International Relations and Social Science. [online]. 2009. Web.

Lemke, j. L. n.d. What Is Postmodernism, And What Is It Saying All These Terrible Things [online] JSALT paper. 2009. Web.

Patrick, P 1995, “Structural Realism and the Causes of War”, Mershon International Studies Review, (39) p 182

Realism n.d.[online].International Relations Resource Centre. 2009. Web.

Steans, J 2006. Gender and International Relations: Issues. Debates and Future Directions, Polity.

Tickner, JA 2001, Gendering World Politics, Columbia University Press, London.

Tilly, J 1990, International Relations, SAGE, New, SAGE, New York.

Trochim, MK 2006, Positivism & Post-Positivism. [Online]. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!