Introduction to International Relations The concept of international relations (IR), have double meaning between people and the science of the study. It allows you to deepen the knowledge of the phenomena and the changes taking place globally. Common knowledge is distinguished by IR as a scientific discipline, founded in 1920 by nationalist David Davies. (Worth 2014) The first meaning of international relations emerged in history when firstly organized states remained together in conflicts. Second meaning, as a discipline, is based on what is visible and what is not but is not constructed in hierarchical system of governance (Worth 2014). The definition of the international system by the realists and neorealist is that all components are …show more content…
It is more an informative approach to international relations theory, these however presupposes IR socially constructed. (Karacasulu, N., Uzgören, E. 2007) Emerged and structured in the 80s of the twentieth century, during the two debates between neo-liberals and neo-realists, and the second between rationalists and critical theorists. (Bruchill et al 2009) Constructivists avoid examining international relations through the prismatic structures of the system. According to them, structure and layout of political organ hierarchy, is not the real argument for actors' behavior. This model consist of thoughts and ideas, not the conditions and material forces. After the Cold War realism’s approach to the security was challenged. These assumptions argue that, the world is shaped socially, thank to unlimited feelings and interactions of all structures, and factors are automatically determined; as evenly factors such as the ideas, norms and views are fundamental for politics to function. What distinguishes constructivism and realism is the approach to safety. For realists security is the key and that it is developed by political elites and due to Wendt, it is self-interest actions. Constructivists do not reject completely the concept of security they have only other ideas of how it is built. They reject universal approaches and analytical/abstracted theories of security. Constructivists for it, focus also more on competition between states and …show more content…
National interests and politics are the results of social identity which is formed by each individual. In book called World of Our Making, Onuf writes about Giddens “theory of structuration” where he is refusing existing theories and instead he believes in the domain of the relations of positions; a two-way bridge between human agent and social object. If the above safety relationship of negotiator (agent) and dispute (social object) position is presented in the worlds dimension, than constructivist thought is clear in relationship between agents, structures and other perspectives. Looking at a concept of structuration presented by Giddens, Wend suggests that the agents (countries) might shape systems (in this case international anarchism) by the way they behave and act. Agents strive to endure anarchism because it threatens the international system. As previously described, the mutual interactions of agents with social structures establish policies, this leads to the constructivists believe that any change is possible on a way to create institutions. Alexander Wendt, on the nature of constructivism: anarchy is this what the state will
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
When exploring the relationships between nations, a number of conceptual models exist. Each model purports to explain and predict the interactions between international actors. Three of these schools of thought were initially enumerated in The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. (K. J. Holsti, 1985) These schools were the “Classical Paradigm”, “Theory of Global Society”, and the “Neo-Marxist” conceptual models. This paper will explore each of Kalevi Holsti’s three schools of thought and the unique advantages and disadvantages of each. Through the exploration of each, this paper will determine which model provides the most accurate conceptual framework for understanding and interpreting the current reality of international relations.
The importance of constructivism for Multipolar World Theory has been already discussed earlier. The most important accent of this approach is assigned to theoretical constructs that often acquire critical importance in implementation of one or another project. Ideas about the world create the world itself, and if not shaping it exactly as imagined, then, at least, attaching some qualitative features to it. Consequently, the system of International Relations is mainly the result of its construction during the development process of theoretical field of IR as a discipline.
Neo Gramsican is a critical approach to the study of International Relations and the global political economy. It explores many elements that are essential for the maintenance of the international relations. It explores the interface of ideas, institutional and material capabilities as they form the specify shape of the state formation. Neo Gramsican analyzes how the grouping of social forces defines the sustainability of the world orders. Cox’s perspective on Neo- Gramscian is about the transformation of the main forms of state and their change under the pressure from the forces from world order and civil society.
During Ambassador Power’s speech, she discusses her beliefs about Russia as a threat to the international community and the United States by prominently expressing thoughts that are similar with the liberal theoretical tradition, additionally, due to intellectual pluralism, Ambassador Power briefly expresses thoughts that are similar to the theoretical tradition of realism. There are four basic assumptions that realism and liberalism share—states live in an international system based on anarchy, states seek power, states are rational actors, and states are the most born actors. However, these rational acting states have varying views of what anarchy is and they act in different ways to attain such anarchy. In this paper, I will explain how
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realism and facets of power in international relations. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. D. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43-63). London: Routledge.
Level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. The System-level analysis considers "top-down" approach to study world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The Individual-level of analysis examines human actors on the global stage. It focuses on the human nature, which defines the primary human characteristics that influence decisions; organizational behaviour that describes human interaction within organized settings, e.g. decision-making group; and personal behaviour that investigates the effect of the uniqueness of individual decision makers on foreign policy (Rourke, 2007, p. 65).
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
To conclude, indeed there are veracities in Waltz arguments, but also there are limitations which cannot totally explain how the international system interacts with actors from different levels. The features of the world after the Cold War do not resemble what the world is today. Phenomenon such as integration, interdependence among states and the creation of international instruments are the result of states' behavior which are constantly shaping the world politics. Therefore, one theoretical ideology by itself will not fully explain the progressive changes in the international system, taking into account that states do influence in the international system.
...ous situations, possibly because these studies have attributed motive and action to the states rather than to the decision-makers within them. Thus, foreign relations and policies can truly be strengthened when people can view and truly appreciate international issue in many different perspectives, such as realist, idealist, liberalist, constructivism, feminist, world economic system analysis, etc. When people are able to see issues and solutions to problems in many different ways world peace might be reachable.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., Smith, S. (2010). Classical Realism. In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Mearsheimer, J.J.; New York: Oxford.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.