Structural Theory Of International Relations

There are two sets of theories that provide explanations on how the international system works. The structural theory also known as realism and the institutional theory also know as liberalism are the two major theories of international relations. These two set of concepts help explain the behaviors of major powers. Both of these theories have a first premise and first deduction along with a second premise and second deduction. In order to apply structural and institutional explanations to the behavior of Austria- Hungary, it is necessary to understand each of their core values. Realists strive to understand how power, structure, and system can affect the incentives for decision makers to choose war or to choose peace. They believe that

Any system in the world or the world as a whole is either in a state of hierarchy or anarchy. It is believed by realists that hierarchy will maintain the peace because it is in the interest of the people running it. However, anarchy may trigger war to occur. Following with the first deduction, any structural anarchy balance of power will to some extent be a balance of conflict. There will always be clashes among units or states over power maximization and/or resource scarcity. Every state will make an attempt to maximize its power to the limits of its ability. They do this in order to gain access to the resources that are critical to the security in a given system. Resources such as cyber information, territory, economic resources, army, navy, etc. With the creation of a competitive situation, instability and war can be the outcome of this conflict. Every state tries to expand its power by expanding its resources. However, resource scarcity makes the attempt of resource expansion unattainable. Any decision maker should take into account the possibility that even a stable balance of power can turn

When it comes to actually fighting of real war, institutionalist believe that warfare has a zero or negative payoff. There is no utility and no positive outcome. However, institutionalist believe the goal of war may have some benefits. For example, when a state makes itself stronger when they are seeking another territory would count as a benefit that overcomes the negatives of war. War fighting involves the cost of combat and domestic mobilization. It is impossible to have a low cost, cheap war. The cost of war is always positive and significant. Even fighting a weaker power will result in a loss in some circumstances. It is crucial for decision makers to take into account the cost of defeat. Weighing out the cost of defeat and the cost of war is crucial for every decision maker. As opposed to realist, who very rarely talk about defeat but mainly what the cause of war is. The cause of war is talked about in general and specifically. Unlike institutionalist who mainly focus on the cost of war. The cost of termination is another factor that institutionalist focus on. This means that when a war ends, one power more or less wins but that necessarily does not eliminate the conflict. Fighting may go on even after a government has surrendered. War is not a guaranteed escape from a conflict. With all of these costs added together is why institutionalist believe the cost of war is significant. All of these costs should