The Theories Of International Politics

1635 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: International relations theory of liberalism

Several theoretical approaches have been developed as an attempt to explain the workings of International Politics. These different perspectives which use different methods and assumptions can be helpful in studying and predicting the actions and interactions of the actors they concentrate on and include, realism, liberalism and feminism. No single approach however succeeds in taking into consideration all factors and outcomes in world politics and each of them has distinct benefits as well as certain limitations. The realist point of view, for example, considers the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis and explains its decisions within an anarchical world system. There is no central force or power that can regulate the rules among the states, as no form of a single viable international government is present, therefore the role of the state is to maximize its power independently. Unlike domestic societies, this anarchist system constructs a self help security system as no state can depend on the help of another. Another point of view, structuralism, also known as neo-realism, builds upon realism but develops its considerations further. As explained by Goldstein, author of International Relations, it represents an attempt to make the realist approach much simpler more formal and more comprehensive. In using the international political structure within which the various states operate as the basic unit of analysis, it provides the necessary tools useful in explaining why states behave the way they do especially in relation to each other. However, as beneficial as it may be in explaining some phenomena, there are some limitations to such an approach that should be examined as well. In order to show how structuralism, the syst... ... middle of paper ... ...nd changes in their relative economic powers. In conclusion, structuralism is a beneficial approach to international politics but at the same time can not explain all international behavior due to some significant limitations. Once again, structuralism is based on the international system structure rather than the nation state and refers to the state’s struggle for position and relative power under an anarchist system. It would be interesting however to examine the role of actors within the international global system that are not competing nation states but still exert influence and contribute to shape international politics and how structuralism would be able to deal with them. These include transnational non-state actors such as Al Qaeda the international terrorist organization which is not specific to one nation state after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Show More
Related

  • The Key Differences Between Realists, Morality of State Theorists, and Cosmopolitans

    1550 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Structural Realism after the Cold War

    984 Words  | 2 Pages

    The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.

    Read More

  • Offensive Neorealism Essay

    917 Words  | 2 Pages

    Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to

    Read More

  • Understanding International Relations

    1517 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Strengths Of Classical Realism In International Relations

    1600 Words  | 4 Pages

    Classical realism originates from the ancient times of the Greek empires. This theory in international relations has dominated the sphere and the conception of world politics for centuries. Classical realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides outline different factors in explaining politics at all levels and emphasize that politics is described throughout the theory of classical realism. Like every theory in international relations, classical realism has strengths and weaknesses that define its impact in the international level. In our current age of diplomacy, classical realism is not a common theory in current international politics. Although it is not as relevant as it has been in the past, there is potential for classical

    Read More

  • Political Realism

    2261 Words  | 5 Pages

    People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.

    Read More

  • International Relations: Liberalism and Realism

    2270 Words  | 5 Pages

    Smith, T. General Liberalism and Social Change in a Post-WWII America, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00287217#close, November 30th 1999

    Read More

  • National and Global Security Under the Realist Theory

    1808 Words  | 4 Pages

    National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .

    Read More

  • The Realist Approach to International Relations

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • International System Essay

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.

    Read More

  • Realism and Neo-Realism

    1166 Words  | 3 Pages

    Barely three decades later the world has developed so rapidly that theorists such as Kenneth Waltz went on to address a new model of modern or “structural" realism in his work Theory in International Politics. Waltz sees the chief characteristics of international relations through his composition approach which emphasizes the structure of the international relations system as the force of power on the state vis-à-vis vice versa. Waltz takes a closer look at the international relations arena from an outside in approach whereas traditional or classical realists took a more inside out analysis. The dangers of both proves that only having one eye open means they were missing out on a multitude of perils and assistance from each style of thoughts. This paper will attempt to address such shortcomings, or advantages as may be to post structural realism.

    Read More

  • Deterence in International Politics

    2929 Words  | 6 Pages

    Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...

    Read More

  • The Realist Analysis Of The Anarchical Society By Hedley Bull

    772 Words  | 2 Pages

    However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...

    Read More

  • International Organizations

    1673 Words  | 4 Pages

    There are three main arguments concerning the discussion over the amount of power regimes have in the international system. The neo-realist argument is the first one where regimes are not merely considered as inadequate, but sometimes deceptive. This perspective is regarded as conventional structural. Keohane and Stein support the second argument, which states that regimes have certain worth, but only under particular conditions. Finally, the Grotian argument perceives regimes as an essential, secondary phenomenon feature of human nature. The connection of international and domestic stakeholders, through benefits, influence, standards, societies, and knowledge lead to the likely development of regimes.

    Read More

  • The Benefits Of Theories In International Relations

    1099 Words  | 3 Pages

    The benefits of using theories outweigh the drawbacks because, without theories to break down information, it is difficult to understand international relations. Theories are blueprints that help us to understand our changing world in any possible way. They lend out a helping hand in seeing the larger picture that makes up international relations. The benefits of theories are the clear plans they present of what is to be expected, having an organization of their ideas, and presenting more than one hypothesis; however, the drawbacks are finding flaws within a theory, ignorance of different levels of analysis, and the possibility of finding useless information.

    Read More

More about The Theories Of International Politics

Open Document