Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Summary-Of-International-Relations-Li 👈

1. A Summary of International Relations Literature
By: Abraham R. Bility
PhD Student, International Development
Introduction
In contemporary global societies, states interactions are conducted through an organized
system often referred to as the ‘modern international system’. This system was derived as a
result of the Westphalian Treaty; a peace settlement which ended the thirty-year war in ancient
Europe. As a result of the Treaty, the discipline of International Relations evolved which sets
the basis for state and non-state actors to interact.
This paper presents a summary of the basics of International Relations as well as its
approaches and fundamental theoretical spheres within the discipline. Also, it attempts to
highlight the foundational debates and subjects within the discipline of International Relations.
History of International Relations
The study of International Relations can be understood from historical perspectives. It is
generally believed to be a discipline that evolved out of conflict in central Europe between
1618 to 1648. Although the discipline has become widely studied with no definite attribution
of it being a Eurocentric field, references are made to the historical happenings in central and
eastern Europe as the origin of studying International Relations- relationship among states or
beyond territoriality.
The continent Europe, in the 16th
century, was polarised with religious conflicts which
largely affected the dominant rule of the Roman Catholic church. The various movements or
periods of diluting the absolute control by the Romans can be referred to as the Reformation,
Renaissance, and Modernity. As it is within the pyramid of stratification, states that shared
similar interests united politically at the centre of the Reformation. As a result of such political
unity, the thirty years’ war was sparked which devastated Europe and further opened new paths

2. for intercommunion among states thus making them recognise themselves as a Community.
Moreover, it made Europe freed and independent which led to increased industrialisation
The basic historical event that shaped states interactions leading to the discipline of
international relations is attributed to the Westphalian Treaty of 1648. This Treaty marked the
peace settlements reached among states and nations in Europe. The historical background of
the rise of the Westphalian system (international system) was necessitated by the split in 1054
between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Respublica Christiana. The Western
empire was under the supreme rule of the pope with princes, kings and nobles asserting their
authority across royal territories. Again, as earlier stated, the Renaissance and Reformation
were there first two movements that pulled away from the idea of a universal Christian empire
and a single western European order.
The intricacies of the cultural and social development of the Renaissance are enormous.
However, the Italian Renaissance gave rise to the ‘Stato’- independent city-states governed by
secular rulers that were concerned with practical power politics (raison d etat). The rise in those
Stato triggered ambitions against the universal authority of the pope as well as propelled the
practical secular demands of politics against the religious ambitions of Rome. With those
happenings, a new kind of political leader and politics were bred; thus shifting the cultural
thinking of the people toward the idea that certain forms of political action are necessary in a
world of states.
Following these occurrences was the Reformation, during which period series of
religious movements were birthed. The central political impact of the Reformation was to
hasten and reinforce the spread of independent states across Europe. However, the Reformation
movements were challenged by the Habsburgs, who controlled most parts of European territory
exerting staunched Catholic dynasty thereby sustaining counter-reformation through constant

3. war that ravaged Europe. In the midst of these conflicts, Europe began to rethink itself within
the realm of power politics; thus paving way for the birth of the Westphalian system through
the signing of the Peace Treaty of Westphalia. This Treaty incorporated the treaties of Muster
and Osnabruck and it officially ended the long years of war between the Catholic and Protestant
powers. Therefore, in contemporary International Relations literature, the modern international
system is often referred to as the Westphalian system that is foundation on sovereign
independent states. By sovereign, it means, territorial states of unequal size and power which
are considered legally equal and independent.
The system of states interactions essentially considers the doctrine of sovereignty
although other non-sovereign institutions interact within it. In general consideration,
International Relations became widely spread as a system of states interaction due to the nature
of independence maintained by each sovereign state. Moreover, because sovereignty defines
territories and places legal independence, the risk of conflict is minimized within the
international system. Additionally, International Relations encompasses the study and
interactions of sovereign states. It includes non-state institutions, international law,
development and humanitarian studies.
International Relations became widely used as a basis for interactions among states and
non-state actors as a result of the decline of the Ottoman Empire and colonialism. The 1878
treaties of San Stefano and Berlin served as an impetus of loss of power and territories by the
Ottoman Empire; thus forcing it to accept the emerging Westphalian terms. The European
powers struggled for influence through conquest, global expansion and colonization within
Africa, Asia and the Americas. The expansion of these powers is the history of the
universalisation of the European state system.
Due to the rapid universalisation of the Westphalian system by European powers, the
international system of interactions evolved- an anarchical and anti-hegemonic system. An

4. anti-hegemonic system simply means the quest for ‘balance of power’-the principle of resisting
any attempt by one state or actor to gain power over the others. Therefore, states constantly
remain engaged in the act of adjusting and refining interactions in response to the perpetual
condition and flow of power within the system. The dynamics of the anti-hegemonic principles
which were derived as a result of European territorial spread and realignment, are very key to
understanding the nature of the international politics or relations.
Basic Theoretical Debates in IR
International Relations, like many other disciplines is characterised by theoretical
perspectives which serve the basis for approaching issues. These theoretical perspectives, in
the literature of International Relations, are considered as the ‘great debates’. These great
debates are expressed in all IR literature though they may be altered based on the circumstances
of affairs within the system or state at the time. The key debates are: Realism, Liberalism, Neo-
realism, Neo-liberalism and institutionalism.
• Realism:
Realism is an enduring approach to IR due to its practical stance on international politics.
The principal argument of realism is that any objective analysis of international affairs must
focus on power relations between states; thus putting sovereignty at the centre of its approach.
The term ‘realism’ as used in IR originated late 1930s and early 1940s in response to the
perceived naïve thinking of liberal politicians and scholars. Realists argue that it is impossible
to build an international system characterised by states that removes conflict and competition,
banishes war as a tool of foreign policy and establishes perpetual peace.
Realism focuses on power as a means for international theory. It believes that the central
idea of the international system is states- the primary actors or centre of power in world politics.
The evidential argument of realism is that all other institutions other than states are of

5. secondary importance to power politics. For example, realists argue that the United Nations
can be best understood in the context of the power of states; i.e, it is a body of sovereign states
that make up the organisation. Realism holds the view that the anarchical nature of states is
necessary as well as the self-interest of power hungry actors and the priority of power over
morality and justice account for the scientific nature of IR.
The intellectual history of ‘realism’ is rooted in the classical works of political thought.
Central to realists thinking is the history of the Peloponnesian war between the Athenian
Empire and Sparta which was fought between 431 and 404 BC. Key to this history that provides
a clear understanding of realists thinking is the Melians Dialogue where the powerful Athenians
threatened the Melians who despite their military inferiority trusted in the Gods (Deity) to
support them in their struggle for ‘what was right against what was wrong’. However, they
were crushed by the Athenians who justified their actions that ‘right’ is only in question
between equals in power while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must’. This idea was argued by Machiavelli (1515) that ‘the virtu of the prince is to be as strong
as lion and as cunning as a fox, to be able to use the impression of adhering to the customary
moral norms of society but able to act ruthlessly when the political situation demands it’. This
thinking places realism in a practical space of world politics.
Also, Hobbes (1996), an English political theorist argued that the state of nature in
international affairs is a state of war and it can only be resolved by submitting to the authority
of an all-powerful sovereign. Additionally, Morgenthau (1948) argued that there are six
principles in political realism which provide a simplification of the world. He asserted that
politics is rooted in human nature, power and interest and in the balance of power. However,
this option is not available within the international space thus anarchy, equality and war are
key features of world politics. As a consequence of these classical concepts of realism, a new
approach was derived – neo realism. Neo-realism or structural realism as attributed to Kenneth

6. Waltz criticises classical realism by asserting that it is not the character of the units that
determine world politics but rather it is the structure of the system.
• Liberalism
The theoretical arguments of liberalism tend to criticise realism. Liberalism as oppose to
realism, relies on claims about the impact of interdependence, the benefits of free trade,
collective security and the existence of harmony of interests between states. It basically
concerns itself with morality and ethics as inalienable principles that precedes all other
principles or concepts. Liberalism views international relations beyond the scope of power as
argued by realism. It explores international law, human rights, economic cooperation or justice
and other areas as relevant to the study of international affairs. Fundamentally, liberalism
argues that morality has a key place in the political thinking of individuals rather than states.
Liberalists argue for the application of several international principles that present morality and
ethics other than power politics.
The classic arguments that form the foundation of this theoretical sphere include natural
law theory, political theory of Kant and the utilitarianism by Bentham. The natural law theory
as postulated by John Locke (1988) asserts that the moral law existed before politics and that
God (deity) made all humans equal. Therefore, humans can work out the basic principles of
politics and that there is a moral law that precedes and supersedes politics. However, Locke
agreed that the state of affairs is anarchical but differed that such anarchical nature of the state
is govern by objective law of morality and ethics.
Unlike Locke, Bentham (1789) argued that political judgments should be based on
something that can be measured and that things can be categorise as to whether they produce
benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or to prevent mischief, pain evil or unhappiness. He further
asserted that the guiding principle should be the maximization of utility which serves the basis
to determine ‘right or wrong’. Interestingly, as realist thinking places the interest of ‘self’ as

7. centre to power politics, Bentham partially agreed that the self is considered provided that it is
constructed for the greatest happiness of the all nations. In his liberal thinking, he believed that
the state can remain sovereign but in other to savage war, there should be an international legal
system with jurisdiction beyond states territories.
Given the broader spheres in which liberalism based their traditions, Kant provides the
largest scope for contemporary liberalist arguments. He draws on Locke and Bentham
assertions and asserts that it is an absolute duty to treat human beings as autonomous moral
agents. His argument places morality as an inherent principle that compels us to act not right
not because of interest or benefits. This view argues that the anarchical system of affairs within
international relations can be resolved through the development of a critical moral theory and
a political solution that considers individual rights. However, as other liberalists agreed in part
to realist thinking, Kant argues that the state of nature of the international system is anarchical
but a solution can be derived to resolve it. Kant’s solution is to have a just legal and political
regime that exposes a genuine harmony of interests. This approach, according to Kant, would
require that states enter into a confederation of republican states under the law of nations.
Liberalism in contemporary international affairs is known as neo-liberalism. This new
approach is centred on two traditions: structural institutions impact international relations and
just war and humanitarian intervention and distributive justice. The structural claims place on
neo-liberalism is that of the interdependence of states and relations between state and non-state
actors in anarchical international system. By state actors, it means territorial states that are
sovereign and legally accepted while non-state actors are institutions with huge global
influence without territory but influences states actions. Principally, neo-liberalism core idea
is ‘complex interdependence’; i.e., “a world in which actors other than states participate
directly in world politics, in which a clear hierarchy of issues does not exist and in which force
id an ineffective instrument of policy”. In neo-liberalists thinking, international affairs has

8. many channels of political interactions other than states because states have relative power and
unequal capabilities; thus interdependence is necessary for harmony. This tradition concerns
itself with ‘low politics’ (economic and social issues) as well as high politics (security issues).
• Institutionalism
The institutionalism perspective or debate in IR tends to share the view of realism that the
international system is anarchical and states are self-interested, rational actors seeking to
survive while increasing their material conditions. However, it differs with realism that
cooperation is possible between states through the reliance of macroeconomic theory and game
theory. Institutionalists believe that economic cooperation reduces the use of coercive force
between states thus reducing the degree of uncertainty. It argues that institutions, defined as set
of rules, norms, practices and decision-making procedures can the uncertainty that undermines
cooperation. Furthermore, it argues that institutions increase information about State behaviour
which make judgment of compliance to those rules.
The Challenge of ‘Anarchy’ and World Politics
In classical theories of international relations, emphasis have been placed on critiquing
the nature of states’ as postulated by realists which fundamentally rely on ‘power and anarchy’.
However, the state of affairs in the international system as argued by other theories go beyond
states and that anarchy is possible to be removed from the system.
The challenge to the anarchical nature of world politics presents the influential role play
by non-state actors within the international system. In general term, non-state actor represents
different organizations other than states that are actively participating within the international
system. There is often a confusion when the term is used in IR due to the interconnection some
organizations have with states. However, the confusion, the central idea is that there are other
actors within the international system whose interactions are political but are not states. Their

9. decisions or actions affect states. Such organisations could be specifically classified as MNC
(Multi-national corporation), NGO (Non-governmental Organisation), INGO (International
Non-governmental Organisation), etc. These organisations along with states form the
complexities in world politics and contribute to the new understanding of the global system of
international affairs.
While realist view tends to set the basis for understanding world politics, idealists argue
that international relations has always had a profound thought on the role of non-state actors.
To debate this, following the end of the first World War, Woodrow (1918) argued for the
establishment of the League of Nations that would have acted as a check on the ower of
aggressive and militaristic states. This central quest was to have a representative organisation
that legitimises commitment of collective security for the maintenance of peaceful international
relations. However, as argued by realists, the League of Nations failed largely due to the
Utopian thinking that a system of anarchy where states are sovereign and principally act on
interest can be managed by a central body without territoriality and independence.
Nevertheless, idealists believe that the idea of multilateral international organisation was
strengthened through the League of Nations thus paving way for the establishment of the
United Nations (UN) in 1945.
The concept of multilateralism underpins the establishment of the UN with the objective to
maintain international peace and security as well as take effective collective measures to
prevent and remove conflict and threats. Multilateralism means having all states working
together through international organisations and abiding by the rules of international politics
to come up with common solutions. This concept coincides with the argument of neo-liberalist
Kant that the international system can be free of anarchy through the establishment of
international law or a judicial system with international jurisdictions. Thus, World politics has

10. different spheres of interactions other than states power and relations. International
organisations play roles that impact or influence states actions.
• Non-state Actors in International Affairs
According to neo-liberalist view, non-state actors influence states actions and contribute
to world politics. These actors assist in the development of global peace and development. The
UN, although comprises of states, have multiple organs that function outside states perimeter.
Noticeably are the ‘Brettton Woods’ institutions (World Bank, IMF and WTO) that seek to
foster economic development and enhance trade. They aid in the development of a multilateral
framework of rules for the governance of the global economy.
This new anti-centric state concept of international relations can be attributed to Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye. They introduced the concept of transnational relations which stresses
the significant role non-state actors play in international affairs. The concept evolved out of the
period of the Cold War when Koehane argued that transnational actors play a role in mitigating
anarchy by contributing to the creation of an international political environment that is
characterised by complex interdependency. This complex interdependency allows the
institutionalisation of world politics thereby enabling states to cooperate with one another. He
placed global institutions in three formal spheres: Formal institution, regimes, and conventions.
As the discipline of International Relations expands, non-state actors continue to impact
world politics. The emergence of regional organisations for the advancement of human dignity
through the enhancement of trade and integration, common currency, and common security
and foreign policies contribute to the development of international affairs. In regard to liberalist
thinking, non-state actors have blurred the traditional realist thinking of an anarchical system
in which power and authority serves as the basis for interaction.
The emergence of multinational corporations (MNCs) within the international system
reduces states power and opens avenue for interdependence. MNCs are companies that own

11. operations in parts of the world outside of the state in which it was originally established. In
World politics, MNCs gain prominence in World politics as a result of growth in the global
manufacturing sector in 1960s. MNCs play greater roe economically in global politics largely
because the annual turnover revenue of most MNCs are larger than states gross domestic
product (GDP). This economic advantage places MNCs in a position to interact and bargain
with states. While states remain pivotal to international affairs, MNCs affect states policies and
have greater political consequences on World politics. The increase in power and influence of
MNCs is a reflection of the increasing privatisation of authority in international politics. This
increased power is gained by MNCs due to states enabling them to operate globally by
deregulating states economies and competing to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). It is
argued that states and firms’ relation has taken a triangular character with diplomacy occurring
at three different intersections, namely; traditional diplomacy, relations between states and
firms, bargaining relations between firms.
In contemporary IR, traditional diplomatic interactions between states such as negotiations,
bilateral treaties still remain important component of international politics while MNCs
relations between state are equally essential to global politics. In this concept of triangular
diplomacy, all three interactions are political; thus limiting the singular concentration on states.
Although, states role within the international system is essential, the state-centric concept does
not suffice within contemporary global politics.
Globalization and International Relations
In the paragraphs above, the concepts discussed suggest an international system that focuses
more on issues of power, security and peace. However, in IR studies, there is a relationship
between state and globalisation. The term ‘globalisation’ in general terms would mean a whole
range of issues confronting today’s society. However, within IR, the focus is placed on the

12. international political economy which evolved in the 1970s due to the nature of politics and
economics. This nature of politics and economics sets the basis for the development of a field
in IR that is referred to as ‘International Political Economy’. Basically, political economy
studies the economic activity within political and legal contexts. Adam Smith liberal treatise
on political economy and Karl Marx philosophies on capitalism are basic theoretical concepts
that led to the study of political economy (IPE). Susan Strange, a British academic is often
credited for the promotion of IPE as relevant area of international studies. Central to the
argument of Strange and other theorists is that there exists a relationship between states and
markets and that economic bargaining between states is as important as bargaining on territorial
issues, etc.
As often argued in IR literature about the nature of the international system as presented
by realist thinking, IPE scholars place emphasis on the growing economic levels of
interdependency and the spread of free trade which undermine the realist view of states. These
scholars view globalisation as an inevitable economic process. Such view relies on the neo-
liberal economic theory that the state should not play a significant role in the economy. Also it
stresses that policies of privatisation and deregulation ar the best means through which
economies can remain competitive. While this theory provides important aspect of IPE
literature, the overriding idea that global capitalism can bring about positive social change and
prosperity for all provided that it is properly regulated is the most influential idea. This idea
influences the economic policies of states around the world which underpins the ‘Bretton
Wood’ institutions.
The influence that this idea has on globalisation sets up debates in international political
economy. Marx and Engels (1992) observed that capitalism, a tool used to foster globalisation
has created an exploitative class (bourgeoisie) by subjecting workers (proletariat) to produce

13. what they do not own. This provides a critique of globalisation. Such critique on globalisation
has resulted to the development of alternative and emancipatory perspectives on globalisation.
Globalisation is a term that is generally used in a wider context. However, one notably
definition of the term is attributed to David Harvey (1989), who defined it as ‘time space
compression’. The idea is that the world is a ‘global village’ which is interconnected and closer
together due to the advancement in communication, mode of transportation and technology. In
liberal thinking, globalisation means providing opportunities for the world poorest countries
and peoples. However, understanding globalisation within the context of global politics
required a multidimensional concept. Primarily, it is important to view it within the economic,
cultural and political spheres.
• Globalisation: An Economic Perspective
In order to understand the economic dimension of globalisation, the changing nature of
production, the growing financial market and the role of labour must all be understood. In
today’s production sector, goods produce are different when compared to the early
twentieth century when few states dominated industrial production of goods. This
difference is cause by the faster growth in transportation and communications links and the
ability of MNCs to relocate labour-intensive production activities to other countries where
labour cost may be cheaper. Also, the production of manufactured goods has become
increasingly complex given the largeness of the market. Moreover, the associated processes
of the growing financial market where large investment banks have grown in power and
influence due to their ability to maximise profits from currency fluctuations. The increase
in technological services and platforms make it easier for the transportation of goods as
well as the electronic transfer of money across state boundaries.
• Globalisation: The Cultural Dimension

14. Like many aspects of world politics, the cultural dimension of globalisation is debatable.
Some scholars argue that peoples of the world are becoming more similar in terms of their
tastes, values and expectations while some argue that it is a process whereby all peoples of the
world are being exposed to the same cultural values and products. While these debates
continue, cultural globalisation can be equated to universalisation or Westernisation. But the
context in which it is understood matters. The term universalisation or Westernisation was
referenced by a liberal scholar Francis Fukuyama (1992) when he argued that the world had
reached an ‘end of history’ and that the values of democracy, human rights and a capitalist
economy is accepted by all peoples. These values originate from the cultural, economic and
political system of the West. In this liberal understanding, globalisation is viewed as a positive
development which serves as a force for prosperity.
However, scholars challenge the extent to which such globalisation concept is a positive
development. They argued that the diversity of national culture is being eroded thereby creating
space for big corporations to market their product largely due to the limited efforts needed to
market in a unified culture. As Marx argued about the control of capitalists, others believe that
cultural globalisation is a process of ‘Americanisation’ where the cultural hegemony of the
United States acts to back up its economic and political hegemony. When viewing globalisation
within the political context, IR literature would often reference ‘global governance’. By global
governance, it means, a framework of rules agreed by states and international organisations set
up to tackle global problems.
In contemporary world politics, globalisation has taken centre stage. However, scholars
challenging globalisation view it as a commitment to neo-liberal capitalism which is pursued
in the interests of the powerful at the expense of the weak and poor. Given such view as oppose
to the neo-liberal view, there remain scepticism in the world as to the benefits of capitalist
principles in the global economic system. The global economic system that is managed by the

15. MNCs and Bretton wood institutions serve as the superstructure for providing wealth to the
wealthy at the expense of the poor. This is evident by statistics of the growing wave of global
poverty across poor nations.
Contemporary challenges in IR
International Relations, like many other disciplines, is broiled with changing dynamics due
to the ever changing nature of affairs within the global realm of politics. Traditional literature
and theories in IR are questioned due to the emergence of new phenomena in world politics.
As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the central idea of realist thinking where the state is central
to international affairs has been criticised. However, though criticised, the idea of state
sovereignty remains pivotal to IR discourse. Therefore, issues confronting contemporary IR
practice can be categorised into two broad contexts: State sovereignty and the global political
system.
The attempts by contemporary IR literature to reduce states powers within international
affairs takes away sovereignty- the very nature of states. As argued by realists, the very nature
of state is ‘interest’ which may be exercised through the use of force. In this regard, war is
necessary and inevitable as a consequence of the balance of power. The attempt to judge
warfare by universal moral standard undermines the very nature of state. Moreover, the
martialist tradition glorifies the virtues of war and sees it as the culmination of struggle towards
a state’s destiny. These two approaches are very important to warfare and the use of force in
international politics. In these approaches, scholars have placed war in terms of its legitimacy
or its appropriateness. As a result of these approaches, the term ‘Just war’ and ‘Unjust war’
emerged.
The ‘Just war’ ideal is a series of conventions that apply to war between similar adversaries
who wish to return to business as usual after the conflict has resolved the issues at stake. This
theory agrees with realist view that war is necessary within the international system but differs

16. by placing limits of the way war is executed. This places war in a context of morality which
are rooted in ethical and religious values but has increasingly been embedded in international
law. The tradition on ‘just war’ has been remarkably advanced due to the development of a
human rights culture in international relations after the establishment of the United Nations.
Due to the advancement of such ideal, security is often thought of in a broader sense of ‘human
security’. In contrast to realist view, the threats to national security wherein military force is
used has diminished while threats such as terrorism, poverty, disease, natural and human-made
disaster have increased.
The term ‘human security’ was first mentioned in the Human Development Index (HDI)
report of the UN in 1994. Human security simply means the responsibility to protect from harm
and threats. It focuses on the political and moral risks of protecting disaffected peoples while
demanding attention to the need of greater moral accountability through the international
criminal court system. This principle has become the responsibility of the international system
in events where a sovereign state refuses to act. Due to this internationally accepted
responsibilities by states, humanitarian intervention also limits states absolutism in terms of
power as referenced by realist thinking. Humanitarian intervention is a forcible action by a
state or group of states in the territory of another state without the consent of the latter on behalf
of the citizens in another state.
As the study of international relations takes new dimensions in contemporary world
politics, the nature of state sovereignty and power is being devolved. The concept of
‘globalisation’ and the introduction of complex human rights and international protocols
continue to impact the political rhetoric and actions of nation-states in the conduct of
international affairs. The traditional term of ‘sovereign state’ has to be viewed in a broader
context to include the external influence of instruments of global governance and the political
institutions of global justice.

17. Methodologies in IR
In this summary literature of IR, three fundamental theories were discussed. The frame in
which one places his/her theory basically relies on the method or tool used to derived it. So, IR
like other disciplines, provides a typology of methods; critical theory, postmodernism,
feminism and constructivism in shaping views of the international system.
• Critical Theory
Critical international theory brings the concerns of ordinary people into the realm of
international relations. The central idea is that it focuses on emancipatory politics – bringing
about fundamental changes for the least advantaged groups within society by removing
hierarchical social structures. Karl Marx is revered as the proponent of critical theory. Within
IR, he questioned the rise in capitalism as a superstructure that undermines states authority and
power. In furtherance of Marx’s argument, Cox (1981) argued that the theories of international
politics that have come to be accepted as normal view of politics act to serve the interests of
the most powerful. Critical theorists argue that there cannot be a politically neutral analysis of
social phenomena in world politics. They argue that in order to overturn the hegemonic order
of the power elites requires an alternative ideology supported by social groups from different
classes.
• Postmodernism
This typology focuses on exposing the linkages between knowledge creation and power. It
argues that understanding of the world is not neutral but reflects dominant power relations in
society. In IR, this theory has been resisted due to its attack on scientific standards. The central
desire of this theory is not provide a testable theory of how world politics works but rather to
bring critical and normative concerns into the realm of IR by exposing power structures.
Postmodernists suggest that adopting a foundational epistemology is highly problematic.
• Feminism

18. The feminist theory in IR emerged in the 1980s and provided powerful critique of the
ways in which understanding IR has been shaped by the experiences of men, neglecting the
different ways in which women experience world politics. Feminists are concerned with the
way in which the world constructs certain ideas about male and female characteristics.
Feminism criticises the overemphasis on violence, aggression and competition in realist
thought. Also it challenges the conventional way the state has been understood in mainstream
IR theories.
• Constructivism
This theory has become increasingly accepted as important to the field of international
relations. The central idea is that all knowledge of the world is socially constructed and it
reflects the prejudices, ideas and assumptions rather than objective social reality. It further
argues that IR cannot be treated as a Positivist social science because it looks at norms, ideas,
and the roles culture plays in international politics. Therefore, international politics is
fundamentally a reflection of people’s ideas about the world rather than a reflection of material
forces that shape people’s experiences of the world. Constructivists are concerned about how
consensus emerges around ideas and how certain ideas come to have the status of facts in
international politics. This is called ‘inter-subjective belief’.
Constructivism differs with from positivist approaches in that it emphasizes the material
role of international anarchy in structuring state behaviour. It argues that the structures that
shape state behaviour are the product of inter-subjective beliefs. Constructivists argue that
anarchy is international politics is just an idea but a powerful and influential idea that all states
have believed to exist.

19. Conclusion
In this summary of International Relations as a discipline, there are many aspects reviewed.
The discipline dates as far back as the 17th
century but it became increasingly relevant after the
end of world War II. The need to establish a formal system for states interaction emerged
following the formation of the United Nations. The overriding principle that forms the basis
for IR study is states and power relations. Fundamentally to the maintenance of global peace
is rooted in the principle of ‘balance of power’. States are driven by interests which make
international politics anarchical.
However, such anarchy sets the narrative for continuous expansion of the discipline. Many
theories, such as realism, idealism, and liberalism have tremendous impact in understanding
world politics. The multidimensional approaches to understanding IR provide insightful ideas
on the roles of other actors within the international system. Institutions other than states have
bearing influence on the nature of international politics. These institutions roles have redefined
traditional literature of IR.
As discussed, the rise in globalisation and advancement of international instruments for
global governance suggest a complex system of international politics that is characterised by
many actors – state and non-state. The nature of the world economy serves as a unique field to
study within IR. Theoretical considerations of capitalism and the structural markets have
presented a wide range of debates within the discipline.
In all of the review, the modern international system is complex with multiple actors other
than just states. This places IR as both a normative and practical discipline.

20. References
Bentham, J. (1996 [1789]) An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation, ed.
J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cox, R.W. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126-155.
Elias, J. and Sutch, P. (2007) International Relations: The basics, London: Routledge.
Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, London: Hamish Hamilton.
Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T. and Roach, S.C (2007) International Relations: The key
concepts, London: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hobbes, T. (1996) Leviathan, ed R. Tuck, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, J. (1988 [168]) Two Treatises of Government, ed. P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Marx, K. and Engels, F (1992) The Communist Manifesto, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morgenthau, H. (1985 [1948]) Politics among Nations: The pursuit of Pwer and Peace,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.