3. Theories for International Relations
Syllabus
1st : Introduction to International Relations
2nd: Classical Realism/Neo-realism
3rd : Liberalism/Neo-Liberalism
4th: Marxism, Critical Theories
5th: Feminism and Green Theory
6th: The Modern Nation-State and International Relations
7th: Mid-term Exam
8th: Security, War and Arms Control
9th: Diplomacy and Great Powers
10th: Cold War and New World Order
11th: Non-state Actors and Their Effects on IR
12th: Globalization and Critics
13th: Global Terrorism’s Effects on IR
14th: Final Exam
4. A Newly Born Discipline
International relations (IR) is a newly born discipline of not more than
one century.
The first chair of International Relations was founded in 1919, after
WWI, in the name of Woodrow Wilson the President of the US, in
University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.
The outcomes of WWI paved the way to study the relations between
the states, and prevent future agonies, calamities, disasters.
Born in the UK, but grown in the USA after the WW2.
Dominated by western scholars, and thinkers during Cold War term.
5. So Many Actors
We call it international , but the field is concerned with much
more than relations between or among states.
Other actors;
international organizations,
multinational corporations,
environmental organizations,
terrorist groups,
are all part of what could more correctly be termed world or
global politics.
6. So Many Topics
Beyond actors, the study of international relations also includes,
various topics such as;
balance of power politics among states,
influence of economic structures at global level,
international law,
norms and ethics,
connections across borders in economic, social, political,
cultural, and environmental realms as well.
7. Interacting with Other Disciplines
History
Political science
Economics,
Law,
Psychology,
Social psychology,
Sociology,
Antropology,
Philosophy,
8. What is International Relations?
For over 2000 years of recorded history humans have been fascinated
and frustrated by war and its consequences, so we should not be
surprised by its continuing preeminence.
But human societies are harmed by so much more than war.
Chronic underdevelopment, poverty, human rights violations,
environmental degradation and climate change are no less harmful, if
less visible.
Natural disasters such as droughts, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis or
avalanches strike, compounding already fragile or impoverished
political societies.
And so goes the daily round of international relations – war and
peace, poverty and underdevelopment, global attention and global
neglect.
9. So what precisely do we mean by
‘international relations’?
First, the study of international relations is not to be equated with
‘current affairs’. It is important not to reduce international relations to
the lead stories of the global news media. News, by its nature, is
ephemeral; each day brings a new story to tell.
Second, the study of international relations is not reducible to what
happens in particular countries, even though it may include this.
Political machinations in other countries, especially powerful ones,
always hold particular interest; Washington politics are never far from
the headlines.
Third, IR is not reducible to foreign policy analysis, though once
again it includes this within its scope.
10. What is International Relations?
Turning to a more positive definition of international relations, we can
start by saying that it refers to external relations among nations,
states and peoples.
The adjective ‘international’ was coined by the English political
philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, in 1780.
Although ‘international’ literally means relations among nations, it has
for most of its existence referred to relations among sovereign
states.
In any case, international relations have been distinguished first and
foremost from domestic politics.
Ian Clark (1999) calls this the ‘Great Divide’.
11. What is Great Divide?
The ‘Great Divide’
Domestic International
Inside Outside
Hierarchy Anarchy
Monopoly over instruments of violence Decentralised instruments of violence
Lawful authority Self-help
Security Insecurity/Security dilemma
Justice Power
Community Friends and enemies
Peace and order War
12. What is Theory?
Fact:Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis:A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a
scientific prediction. “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory:A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that
have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is
no evidence to dispute it. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a
hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a
phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say that it's an accepted
hypothesis.
Law:A scientific law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it's made, no
exceptions have been found to a law.
13. What is Ontology?
Ontology: the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of
being. It asks:
What is there in the world?
What is the character of the things that make up the ‘furniture’ of
the world?
14. What is Epistemolgy?
Epistemology: the branch of philosophy that studies how we
produce and acquire knowledge.
It asks: Are our knowledge claims valid?
How do we justify our knowledge claims?
15. What is Methodology?
Methodology: the study of ways (methods) of producing or
attaining knowledge.
It asks:
What are the best conceptual tools for producing knowledge
about international relations?
17. Realism-Neorealism
This chapter reflects on the tradition of political thought known as
realism.
Its main purpose is to identify who realists are, and to explain what
realism is in the study of international relations.
The first part of the chapter introduces students to some important
thinkers, both ancient and modern, ascribed to the realist tradition
of thought. It also identifies two broad strands of realist thought:
‘classical’ and ‘structural’ or ‘neorealist’.
The second part investigates attempts to conceive realism as a unified
theory and practice of international relations.
It highlights realism’s central concepts of the state and anarchy before
reflecting on realism’s normative dimension.
18. Realism-Neorealism
Realism has historically been the dominant theory of International
Relations and a point of reference for alternative theories.
It aspires to explain the fundamental features of international politics:
first and foremost, conflict and war.
Realists lay claim to a long tradition of political thought, including such
eminent thinkers as Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes, whose point
of departure is the study of conflict and power politics.
According to realists, conflict is inevitable, even necessary in
international politics. When disputes cannot be resolved peacefully or
diplomatically, force, and ultimately war, is a decisive means of settling
matters.
But who are the realists?
And what is realism?
19. Realism-Neorealism
Who are the realists? The classical approach: realism
In one of his 1950s lectures, Martin Wight, a British professor, told his students:
‘The
Realists are those who emphasize in international relations the element of
anarchy, of power politics, and of warfare.
Wight here is emphasising the distinctive importance and disciplinary dominance
of realism as a tradition in the theory and practice of international politics.
But he also alludes to some of realism’s key tenets: the concept of anarchy and
the historical supposition that international relations are unavoidably shaped by
power politics and war.
According to the realist tradition, the intellectual origins of these tenets may be
traced back to the historical and the greatest political realists respectively,
Athenian general (strategos) and historian, Thucydides (c. 460–406 BC)
Florentine diplomat and writer, Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527).
British historian and thinker, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).
20. Realism-Neorealism
One of the reasons for realism’s enduring relevance is its emphasis on history.
Realism claims to speak about historical reality and takes its convictions,
orientations and practice from history.
Thus, it is not surprising that we can locate its roots in the Greek political and
historical thought of the fifth century BC as embodied in Thucydides’s History of
the Peloponnesian War.
Looking at the clash between the great powers of his time (Athens, Sparta and
Persia), Thucydides searched for the fundamental causes of conflict.
He concentrated on war because war is the ultimate test for those who want to
distinguish reality from appearance in international politics.
As the name itself reveals, this resolute striving to engage with stubborn political
realities, no matter how violent or tragic, is one of the principal claims of realism
as a tradition of thought.
21. Thucydides (471-400 BC)
Greek historian. He is considered as the founding father of
realism.
Focused on the competitions and conflicts between Greek city-
states.
In Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BC) , he analyzes the
war between Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC.
He dealt with the nature of war and why it continually recurs.
For him, the past was the guide for the future. His work is a
study of the struggle for military and political power.
He emphasizes the limited room for manoeuvre available to
statesmen.
22. Thucydides’s Explanation of War
Why did war occur between Athens and Sparta? For him, the
reason was the fear associated with a shift in the balance
of power. Although fear may lead to war, power and
capabilities relative to others determine the outcome.
Sparta was afraid of losing its important role in the Hellenic
world thus took counter measures to build up its military
strength: Balance of power mentality.
When leaders perceive that balance of power is shifting to their
disfavour, they try to change the situation due to suspicion, fear,
distrust they feel for their rivals.
The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek world.
Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to the war's
beginning lost its power, while Sparta became the leading power
of Greece.
23. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
A stateman of Renaissance Age of North Italy City-states.
He wrote about power, balance of power, formation of
alliances, causes of conflicts. His primary focus was on
national security.
Survival of the state is crucial. The main responsibility of
the rulers is always to defend the interests of the state
and ensure its survival.
Power (Lion) and deception (Fox) are two essential
means for the conduct of foreign policy. If necessary, a
ruler must be ruthless and deceptive while defending self-
interest.
His famous work “The Prince” deals with how to gain,
maintain and expand power.
24. Suggestions of Machiavelli
World is a dangerous place, and also full of opportunities.
One should take necessary measures against dangers.
If states want to enrich themselves, they should exploit
opportunities. One should calculate rationally his interests
and power against those of rival groups.
A responsible ruler should not follow Christian
ethics such as be peaceful, avoid war, share your
wealth...
If states follow these values, they will disappear in
the end.
25. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679):
He had a pessimistic view of human nature. He
emphasizes the necessity of having a powerful, centralized
political authority.
Human beings lived in a condition of war ‘every one
against every one’.
He tried to show in order to escape from this situation, he
suggested placing all power to a sovereign state or
Leviathan (a state authority or supreme ruler) that would
maintain order and end anarchy.
Without order, no economic development, art,
knowledge…
26. Hobbes and Security Dilemma
Achievement of personal security and domestic security through
the creation of a state leads to international insecurity that is
rooted in the anarcy of the state system: security dilemma!
No escape from the security dilemma as there is no
possibility of forming a world government. He argues that
there is no higher authority over states to impose order. The
international system is a condition of anarchy.
States claim to be sovereign with a right to be independent and
autonomous with respect to each other.
Without a leviathan, distrust, conflict and war are inevitable: no
permanent peace between states.
Due to the survival concerns in anarchy, states are expected to
act in balance of power logic.
Join alliances to survive!
27. Concept of Power in Realism
For a more complete understanding of the realist image of
international relations We need to discuss the term «POWER»
thoroughly.
Diverse definitions from the literature:
power ‘the capacity of an individual, group, or nation “to
influence the behavior of others”;
power “man’s control over the minds and actions of other
men”;
power as “the ability to prevail in conflict and overcome
obstacles.”
Power is the core concept for realists. But, it is ironic that even
among realists, there is no clear consensus on how to define the
term power.
28. Definition of Power
Some realists understand power to be the sum of military,
economic, technological, diplomatic, and other capabilities at
the disposal of the state.
Others see power as capabilities relative/compare to the
capabilities of other states.
Thus, the power of the United States is evaluated in terms of its
capabilities relative to the capabilities of other states such as
China.
Both of these definitions—whether treating capabilities of a
state in isolation or relative to the capabilities of other states—
are termed as materialist view.
29. Types of Power
Joseph Nye differentiates between «hard power» as in
economic or military capabilities and the «soft power»
that comes, for example, from cultural dimensions or the
values.
Power in general defines the identity and practices of a
state to include the diplomatic capacity to influence other
states bilaterally or multilaterally in international
organizational contexts.
Others prefer not to dissect it in this fashion, but rather to
view power as an integral concept that states apply in
different ways in the pursuit of their goals or objectives in
international relations.
To Nye, what he calls “smart power” is an integral or
blend of hard and soft power assets used effectively to
advance the state’s purposes.
30. System Discussions
So, how is system understood by the IR theorists?
When applied to international relations, the term
system has relations within realism, liberalism,
economic structuralism, and the English School.
Since 1980s, neo-realists argue that, taking system
as a starting point is much more useful.
System (uni-polar, bi-polar, multi-polar) distributes
the power/capability to the states, and states play
their roles within the system.
31. System in Anarchy
International anarchy is seen by realists as the core of distrust
and conflict among states.
The word anarchy brings forth images of violence, destruction,
and chaos.
For realists, however, anarchy simply refers to the absence of
any legitimate authority above states.
States are sovereign. They claim a right externally to be
independent or autonomous from other states, and they claim a
right domestically to exercise complete authority over their own
territories.
Although states differ in terms of the power they possess, none
may claim the right to dominate another sovereign state.
32. System in Anarchy
When realists use the term anarchy , they are referring to the
absence of any hierarchy of legitimate authority in the
international system.
Some states are clearly more powerful than others, but there is
no recognized authority higher than that of any state.
Anarchy, so understood, is the defining characteristic of the
environment within which sovereign states interact.
Violence and war may be evident, but they are periods of
relative peace and stability.
35. Waltz, focuses upon the origins of war; Why War Happens?
War is like an earthquake. There is no winner of war.
Is it possible to prevernt wars? Or is it natural and occurs any
time similar to natural disasters?
Of course wars can be eliminated, but the wish and result is not
equal in this issue.
All want wars not to occur, but they eventually occur. The
history is full of wars, so that the human history is a history of
wars, conflicts, clashes.
But maybe, the statesmen have not tried all the possibilities to
prevent war and stay in peace?
Neo-Realism/Structural Realism
36. First Level:International
Conflict and Human Behavior
The first level Waltz analyzes is «International Conflict and Human
Behavior».
Is it possible to prevent war with the hands of Leaders?
Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses,
from stupidity.
Other causes are secondary and have to be interpreted in the light of
these factors.
If these are the primary causes of war, then the elimination of war
must come through uplifting and enlightening men or securing their
psychic-social readjustment.
This estimate has been dominant in the writings of many serious
students of human affairs from Confucius to present-day pacifists.
37. Second Level: International Conflict
and the Internal Structure of States
Since everything is related to human nature, to explain anything one
must consider more than human nature.
The events to be explained are so many and so varied that human
nature cannot possibly «be the single determinant.
The attempt to explain everything by psychology meant, in the end,
that psychology succeeded in explaining nothing.
And adding sociology to the analysis simply substitutes the error of
sociologism for the error of psychologism.
To understand war and peace political analysis must be used to
supplement and order the findings of psychology and sociology.
38. Second Level: International Conflict
and the Internal Structure of States
In second level, we will focus on Internal Structures of State.
How does a state approach war?
War most often promotes the internal unity of each state involved.
If a state has internal instability (structural-organizational problem) then,
instead of waiting, state seeks the war that will bring internal unity and
stability among its citizens.
In first level we can say, man makes society, and in second level we can
say society makes man.
And for the third level, we can say the actions of states, or, more
accurately, of men acting for states, make up the substance of international
relations.
But the international political environment has much to do with the ways in
which states behave.
39. Third Level: International
Conflict and International Anarchy
This is a self-help situation, because every state is the final authority to
decide what to do. In anarchy there is no harmony.
A state will use force to attain its goals after assessing the prospects for
success, if it values those goals more than it values the pleasures of peace.
Because each state is the final judge of its own cause, any state may at
any time use force to implement its policies.
Because any state may at any time use force, all states must constantly be
ready either to counter force with force or to pay the cost of weakness.
The requirements of state action are, in this view, imposed by the
circumstances in which all states exist.
All three levels are a part of whole. So fundamental are man, the state, and
the state system in any attempt to understand international relations.
An analyst, should not focus on one and ignore the other two.
40. Third Level: International
Conflict and International Anarchy
The third image, like the first two, leads directly to a utopian prescription.
In each image a cause is identified in terms of which all others are to be
understood.
The force of the logical relation between the third image and the world-
government prescription is great enough to cause some to argue not only
the merits of world government but also the ease with which it can be
realized.
It is of course true that with world government there would no longer be
international wars, though with an ineffective world government there
would no doubt be civil wars.
It is likewise true, reverting to the first two images, that without the
imperfections of the separate states there would not be wars, just as it is
true that a society of perfectly rational beings, or of perfect Christians,
would never know violent conflict.
41. Third Level: International
Conflict and International Anarchy
The third image, like the first two, leads directly to a utopian prescription.
In each image a cause is identified in terms of which all others are to be
understood.
The force of the logical relation between the third image and the world-
government prescription is great enough to cause some to argue not only
the merits of world government but also the ease with which it can be
realized.
It is of course true that with world government there would no longer be
international wars, though with an ineffective world government there
would no doubt be civil wars.
It is likewise true, reverting to the first two images, that without the
imperfections of the separate states there would not be wars, just as it is
true that a society of perfectly rational beings, or of perfect Christians,
would never know violent conflict.
42. Third Level: International
Conflict and International Anarchy
The influence to be assigned to the internal structure of states in
attempting to solve the war–peace equation cannot be determined until the
significance of the international environment has been understood.
There is no certain international authority or order that would bind states
within the system. Every state has its own interests and reasons for its
interests.
This reality is the source of conflict and sometimes lead to war.
To achieve a favorable outcome from such conflict a state has to rely on its
own devices, the relative efficiency of which must be its constant concern.
This, the idea of the third image, is to be examined [here]. It is not a new
idea.
Thucydides implied it when he wrote that it was “the growth of the
Athenian power, which terrified the Melians and forced them into war.”
