The document provides an overview of international relations theories including realism, liberalism, and recent trends. It summarizes key concepts from classical and neo realism such as the assumptions of human nature and states operating under anarchy. Neo-liberal institutionalism and its focus on the conditions under which states can cooperate is discussed. Recent theories of international conflict and cooperation explained include bargaining theory of war, alliance theory, diversionary theory of war, democratic peace theory, hegemonic stability theory, and rational design theory. The document concludes with questions about which theories may help explain specific international events.
International relations as a practice of interaction among states, and among state and non-state actors are thousands of years old
However, International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline studying these relations emerged as a specialized field after WW1.
Like every other academic discipline, International Relations (IR) has developed its own distinctive subject matter since its emergence
This presentation explains the scope and the subject matter of IR with the help of its five pillars- Aim, Actors, Agenda, Arena, and Actions
International relations as a practice of interaction among states, and among state and non-state actors are thousands of years old
However, International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline studying these relations emerged as a specialized field after WW1.
Like every other academic discipline, International Relations (IR) has developed its own distinctive subject matter since its emergence
This presentation explains the scope and the subject matter of IR with the help of its five pillars- Aim, Actors, Agenda, Arena, and Actions
The presentation is on neoliberalism in international relations. The emergence of neoliberalism and convergence and difference of neoliberalism and structural realism as well as barriers to international cooperation is presented.
Relations among states take place in the absence of a world government. For realists, this means that the international system is anarchical. International relations are best understood by focusing on the distribution of power among states. Despite their formal legal equality, the uneven distribution of power means that the arena of international relations is a form of ‘power politics’. Power is hard to measure; its distribution among states changes over time and there is no consensus among states about how it should be distributed. International relations is therefore a realm of necessity (states must seek power to survive in a competitive environment) and continuity over time. When realists contemplate change in the international system, they focus on changes in the balance of power among states, and tend to discount the possibility of fundamental change in the dynamics of the system itself.
The following key thinkers all subscribe to these basic assumptions in their explorations of the following questions:
(1) What are the main sources of stability and instability in the international system?
(2) What is the actual and preferred balance of power among states?
(3) How should the great powers behave toward one another and toward weaker states?
(4) What are the sources and dynamics of contemporary changes in the balance of power?
Despite some shared assumptions about the nature of international relations, realists are not all of one voice in answering these questions, and it would be wrong to believe that shared assumptions lead to similar conclusions among them. In fact, there is sharp disagreement over the relative merits of particular balances of power (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity). There is also much debate over the causal relationship between states and the international pressures upon them, and the relative importance of different kinds of power in contemporary international relations.
JR.Childs wrote, “The foreign policy of a state is the substance of foreign relations, whereas diplomacy is a process by which policies carried out. “ Similarly, Sir Harold Nicholson wrote, “Foreign policy is based on a general conception of national requirements…. Diplomacy, on the other hand, it’s not an end but a mean, not a purpose but a method. It is the agency through which foreign policy seeks to attain its purpose by agreement rather than by war.”
The crux of the whole debate is that diplomacy is the method and foreign policy is the substance, which is executed by the use of diplomatic technique.
The presentation is on neoliberalism in international relations. The emergence of neoliberalism and convergence and difference of neoliberalism and structural realism as well as barriers to international cooperation is presented.
Relations among states take place in the absence of a world government. For realists, this means that the international system is anarchical. International relations are best understood by focusing on the distribution of power among states. Despite their formal legal equality, the uneven distribution of power means that the arena of international relations is a form of ‘power politics’. Power is hard to measure; its distribution among states changes over time and there is no consensus among states about how it should be distributed. International relations is therefore a realm of necessity (states must seek power to survive in a competitive environment) and continuity over time. When realists contemplate change in the international system, they focus on changes in the balance of power among states, and tend to discount the possibility of fundamental change in the dynamics of the system itself.
The following key thinkers all subscribe to these basic assumptions in their explorations of the following questions:
(1) What are the main sources of stability and instability in the international system?
(2) What is the actual and preferred balance of power among states?
(3) How should the great powers behave toward one another and toward weaker states?
(4) What are the sources and dynamics of contemporary changes in the balance of power?
Despite some shared assumptions about the nature of international relations, realists are not all of one voice in answering these questions, and it would be wrong to believe that shared assumptions lead to similar conclusions among them. In fact, there is sharp disagreement over the relative merits of particular balances of power (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity). There is also much debate over the causal relationship between states and the international pressures upon them, and the relative importance of different kinds of power in contemporary international relations.
JR.Childs wrote, “The foreign policy of a state is the substance of foreign relations, whereas diplomacy is a process by which policies carried out. “ Similarly, Sir Harold Nicholson wrote, “Foreign policy is based on a general conception of national requirements…. Diplomacy, on the other hand, it’s not an end but a mean, not a purpose but a method. It is the agency through which foreign policy seeks to attain its purpose by agreement rather than by war.”
The crux of the whole debate is that diplomacy is the method and foreign policy is the substance, which is executed by the use of diplomatic technique.
This Presentation is about the introduction of International Relation, the subject matter of IR, It's historical and institutional evolution and nature of IR.
The article describes about the inspiring personality of wold's most influential foreign policy analyst of our time and his majestic recent book" World Order"
USA-North Korea Relations, What Would USA Do to Deal With Problem of North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons?, Policy And Politics International Perspective Paper, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Spring 2006
Background Information About USA-North Korea Relations :
North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist Korean Workers' Party (KWP), to which all government officials belong. U.S.-North Korea relations developed primarily during the Korean War, but in recent years have been largely defined by the United States' suspicions regarding North Korea's nuclear programs, and North Korea's perception of an imminent U.S. attack. North Korea claims to possess nuclear weapons, and is widely believed to have a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons, deliverable by artillery against South Korea. Different presidents have dealt with North Korea in different ways. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the 42nd and 43rd presidents respectively also tried at the beginning of their tenure as president to ignore the brewing problems in North Korea. Their decisions in dealing with North Korea would help to define their early reputations as foreign policy makers. Many similarities can be seen, however, between how Clinton started dealing with North Korea and how Bush started out dealing with North Korea.
Slide 10 WestCal Political Science 5 Western Political Thought 2016WestCal Academy
Political Science 5 - Western Political Thought provides an overall perspective of major political movements of history from the rising of Egyptian, Greek and Roman Empires to Fascism and Communism as seen by great political thinkers from Plato, Aristotle, and St. Augustine, Machiavelli, Marx, and Lenin. Students will analyze the most important ideas and theories that have been developed from the time of the ancient Greeks to the present day. Students will learn that the American Founding Fathers designed a viable representative government by first dedicating themselves to careful study of the political philosophy of Europeans, with particular attention given to British political thinkers from the 16th and 17th century. The founding fathers focused primarily on the natural rights of man, which in turn varied according to the individual philosopher studied. Over the course of their study, the founding fathers openly discussed their opinions with one another so as to properly bring forth differing views in order to prudently construct a government that would protect individual liberty, as well as determine what was required of government to protect civil liberties. The class is taught from the perspective of industry professionals with knowledge of how classical and modern political continues to influence American government. Students will learn of multiple career options relating to the field of political science.
Chapter 9
International Relations
Chapter Objectives
1. Explain the international relations theory of realism including its basic assumptions.
2. Discuss the liberal theory of international relations along with its different types.
3. Define constructivism and its central principles.
4. Explore feminist international relations theory and its recommendations for change.
5. Examine causes of war and peace in the international arena.
When Twitter was first introduced in 2006, its founders probably could not have imagined how people would potentially use it. Over the past twelve years, Twitter has expanded to more than 330 million active monthly users throughout the world. Governments have even gotten into the act: Twitter Government (@TwitterGov) even highlights how governments and politicians throughout the world use Twitter. Politicians and elected officials quickly took to Twitter, using it as a means to communicate with voters directly. Former president Barack Obama even originated a Twitter handle for presidents (@POTUS) in 2013.
The current US president, Donald Trump, has utilized Twitter to a far greater extent than his predecessor, although he does so from his own personal account (@realDonaldTrump) rather than the official @POTUS handle. In interviews, he has argued that communicating via Twitter allows him to get his message to voters without the filter of the media with the implicit argument that the media does not do a faithful and true job in reporting his actions. As such, President Trump’s tweets often come directly from the president himself with no staff filtering or discussion. One area where the president’s tweets have been particularly influential is in the US relationship with North Korea.
As of October 2018, President Trump has tweeted about North Korea more than 150 times since taking office. And while the tweets may not appear on the official @POTUS account or come in a statement on White House letterhead, they have played an integral role in American-North Korean relations. For example, on August 11, 2017, the president tweeted this:
Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!
At a mere twenty-three words, the president stated what could have easily been seen as a military threat against North Korea that could have led to direct conflict. Realizing the potential implications of tweets like this from the president, US officials at the February 2018 Munich Security Conference reportedly told their counterparts not to pay attention to what the president is tweeting.1 However, in March 2018, North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, apparently under pressure because of the president’s rhetoric, broached the idea of a summit between the two leaders. What followed was a historic meeting between the two leaders in June 2018 in Singapore as well as enhanced relations between North and South Korea.
Unlike the other subfields of political scie.
Chapter 9
International Relations
Chapter Objectives
1. Explain the international relations theory of realism including its basic assumptions.
2. Discuss the liberal theory of international relations along with its different types.
3. Define constructivism and its central principles.
4. Explore feminist international relations theory and its recommendations for change.
5. Examine causes of war and peace in the international arena.
When Twitter was first introduced in 2006, its founders probably could not have imagined how people would potentially use it. Over the past twelve years, Twitter has expanded to more than 330 million active monthly users throughout the world. Governments have even gotten into the act: Twitter Government (@TwitterGov) even highlights how governments and politicians throughout the world use Twitter. Politicians and elected officials quickly took to Twitter, using it as a means to communicate with voters directly. Former president Barack Obama even originated a Twitter handle for presidents (@POTUS) in 2013.
The current US president, Donald Trump, has utilized Twitter to a far greater extent than his predecessor, although he does so from his own personal account (@realDonaldTrump) rather than the official @POTUS handle. In interviews, he has argued that communicating via Twitter allows him to get his message to voters without the filter of the media with the implicit argument that the media does not do a faithful and true job in reporting his actions. As such, President Trump’s tweets often come directly from the president himself with no staff filtering or discussion. One area where the president’s tweets have been particularly influential is in the US relationship with North Korea.
As of October 2018, President Trump has tweeted about North Korea more than 150 times since taking office. And while the tweets may not appear on the official @POTUS account or come in a statement on White House letterhead, they have played an integral role in American-North Korean relations. For example, on August 11, 2017, the president tweeted this:
Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!
At a mere twenty-three words, the president stated what could have easily been seen as a military threat against North Korea that could have led to direct conflict. Realizing the potential implications of tweets like this from the president, US officials at the February 2018 Munich Security Conference reportedly told their counterparts not to pay attention to what the president is tweeting.1 However, in March 2018, North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, apparently under pressure because of the president’s rhetoric, broached the idea of a summit between the two leaders. What followed was a historic meeting between the two leaders in June 2018 in Singapore as well as enhanced relations between North and South Korea.
Unlike the other subfields of political scie ...
1. Keshab Giri, Master of Research in International Relations,
The University of Essex, UK.
PhD Candidate, The University of Sydney, Australia
A Lecture for 1st Semester MIRD, TU, Nepal
1
2. Outline for Today
Today’s Lecture: A Map for Study of IR
Grand Theory: Realism
Grand Theory: Liberalism
Beyond ‘Isms’- Recent Trends in IR:
1. Theories of International Conflict
2. Theories of International Cooperation
2
3. What is International Relation?
3
Indo-Nepal Relations Proxy War in Syria Eurozone Crisis
United Nations Crisis in Korean Peninsula Brexit
5. What are Theories of International
Relations?
Apart from those key events grabbing headlines in national/international
media, there are so many other developments in international politics around
the world, how do we understand and explain them?
Do We Know Them? Can We Explain Them? Why Do They occur? Do They Have
Any Pattern?
We need Theories to simplify reality and draw a pattern of
events to develop our understanding of real international phenomena.
Realism, Liberalism, and other Alternative Theories of IR come
handy in explaining Events/Developments/Trends in International Relations.
5
6. Realism: Classical Realism
Classical Realism: Human Nature: rational, objective, ego-centric,
and driven by self-interest and power. Primacy of interest over
ideology.
Thomas Hobbs, 1651, ‘Leviathan’
1. human beings are rational and smart,
2. resources are finite but desires are infinite,
3.‘war of all against all’,
4. government is delegated power and consent to pursue interest of
their citizens- peace inside-war outside
Niccolo Machiavelli, Thucidydes, E.H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau,
etc.
6
7. Realism: Offensive Realism
John H. Mearsheimer (2001) ‘Tragedy of Great Power Politics’
Core Assumptions:
1. There is no world government.
2. Every state is capable of using military force against some other
states.
3. There is always the possibility that the a state is attacked by another.
4. States want to preserve their territorial integrity and autonomy.
5. States are rational actors.
Predictions: 1.Regional Hegemony is the most secure situation 2.When
two states are equally powerful, neither attacks.
7
8. Realism: ‘Security Dilemma’, ‘Existential
Uncertainty’, and ‘Certainty of Uncertainty’
John Hertz, 1950, ‘Security Dilemma’
Mitzen, 2006, ‘Existential Uncertainty’
Booth and Wheeler, 2008, ‘Certainty of Uncertainty’
8Missile Test by North Korea Iranian Nuclear Program NATO Missile Shield Europe
9. Realism: Neo-Realism/Structural Realism
Key Assumptions of Neo-Realism:
1. States as the most important actors
2. States are unitary, rational actors
3. States operate under anarchy
4. States care about their own survival
Prediction for Neo-Realism
1.States pursue power, and conflict is inevitable (security dilemma)
2. States will be engaged in balancing behaviour
9
10. Realism: Neo-Realism/Structural Realism
Neo-Realism/Structural Realism:
Systemic Level Analysis
Anarchy in International System
Kenneth N. Waltz: The founder of Neo-Realism/Structural Realism,
advocate of scientific approach in IR, ‘Man, State, and War: A
Theoretical Analysis’, (1959), Three Images:
1. First Image: Classical Realism- human nature,
2. Second Image: Political structure in a state makes some state
more war-prone. For example, dictatorship, capitalist countries are
more war-prone. Why?
3. Third Image: Most important of all images. Anarchy!
10
11. Logical Inconsistency in Realism
Mearsheimer (2001): Being a preponderant power or hegemon is the
most secure condition for a security of a state
11
14. Liberalism
Comparisons: Classical Realism and Classical Liberalism
14
Classical Realism
1 States are the most important
actors
2 States are unitary actors
3 States are rational actors
4 National security is the most
important concern in IR
5 Human nature is bad
6 Laws / institutions won’t matter
Classical Liberalism
1 States are important actors but not
only one actor
2 States are not unitary actors
3 States are not always rational actors
4 There are other important concerns
in IR as well
5 Human nature is not necessarily bad
6 Laws / institutions play crucial role
in fostering cooperation
15. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
Recap Key Assumptions of Neo-Realism:
1. States as the most important actors
2. States are unitary, rational actors
3. States operate under anarchy
4. States care about their own survival
Prediction for Neo-Realism
1.States pursue power, and conflict is inevitable (security dilemma)
2. States will be engaged in balancing behaviour
15
17. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
Key Assumption of Neo-Liberalism?
Same!
1. States as the most important actors
2. States are unitary, rational actors
3. States operate under anarchy
4. States cares about their own survival
Prediction for Neo-Liberalism?
17
18. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
Key Assumption of Neo-Liberalism?
Same!
1. States as the most important actors
2. States are unitary, rational actors
3. States operate under anarchy
4. States cares about their own survival
Prediction for Neo-Liberalism?
1. Cooperation is possible
2. States can pursue mutual gains
under some conditions 18
19. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
‘Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma’ and Robert Axelord, 1980, ‘Effective Choice
in Prisoner’s Dilemma’
1. ‘Single-Shot Prisoner’s Dilemma’ is inadequate to explain interactions
among states
2. Simulated Repeated Computer Game Experiment with ‘experts’ in Game
Theory
3. Evolutionary Game Theory: Pragmatically Optimistic, being nice, and
forgiving strategy reaps more benefits
19
20. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
Robert O. Keohane,1984, ‘After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in
World Political Economy‘
1. Inspired by ‘Evolutionary Theory of Cooperation’ and ‘Repeated Prisoner’s
Dilemma’ by Axelord.
2. Conditions for States to Cooperate:
a. States should expect that they will engage in same issue for long time
with other states/ Long Shadow of Future
b. States should be able to monitor other state’s behaviour/ Monitoring
c. State should be willing and able to punish those who renege/ Ease of
Punishment.
3. International Institutions/Regimes enable those condition to hold
20
21. Alternative Theories of International
Relations
Beyond ‘Isms’: Theory of International Conflicts-
1. Bargaining Theory of War (Rationalist Explanation of War),
2. Alliance and War,
3. Diversionary Theory of War.
4. Democratic Peace Theory
Theory of International Cooperation-
1. Hegemonic Stability Theory
2. Rational Design Project
3. Regime Type and Cooperation
21
22. Bargaining Theory of War (Rationalist
Explanation of War)
War is mutually corrosive and costly. Why states pursue war instead of
non-violent bargaining process?
James D. Fearon (1995) offers three rationalist explanation of war:
1. Issue Indivisibility: If issue of contention is not dividable, states may
not reach agreement and thus might result in war.
2. Information Problem: private information, incentive to misrepresent
the Information, and uncertainty about action and outcome.
-Risky Return Trade-Off, costly signal,
3. Commitment Problem: Shifting balance of power (Preventive War),
First strike advantage (Pre-emptive War), Bargain over object that
provides power. 22
23. Bargaining Theory of War (Rationalist
Explanation of War)
Robert Powell (1999): War is more likely when there is disparity
between ‘status quo’ and ‘distribution of power’.
1. Greater difference between ‘status quo’ and ‘distribution of
power’: war more likely
1. Lesser difference between ‘status quo’ and ‘distribution of
power’: war less likely
Very different from Realists’ explanation of war: such as
‘preponderance of power’ school and ‘balance of power’ school.
23
24. Alliance and War
An alliance is a formal agreement among independent states to
cooperate militarily in the event of military conflict.
Obligations in Alliance: Defence, Offence, Consultation, and
Neutrality.
Those are conditional on: adversary, location, and issue.
The utility of Alliance:
1. alliances must influence members’ war intervention decisions
2. members’ war intervention decisions must influence outside states
Leeds (2003) and Johnson & Leeds (2011) find that Alliances with
defence obligations seem to deter international conflict.
24
26. Diversionary Theory of War
Rejects Unitary Actor Assumption of Realism. Recall one of the key
assumptions of Realism: States are unitary actors with coherent preferences.
Importance of Domestic Politics in formulating Foreign Policy of the state.
Main Assumptions:
1. Leaders want to remain in power.
2. Public prefer a ‘capable’ leader in power.
3. Incompetent leaders pretend to be competent leaders.
Prediction:
1. A leader has incentive to divert attention away from bad policy outcomes
by pursuing aggressive foreign policy which can lead to war.
26
27. Diversionary Theory of War
Morgan and Bickers (1992) analysing US politics, find that the
probability of US presidential use of force increases as partisan
support decreases.
A Leader will lose support if he is directly or mainly responsible for
failures at domestic front
Johnson and Barnes (2011) looking at economic situation of 155
countries from 1950 to 1998, find that economic problems only
increase conflict when the economy is closed, why?
When the economy is open the leader will be less likely to be seen as
responsible for the economy.
27
28. Diversionary Theory of War
When the economy is open the leader will be less likely to be seen as
responsible for the economy and therefore has less diversionary
incentives.
28
29. Democratic Peace
29
It is not a ‘Causal Theory’ per se. It’s just an empirical observation.
Tons of research on the relationship between regime type and war.
Considered one of the strongest relationship in international conflict
research.
Source: COW data 1816-2008 on inter-state wars.
Perspectives:
1. Culture and Norm: Peaceful conflict resolution
2. Institutional Constraints: Leaders are constrained, people can punish
them easily
3. Information: Transparent, credible threats.
Fighting States Frequency Percent
Autocracy vs Autocracy 55 57.89 %
Democracy vs Autocracy 39 41.05 %
Democracy vs Democracy 1 1.05 %
Total 95 100 %
30. Democratic Peace
Example: Maoz & Russett (1993) who compare norm-based theory
with institutional constraints theory.
Maoz & Russett (1993) find that levels of democracy in a dyad are
negatively related to the likelihood that the dyad experiences war,
militarised dispute (i.e., crisis bargaining), and dispute escalation,
controlling for potentially confounding factors.
There are other prominent studies as well pertaining to Democratic
Peace:
- Audience Costs (Information Perspective) (Fearon, 1994)
- Informational Perspective and Institutional Perspective Schultz
(1999)
30
31. Theory of International Cooperation:
Hegemonic Stability Theory
Two Problems in International Cooperation:
1. Distribution Problem (Neo-Realists: Waltz 1979 & Mearsheimer
2001)
2. Enforcement Problem (Neo-Liberalist: Keohane 1984)
What is the prescription of Hegemonic Stability Theory to overcome
those problems?
1. Hegemon provides ‘Public Good’ resolving Distribution Problems
2. Using its preponderance, it can solve Enforcement Problems
31
32. Theory of International Cooperation:
Hegemonic Stability Theory
Kindleberger (1978) claims that presence of Britain as hegemon in
1920s stabilised world economy but decline of Britain in 1930s and
reluctance of US to act as hegemon contributed towards instability.
Keohane (1984), among others, criticise HST saying that the presence
of a hegemon is neither necessary nor sufficient.
32
33. Regime Type and International Cooperation
This Theory also refutes one of the key assumption of Realists and
Neo-Liberalists, what is it?
33
34. Regime Type and International Cooperation
This Theory also refutes one of the key assumption of Realists and Neo-
Liberalists, what is it?
States are unitary actors. It doesn’t matter what type of regime states have
and their domestic politics.
34
35. Regime Type and International Cooperation
How does domestic politics might influence international cooperation?
Two-Level Game and Distributional Problem, Putnam (1988)
1. Level-I: International Negotiation, Level-II: Domestic Ratification
2. Win-Sets: Larger the Win-Sets in Level-I, easier to reach
agreement; Larger Win-Sets in Level-II, easier to ratify them.
Two-Level Game and Enforcement Problem, Leeds (1999) and Leeds,
et al, (2009)
1. Pairs of Democracies and pairs of Autocracies are more likely to
cooperate than mixed Pairs
2. Regime change can change policy but leadership change does not
necessarily change policy and thus doesn’t always affect international
cooperation
35
36. Rational Design Project
International Institutions facilitate cooperation through reciprocity,
who claim this?
36
37. Rational Design Project
International Institutions facilitate cooperation through reciprocity,
who claim
this?
Neo-Liberal Institutionalists, such as Keohane (1984)
But Neo-Liberals Institutionalists do not come clear on design of the
International Institutions/Regimes.
37
38. Rational Design Project
Different Institutions matter differently: Different institutional design
features address different problems of cooperation.
Read Mitchell (1994), Koremenos et al. (2001), Rosendorff & Milner
(2001), Mitchell & Keilbach (2001), Abbott & Snidal (1998), etc.
Steps of international cooperation:
1 Need of cooperation (e.g., public goods provision)
2 Form a cooperative agreement with other states
3 Design institutions to cope with the problem of enforcement
4 When member states comply with the agreement, they achieve
cooperation
38
39. Recap
What is a theory of International Relations?
Realism: Classical, Offensive, Neo-Realism/Structural Realism
Liberalism: Classical, Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
Beyond ‘Isms’- Recent Trends in IR:
1. Theories of International Conflict: Bargaining Theory of War
(Rationalist Explanation of War), Alliance and War, Diversionary Theory of
War, Democratic Peace
39
40. Recap
Beyond ‘Isms’- Recent Trends in IR:
1. Theories of International Cooperation: Hegemonic Stability Theory,
Regime Type, Rational Design Project.
40
41. Recap: Which Theory/ies Might Explain
the Following Events?
41
Indo-Nepal Relations Proxy War in Syria Eurozone Crisis
United Nations Crisis in Korean Peninsula Brexit
42. Recap: Which Theory/ies Might Explain
the Following Events?
42
Realism (Classical) Realism (Structural) Rational Design Project
Liberalism
(Neoliberalism)
Realism (Offensive) Realism/ Institutional Design
