Remedial

Theories of International Relations

1. Realism; Realism emphasizes the constrains on politics imposed by human nature

and the absence of International government. Together, they make international
relations largely a realm of power and interest.
“Human nature has not changed since the days of classical antiquity” (Thompson
1958: 17). And that nature, according to realist, is at its core egoistic, and thus
inalterably inclterably inclined towards immorality. As Machiavelli puts it, in politics
“it must needs be taken for granted that all men are wicked and that they will always
give vent to the malignity that is in their minds when opportunity offers. Some
realists, such as Reinhold Niebuhr (1944: 19) and Hans Morgenthau (1946 : 202), see
Machiavelli’s claim as largely descriptive. Many, like Machiavelli’s himself, contend
only that there are enough egoists to make any other assumption unduly risky. All
however, emphasize the egoistic passions and self – interest in (international) politics.
Realists characteristically give primary emphasis to egoistic passions and “the tragic
presence of evil in all political action” (Morgenthau 19946:231).

Several assumptions about realism

 State centric, and the main actors in the global arena is state, aka state actors. Non
State actors have only minimal capacity to change the conditions of the
international system is anarchic.
 Anarchy as a condition of the international system. This means that there really is
not any one actor can organize the sovereignty of other nations, and no supreme
authority over the nations, and the UN is not the supreme authority. Force-free
state according to the will and strength.
 The issue is the preferred political issues and security. Economic issues valued as
low politics. Exceptions are a few other variants of realism as neorealism can
include elements of the economy.
 Immoral or negated variable moral, ethical and international law that carried
liberalism and more focused on power alone.
 Trends in the patterns of alliances as a limited form of cooperation, rather than
the idea of international cooperation promoted liberalism which is a way to avoid
conflict.
 Believe more stability than peace.
 More trust the rationality of state rather than a moral and ethical dimension. The
rationality is that state actors will always seek to increase its power, and will not
be riveted by dimensi2 that can not be definitively calculated in power.
In addition to these assumptions, one of the contributions that realism is the attention
given to the problems of relative gains and absolute gains. Responding to the
institutionalists who argue that international institutions allow countries to leave
short-term gain for long-term profit, realists such as Joseph Grieco and Stephen
Krasner states that the system is anarchic force the state to pay attention
simultaneously:
1. Absolute gains from cooperation
2. And rules in the distribution of benefits among participants.
The logic is, if a state benefit is greater than the other then it will gradually stronger.
While other countries will be more vulnerable.
Moreover, realists also quick in responding to new issues. Barry Possen offers realist
explanations of ethnic conflict. He noted that the breakup of multiethnic states put
ethnic group opponents in the anarchic situation. Intensity sparking fears and tempt
each group using force to improve their relative position. This problem will get worse
when in the territory of each group there are pockets inhabited by ethnic opponents.
Because each party will be tempted to do the cleaning preemptive minorities and to
expand to include members of their groups who are outside the boundaries.
Liberalism; Liberalism emerged as a rival perspective of the adherents of realism
perspective. Realism is too pessimistic view of human nature dominate and
Liberalism emerged as a perspective that sees human optimistic that can be mutually
harmonious relationship with each other in harmony with the passage of corporations
among others. Some basic assumptions liberals are the first, the positive outlook of
human nature. Second, is the belief that international relations are more cooperative
than conflictual. And the third is, to believe in progress (Jackson & Sorensen, 1999).
The liberal people believe that every human being basically has sovereignty of each
over himself and have the freedom to self-determination so that the more liberal refers
to people oriented inversely proportional to the realist view that state-centric (Ward,
2014). State is to have a container or facilitator for every human being in achieving
objectives. The actor who appeared in perspective liberalism is more prominent actors
kinds of non-state NGO, IGO, or TNC. Basically the conflict itself is unavoidable, but
through an institution that embodies the cooperation between actors of the conflict can
be resolved without having to go through the war. Reflecting on the damage that
occurred after World War I, liberalism emerged as an optimistic perspective to unite
different countries to cooperate in resolving conflicts and achieving national interests.
The cooperation between countries can be described as simbiois mutually beneficial,
then this is what motivates liberals to be sure of progress.
Liberals basically confirmed that the individual is basically will always be selfish and
compete against many things that can still exist and survive in the fierce competition.
But liberals also believe that an individual also has the desire to engage in social
action and kolabortif kooperratif (Jackson & Sorensen, 1999). The existence of trust
between individuals and it also can be applied in international relations, namely on
actors, namely, the state. Of the liberal John Locke declared that the country appeared
to guarantee the freedom of its citizens is different from the realists who see the state
as the most important in the instrument of power. The process of modernization is
also expanding the scope of international relations for the liberals, modernization is a
process that raises a lot of progress in many ways (Jackson & Sorensen, 1999).
In looking at the dynamics of international relations Liberalism has some focus in his
understanding of freedom, cooperation, peace and progress. Fourth it is the basic
values that they profess. They believe increasingly closer cooperation made by actors
in international relations, the degree of interdependence between actors will be
stronger, with increasing reliance of this, the use of weapons and war in resolving
conflicts will decrease and eventually will create a peace and will bring progress and
prosperity for the people of the world (Dunne & Schmidt, 2001). Furthermore, experts
such as Jeremy Bentham who coined the term "international law", where there is
reciprocity, international law is in the interests of countries constitutional rational to
believe in international law in its foreign policy, later it was expanded again by
Immanuel Kant that the world of country Such constitutional-states and countries that
respect can ultimately establish lasting peace (perpetual peace) (Rosenblum and Gallie
in Jackson & Sorensen, 2005, 142).
In the process, the perspective of liberalism has several different streams, there are at
least four streams are liberalism sociological study of the relationship between the
various actors, who studied the interdependence liberalism increase interdependence
between actors and establish a welfare state is not the dominant purpose of security
like that proposed by the realists, liberalism institutional study the role of the
institution in relation to international relations and republican liberalism which states
that democracies do not fight each other (Jackson & Sorensen, 2005, 177).
There are also several variations of liberalism that emerged in International Relations
along with the time, namely: (1). Internationalism, coined by Immanuel Kant and
Jeremy Bentham. Liberalism emerged from a desire to change the international
system of nation - states in the world at that time, which focuses on a powerful actor
who oversees the country - other countries as well as an end to the war as the solution
of conflicts between states. Liberalism is trust that the peace agreement as well as
communication between a peaceful state can facilitate peaceful international relations.
(2). Idealism, believing that peace and international order can not occur naturally, but
must be formed constructively. Like his fourteen points initiated by Woodrow Wilson
who later helped form the League of Nations - Nations that focused on collective
security and peace. (3). Institutionalism, a variation of liberalism that believes the
need for the establishment of institutions - international institutions considered able to
sustain to help fulfill the functions of the state in the interaction with the countries -
other countries (Dunne & Schmidt, 2001)
The liberalism that believes good international relations and walk in harmony with the
collaboration and cooperation between actors so as to create progress in international
relations is mutually beneficial to one another. In the liberal thought which guarantees
the freedom of every human being and berkompas on the cooperation between actors,
it can be analyzed that in terms of defense and security for their sovereignty, the
actors will form the Collective Security which is a defense cooperation than Alliance
concept of realism as a result of the emergence of the concept of Balance of Power in
an effort to create peace in the world.
Constructivism; The International Relations rich of perspectives in it. One of the
unique about them is their main perspectives and alternative perspectives. Alternative
Perspectives in International Relations at the beginning of birth instead of the
discipline itself, but there is one point that brought in International Relations. Among
these alternative perspectives are constructivism. The termination of the Cold War has
resulted in the reconfiguration debate where there is a dominance of American
thinking. In this case also the one emerging new thinking constructivist. Basically
constructivism is an important thought in Sociology, especially in institutional
Sociology (Reus-Smit, 2001: 194-195). Constructivism present to fix ideas that
previously existed. Thoughts before such realism and neorealism and liberalism to
neoliberalism judged unable to explain the phenomenon of the Cold War.
Constructivism was born to answer some interesting questions concerning
international politics such as the changing dynamics of international issues, the nature
of institutional practices, the role of non-state institutions and human rights issues
(Reus-Smit, 2001: 195-196). Some figures thinkers constructivism in International
Relations is the famous Friedrich Kratochwill, Onuf Nicholas, Alexander Wendt, and
John Ruggie. Key thought of konstrukstivisme is the social world including
international relations is a human construction (Jackson & Sorensen, 1999: 307).
The argument according to the social constructivist views the world is that the
social world is not something that is given, where laws can be found through scientific
research and explained through scientific theory as proposed by the behavioralis and
positivists. Rather, the social world is inter-subjective territory where the social world
is very meaningful for the people who make it and live in it, and once that is
understood. The social world is made and shaped by society at a particular time and
place (Jackson & Sorensen, 1999: 307). Anarchy is not always defined as things that
are conflictual and cooperative. There is no exact nature of international anarchy.
Anarchy is what is done by the state. If countries behave in a conflictual against each
other, it appears that the nature of international anarchy is conflictual. But if countries
behave cooperatively against each other, it appears that the nature of international
anarchy is the co-operative (Weber, 2005: 62). Therefore, there are assumptions in
constructivism. First, unlike the theories of neo-neo-rationalist who tried to explain
the specific results in international political, social constructivists choose to describe it
as understanding. It refers back to the work of the German sociologist Max Weber,
which focuses on understanding the subjective motives and actors outlook on the
world, Both of these are important factors that have an impact on the social world.
Explanation for them is based on a clear causal relationship between phenomena easy
to observe (Steans et al, 2005: 187).
The second assumption is social constructivist try to bridge the gap between
theory-centered structure and agent-centered theory and found the structure and the
agency is interdependent with one another. As a result, most of the social relationships
are relatively stable, but the presence of structures that undergo dynamic has brought
with it the potential for change. Third, in order to take into account the structure that
are not easily observed, social constructivists often describe the so-called critical
realism. Realism here has nothing to do with realism or neorealism in International
Relations. Fourth, the social constructivists emphasize the role of behavioral norms in
society. For example, in foreign policy, not just a matter of national interest, but also
concerns about acceptable behavior in the international community. Some also
emphasized the social constructivist ideas. These ideas are often said to be the
individual beliefs. In contrast to social norms more social quality. Norma was always
there outside of the individual and the universal. Fifth, constructivism considers that
the institutions can be formal or informal. Formal institutions is based on the
recognition of the principles, rules and norms in writing or explicit, such as a
university, school, state. While informal institutions merely stable patterns of practice.
In this case, a certain role in the family is treated as a social institution. This is what
makes people difficult to distinguish between norms and institutions (Steans et al,
2005: 187).
The sixth assumption is in line with the constructivist interest in the
relationship between structure and agency, social constructivist analyzes institutions
with a special focus on the process of institutionalization, namely the development of
patterns and socialization practices and the application of norms and behavior patterns
of new actors in an institution. For example, when analyzing European integration,
social constructivist interested in developing further integration not only in the formal
sense but also through the establishment of a routine among officials in the European
Commission or national ministries in their daily practice. In addition, the social
constructivist interested to find out the extent to which the new member states
socialized into the existing institutions of the European Union, or to find out what and
how the EU to change the actors of these countries. The seventh assumption is that
although the social constructivist focus on norms and institutions does not mean that
the social constructivist ignores the role of interest. The social constructivist search
for answers about how the interests formulated, kususnya role of institutions, norms
and ideas in the process of searching for the answer. Social constructivists often
analyze the interaction between ideas and interests. In other words, they are not only
concerned with the impact of institutions, norms and ideas about interests, but they
also analyze the extent to which interest may explain certain ideas (Steans et al, 2005:
187). As well as the latest assumptions talk about discourse and intersubjective.
Discourse plays an important role in the social constructivist thinking. For the
constructivist, the discourse is the synonym of communication. Thus, it is necessary to
achieve an understanding of the identity and interests and to build institutions and
norms. Discourse is also necessary to achieve the so-called intersubjective
understanding. Meaning social reality is not an objective category, but relies on the
widely accepted convention. The Convention does not however purely subjective
nature as well. The Convention does not depend on individuals, but on the
understanding shared by a number of individuals (Steans et al, 2005: 187).
There are some major themes in constructivism proposed by Steans et al
(2005). The first is the country with power. For social constructivists, international
politics can not be examined in the analysis of the international system. Unlike
neorealism view that in view of the nature of the international system so mechanistic.
From a social constructivist perspective, there is no universal or automatic about it.
Instead, the state behaves in such a manner as socialized into international political
institutions. This is in line with the opinion of the constructivist that international
politics is not purely governed by power and interest. There are fundamental norms in
international politics (Steans et al, 2005: 192). The second theme to talk about the
institution and the world order. In the second theme, there are several sub-themes. The
first of the international community. Because of the norms and institutions at the
international level, the social constructivist prefer to discuss the international
community rather than the international system. A society characterized by the
general norms and institutions in it, whereas in the system still can remain there
without things like that and how it works is based on a law that is mechanical. Both
talk about the different types of the anarchy. Are like those described previously that
the social constructivists have different views on the concept of anarchy. In the
constructivist view, the country has shaped anarchy in his interactions. Therefore,
anarchy is meant by constructivist be context-specific. Third on the international
regime. For the constructivist, get absolute gain as emphasized by neoliberalism is not
enough. The most important thing in a social learning process regime is obtained
through the principles, norms, and rules in it (Steans et al, 2005: 192-196).
The third theme is about identity and community. Identity is a crucial concept
for the constructivists. Identity is not only used in explaining the national interest but
also of identity is important in making policy decisions. Because identity is
considered so important to the constructivist, then the constructivist interested also in
the structure of identity and how identity can be changed. And the fourth theme that
became the theme of the last to speak about peace and security. Similarly, the
 argument about anarchy, in this perspective, security is what is made by the actor.
Security is really just a discourse made. Security context itself depends on what is in
the public terntentu depends also existing historical context (Steans et al, 2005: 196-
200).
As with any other perskpektif perspective in international relations, social
constructivism was not free from criticism. Among the criticisms of the positivist and
pospositivis. For the positivist Neorealist represented by John Mearsheimer found the
constructivist put too much pressure on the thinking and subjective knowledge. While
the criticism coming from the pospositivis represented by Steve Smith who argues
that the constructivist view of how the thinking and knowledge together shape the
way in which the actors see themselves in the political world is not enough medalam
(Jackson & Sorensen, 1999: 309-310) , Besides criticism also came from the
postmodernists. the constructivist is not considered serious enough to discuss the
language, while the discourse is very important. The concepts brought by the thought
of constructivism is not clearly defined (Steans et al, 2005: 201).
From the above it can be concluded that basically constructivism is an
important thought in Sociology, especially in institutional Sociology. However in
International Relations, constructivism present to fix ideas that previously existed.
Key thought of constructivism is the social world including international relations is a
human construction. There are themes such as the state and power, institutions and
world order, identity and community, peace and security that can be analyzed in the
framework of constructivism. Similarly, other perspectives in International Relations,
constructivism also get some criticism. Some of them come from the positivist and the
pospositivis
The authors opinion of constructivism thought about the social world is the
result of human construction is true. But what the author's attention here is the agenda
of constructivism. The writer can not find a concrete agenda of thinking this
constructivism. But despite it all, like other perspectives that exist in International
Relations, constructivism has given contribution in the discipline of International
Relations. Because as it is known, a particular perspective born not of international
relations will be one of perspective in international relations when it is donated
contribution in it.

2. Graham T Alison has 3 model of decision maker on foreign policy, there are ;

Frist Model, Rasional : In this model of foreign policy is seen as a result of the
actions of rational actors, especially. Foreign policy decision-making was described as
an intellectual process. Government analogous to the behavior of individuals ang
reasoned and coordinated. This decision-making model analysis are the choices taken
by the government. Thus, foreign policy analysts should focus on the reviewers'
national interests and goals of a nation, alternative-alternative policy guidelines that
can be taken by the government, and the calculation of profit and loss of each
alternative was.
In this model the decision-makers diaggap rational and we generally do tend to think
that the decision rationally, this assumption weakness mengbaikan the fact that the
decision makers are human beings who can make mistakes and that is always facing
various external constraints of its own bureaucrats, from various groups interests,
public opinion, and so on. Especially in the democratic system. Allison was aware of
the weaknesses that he may propose other models, namely the model of
"organizational processes" and "bureaucratic politics".
Example. : When the beginning of independence, Indonesia entered into an
agreement with Autralia with the percentage of 10%: 90%, with the rationalization of
Australia recognizes Indonesia as an archipelago.

Second Model, Organization Proccess : In this model describes the foreign policy as
a result of a large organization that it functions according to a pattern of behavior.
Decision-making is not merely an intellectual process, it is a mechanical process, the
decision refers to the decisions that have been made in the past, routine procedure in
force, or the roles assigned to the bureaucracy unit (standard operating procedure).
This society together are inherently conservative and rarely willing to try
new seuatu, generally quite happy with small changes. One way to address the
complexity and uncertainty of the problem which is to act as before, the organization
tends to have guidelines, user guide that lists how organizations cope with the
problem, what will happen at a time can be predicted by looking at what has happened
previously linked.

Third Model, Political – Birocarcy : In this model politic of foreign policy is seen
not as a result of the intellectual process of linking ends and means rationally. model
politic of foreign policy is the result of a process of interaction, adjustment and
politics between the various actors and organizations, bargaining game between
nations, in other words, the decision-making process model politic of foreign policy is
a social, not intellectual. So in Model III is described a process in which each player
brackish trying to act rationally, every actor State sought to establish objectives,
assess the various alternlehative means and set options intellectually, no player can
get what they want in this bergaining. (Can The chess game analogy).
Because in this third model emphasizes bargaining games as a determinant
of PLN, hence the need to obtain the information we learn about perception,
motivation, position, power and maneuvers of the players involved. So we need to
know (a). Who would come into play? or interests or behaviors who have influence
on the decision. (b) What determines each player's attitude was. (C) How do the
attitudes of the players were aggregated to produce a decision ?.
Example: when China fought against the British in the Opium War, China set decision
to menggusir English, but whatever power Britons forces lost the battle preformance
so that in the end china alter his decision, made peace with the English china even
give compensation to the UK amounted to 21 million yuan as well as getting
Hongkong (Nancing agreement).
 Remedial of
Theory of International Relations

Try Danuwijaya
20100510182

INTERNATIONAL PROGROM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH YOGYAKARTA

2015