MA End Semester Term Paper

Theories of International relations (IS 402N)

As instructed by:

Prof. Jayati Srivastva

Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan

Submitted by
Rahul Jaybhay

Registration no.- 1651000813

Politics with specialization in international studies (PISM)
School of International Studies
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, 110067
16/12/2019
Neo-realism

Realism comes with many different strands, perspectives and dimensions, thus making it difficult
to call oneself a true realist (Legro and Moravcsik 1999). Still most realist scholars agree on
some common basic propositions and assumptions about the international politics. Neorealism,
as conceptualized by Kenneth Waltz, develops a system which consists of structure (international
political system) and its interacting units(states) (Waltz 1979). The structure affects the
interacting units and outcomes produced by it, in turn, interacting units produces structures and
their behaviour gets constrained by it (Realist through and Neo realist theory - Waltz). Departure
from realism lies in the importance attributed to structural factor, rather than interacting units, for
explaining international outcomes. The main driver of insecurity in international system is its
anarchic ordering principle. Given the absence of political authority supplemented with varying
distribution of state capabilities and unknown state intentions, this insecurity turns into fear of
being attacked by others. To counter such threats, different units that populate such order, tries to
enhance their own skills, strength and capabilities (termed as internal balancing), thus
determining their fates and positions in international system. Since state capabilities varies
considerably, weaker states seek to increase their power by aligning themselves with the stronger
states as allies (termed as external balancing). Moreover, running such ventures can easily
outweigh the costs over incentives, making the break inevitable, thus alliances are transitory. In
practicality, it’s the great powers which fuels the engine of international system. Given, their
potential capabilities to counter each other, they are caught up in the state of paranoia. Though
accumulating, more and more capabilities seems logical, but the cycle seems endless. This is
termed as security dilemma (John Hertz). Increasing one’s security, fuels insecurity in others.
The others respond by strengthening their own capabilities. This reciprocation between potential
rivals becomes endless and dangerous, having potential to escalate into full blown war. The logic
of security dilemma justifies state’s acting rationally, but towards an irrational outcome. Thus,
the appropriation of power is justified for the securitization of a state against the potential rivals.
Structural realism asserts anarchic conditions compels states to acquire more power, but the
systemic constrains, usually balances out the additional capabilities. Thus, states are usually dis-
incentivized against power accumulation and believes in maintaining the existing balance of
power. Thus, defensive realists are usually “status quoist”. The realist case against nuclear
disarmament substantially proves this point, who believes that possessing nuclear weapons
stabilizes the power equations, thus negating out any wars and conflicts (Rajarajeshgopalan
article). Since most states avoid upsetting the balance of power equation, due to structural
constraints, state acquire a natural defensive stance. In sum, appropriate perceived balancing
with inevitable defensive posture avoids war like tendencies in the states. (John Mearsheimer
Great power politics). This often referred as defensive realism. In contrast, offensive realism
conceptualized within neorealist framework, explains that the structure incentivizes the power
maximizing behaviour in states to minimize the risks associated with aggressive states. Thus,
security creates incentives to acquire more and more power for the sake of survival. (John
Mersheimer). The theory of neorealism, as asserted by Kenneth Waltz, is not a theory of foreign
policy. Though, the claim is disputable. (KennethWaltz,neorealism and FP). America’s Iraq
invasion and British American foreign policies clearly makes the theory applicable in practical
circumstances.
Criticism
Liberals mainly believe in three core arguments. First, economic interdependence between states,
makes them less likely to engage in war. Such liberal economic order produces stability, enhance
prosperity and maintain free flow of economic exchanges. Prosper nations seems more
satisfactory, thus peaceful. Second, democratic peace theory, which claims democracies are less
likely to go to war with each other. Third, International institutions creates norms, which
regulates state behaviour, thus promoting cooperation between them. Thus, more cooperative
states reduced the chances of war (John Mearsheimer-great power politics). The confidence
bestowed by liberals, in their theory, seems a bit exaggerated. The liberals under-estimates the
importance of material power and ignores the centrality of balance of power politics in inter-state
relations (Non alignment 2.0). For instance, Non-alignment policy formulated by Indian scholars
gives to much emphasis on ideas and morality rather than material power. World is recognizing
India, not because of its righteous, but because of its economic and material power. India’s
foreign policy remains “a moral running commentary” as rightly formulated by Shashi Tharoor,
emphasizes ideational utopianism, which remains inconsequential in International politics. Moral
prescriptions and its feasibility in pragmatism is simply impossible. Institutionalism prescribes
certain normative behaviour for inter-state relations. But all norms in international politics like
liberal trade or economic interdependence, are determined by power configurations, thus
powerful constructs norms according to its own suitability. The meddling with state’s internal
sovereignty for promoting democracy points in the same direction. Economic prosperity
promised by globalization and economic integration, is skewed in favour of developed
nations(Report on European union), and the rise of trade protectionism by developed countries
like America, points to the fact that global economic integration norms are strategically
constructed for favouring these countries (Raghuram rajan article in Syndicate).
Constructivism tradition, as conceptualized by Alexander Wendt, is creating alternative
perspectives in studying world politics. The tradition stresses the importance of ideational factors
(norms, identities) in social construction of world politics. The world is constructed, through
mutual constitutions of structures and agents, where structures are essentially institutions and
shared meanings of ideas, which makes the context for international actions and agents are
entities acting within those structures. The ideational factors which includes norms and identities
affects the interests determined by states. Wendt argues states might affect the structure, through
the process of “structuration”(Anthony Giddens), based on inter-subjective analysis (where ideas
are shared by people) and these ideas are institutionalized and socially globalized (expressed as
identities). Thus, making the structure more fluid and susceptible to interpretations based on
history, rhetoric and behaviour. Constructivism mainly focuses on social content of national
interests, which are mainly determined through needs, power desires, wealth and security of
states. These interests, in turn, determines social relation between states. For instance, the issue
of security is given varied interpretations based on context specificity. The invasion of Iraq in
2003 is justified based on social construction of security meaning on the perceived assumptions
created by US regarding possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq. Narratives of national identity
and representation of historical engagements risks engaging in power politics. The proposition is
justified through relation between North Korea and USA. The “attached” meaning to norms and
identities helps conditioning the narratives circulated by dominant power. The regime of Saddam
Hussain and the concept of Pariah state feeds the proposition. But problem with constructivism is
its vague and abstract conceptualization. Since meaning attached to certain norms are subjective,
the proliferation of subjectivity, makes its applicability in international politics quite redundant.
The school negates different level of analysis for understanding international politics, thus runs
the risks of improper reasoning. Realists criticizes constructivists for focusing too much on
managing inter-state competition through normative method and institutionalizing political
community, rather than power politics and security issues. Constructivists mainly focuses on
sources and contents of their interests, so liable to changes based on individual interpretation,
thus as Freidrich Kratochwill asserted cultural theory can not substitute political theory.
English school tradition is mainly influenced by British international relation scholars which
include Hedley Bull, Martin Wight, John Vincent, Barry Buzan, Richard Little. The tradition is
obsessed with maintaining international order through creation of stable international society.
The foundational assertion is based on the claim that sovereign equal states creates a society,
within which there exists higher level of order and lower level of violence, even when the
conditions are anarchic in nature. The scholars regard violence as feature of anarchic order but
controlled, to a greater extent, by international law and morality. The international political
system is more civil and ordered based on principles like morality, humankind community, trust
which serve legitimate international interests, by stigmatizing principle competitors. Moreover,
global reforms and peace promotions are essential means for ending power and security
concerns. Members expects states to maintain high levels of cooperation and security between
them, by learning the art of accommodation and compromise making international society
possible .Critics pointed out that the claims of English school seem utopian, but English scholars
believes the idealistic visions of universal human community based on human rights, peace and
justice is possible. Different conceptions and dimensions associated with human rights, global
justice problematizes arriving at common agreed notions and practices, thus these visionary
notions produce major disagreement between states and contribute in creating international
disorder. It prioritizes the survival of international order, which is hampered by great powers, but
contrary also believes that great powers strengthen international order. Wight claims the higher
level of existence is facilitated by trade and commerce, while Bulls argues “functional” or
utilitarian approach, rather than cultural or moral, is more beneficial in sustaining the order.
Pragmatic needs and demands of different states make coexistence a necessity, thus helps
preserving order between different states irrespective of culture, ideologies and aspirations.
Wight provides empirical research which claims that strong commitment to constitutional
politics and resistance to absolutism played vital role in formation of European society of states
and international law. Critics argue international peace and harmony is unlikely based on
ideological difference and conflict of interests. The issue of meddling in internal affairs of state
and interference for protecting human rights, hampers the principle of state sovereignty (Kosovo,
Libya cases). Imposition of western values and culture on other states is problematic, as states
have the right to live in accordance to their own values. Clash of civilization, indigenous values
and third world subaltern groups challenges such integration, as costs outweigh benefits. Realism
criticizes English school for focusing much on ideals and principles, which fails in practical
situations. Power politics and individual self interest dominates the international politics. It
completely ignores the systemic effect on state’s behaviour. Realist also rejects the claims of
cooperation and mutual living, based on insecurity and anarchic principle of international order. -
Realist are often sceptical about what the theory tries to explain and achieve. For them, the
theory is simply ignoring the implications of anarchic order and refutes its significance.
Postmodernist school of thought is related to French philosopher Michel Foucault. Post-
modernist tendencies, basically, contradicts or problematizes the “classificatory” notions, which
evolved in the aftermath of Enlightenment period. System of classifications are challenged for
not accommodating subaltern identities. Post-modernist asserts identities are fluid concepts, thus
changeable based on constitution of individual self, which remains flexible to different
interpretations and subjectivity. IR scholars applies these notions in study of individual state
identity and its policies and rejects the dominant differentiation between strong and weak states.
According to them, there exists nexus between knowledge and power, where power influences
knowledge. Values, perceptions, stereotypes significantly impact the production of knowledge.
Power and politics determine knowledge production, which is not only considered cognitive, but
political and normative in nature. It introduces the concept of genealogy, which challenges the
historical authenticity of singular perspective based on which history is constructed and
introduces neglected perspective in writings. Postmodernist believes in plurality of perspectives
and interpretations rather than “truth”, which according to them is subjective in nature. The
reality is nothing but which finds it way into “narratives”. Post-modernist problematizes
dominant narrative or grand theories, rather multiple trajectories. Thus, allowing systematic
dissociation of identities associated with realities and making identities more flexible and elastic.
Porter considers three weak point of post-modernism movement in international relations
namely; lack of tolerating variety, ignoring materialistic limitation and lack of sensitivity to the
importance of values and consensus (Bahamani, 2016). The postmodernism rather than
concerning itself to empirical evidence has too much emphasized on the theoretical notion and
thus in a way has tried to reinsert the ethical elements and devised the scientific objectivity as
misleading and tactical. Its scholars borrowed selectively from a range of philosophers refusing
to present themselves as finite discourse (Dornelles, 2002). Thus, some scholars have even
argued that there is no coherent post-modernist theory in IR.
Critical theory is associated with Frankfurt school which includes critical theorists like Jurgen
Habermas, Theodorno Adorno etc. Critical theorists claim knowledge is not objectively
produced but affected by subjectivity of producers. All knowledge is essential created based on
some social purposes and interests. Thus, knowledge effectively is a social construction. Critical
theorists challenge the existing structures, which constrain on individual choices and normalizes
inequalities of wealth and power. Thus, critical theorists believe in breaking those social
structures to free individuals from the bondages and constrains. It challenges the Marxian
analysis, and claims that exclusion is not limited only to capitalism, but there exist multiple
“axes of exclusion”. Theorists claims open dialogue between different social strata and political
communities to liberate subaltern societies and inferior tendencies and rejected power
configurations given by neo-realist and asserted discursive practices to challenge existing notions
and realization of post political life. Critical theorists like Habermas argued for ‘legal and
political reorganization of world society’ along ‘post-national’ lines (Habermas,2000). Habermas
asserted the importance of institutionalization of deliberate democracies at global and regional
levels (Beardsworth, 2011). Andrew Linklater and other scholars offered alternative readings of
international politics based on emancipatory interests (Poverty of critical theory). Critical
theorists don’t take political and economic dynamics into consideration, while analysing
contradictions and dimensions of globalized world. Since international politics, works on basis of
politics and economics, the arguments presented by critical theorists seem impracticable. Both
Habermas and Linklater, accepts the systemic emergence of globalized world and consequences
produced by it (Habermas 1998). But scholars like Rosenberg critics this and asserts deeper level
of understanding and elements to explain dynamics of globalization (Rosenberg 2005). The
alternative understanding of the world offers ideals to solve contemporary problems, but
effective and practical solutions seem missing. Structuring of concepts, according to one’s own
suitability, shows biasness. The juxtaposition between Westphalian order and post national order
is problematic analysis, as empirical evidence for such transitions is unknowable (Rosenberg).
Exclusion of political and economic analysis is largely un-critical in nature.

On the other hand, Marxists would say include political and economic perspectives into their
analysis and asserts society of sovereign states is not equal. The idea of state, as formulated by
Marxian philosophers, state is not seen as an embodiment of national interest or judicial
neutrality, but rather of the interests of a specific society or social formation defined by its socio-
economic structure. Andrew Linklater in his essay on Marxist perspective has pointed out that
the sovereignty equally becomes sovereignty of social formations. Security also follows the
same. At the same time the classes are the central actors in political life, both domestic and
international. This primacy of classes undermines the concept of nation-states as the Italian
Giambatistta Vico has said that “the world of nations has certainly been made by men and its
guise must therefore be found within the modifications of our human mind”. In the same way
wars represent conflicts between social classes of similar character, rivals for a monopoly of
control over markets, resources and territory. In contrast to neorealism where the rivalry between
states are on a horizontal plane (owing to the equality of units), Marxists like Robert Cox says
that the rivalry in international relations is done in a vertical dimension. There is a sharp division
of centre and periphery as Immanuel Wallerstein in his world systems theory would argue.
Equally Andre Gunder Frank revealed that the relations between units are of dependency where
the satellite countries are dependent upon the metropolis and is major reason for the
underdevelopment of Latin American countries. In addition, Robert Cox also pointed out using
Gramscian concept of hegemony that the basic changes in the military-strategic and geopolitical
balance can be traced to social relations. World order thus mirrors the social relations prevalent
in the society and is essentially hegemonic. The world order is hegemonic because it is founded
upon a globally conceived civil society. World hegemony therefore becomes a social structure,
an economic structure and a political structure according to Cox.

Notes :
Legro, J.& Moravcsik, A(1999).‘Is Anybody Still a Realist?’, International Security, 24(2), 1999, pp. 5–55.

Waltz, k (1979). Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

John H. Herz, ‘Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, 2(2), 1950, pp. 157–
180.

Rajesh Rajagopalan (2010) The Realist Case Against Nuclear Disarmament, Strategic Analysis, 34:2, 171-
179, DOI: 10.1080/09700160903542773