THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBODIA

Techo Sen School of Government and International

Relations

Ph.D. in International Relations

Course: International Relations Theories

Assignment 2

“New International Relations

Theory—From Morgentau to
Mearsheimer and Beyond”

Student: Mr. KONG Matta

Professor: Dr. Din Merican

Academic Year: 2016 – 2017

1|Page
 New International Relations Theory—From
Morgenthau to Mearshimer and Beyond

Introduction

The world in which we live is shaping our lives or the group of people surrounding

us, so we have made the boundaries, cultures and communities that we call nations.

The country’s trade in manufactured goods has expanded from one state to another.

Consequently, the relationship of nations, international relation, toward another

takes place at that time. Many scholars and practitioners define the term

‘International Relations’. International Relations (IR) is an interdisciplinary

discipline of social science which studies the relationships among states, which are

considering the roles of individuals, states, and an international system as well as the

roles of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs). Chris Brown & Kirsten Ainley

(2009) define International Relation is the diplomatic—strategic relations of states,

and the characteristic focus of IR is on issues of war and peace, conflict and

cooperation. Importantly, IR theories will be deliberated on diplomatic relations and

the causes of wars between states. For over the twentieth century, IR theory has been

dominated by two main schools of thought: the political realists, who argue that war

between states is a present condition of international politics due to either self-

interested nature of human actors or states. As against, the liberals argue that war

between states can be moderated, regulated or even overcome through various

means such as institutionalization or economic interaction. Therefore, the purpose of

this paper is to analyze the diversity of conceptions of theory in the study of

international relations. Complicatedly, a number of theorists are studied and must be

2|Page
concerned in international relations in order to acknowledge, investigate, explain,

analyze, and work out the world political phenomena rather than ignore or leave

unchallenged.

Realism and neo-realism

There are two major types of realist theory—classical realism and neo-realism.

Realists emphasize the constraints on politics imposed by human selfishness and the

absence of international government, which means that in individual states are in

insecurity because all states are anarchy and egoism, so each state must seek power

to survive in a competitive environment and be prepared to do whatever they can do

to survive (Griffiths & O'Callaghan, 2002, p. 3). Because human nature is the root

cause of conflicts and wars amongst states, all states require a strong military power

(Gilpin & Keohane 1986). Furthermore, many realist scholars, Shuman (1933),

Nicolson (1939), Niebuhr (1940), Schwarzenberger (1941), Wight (1946),

Morgenthau (1948), Kennan (1951), and Butterfield (1953), believe and look at the

world is dangerous rather than safe or peaceful (Spirtas 1996: 387-400). Because the

desire for more power is rooted in the nature of humanity, states are continuously

engaged in a struggle to increase their capabilities. Particular wars, World War I and

World War II happened because of their self-interest, are explained, for example.

Very similar to realism, but a slightly different in terms of its perspective, neo-

realism maintains that human nature is not essential to the explanation of conflicts.

One difference between classical realism and neorealism is their contrasting views on

the states’ preferences. In contrast to classical realism, neorealism excludes the

internal makeup of different states. Rasler and Thompson (2001: 47) note

Morgenthau’s statement of classical realism relied on the assumption that leaders of

3|Page
states are motivated by their desire for power (Martin 2007). Kenneth Walz;

however, ignores human nature and focuses on the effects of the international system

because the system is anarchic, which mean there is no central authority to protect

states from one another. Thus, each state has to survive on its own in global context

(Stephen 1997). Indeed, Waltz’s theory omits leader’s motivations and state

characteristics as causal variables for international outcomes. In addition, according

to Waltz, he believes and claims that bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity. An

important refinement to realism is the addition of offense-defense theory, these

scholars, Robert Jervis, George Quester, and Stephen Van Evera, argues that war is

more likely to happen when states conquer each other. When defense is easier than

offense, the security is more plentiful. Therefore, on condition that defense provides

advantage, the states could probably acquire defend themselves without threatening

others. For these “defensive” realists, states seek to survive and great powers use to

guarantee their security by increasing defensive military (Stephen 2007). In addition,

Dunne and Schmidt (2014), realist scholars, address three main principles. The first

principle believes that the state is the main actor in international relations. The

second tenet is state survival, which means every state needs to do anything to

survive in the regional and global context. The third principle is self-help system, a

concept that in an anarchic international system, there is no global international

authority to enforce peace and stability. Hence, each state is responsible for its own

survival state and cannot rely on the help of other states" (Genest, 1996, p. 51).

Liberalism and neo-liberalism

Liberalism as a social scientific theory of international relations seeks to explain what

states do, not what they should do even though Realist critics argue against a literal

theory is impossible because the world is anarchy. However, Liberalists claims not as

realistic generalizations about human behavior, but as normative ideals of peace and

4|Page
cooperation, which they label “idealist,” “legalist,” “moralist,” “ reductionist” or

“utopian.” (Andrew n/d). Therefore, Liberal conception of international relations

focuses on state interests rather than state power. With this concept, liberalism

supports the principle of free market, civil right, democratic society, and

international cooperation. Liberals; therefore, start with individuals and groups

operating not only domestic but also transnational civil society to enhance or to meet

economic and social needs (Slaughter 1995). Liberalism; furthermore, values the

significant roles of international institutions such as United Nations (UN), North

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), World Trade Organization (WTO),

International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organization of the Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC), and the European Union in order to maintain the peace.

With slightly different from liberalism, neoliberalism, according to Safadi and

Lattimore (2008), promotes and conducts multinational corporations and the global

trading network operates across state boundaries; therefore, military power is not

the main state interests. By contrast, economic interests are vitally important, so

neo-liberalists need to increase multi-international cooperation with other states in

order to improve economic. With these, neo-liberalists strongly believe and

emphasize the significance of international interdependence, globalization, and

trade.

Marxism

Marxism, according to Khabele Matlosa (1999), originates from the classical works of

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vldimir Lenin. Marxists assumes, unlike liberals

and neo-liberals that classes, not individuals, are the principle actor in the political

economy. Marxists’ ideas are on social inequalities made or caused by the

privatization or the private ownership. Marxism; in addition, helps to make clear the

5|Page
class conflict in terms of the market-place, between the middle class and working

class. In deed, Karl Marx classifies societal classes into three categories: (a)

capitalists are owner either factories or lands, (b) the workers who works for the

capitalist-owned factories, and (c) the peasants, who work for the capitalist-owned

land (Genest, 1996).

Constructivism

Constructivism, according to Martin Griffiths, S. C. (2009), is a distinctive approach

to international relations that spotlight or emphasize on the social interaction of

agents or actors in world politics. Constructivists; moreover, claims that state

behavior or action is shaped by its identities, interests, and values. In contrast to

other theoretical approaches, social constructivism explores the construction and

regulative influence of international norms; it seeks, in other words, to link the

fundamental institutional structures with state identity and interests (Martin

Griffiths, S. C. 2009). Constructivism, according to Barnett (2014), recognizes the

significance of state identities, international norms, and culture, all of which shape

the patterns of war and peace in international relations. In this sense, states;

moreover, have a corporate identity that generates basic state goals, such as physical

security, stability, recognition by others, and economic development. However, how

states fulfill their goals depends upon their social identities – how states see

themselves in relation to other states in international society. On the basis of these

identities, states construct their national interests.

Game Theory

Game theory is a decision-making based on the assumption of actor in competition.

Each actor tries to maximize gains or minimize losses under condition of competition

in the game. In a two-person zero-sum game, if the one actor wins, the other loses.

For instance, if Mr. A wins 5, Mr. B loses 5, and the sum is zero. In a two-person non-

6|Page
zero sum game, gains and loses are not equal, and it is possible that both sides might

gain, so we can regard this game as positive-sum game. In some cases, both sides can

lose their amounts or degree because this game includes more than two actors or

sides. Game theory contributes to the development of military.

The English School

The English School has emerged since 1950 and has been named from major

theorists, during its inception, worked in England, especially at the London School of

Economics and at Oxford and Cambridge University (Brown and Ainley 2009).

Unlike the pervious theories, the English School represents a synthesis of normative

and rationalist approaches. The English School, in other words, values or spotlights

on the moral, political and social properties of international society and investigates

the emergent characteristics of world society (Martin Griffiths, S. C. 2009 & Griffiths,

O'Callaghan, and Roach 2008).

Feminism Theory

Feminism emerged as early as 1794 in publications is to understand about the nature

of gender inequality in the state. Therefore, Sojourner Truth addresses the women’s

rights issues through her publication, and it also examines the women in the society

roles and especially women in the politics. Feminist theory will look at and analyze

gender inequality especially discrimination, sexual objectification, oppression,

patriarchy, and stereotyping.

IR theory in Cambodia

Three events had a significant impact on the development cooperation after Khmer

Rouge. Cambodia country completely destroyed all sectors. First, the meeting

between Prince Norodom Sihanouk and Prime Minister Hun Sen raised hope that a

peace settlement might be within reach. The second event was the final withdrawal of

Vietnamese troops in 1989. Third, at this time Cambodia introduced a number of

7|Page
internal reforms, including liberalization and a move towards a market economy.

After second national election in 1998, Hun Sen became Prime Minister in

Cambodia. Liberalism has been applied to Cambodia context. Over a few decades,

under the wise leader, Cambodia is the 81st largest export economy in the world and

the 105th most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index

(ECI)1. Cambodia; furthermore, is one of the 10 members of the Association of

Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The countries as a group are the EU's third

largest trading partners outside Europe after the United States and China. The

ASEAN region is a dynamic market with some 580 million consumers. Cambodia is

one of the four LDCs in the ASEAN region. The EU co-operates closely with the

ASEAN region as a whole. Co-operation is maintained through the EU-ASEAN

Dialogue, which includes discussions on trade and investment issues at ministerial

and senior economic officials levels2. In this day and age, all countries stop using

imperialism theory to liberalism theory in order to enhance economic sector after the

World War II and Cold War.

1 http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/khm/#Exports
2 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/cambodia/

8|Page
 Bibliography

Barnett, M. (2014). Social constructivism. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Eds.),

The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations

(6th ed.) (pp. 155 – 168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2009). Understanding international relations (4th ed.). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Crawford, R. M. (2005). Idealism and Realism in International Relations Beyond the

discipline. London and New York: Routledge.

Dunne, T. (2014). Liberalism. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Eds.), The

globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations (6th

ed.) (pp. 113 – 125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunne, T. & Schmidt, B. (2014). Realism. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Eds.),

The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations

(6th ed.) (pp. 99 – 112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elias, J., & Sutch, P. (2007). International relations: The basics. London: Routledge.

Genest, M. (1996). Conflict and cooperation: Evolving theories of International

Relations. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Griffiths, M. (Ed.). (2005). International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First

Century. London and New York: Routledge.

Griffiths, M., & O'Callaghan, T. (2002). International relations: The key concepts.

London: Routledge.

Griffiths, M., O'Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. (2014). International relations: The key

concepts (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Hobson, J. M. (2003). The State and International Relations. Cambrige University

Press.

9|Page
Lamy, S. (2014). Contemporary mainstream approaches: Neo-realism and Neo-

liberalism. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Eds.), The globalization of world

politics: An introduction to international relations (6th ed.) (pp. 126 – 140).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin Griffiths, S. C. (2009). Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations (2nd

Edition ed.). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group .

Martin Griffiths, T. O. (2008). International Relations The Key Concepts Second

Edition. London and New York: Routledge.

Scott Burchill, A. L.-S. (2005). Theories of International Relations (Third edition

ed.). PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. "Liberal International Relations Theory and International

Economic Law." American University International Law Review 10, no. 2 (1995):

717-743.

Smith, T. W. (2005). History and International Relations. London and New York:

Routlede Advances in International Relations and Politics.

Waver, I. B. (Ed.). The Future of International Relations . London and New York:

Routledge.

10 | P a g e