International relations the

Marize Dreyer - 23700661

Question 1
The study of International Relations has presented many theories that claim to best describe
the geopolitical landscape of states’ interactions with each other and why they behave in a
specific way. Two of these theories, that are usually weighed up against each other, are
structural realism and neoliberalism with each presenting their specific viewpoint of relations
between states. With Realism being one of the first theories in International Relations, its
successor structural realism still holds much of the same views with greater emphasis on the
structure of the international system and the dominant powers that determines this structure.
However, neoliberalism challenges structural realism by suggesting alternatives in key areas.
This essay will look at how neoliberalism challenges structural realism in key areas such as
cooperation over independence, the role of international institutions, international
governance, and lastly the role of globalization.

Structural realism emerged after classical realism and was dominated by Kenneth Waltz who
is seen as the father of structural realism, which can also be called neo-realism. At the core of
structural realism, is the assumption that the international system is anarchic in nature and
that states within this system are driven by the pursuit of self-interests and power and the
distribution thereof will determine the behavior of states (Waltz, 1979:102). Therefore, states
take on a self-help attitude to ensure their own survival leading to acquiring more power
which links back to classical realism on the significance of power and security of the state as
the most important factor. Also, because states are seen as the most important actors,
structural realism does not take into account the role international institutions can play as
neoliberalism does. That is because structural realists see global institutions as a reflection of
the distribution of power in the international system and consequently do not influence the
Mrs. Landi Kotzé
9 June 2023
behavior of states (Mearsheimer, 1994:13). Conversely neoliberalism offers a different
perspective on the role of institutions and how it can shape the interaction of states in the
international system.

Stellenbosch University
Neoliberalism also developed out of its predecessor, classical liberalism, and brings in
different perspectives on the role of governance in the international system and how state’s
behaviors can be explained. One of the most prominent scholars on neoliberalism is Robert
Keohane who argued that states can be more connected unlike the structural realist
perspective through the importance of cooperation, the role of international institutions and
the participation of non-state actors all the while still recognizing the potential for states to
seek mutual gains instead of only self-gain (Viotti and Kauppi, 2012:162). Therefore, the
main argument neoliberals pose is that states can collectively achieve their goals through
cooperation, establishing international institutions and through economic interdependence
which stands in contrast to structural realists’ position of a self-help international system.
Neoliberalism signifies the importance of cooperation where states can engage collectively to
pursue common interests which can then influence states’ behaviors (Jackson and Sørensen,
2013:184). Thus, these different perspectives from neoliberalism can challenge the
perspectives held by structural realists.

The one key area where neoliberalism confronts structural realist perspectives on the
cooperation between states instead of the state’s main objective of power and self-interest.
Neoliberalism argues for the cooperation of states so that they can collectively meet their
common interests when working together through interdependence and this will help mitigate
the effects of the anarchic international system to produce mutual gains (Mir, 2014:166).
Thus, states can waive their power maximizing and self-interests posed by structural realists
to achieve greater common interests through the cooperation between states. A prominent
example of this can be the European Union (EU) which shows how cooperation between
most European states can lead to mutual benefit as well. Such as the regional integration of
states has led to states becoming better economically and politically integrated where the EU
has improved trade opportunities, which increased participating states economic growth as
well as established collective policies, which promotes relations between European states
(European Union, n.d.). By states cooperating, more mutual gains were achieved rather than
would have been with a self-gain attitude. Consequently, the EU can therefore be used as an
example to challenge the structural realist’s assumption that states only seek to maximize
their own power and self-interests. This then leads into the next aspect where neoliberalism
challenges structural realism which is the role of institutions in the international systems.
Where structural realists doubt the ability of international institutions to influence state
behaviors as they are just seen as a reflection of the distribution of power in the international
system, neoliberalism argues quite the opposite. That is because neoliberals argue that
international institutions play an important role in shaping states’ behaviors (Fajemilehin,
2015:2). This is because international institutions can become influential actors within the
international system. The neoliberal perspective contends that international institutions can
provide a platform for states to be transparent, accessible, and representative that makes it
more open for cooperation between states (Deudney and Ikenberry, 1999:186). The role
played by the United Nations (UN) can be an example of this. The UN is an international
institution that was created in 1945 and was established to promote political and economic
cooperation between different states (Hayes, 2021). Thus, the UN can play an important part
in fostering economic growth between states as well as political relations and stability
through its peacekeeping capabilities. Furthermore, the UN can promote cooperation between
states which would have not been able otherwise with the self-help attitude reasoned by
structural realists (Fajemilehin, 2015:2). Therefore, the role played by international
institutions like the UN, can be beneficial for states and challenges structural realism because
it fosters cooperation which leads to mutual advantage for all states.

A last aspect where neoliberalism is seen challenging structural realism is through creating
economic interdependency between states. That is because neoliberalism allows for economic
integration between states which leads to states becoming more interdependent on each other
(Ogunbanjo, 2021:62). Furthermore, when states are economically interdependent, they share
the same incentives and interests which further promotes cooperation so that these incentives
can be met. That is greater economic ties will make states more reliant on each other for
trade, resources foreign investment and could also be preventive for military confrontation
(Ogunbanjo, 2021:70). For instance, a very recognized example of where economic
interdependence has, for now, deterred military confrontation is the United States (US) and
China relations. This is evident through the claim made by Steven Pinker that the economic
relations between China and the US preclude war because of their interdepended of each
other (Einstein, 2017:1). Therefore, it challenges structural realism because economic
interdependency shows that states will not only be power-driven by their self-interests and
leads to a shift in dynamics between states as they become more dependent on each other for
economic gains.
In conclusion, neoliberalism can be seen to present three new perspectives when looking at
the dynamics in the international system between state and also their behavior. That is
through cooperation, important roles played by international institutions as well as the
growing economic interdependence between states, neoliberalism challenges structural
realism on its expectations of power maximizing and self-interests of states within the
international system. Thus, neoliberalism’s emphasis on cooperation for states’ shared
interests makes for a very appealing argument especially when the world has become as
globalized and interconnected as it is now.

Bibliography
Deudney, D. and Ikenberry, G.H. (1999). The Nature and Sources of Liberal International
Order. Review of international Studies, 25(2):179-196.

Einstein, J. 2017. Economic Interdependence and Conflict: The case of the US and China. E-
International Relations. Available: https://www.e-ir.info/2017/01/17/economic-
interdependence-and-conflict-the-case-of-the-us-and-china (Accessed 8 June 2023).

European Union Website. Key European Union achievements and tangible benefits.
Available:https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/achievements_en
(Accessed 8 June 2023).

Fajemilehin, V. 2015. Neo-realism and Structural Liberalism: Can anarchy really be

transcended? E-International Relations. Available: https://www.e-ir.info/2015/07/20/neo-
realism-and-structural-liberalism-can-anarchy-really-be-transcended (Accessed 8 June 2023).

Hayes, A. 2021. United Nations (UN): Definition, Purpose, Structure, and Members.
Investopedia, Available:https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/united-nations-un.asp
(Accessed 8 June 2023).
Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G. 2013. Introduction to International Relations: Theory and
Approaches. 5th ed. Oxford University Press.

Mearsheimer, J.J. 1994. The False Promise of International Institutions. International

Security. 19 (3):5-49.

Mir, S.A. 2014. Realism, anarchy, and cooperation. International Journal of Interdisciplinary
and Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(8):164-167.

Ogunbanjo, M. 2021. Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism in Global Politics: Towards

Assessing the Intellectual Siblings. KIU Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2):57-76.
Viotti, P.R. and Kauppi, M.V. 2012. International Relations Theory. 5th ed. Pearson
Education.

Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Long Grove, IL. Waveland Press.

Question 2
The word anarchy usually comes with a negative connotation in the political sphere where it
amounts to a state of disorder and no central governing authority. That is the nation-states are
seen as the primary actors in the international domain and no other higher authority can be
held than that of the state (Griveaud, 2011:1). This concept of international anarchy holds
therefore great significance to the study of International Relations because it can be used to
explain state behavior and the different play of power dynamics. Leading scholars on this
have been Kenneth Waltz and Alexander Wendt who offers their interpretations of
international anarchy from their perspectives as a structural realist for Waltz and a social
constructivist for Wendt.

Kenneth Waltz (1979:88) perspective of anarchy has been captured in his work Theory of
International Politics where he uses a structural realist approach and views the international
system as anarchic and decentralized because of the absence of authoritative actors outside of
the state. This shows that according to Waltz, the international system does not function in a
specific, governing order and that nation-states act for themselves which then makes the
system anarchic. This leads to Waltz’s second assumption of a state’s objective for its own
survival which works into a self-help attitude. Waltz (1979:91) argues that because states first
seek to achieve their own self-help goals, other goals cannot be met if the necessity of
survival is not met first which then determines a state’s behavior. Therefore, the inherent
structure of the international anarchic system, according to Waltz will be self-serving and
states will first seek to maximize their power over anything else. Furthermore, international
structures according to Waltz, are portrayed through the distribution of “capabilities across
units” (1979:101). With units being states, the distribution of a state’s capabilities among
other states determines the power relations between them and therefore the behavior of the
states. For example, the distribution of capabilities between the United States (US) and the
Soviet Union during the Cold War shaped the power dynamics of the international system
with different military capabilities used by the US and Soviet Union (Waltz, 2000:28).
Therefore, Waltz contends that international anarchy can be seen as a structural constraint
through the view of the international system as anarchic which shapes states behavior of
having a self-help attitude and consequently leading to states wanting to maximize their
power for it.

Likewise, another way where the constraint of anarchy is shown is through the creation of
alliances. Waltz (1979:167) argued this in his analysis of alliances where states are seen to
form alliances as a response to the international anarchic system for security and also to
balance power within the international system. The most prominent example of this can be
the formation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) which helps states to balance
power through this alliance. Although Waltz does recognize that international institutions can
have not so positive effects on national decisions and objectives that remove a state’s
capabilities to achieve its self-seeking interests (2000:26). Nonetheless from another side,
Alexander Wendt offers a different perspective on international anarchy and why states
behave in a certain way.

Alexander Wendt (1992:394) looked at international anarchy in his article Anarchy is what
states make of it with a constructivist approach where he argues the idea of anarchy is a
socially constructed concept. This can then already be seen as a contrast to Waltz’s idea that
anarchy is a given in the international system. Wendt (1999:8) also maintains that every state
should be seen as an agent where the states’ construction is a structure of political authority
that can determine its character in the international system of itself and of other states as well.
Therefore, because anarchy is socially constructed, it can be shaped by states’ interactions
and shared understandings and not structurally constrained as Waltz predetermined.
Nonetheless, Wendt (1992:391) argues that anarchy can be directed by specific processes
through the interaction and teaching of institutions. This then establishes the state’s objective
of the self-help principle is not only because of the anarchic structure but because it is due to
the process that makes states look out for their self-help interests. Wendt (1992:395) contends
that the practice by which specific identity and interests’ structures are constructed is shaped
by the process. That is that the self-help attitude of states is not an inherent feature of anarchy,
but it emerges from the process of making anarchy a product through the states’ creation.
Thus, Wendt (1992:424) determines the behavior of the state is shaped by the different beliefs
and ideas the state has rather than anarchy itself. This is because, as Wendt coined it, anarchy
is what states make of it through the different interactions and beliefs between states. Another
assumption Wendt holds is that states’ identities and interests are not just determined by the
anarchic structure but can be transformed and changed through a state’s interaction with other
states (Wendt, 1992:404). For instance, the formation of the European Union can be seen
where the identities and interests of states are not fixed and not solely determined by an
anarchic structure, but through the process of interactions of other states through shared
interests. Therefore, Wendt contends that the international system is not just anarchic but
consists of shared interests which will cause different behavior of the state (Mengshu, 2020).

Although both Waltz and Wendt offer different approaches to understanding international
anarchy through structural realism or constructivism, there are some comparisons to be made.
Firstly, one common association is the acknowledgement of an international anarchic system
where there is an absence of centralized authority. However, they do differ in the portrayal of
anarchy. As previously discussed, Waltz sees anarchy as a structural constraint which leads
states to become self-seeking while Wendt sees anarchy as being socially constructed where
identities and interests of states shape its behavior. Also, both scholars agree that change in
power dynamics takes place but in different ways. That is through Waltz change occurs
through the distribution of a state’s capabilities and through Wendt, change occurs through
shared understandings by constructing other interests and identities by states like the creation
of the EU.

To conclude, both Waltz and Wendt can be seen to contend for their perspectives on
international anarchy. That is Waltz sees anarchy as being structurally constrained which
influences states’ behavior while Wendt argues that anarchy is socially constructed and can be
shaped by identities and interests through the interaction of states. Moreover, Waltz argues
that states within the anarchic international system will have a self-help nature to prioritize
the maximizing of their own power over other states. Conversely, Wendt contends that there
is the potential for cooperation between states where states’ self-interests can change into
shared and common interests of the broader global community. Therefore, both perspectives,
viewing from a structural realist or social constructivist approach, can be used to study and
explain different power dynamics within the discipline of International Relations.
Bibliography

Griveaud, M. 2011. Is the anarchial international system the cause of the war? E-
International Relations. Available: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/05/22/is-the-fact-that-man-
lives-in-an-international-system-defined-by-anarchy-the-cause-of-war/ (Accessed 8 June
2023).

Mengshu, Z. 2020. A brief overview of Alexander Wendt’s Constructivism. E-International

Relations. Available: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/19/a-brief-overview-of-alexander-
wendts-constructivism/ (Accessed 8 June 2023).

Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Long Grove, IL. Waveland Press.

Waltz, K.N. 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1):5-41.

Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The Social Construction of Power
Politics, International Organization, 46(2):391–425.

Wendt, A. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.
Question 5
The views on terrorism from the perspective of Orientalism have been evident for a long time
in the international community. This relationship can hold significant influence within the
discipline of International Relations because it can be used as a framework to explain specific
events and why the “West” views the “Orient” in a specific way, as described by Edward
Said. By using Orientalism as a theoretical framework, a better understanding of how the
West and Orient interact and the power dynamics at play can be attained. This essay will
examine how Orientalism has been used by international actors to influence public opinion
on people associated with the Orient, the homogenization of the Muslim culture, justification
for global intervention with the current war against terror, the media representation of
Muslim people, and also the terrorist discourse coupled with it.

Orientalism is a term that has been defined by Edward Said as being a standpoint which
Western scholars used to view different cultures and societies from the East and was called
the Orient (Said, 1977:186). This viewpoint created this sense of Western societies as
superior to Eastern societies because their cultures could not be understood by Western
societies. This created a stereotypical attitude from the West towards the Orient that is still
evident today and has constructed the people from the Orient as the ‘other’. The image of the
other was created by viewing the Orient as opposite to the Occident (which is Western
societies) and made room for the justification of imperialism and colonialism (Burney,
2012:24). This contrasting image can be argued as being very Eurocentric because there is no
consideration given to the context of Eastern societies and why they are different than
Western societies which have led to the development of an unbalanced representation of
Eastern societies, especially people who follow the Islam faith. Edward Said (1977:187)
contended that Orientalism has carried with it a very European attitude towards Islam and
with-it problematic discourses around its interpretation within their own societies. This view
has led scholars like Said to argue that colonialism has in fact continued through the present
views of Eastern societies as being associated with terrorist discourses when they are seen to
fall under the Islam religion and therefore their representation in Western societies is being
stereotyped as such.

Following from this, many scholars have recognized that the Orientalist perspective has also
homogenized many different societies into a specific representation and category of terrorism
discourse. Suggesting the assumption of Islam, with many complexities and cultural
differences according to the specific context within different Eastern societies, are
homogenous and can be referred to as the “praxis of violence” (Göl, 2010:1). This is
problematic because it does not take into account the different context, specific beliefs and
identities of different Islam societies and further imposes the stereotype of Islamists as being
inherently more violent towards Western societies. For example, militant groups like Al-
Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are both labeled by Western states as
being terrorist groups just because both follow the Islamic religion however, there are
differences between the two in ideologies and motivations for their attacks. Al-Qaeda’s main
goal is to overthrow the corrupt regimes in the Middle East and replace them with true
Islamic governments showing their extremist Islamic ideologies whereas ISIS targets apostate
regimes in the Syria and Iraq regions which includes other rival Islamic groups showing their
different ideologies and beliefs concerning Islam (Byman, 2015). Nonetheless even with
differences, both groups are still considered as terrorist groups from the Western perspective
which further builds on the terrorist discourse that all Islamic militant groups should be
classified as terrorists. With this, interventionist strategies from Western societies have
therefore been justified as acting in the interest of global peace within unstable regions and
have created the space for the ‘war on terror’ discourse.

The war declared over terrorism was a response to the 9/11 attacks in the United States (US)
which led to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and is also used as a justification for
the interventionist strategies in unstable, mainly Islamic, regions. Furthermore, this needs for
intervention from Western states further perpetuates the legacy of Orientalism and continues
the narratives and stereotypes historically associated with the East (Assayag, 2007:253). This
is because Orientalist narratives can be used as a justification for military operations in
Islamic states through the discourses of global peace and security. This however fails to take
into account the specific context, cultural and political dimensions of a region and
consequently reinforces the influence of power dynamics of the intervening states into
predominantly Islamic regions. Moreover, the war on terror discourse has emphasized the
securitization process as seeing Islamic people as threats to security and targets all Islamic
citizens under scrutiny for terrorist agendas showing the power dynamics between the
Western perspectives on the East (Jamil, 2014:32). With this, all people who identify with the
Islam religion are being viewed with the same, stereotyped perspective, even if they do not
agree with the ideologies of known terrorist groups which can leave them feeling
discriminated by the broader Western societies. This can also again show the different power
dynamics between the West and the East. This is due to the fact that the war on terror premise
underpins Orientalism through the association of Islamic people as being inherently violent
and dangerous and the West, specifically the US, as a heroic international actor promoting
peace through the use of force and terror on the East (Jamil, 2014:31). For instance, the US-
led military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan showcases this portrayal for intervention in
these regions to promote peace and security but leading to further destabilizing of the region
and using the war on terror as a leeway for this political power dynamic play.

Lastly, the media representation has played a very prominent role in Orientalist discourse on
terrorism through the shaping of public opinion to view Islamic people as inherently violent
and prone to terrorist agendas. This is especially evident after the 9/11 terrorist attacks where
American media portrayed all people of the Islamic faith as an “enemy” to their security and
citizens even when the attack was carried out by Al-Qaeda with very extremist Islamic
ideologies (Assayag, 2007:260). Consequently, with an Orientalist perspective, media
representations tend to most often focus on the disproportionate acts of terrorism that were
committed by a single group and further generalize it to all people under the Islamic faith,
reinforcing terrorism stereotypes. With specific reference to the US media representation, the
stereotypes against Muslim people with a distinction between “us”, US citizens, and “them”
even if the Muslim people being stereotyped are also US citizens (Nurullah, 2010:1023).
Therefore, it is evident that through an Orientalist perspective, many stereotypes and power
dynamics can be observed through the media representations of Islamic people that further
influence public perceptions to portray them in a negative and violent light.
It can therefore be concluded that the relationship between Orientalism and terrorism
discourses has played a significant role in the perceptions and stereotypes held of people from
the Islamic faith. The construction of the Orient as the other and as a homogenous group
greatly reinforces Western perceptions at the cost of taking into consideration the different
cultures and identities within Islamic societies. Furthermore, generalizing the actions of an
individual group to an entire religious group is inaccurate. Consequently, the war on terror
premise can further be shown to reinforce the power dynamics from Western states, mainly
the US, on Islamic regions through the intervention of military operations. Lastly, the
subjective and negative portrayal of Islamic people through Western media representations
has shown to still underpin Orientalist narratives where there is a clear differentiation
between “us” and “them”.

Bibliography

Assayag, J. 2007. East and West: orientalism, war and the colonial present. Etnográfica,
11(1):253-269.

Burney, S. 2012. Orientalism: The Making of the Other. Counterpoints, 417(1): 23–39

Byman, D.L. 2016. Comparing al Qaeda and Isis: Different goals, different
targets, Brookings. Available:https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/comparing-al-qaeda-
and-isis-different-goals-different-targets/ (Accessed: 08 June 2023).

Göl, A. 2010. The war on Terror and the Rise of Neo-Orientalism in the 21st Century. E-
International Relations. Available:https://www.e-ir.info/2010/03/18/the-war-on-terror-and-
the-rise-of-neo-orientalism-in-the-21st-century (Accessed 8 June 2023).

Jamil, U. 2014. Reading Power: Muslims in the War on Terror Discourse. Islamophobia
Studies Journal, 2(2):29-42.

Nurullah, S.A. 2010. Portrayal of Muslims in the: “24” and the ‘Othering’ process.
International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1):1021-1046.

Said, E. 1977. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, United States.