Chapter Two

Theories of IRs
 2.1 What is Theory?

• Henslin (1999) defines a theory as a general statement that explains how two or
more facts are related to one another.
• Haralambos and Holborn (1990:8) define a theory as a set of ideas which claim to
explain how something works: it provides a logical explanation for why things
happen the way they do.
• Theory is nothing but systematic reflection on phenomena, designed to explain
them and to show how they are related to each other in a meaningful, intelligent
pattern.
• Theories are generalizable accounts of how world works that go beyond the
specific details of one unique detail.
• Describe, explain and predict
• A theory therefore defines the causal factors of a relationship and explains the
nature of that relationship.
• theorizing is commonly perceived as a systematization of thinking, an extensive
elaboration of ideas and principles governing or seeking to explain a particular
phenomenon
• International relations theory is the study of
international relations (IR) from a theoretical
perspective.
• It seeks to explain behaviors and outcomes in
international politics.
• IR theories are constantly emerging and competing with one another
• As soon as you think you have found your feet with one approach, you realise there
are many others.
• Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) set the stage for
understanding how and why certain theories are legitimised and widely accepted.
• He also identified the process that takes place when theories are no longer
relevant and new theories emerge.
• For example, human beings were once convinced the earth was flat and accepted
this as fact.
• With the advancement of science and technology, humans discarded this
previously accepted belief.
• Once such a discovery takes place, a ‘paradigm shift’ results and the former way of
thinking is replaced with a new one.
• Although changes in IR theory are not as dramatic as the example above, there
have been significant evolutions in the discipline
 Why international relations theories?
International relations theories can help us to
understand the way the international systems work,
as well as how nations engage with each other and
view the world.
Theories of International Relations allow us to
understand and try to make sense of the world
around us through various lenses, each of which
represents a different theoretical perspective.
IR theory helps describe how policy makers see the
world and how this influences policy making.
• One of the first functions theory performs is to
define the terms and concepts used to
describe, explain, or predict in the study of
international relations.
• Theory is used in international relations not
only to define concepts and categories but
also to draw concepts together so as to
outline perspectives or build up 'maps' of the
international arena
• One aim of studying a wide variety of International Relations theories is to make
international politics more understandable – to make better sense of the actors,
structures, institutions, processes and particular episodes mainly, but not only, in the
contemporary world.
• At times theories may be involved in testing hypotheses, in proposing causal
explanations with a view to identifying main trends and patterns in international
relations – hence the claim that they are explanatory theories.
• theories are not ‘optional extras’ or interesting ‘fashion accessories’.
• They are a necessary means of bringing order to the subject matter of International
Relations.
• Theories are needed to conceptualize contemporary events.
• Theories can help the observer to think critically, logically and coherently
• it is possible to understand and interpret the world only within particular cultural and
linguistic frameworks: these are the lenses through which we perceive the world.
• One of the main purposes of studying theory is to enable us to examine these lenses
to discover just how distorted and distorting any particular worldview may be
 2.2 Purpose of theories in International
Relations
• Positivism- explain and predict by reducing the
complexity of reality
• Eg. Neorealism and institutionalism
• Normativism- challenge reality with reference to
normative standpoints/ values and develop
strategies of fundamental global change
• Eg. Feminism and gender equality
• Marxism and class struggle
• idealism and human rights
• offer more or less complete explanatory narratives of diplomacy and IR
• Theories explain the laws of international politics or recurrent patterns of national
behaviour (Waltz 1979).
• Theories attempt either to explain and predict behaviour or to understand the world
‘inside the heads’ of actors (Hollis and Smith 1990)
• Theories are traditions of speculation about relations between states which focus on the
struggle for power, the nature of international society and the possibility of a world
community (Wight 1991)
• Theories use empirical data to test hypotheses about the world such as the absence of
war between liberal-democratic states (Doyle 1983)
• Theories analyse and try to clarify the use of concepts such as the balance of power
(Butterfield and Wight 1966)
• Theories criticise forms of domination and perspectives which make the socially
constructed and changeable seem natural and unalterable (critical theory)
• Theories reflect on how the world ought to be organized and analyse ways in which
various conceptions of human rights or global social justice are constructed and defended
(normative theory or international ethics)
• it is a challenge to understand and explain international
relations, owing to different world views and approaches.
• This is mainly because there are many ways of studying
international relation
• Since international relation is highly controversial, different
theories have emerged in different periods.
• different theories call upon 'facts' in different ways.
• The same facts can tell a number of stories and lead to any
one of a variety of conclusions.
• Hence, theories need to be carefully chosen and their
purposes and limitations carefully identified
 2.3 Types of theories
• Traditionally there have been two central
theories of IR: liberalism and realism.
• Although they have come under great
challenge from other theories, they remain
central to the discipline.
• traditional theories, middle-ground theories
and critical theories
• Steve Smith (1995: 26–7) has argued that there is a
fundamental division within the discipline
• Explanatory and constitutive theory
• Explanatory theories seek to offer explanatory
accounts of International Relations’
• Involved in testing hypotheses, in proposing causal
explanations with a view to identifying main trends
and patterns in international relations.
• constitutive theory gives perspectives which regard
‘theory as constitutive of that reality
• Everyone comes to the study of international relations, with a
specific language, cultural beliefs and preconceptions and with
specific life-experiences which affect their understanding of the
subject.
• Language, culture, religion, ethnicity, class and gender are a few
of the factors which shape world views.
• Indeed it is possible to understand and interpret the world only
within particular cultural and linguistic frameworks: these are
the lenses through which we perceive the world.
• One of the main purposes of studying theory is to enable us to
examine these lenses to discover just how distorted and
distorting any particular worldview may be
 2.4 What do theories of international relations differ
about?

Object of analysis and scope of the enquiry

• Debates about the object of analysis have been especially important
in the discipline since the ‘level of analysis’ debate
• Waltz (1959) argued that three different levels of analysis (or three
‘images’) had been explored in the literature on this subject: (a)
human nature, (b) the structure of political systems and (c) the
nature of the international system.
• Waltz showed how many psychologists have tried to explain war by
looking at the innate aggressiveness of the species; many liberals
and Marxists maintained that war is the product of how some
political systems are organized.
• Liberals maintained that war was the result of autocratic
government; Marxists saw it as a product of capitalism.
• Purpose of social and political enquiry
• Appropriate methodology
• Distinct area of intellectual endeavour
 2.5 Selected Theories of IRs
2.5.1 Realism
• Two terms gave the genesis to the concept ‘realism’. These were ‘real politik’
and ‘raison d’etat’.
• Real Politik is a German coinage which means the power of politics.
• Raison d’etat is a French term meaning the reason of the state.
• It is used to explain an important action for state to take, that is, state’s motive
for an action
• ‘Realism’ is a term that is used in a variety of ways in many different disciplines.
• In philosophy, it is an ontological theory opposed to idealism and nominalism.
• ‘Scientific realism’ is a philosophy of science opposed variously to empiricism,
instrumentalism, verificationism and positivism.
• ‘Realism’ in literature and cinema is opposed to romanticism and ‘escapist’
approaches.
• In International Relations, political realism is a tradition of analysis that stresses
the imperatives states face to pursue a power politics of the national interest
• Political realism, Realpolitik, ‘power politics’, is the oldest and most
frequently adopted theory of international relations.
• The foundations of realist theory lie in the ancient world and extend to
contemporary times.
• In The Peloponnesian War (a war fought in ancient Greece between
Athens and Sparta—the two most powerful city-states in ancient Greece
at the time (431 to 405 B.C.E.). This war shifted power from Athens to
Sparta, making Sparta the most powerful city-state in the region)
Thucydides offers that “the growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm
which this inspired in Sparta made war inevitable.”
• His account of the impact of fear, honor, and interests still dominates
realist thought today.
• The primacy of power or constant search for power among states is the
single-most important element in realist theory
• According to the realist paradigm, nature of
human has important results for the
international politics.
• For realist scholars, human is naturally sinful,
egoist, interest oriented, aggressive and all the
time power seeking in character
• In particular, classical realism depends on the
opinions of Carr and Morgenthau, and explains
the international politics through human nature
• One central area that sets realism and liberalism apart is how they view human nature.
• Realists do not typically believe that human beings are inherently good, or have the potential for good, as
liberals do.
• Instead, they claim individuals act in their own self-interests. For realists, people are selfish and behave
according to their own needs without necessarily taking into account the needs of others.
• Realists believe conflict is unavoidable and perpetual and so war is common and inherent to humankind.
• Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, is known for his famous statement ‘all politics is a struggle for power’
(Morgenthau 1948).
• This demonstrates the typical realist view that politics is primarily about domination as opposed to
cooperation between states.
• Realists and liberals look at the very same world. But when viewing that world through the realist lens, the
world appears to be one of domination.
• The realist lens magnifies instances of war and conflict and then uses those to paint a certain picture of the
world.
• Then, they can paint a slightly different picture of the same world.
• Realists, although they do not reject the United Nations completely, argue that the world is anarchic and
states will eventually resort to war despite the efforts of international organisations, which have little real
authority.
• Generally, realists believe that international organisations appear to be successful when they are working in
the interests of powerful states
• humans are created with negative evil character and has passion and
arrogance
• Morgenthau and Niebuhr among leading post war realists explain IR
with human nature.
• According to them, just like individuals, states also have negative
characters such as interest seeking and aggressive.
• States seek persistently to increase their power and capabilities to the
extent that they can take other states under their control.
• Therefore, in such a structure, war and conflict are normal processes.
• according to realism, states are the major actors of international politics.
• Their interests and the rivalry for getting more powerful, shapes politics.
Multinational companies (MNCs) and international organizations are not
assumed as actors of international politics.
• Realists emphasize the constraints on politics imposed by
human selfishness (‘egoism’) and the absence of
international government (‘anarchy’), which require ‘the
primacy in all political life of power and security’(Gilpin
1986: 305).
• Rationality and state-centrism are frequently identified as
core realist premises (e.g. Keohane 1986: 164–5)
• Realists, although recognizing that human desires range
widely and are remarkably variable, emphasize ‘the
limitations which the sordid and selfish aspects of human
nature place on the conduct of diplomacy’
• Realists accept states as rational actors; that behave in accordance with
certain rules and national interests to realize their objectives and to sustain
themselves through national capacity.
• According to all realists, basic agenda of IR are security issues, thus political
and military issues are primary topics and top issues in the hierarchy among
the topics of the agenda.
• In such a world, for all states maximizing their national interest is the main
objective.
• In order to sustain the state existence, security issues are accepted as high
politics while other issues related to commerce, finance, money and health
are assumed as low politics.
• For realists as noted above, power is always the basic mean to reach the
ends.
• Therefore, power struggle has inevitably been the central subject for IR.
• One of the important premises of realism (particularly neo-realism) is the
anarchical structure of the international system.
• There is no central authority to govern the relations among states. In such
an international environment, naturally providing security becomes the
main concern of states.
• States have to deal with their own security problem that is called as the
rule of “self help”.
• Since all states behave the same way, no state can attain utmost security;
rather feed the insecurity for all states that is called as the security
dilemma (or security paradox).
• Because increasing the military capability of one state to be secure is
perceived by other state or states as a threat, and this leads to an
increase in their own military capability for the same end.
• But the result would be quite opposite for all state
 Assumptions of Realism
• 1. Anarchy – that is, the structure of international system is anarchic characterized by absence of
world government. In other words, there is an absence of world government ruling above sovereign
states.

• 2. Actors – states are the principal and most important actors. state-centric approach. States are key
units of analysis. It is the sole rational actor with the capacity for making – decisions. The state may
be over run by different international organizations and transnational organizations, NGOs, in case of
less interest of states. But there is less probability to be over run in cases of high interest of the state.
• 3. Goals – national interest defines states’ goals. It might be military, strategic and economic. There
might be hierarchies of issues but national interest is always at the top.

• 4. System structure – the whole international system is accounted by the distribution, balance and
hierarchy of power across the various actors in the system.

• 5. Out comes – realists believe that relative gains are more important than absolute gains. Relative
gain means one state will gain and the other loses because every state goes for its national interest
and not for mutual benefit.
• 6. Capabilities – the behavior of a state in the int’l system depends on power capability
• 7. Dominant Issues – Military and related political issues like security
issues are important. There are issues of high politics while economic
and social issues are viewed as issues of low politics. Those with
strong power capability will win in the international system.
• 8. Type of Action - military and diplomacy are the two dominant
types of action.
• 9. International cooperation -realists are pessimistic about
international cooperation. For them cooperation is impossible in
such anarchic international system because all states strive to
achieve their own national interests.
• 10. International Institution - international institutions do not have
the capacity to limit anarchy. And there is no as such super ordinate
authority to rule over state actors.
 2.5.1. 1 structural realism or neorealism
• Conversely, structural realists or neorealists focus on the constraints the international
system places on the decision making of states.
• One of Kenneth Waltz’s basic premises is that the structure of the international
environment is anarchic.
• It lacks a legitimate central authority with the capability to bring order among states.
• Though they differ in size, ideology, power, and wealth, states are similar in that survival
is their main goal.
• Because the nature of the international structure is anarchic, a state’s response is always
one of “self-help.”
• Thus, states try to discern disproportionate advantages from other states and work to
increase their own capabilities or join with other states to balance the perceived
imbalance of power.
• According to neorealism, anarchy and the functional similarity of units are constant.
• The only element that can change is the distribution of capabilities.
• States are similar in the tasks they face, not in their abilities to perform them. States are
“distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks
• For neorealism, why states continuously seek power has
little to do with human nature.
• Neorealism explains why states want more power with
reference to the structure of the international system.
• While classical realism mainly focuses on state leaders and
their decisions, neorealism, by contrast, emphasizes the
structure of the international system that is external to the
actors, in particular the relative distribution of power.
• “Leaders are relatively unimportant because structures
compel them to act in certain ways.
• Structures more or less determine actions”
• Waltz argues that “a system is composed of a structure and interacting units”
(Waltz, 1979:
• Waltz defines political structure on three dimensions: ordering principles, the
character of the units, and the distribution of capabilities.
• According to Waltz, ordering principle implies the organization of authority.
• Unlike in domestic political systems, authority in international systems is
organized horizontally; and hence, the international system is decentralized and
anarchic.
• Therefore, anarchy becomes the ordering principle of the system.
• The assumption that follows is that the desire of the units is to survive.
• In order to survive in this anarchic world, states should take care of themselves.
(Bozdağlıoğlu, 2003: 13).
• In other words, they “must rely on the means they can generate and the
arrangements they can make for themselves” (Waltz, 1986: 108).
• As a result, self-help becomes the ordering principle of action in an anarchic order
• The second element of the system’s structure is the
character of the units. Waltz argues that states in the
system are functionally similar.
• The functional similarity is the natural result of anarchy
because “anarchy entails coordination among a system’s
units, and that implies their sameness
• Under anarchy the most important concern of states is
to survive and all their efforts and actions are directed to
that end.
• States as rational actors will behave to guarantee
survival which will entail their functional similarity
 2.5.2 liberalism
• liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory and is still recognised as such to some
degree today.
• The liberal scholars were also affected by the international circumstances around them such
as the world war first, Cold War or the increasing effects of globalization.
• Many argue that the end of the Cold War marked the triumph of liberalism
• The liberal IR theory that carries forward the basic arguments of the classical liberal theory is
basically concentrated on the individual as the unit of analysis.
• Its proponents view human beings as innately good and believe peace and harmony between
nations is not only achievable, but desirable.
• Immanuel Kant developed the idea in the late eighteenth century that states that shared
liberal values should have no reason for going to war against one another.
• In Kant’s eyes, the more liberal states there were in the world, the more peaceful it would
become, since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and citizens are rarely disposed to
desire war
• Further, liberals have faith in the idea that the permanent cessation of war is an attainable
goal
• In light of the experience of the First World War (1914–1918), the idealists cherished the
hope of avoiding future wars through the establishment of international institutions such as
the League of Nations (Claude 1956).
• Liberals tend to have faith in the capacity of international
organisations
• international organizations are accepted as important agents in
fulfilling the common interests of people and their prospects for
peace.
• International organisations may not be perfect, but they help the
world find alternatives to war through trade and diplomacy (among
other things), which are staples of the liberal account of IR
• Another feature is the faith in the power of human mind and
universal values of liberalism that shall bring global peace.
• Another assumption of the theory is that the political and economic
behaviors cannot be separated from each other, for liberals it is
impossible to categorize them as two distinct issue areas.
• For Liberals, interdependence – mutual dependence on one
another for social and material goods – provides the best
foundations on which we can build a more peaceful world
• liberalism has criticized realism’s inadequacy to explain
international cooperation and argues that the realist analyses are
confined with the limits of narrow definitions of the national
interest.
• The liberal thinkers discuss that international cooperation, just like
conflict, emanates from the anarchic nature of the international
system and argue that IR is an amalgam of conflictual and
collaborative relations.
• Thus, the liberal reading of IR is composed of both conflictual and
cooperative behaviors of states, non-state entities and individuals
 Major assumption of liberalism
• 1. Community of states - norms, laws and international institutions
constrain anarchy so it is possible to limit anarchy.
• 2. Actors – there are multiple actors in international system which are
interdependent up on one another.
• 3. Goals – there is no hierarchy among issues. Power is changeable and can
be replaced by some other issues. So power and security issues do not
usually dominate.
• 4. System Structure – it is multilateral in the sense that multiple channels of
interaction exist among states. There are no power distribution, no hierarchy
of power and no balance of power.
• 5. Outcomes – absolute gains are more crucial and take priority over relative
gains. Absolute gain means both parties gain which is mutually beneficial. So
actors seek mutual benefits for all of them.
• 6. Dominant Issues – are security, human welfare and environmental issues.
• 7. Capabilities – military power is not the sole/single form of
power. Power is not unique and differs from one issue to another.
• 8. Type of Action – human nature is rational and not self –
centered and not egoistic. So, negotiation can be used as problem
solving mechanism.
• 9. International cooperation – idealists are optimistic about
potential for cooperation. Conflicts can be solved by human
nature which is rational, not egoistic. International Institutions
provide ways for the cooperation of people and wars can be
avoided by having different institutions. Basic units of analysis
here are individuals and states.
• 10. Institutions and Regimes: Their existence constrains anarchy
and can serve as the instruments to achieve states common goals.
 The classical liberalism
• can be traced back to ancient thinkers and has
its roots in the Stoic philosophy.
• It was developed as a “political” theory in the
17th century by writers like John Locke whose
philosophical and theological defense of
property rights and religious toleration
inspired other liberal thinkers
• individual freedom and state’s limited role
• John Locke (1632-1704) argued that the state of nature is not a state of war.
• He identified this state as one of freedom and maintained that it is
governed by the law of reason.
• The universally binding moral law on human reason is the law of God. This
is why human beings are assumed to be equal and rational.
• According to the social contract idea advanced by Locke and followed by
others, humans in a natural state of freedom do not necessarily respect
others’ right to freedom.
• This leads them to organize their society so as to secure those rights and
freedoms.
• In this connection, the only way for individuals to surrender their natural
freedoms and become responsible members of their communities is to
form “a civil society by contracting with others” in order to live in comfort,
peace and security
• According to classical liberalism, states ought to be minimal which means that every
issue area except military, law enforcement and other non-excludable goods ought to
be left to the dealings of citizens.
• The main purpose of the minimal state is to watch the fundamental aspects (musts)
of public order and is associated with the laissez-faire (let them do) economics.
• However in time, modern liberalism has become associated with a more active role
for state in economics for a redistribution of wealth and power with the aim of equity
in society.
• In classical liberalism, individual is the main object of study (unit of analysis), not
groups, societies or nations.
• Liberal writers in fact do not idealize the human; however, they trust human
rationality, strength and flexibility of the human mind.
• Besides, the classical writers emphasize the importance of passions and emotions in
explaining human behaviors.
• The moral judgments about right and wrong are largely shaped by impressions and
ideas.
 neoliberalism
• Liberal institutionalism (or institutional liberalism or
neoliberalism) is a theory of international relations that
holds that international cooperation between states is
feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can
reduce conflict and competition.
• Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism.
• Neoliberalism shares many assumptions as neorealism
(namely, that the international system is anarchic, states
are the main actors, and states rationally pursue their self-
interest), but draws different conclusions from those
assumptions
• In contrast to neorealist scholarship which is skeptical of prospects for
sustainable cooperation, neoliberalism argues that cooperation is
feasible and sustainable.
• Neoliberals highlight the role of international institutions and regimes
in facilitating cooperation between states.
• The main reason why international organizations facilitate cooperation
is that they provide information, which reduces collective action
problems among states in providing public goods and enforcing
compliance.
• Robert Keohane argue that the international system could remain
stable in the absence of a hegemon
• Keohane showed that international cooperation could be sustained
through repeated interactions, transparency, and monitoring.
• Neoliberalism concerns itself with the study of how to achieve co-
operation among states and other actors.
• Neoliberals accept that co-operation may be difficult to achieve but argue
that it has been facilitated by growth of international institutions and
international regimes.

• Neoliberalism is premised on liberal assumptions about the possibility of

cumulative progress in human affairs and thus views anarchy, in contrast
to structural realists, as a vacuum which is gradually filled with human-
created processes
• neoliberalism adopts a state-centric perspective, which, like structural
realism, considers states to be unitary, rational, utility-maximising actors.
• It is heavily indebted to the study of rationality and utility-maximization in
economics.
2. 5.3 English School/ The middle ground
• The term “English School” was first coined by Roy Jones in a 1981 article titled as
“The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure”.
• Jones argued that a group of scholars, basically gathered at London School of
Economics, could be taken as forming a distinct school of international relations
and this school could be named as “English School”.
• According to Jones, there were four defining elements shared by the authors of
this school:
1) English school scholars consider International Relations (IR) as an autonomous
subject rather than being a part of (International) Politics.
2) They examine order in the world in terms of the structure of relations between
sovereign nation-states.
3) They have a common style that involves no use of statistics, geometry and
algebra, no rhetoric of world problems, such as poverty and monetary reform.
4) The English School has a commitment to holism in the sense that the whole is
more than the mere summation of its parts.
• first developed at the London School of Economics and Political Science
• The thinking of the English school is often viewed as a middle ground between liberal and realist
theories.
• Its theory involves the idea of a society of states existing at the international level.
• Hedley Bull, one of the core figures of the English school, agreed with the traditional theories
that the international system was anarchic.
• However, he insisted that this does not imply there are no norms (expected behaviours), thus
claiming there is a societal aspect to international politics.
• Many of its theorists accept a good deal of what Realists have to say about power and the
competitive, anarchic character of IR.
• At the same time, they disagree with Realism’s claim that the international system is a free-for-
all, ‘anything goes’ arena
• In this sense, states form an ‘Anarchical Society’ (Bull 1977) where a type of order does exist,
based on shared norms and behaviours.
• Due to its central premise, the English school is often characterised as having an international
society approach to IR.
• This describes a world that is not quite realist and not quite liberal – but rather a world that has
elements of both.
 Characteristics of English School
• Peter Wilson (1989) identified six characteristics of the School:
• 1) a perspective of the whole (holism), in other words, the
view that international relations constitute a whole,
• 2) the idea of international society, the view that international
relations can be conceptualized in terms of a society,
• 3) the existence of order within international relations unlike
the prevalent conception of anarchy or disorder,
• 4) the institutional basis of international order rather than
mechanical or hegemonial/hegemonic imposition,
• 5) rejection of utopian schemes, and
• 6) rejection of behaviourism.
 2.5.4 Constructivism
• Constructivism is another theory commonly viewed as a middle ground, but this time
between mainstream theories and the critical theories.
• It also has some familial links with the English school.
• Constructivism entails a wide range of theoretical perspectives whose common
denominators include “an emphasis on the importance of normative as well as material
structures, on the role of identity in shaping political action and on the mutually constitutive
relationship between agents and structures”
• While all constructivist approaches agree on the definition of structure and the role of
identity in international politics, they mainly diverge on epistemology and methodology on
the one hand and the levels of analysis on the other.
• Unlike scholars from other perspectives, constructivists highlight the importance of values
and shared interests between individuals who interact on the global stage.
• Alexander Wendt, a prominent constructivist, described the relationship between agents
(individuals) and structures (such as the state) as one in which structures not only constrain
agents but also construct their identities and interests.
• His famous phrase ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992) sums this up well.
• Another way to explain this, and to explain the core of constructivism, is that the essence of
international relations exists in the interactions between people.
• After all, states do not interact; it is agents of those states, such as
politicians and diplomats, who interact.
• As those interacting on the world stage have accepted international
anarchy as the defining principle, it has become part of our reality.
• However, if anarchy is what we make of it, then different states can perceive
anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over time.
• International anarchy could even be replaced with a different system if a
critical mass of other individuals (and by proxy the states they represent)
accepted the idea.
• To understand constructivism is to understand that ideas, or ‘norms’ as they
are often called, have power.
• IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change chronicling the accumulation
of the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future. As
such, constructivists seek to study this process.
 2.5.5 Critical theories

• Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have

been established in response to mainstream
• approaches in the field, mainly liberalism and realism. In a nutshell,
critical theorists share one particular trait – they oppose commonly
held assumptions in the field of IR that have been central since its
establishment.
• Thus, altered circumstances call for new approaches that are better
suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find
ourselves in.
• Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that
have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR.
• They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been
marginalised, particularly women and those from the Global South.
 Marxism
• Marx tried to understand how the capitalist society
works, how it arose out of feudalism, and where it is
likely to lead.
• Concentrating on the social and economic relations in
which people earn their livings, Marx saw behind
capitalism a struggle of two main classes: the capitalists,
who own the productive resources, and the workers or
proletariat, who sell their labor force to survive.
• Marxism is basically Marx’s analysis of the complex and
developing relations between these two classes.
• Marx believes that the system of economic production determines the
institutional and ideological structure of society.
• Whoever controls the economic system also controls the political system.
• Each period of history contains clashing forces, or a dialectic, from which
a new order emerges.
• In ancient times, there were patricians, free people and slaves; in the
Middle Ages, there were feudal lords and vassals; and in the capitalist era,
there are capitalists and workers.
• So for Marx, all history, indeed, is the history of class struggle between a
ruling group and an opposing one from which a new economic, political,
and social system emerges.
• Currently, capitalism is the main bondage from which people strive to be
liberated and this will be occurring through the laws of historical social
change.
Marxism -argues that:
• 1. The human nature is motivated by self-interest, egoism and the readiness to
dominate others. Due to this, some get rich at the expense of others and hence
this gives rise to a system of exploitation.
• 2. Classes are more important than society and states. There is nothing as such
like national interest. But states reflect the interests of the dominant/rich class.
• 3. International cooperation among the working class/proletariat will eventually
bring about a just and fair international system where every one equally
benefits. There could not be peace in the world unless the proletariat class
wages proletarian internationalism and seizes power.
• 4. There is no anarchy; rather there is hierarchy in international system. This is
to mean that some states (dominant classes with in them) dominate other
states and peoples of the world. States are u nified but categorized into
different classes that also dominate the international system.
• 5. Economic power is the most crucial power to dominate others.
 Feminism
• Feminism – contends that:
• 1. There is masculine hegemony in the international system. Men not only
dominate the domestic system but also the international system because
they have control over majority of resources, authority and leadership.
• 2. Conflicts and wars are inevitable and there can be no potential for
cooperation in the international system if gender equality is not assured
because men are naturally aggressors.

• There are different strands with in feminism school of thought with some
how conflicting views. One strand is called difference feminism. This values
the unified contribution of women as women. Feminists of such kind
believe that women are potentially more effective than men in conflict
resolution as well as in group decision making. The distinctions between
men and women are not biological, rather they are cultural impositions.
• Another strand, liberal feminism, rejects these claims as being based
on stereotyped gender roles. Liberal feminists believe/see that
essential differences in relations and women’s abilities or
perspectives are trivial or non existent because men and women are
equal. But they believe that including women would not necessarily
change the nature of the international system. They seek to include
women more often as subjects in the study of international system.

• A third approach, also called postmodern feminism tends to reject

the assumptions about gender made by the above two. Where
difference feminists consider gender differences to be important and
fixed, and liberal feminists consider those differences to be trivial,
post modern feminists find them important but arbitrary and flexible.
 Structuralism
• Structuralism- argues that:
• 1. There is hegemony of the North or Developed world over the South
or the underdeveloped world. Unequal and unjust relationships prevail
in the international system.
• 2. The international system is more of hierarchical than anarchical.
Accordingly, there are three broad groups of states with in it namely the
Core (representing the developed first world), the Semi-periphery (also
called second world) and Periphery (typically the under developed).
• 3. Since the Core dominates the international system in general, there is
no potential for international cooperation.
• Although all the three radical schools of thought offer their own
respective premises, all in all they have the following basic
assumptions.
 Basic Assumptions of critical theories

• 1. System structure – they believe that the international system is hierarchical and
characterized by inequality and patriarchy for Feminism, and exploitation for
Marxism and Structuralism respectively.
• 2. Actors – states are transitory (transient) actors that last for a short period of
time. But classes are the most important for Marxists, gender for Feminists and
social movements for Structuralists.
• 3. International system – they assume that global society forms the core of
international relations.
• 4. Goals – goals in international system are determined by the interests of the
classes, genders, etc. Goals are subject to changes and not static.
• 5. Outcomes – absolute gains with no discrimination the bases of sex, classes and
economic statuses are more important than relative gains.
• 6. Capabilities – human potential is a more important power to achieve goals.
While Marxists and Structualists give due focus for the importance of economic
power while Feminists contend that there is a masculine hegemonic control of all
powers in the international system.
• 7. Dominant Issues – issues of low politics like economy, human welfare and identity are
more important than issues of high politics like military/security matters. Economic issues
are important for Marxists and Structuralists and human welfare issues for Feminists.
• 8. Type of Action – radicals believe that there should be a collective action and not an
action taken individually by every independent state. Collective action may remove the
inequality/patriarchy for Feminists and exploitation for Marxists and Structuralists.
• 9. International cooperation – it is impossible to have cooperation at international level
unless the hierarchical, unequal and patriarchal relation ships are eliminated. But there is
still cooperation (horizontal) between or among the different groups, that is, classes (rich
and poor) for Marxists and Structuralists and women of the world for Feminists such
horizontal cooperation also extends to states. Accordingly, the core cooperates with the
core, the Semi Periphery with the Semi Periphery and the Periphery with the Periphery.
• 10. International Institutions and Regimes – reflect the prevailing interest of the dominant
states and groups such as classes and gender. Hence, international institutions can not be
the means for international cooperation and can never limit the hierarchical power
relationships.