International Relations

Schools of
Thought
Epistemology and IR theory
IR theories can be roughly divided into one of two epistemological
camps: "positivist" and "post-positivist".

Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural

sciences by analyzing the impact of material forces.

focus on features of international relations e.g.

state interactions,
size of military forces,
balance of powers etc.
Post-positivist, rejects the idea that the social world can
be studied in an objective and value-free way.

central ideas of neo-realism/liberalism, such as rational

choice theory,

on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied

to the social world and that a 'science' of IR is impossible.
 A key difference
positivist theories, post-positivist theories
(such as neo-realism)
focus instead on
offer causal constitutive questions,
explanations (such as for instance what is
why and how power is meant by 'power'; what
makes it up, how it is
exercised)
experienced and how it
is reproduced.
post-positivist theories
explicitly promote a
normative approach to IR, has often been ignored under
by considering ethics. 'traditional' IR as positivist
theories make a distinction
between 'facts' and normative
judgments, or 'values'.
debates between positivists and post-
positivists during the late 1980s and
the 1990s, became the dominant
debate and has been described as
constituting the Third "Great Debate"
(Lapid, 1989).
Positivist theories
Realism

set of related theories of

international relations that
emphasizes the role of the
state, national interest, and
power in world politics.

focuses on state security

and power above all else.
dominated the academic study
of international relations since
the end of World War II.

E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau

argued that states are self-
interested, power-seeking
rational actors, who seek to
maximize their security and
chances of survival.
Cooperation between
states is a way to
maximize each individual
state's security (as
opposed to more
idealistic reasons).

any act of war must be

based on self-interest,
rather than on idealism.

saw World War II as the

vindication of their
theory.
Thucydides, Machiavelli,
Hobbes and Theodore
Roosevelt, are often cited
as "founding fathers" of
realism by contemporary
self-described realists.

However, while their

work may support realist
doctrine, it is not likely
that they would have
classified themselves as
realists in this sense.
Political realism believes
that politics, like society
To improve society, it is
in general, is governed by
objective laws that have first necessary to
their roots in human understand the laws by
nature. which society lives.
The operation of these laws being impervious to our
preferences, persons will challenge them only at the
risk of failure.

Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the

laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of
developing a rational theory that reflects, however
imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws.
It believes also, then, in the
possibility of distinguishing
in politics between truth and
opinion-between what is true
objectively and rationally,
supported by evidence and
illuminated by reason, and
what is only a subjective
judgment, divorced from the
facts as they are and informed
by prejudice and wishful
thinking.
The placement of Realism under positivism is far from
unproblematic however.

E.H. Carr's 'What is History' was a deliberate critique of

positivism, and Hans Morgenthau's aim in 'Scientific Man
vs Power Politics' – as the title implies – was to demolish
any conception that international politics/power politics
can be studied scientifically.
Liberalism
/idealism
/liberal
internationalism

theoretical
perspective based on
the assumption of
the innate goodness
of the individual and
the value of political individuals are basically good
institutions in and capable of meaningful
promoting social cooperation to promote
progress. positive change.
derived from the belief that international progress is
possible, where progress is defined as movement
toward increasing levels of harmonious cooperation
between political communities.
regard violence as the policy of last resort,
advocate diplomacy and multilateralism as the most-
appropriate strategies for states to pursue,
and tend to champion supranational political structures
(such as the European Union) and international
organizations (especially the United Nations).
views states, nongovernmental
organizations, and
intergovernmental
organizations as key actors in
the international system.

States have many interests and

are not necessarily unitary and
autonomous, although they
remain sovereign.

stresses the interdependence

among states, multinational
corporations, and
international institutions.
Hedley Bull have postulated
an international society in
which various actors
communicate and recognize
common rules, institutions,
and interests.
also view the international system as anarchic

since there is no single overarching international authority

and each individual state is left to act in its own-self
interest.
historically rooted in the liberal philosophical traditions
associated with Adam Smith and Immanual Kant
posit that human nature is basically good; and
that individual self-interest can be harnessed by society to
promote aggregate social welfare.

Individuals form groups and later, states. States are

generally cooperative and follow international norms and
arose after World War I in response to the inability of
states to control and limit war in their international
relations.

Woodrow Wilson, Norman Angell,

argued vigorously that states mutually gained from
cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be
essentially futile.
not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was
collectively and derisively termed idealism by E. H. Carr.

A new version of "idealism" that focused on human rights

as the basis of the legitimacy of international law was
advanced by Hans Köchler.

Major theorists include Brede et de Montesquieu,

Immanuel Kant, Robert Keohane, and John Mueller.
Neoliberalism
seeks to update liberalism by
accepting the neorealist
presumption that states are
the key actors in international
relations, but still maintains
that non-state actors (NSAs)
and intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs) matter.

Proponents such as Maria

Chattha argue that states will
cooperate irrespective of
relative gains, and are thus
concerned with absolute
gains.
“absolute gain” theory measures the total effect, comprising
power, security, economic, and cultural effects of an action.

referring to a non-zero-sum game, they suggest that all states

can benefit peacefully and simultaneously by virtue of
comparative advantages (https://www.e-ir.info)

In contrast, the realist “relative gain” theory is single-minded

in weighing the effects of an action towards power balances.

related to zero-sum game, which states that wealth cannot be

expanded and the only way a state can become richer is to take
wealth from another state. ( Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-
Hill.)
means that nations are, in essence, free to make their
own choices as to how they will go about conducting
policy without any international organizations blocking
a nation's right to sovereignty.
contains an economic theory that is based on the use
of open and free markets with little, if any,
government intervention to prevent monopolies and
other conglomerates from forming.

The growing interdependence throughout and after

the Cold War through international institutions led
to neo-liberalism being defined as institutionalism,
this new part of the theory being fronted by Robert
Keohane and also Joseph Nye.
Regime theory
derived from the liberal tradition that
argues that international institutions
or regimes affect the behavior of states
(or other international actors).

Regime, an institution with clear substantive and

geographical limits, bound by explicit rules, and agreed on
by governments. (https://www.britannica.com )

An example of a current regime is the international trade

regime, which includes organizations such as the World
Trade Organization as well as agreements such as GATT.
assumes that cooperation
is possible in the anarchic
system of states, indeed,
regimes are by definition,
instances of international
cooperation.

While realism predicts

that conflict should be the
norm in international
relations, regime theorists
say that there is
cooperation despite
anarchy.
assumes that cooperation
is possible in the anarchic
system of states, indeed,
regimes are by definition,
instances of international
cooperation.
While realism predicts that
conflict should be the norm
in international relations,
regime theorists say that
there is cooperation despite
anarchy.
Often they cite cooperation in
trade, human rights and collective
security among other issues. These
instances of cooperation are
regimes.

The most commonly cited

definition of regimes comes from
Stephen Krasner.

Krasner defines regimes as

"institutions possessing norms,
decision rules, and procedures which
facilitate a convergence of
expectations.“
Not all approaches to regime theory, however are liberal
or neoliberal; some realist scholars like Joseph Greico
have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based
approach to this fundamentally liberal theory.

(Realists do not say cooperation never happens, just that

it is not the norm; it is a difference of degree).
Post-positivist/
reflectivist theories
International society
theory (the English school)

Hedley Bull defined the

international system as being
formed ‘when two or more states
have sufficient contact between
them, and have sufficient impact
on one another’s decisions to
cause them to behave as parts of
a whole.’ (https://www.e-ir.info)
 focuses on the shared norms and
values of states and how they
regulate international relations.

 An international society exists

when a group of like-minded
states ‘conceive themselves to be
bound by a common set of rules
in their relations with one
another, and share in the
working of common institutions’

 is about the creation and

maintenance of shared norms,
rules and institutions.
 Examples of such norms include
diplomacy, order, and
international law.
Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian
intervention

subdivided between solidarists,

who tend to advocate it more, argue for a set of universal
norms and values that need to be enforced by the
international community. (Nicholas Wheeler )

and pluralists,
who place greater value in order and sovereignty. (Hedley
Bull and Robert H. Jackson)
Social constructivism
 not a theory of IR, but is instead
a social theory which is used to
better explain the actions taken
by states and other major actors
as well as the identities that
guide these states and actors.

it is the view that learning

occurs through social
interaction and the help of
others, often in a group.

Social constructivism posits that

the understandings an
individual develops are shaped
through social interaction.
Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Hopf (1998)
calls 'conventional' and 'critical' constructivism. Common
to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the role
that ideational forces play.
The most famous constructivist scholar, Alexander
Wendt noted in a 1992 article in International
Organization (later followed up by a book, Social Theory
of International Politics (1999)), that "anarchy is what
states make of it".

By this he means that the anarchical structure that neo-

realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a
phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced
by states.
 Wendt:
For example, if the system is
dominated by states that see
anarchy as a life or death
situation (what Wendt terms
a "Hobbesian" anarchy) then
the system will be
characterized by warfare.
 actors operate on the
principle of sauve qui peut
and kill or be killed.”
 Hobbes's anarchy “is the true
‘self-help’ system …, where
actors cannot count on each
other for help or even to
observe basic self-restraint.”
 In this case, survival depends
on military power, and when
actor A increases security,
those gains reduce B's
security because B is unsure
of whether A's intentions are
defensive.
If on the other hand anarchy
is seen as restricted (a
"Lockean" anarchy) then a
more peaceful system will
exist.

Anarchy in this view is

constituted by state
interaction, rather than
accepted as a natural and
immutable feature of
international life as viewed
by neo-realist IR scholars
actors play the role of rivals.
relations between them are formed on the basis of the
principles of balance of power, neutrality and conflict
management.
It affects the limitation of their goals in the international
environment.
The rivals create an impression of themselves and others
within the category of violence but they are less threatening
than in the previous type.
Unlike the general representations
of the enemies, rivals expect from
each other to pursue a behavior
aimed at recognizing the
sovereignty and freedom of the
others where the desire for
domination in the international
environment is absent.

Regardless of existing controversies,

the states respect the status quo
regarding the issue of each other’s
sovereignty.

That is precisely the factor which

reduces the risks in security issues.
Critical theory is an approach to social
Critical international relations philosophy that focuses
theory is the application of on reflective assessment
'critical theory' to international and critique of society
relations. and culture in order to
reveal and challenge
power structures.
Proponents such as Andrew
Linklater,Robert W. Cox and Ken
Booth focus on the need for
human emancipation from
States.

Hence, it is "critical" of
mainstream IR theories that tend
to be state-centric.
Marxism

Marxist and Neo-Marxist

theories of IR reject the
realist/liberal view of state
conflict or cooperation; instead
focusing on the economic and
material aspects.

It makes the assumption that

the economy trumps other
concerns; allowing for the
elevation of class as the focus of
study.
Marxists view the international system as an integrated
capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation.

Thus, the period of colonialism brought in sources for raw

materials and captive markets for exports, while de-
colonialization brought new opportunities in the form of
dependence.
Linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory
and the Core-Periphery Model,

argue that developed countries, in their pursuit of power,

appropriate developing states through international
banking, security and trade agreements and unions on a
formal level, and do so through the interaction of
political & financial advisors, missionaries, relief aid
workers, and multinational corporations on the informal
level, in order to integrate them into the capitalist
system, strategically appropriating under-valued natural
resources and labor hours and fostering economic &
political dependence.
receive little attention in the United States where no
significant Socialist party has flourished.

It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the

more important theoretic contributions of Latin
American academia to the study of global networks.
Leadership theories
Interest group perspective

Interest Group theory posits that the driving force behind

state behavior is sub-state interest groups.
Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists,
the military, and the corporate sector.

Group theory argues that although these interest groups

are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in
the exercise of state power.
Strategic perspective
a theoretical approach that views individuals as
choosing their actions by taking into account the
anticipated actions and responses of others with the
intention of maximizing their own welfare.
Inherent bad faith model in
international relations and
political psychology
a theory in political
psychology that was first
put forth by Ole Holsti to
explain the relationship
between John Foster Dulles’
beliefs and his model of
information processing.
"The ability to get to the
verge without getting into
the war is the necessary art."
BRINKMANSHIP
the art or practice of pursuing a
dangerous policy to the limits of
safety before stopping, especially in
politics.
It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent. A state is
presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this
are ignored.

They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness.

Examples are John Foster Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet

Union, or Israel’s initial position on the Palestinian Liberation
Organization.
Poststructuralist theories

Poststructuralist theories of IR
developed in the 1980s from
postmodernist studies in
political science.

Post-structuralism explores the

deconstruction of concepts
traditionally not problematic
in IR, such as 'power' and
'agency' and examines how the
construction of these concepts
shapes international relations
poststructuralists encourage researchers to be sceptical of
universal narratives that attempt to offer an objective
worldview, as these assumptions are heavily influenced by
pre-existing assumptions of what is true – and usually
underlined by the views of those in power.

openly critical of any theory that claims to be able to

identify objective fact – as truth and knowledge are
subjective entities that are produced rather than discovered.
by design, poststructuralism conflicts with the bulk of
other IR theories as it finds them unable (or unwilling)
to fully account for the true diversity of international
relations.
argue that ‘knowledge’ comes to be accepted as such due to
the power and prominence of certain actors in society known
as ‘elites’, who then impose it upon others.

they include government ministers who decide policy focus

and direction for a state, business leaders who leverage vast
financial resources to shape market direction, and media
outlets that decide how a person is portrayed while reporting
a story. https://www.e-ir.info
elites are often also categorised as ‘experts’ within
society, giving them the authority to further reinforce
the viewpoints that serve their best interests to a wide
audience.

Jenny Edkins (2006) uses the example of famines to

show that when elite actors refer to famine as a natural
disaster, they are removing the event from its political
context.
Therefore, the ways that famines occur as a result of
elites taking particular forms of political action,
through processes of exploitation or inaction due to
profits on increased food prices, are lost when they
are presented as unavoidable natural disasters.
Although great emphasis and focus is placed upon
the authority of the elite actors to decide what we
count as valid knowledge and assumptions within
society, poststructuralism asserts that the way in
which this power is achieved is through the
manipulation of discourse.
Discourses facilitate the process by which certain
information comes to be accepted as unquestionable
truth.

Discourses which augment the power of elites are

called dominant or official discourses by
poststructuralists.

The strength of dominant discourses lies in their

ability to shut out other options or opinions to the
extent that thinking outside the realms set by the
discourse is seen as irrational.
Language

poststructuralists, language is one of the most crucial elements

for the creation and perpetuation of a dominant discourse.

Through language, certain actors, concepts and events are

placed in hierarchical pairs, named binary oppositions,
whereby one element of the set is favoured over the other in
order to create or perpetuate meaning.
An example of this can be found in the security versus liberty
debate.

The wish to increase security levels across society – in response

to crime, irregular migration and terrorist threats – has been
presented as a sliding scale whereby if a state wishes to be secure
then the public must endure a reduction in personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms – such as the freedom of expression and

freedom of assembly – have been placed as the limit against
which security exists.
In this discursive construct, then, people are presented
with the choice between a state that respects civil
liberties but is left potentially insecure or a state that
must curb personal freedoms in order to be secure and
protected.

 In practice, the dominant discourse of securing the state

often works to silence any concerns about enhanced state
power.
 An elite programme to restrict civil liberties can be justified to
a society conditioned by the ‘expert’ repetition of this
discourse by appealing to the objective logic it asserts and
discounting all other interpretations.

Therefore, the move to achieve increased levels of security

without the infringement upon personal or civil liberties is
excluded from the argument, as the two are constantly being
positioned in direct opposition to each other.
END of LESSON