CHAPTER -TWO

Major Theories of International

Relations

Hagos Gemechu (PhD)

1
Key concepts for chapter two

2
Key Concepts For chapter Two: International Security

• Anarchy: A state of society without government or law. Political and

social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
• Security Dilemma: Refers to a situation in which actions by a state
intended to heighten its security, such as increasing its military strength
or making alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar
measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when
no side really desires it.
• Problems of Credible Commitment: A commitment problem is a
situation in which people cannot achieve their goals because of an
inability to make credible threats or promises.
3
 Key Concepts For chapter Two: International Security…

• Deterrence: It is s the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from

offending. Deterrence is often contrasted with retributivism, which holds
that punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime and should be
calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done,
• Corpulence: It is the situation in which an actor ceases or reverses actions
because the costs imposed by other actors are or will soon outweigh the
gains of those actions.
• Mutual Assured Destruction: (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and
national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by
two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of
both the attacker and the defender
• Just War Theory: (jus bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a
tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers,
and military leaders.

4
 Theories of IRs

Why theories for IRs?

5
 Why Theories for IRs?
 A theory of IRs is a set of ideas that explains how
the international system works.
 Unlike an ideology, a theory of IRs is (at least in
principle) backed up with concrete evidence.
 Most theories of IRs are based on the idea that
states always act in accordance with their
national interest, or the interests of that particular
state. Why??? Argue/discuss

6
 Theories of IRs…………..

What are the major State interests?

7
 Theories of IRs…………..

State interests often include:-

- self-preservation, Why???
- military security, Why???
- economic prosperity, and Why???
- influence over other states Why???
How???

8
 Theories of IRs...
The two major theories of IRs are the following.

1. Positivist Theory
2. Post-Positivist Theory

9
 Theories of IRs...
1. Positivist Theory
 Positivism refers to the existents of absolute knowledge in both natural and
social sciences.
 Positivist theory can be explained through the following sub- theories or
elements
1. Realism
2. Liberalism
3. Idealism
4. Neo-liberalism
5. Regime

10
1. Realism

11
 1.1 Realism
1.1. Realism
 According to realism, states work only to increase their own power relative
to that of other states.
 Realism, above all things, focuses on state security and power mainly
military power.
 In other words, realists believe that essentially nations are simply looking
out for themselves and that in order to survive, a nation must be strong.
 For the early realists:-
– States are self-reliant and power-seeking .
– power is the only tool to influence international arena
 For realists, the world is a harsh and dangerous place.
 In this harsh and dangerous world the most important and reliable tool is
power, mainly military powers.

12
 1.1 Realism….
 Why is power the only thing that matters?
 Human nature
 Anarchic world: no rules
 For realists, the international system is defined as anarchy-
the absence of a central authority
 In such anarchic system, State power is the key to promote
and protect national interests.
 Realists maintain that in order to ensure survival, States
must maximize their power relative to others
 Do you agree this idea? Why? Why not?

13
 1.1 Realism….
 States are key actors & determine rules of game
 Inter-state relationships are based on selfish human
nature
 National interests realized by maximizing power
 Security is a function of power. Argue/discuss
• Dominant approach among scholars/practitioners; has faced
increasing challenges in recent years
• Claims to deal with world “as it is” rather than as one would
wish it to be (“idealists”)

14
 1.1 Realism….
– States as primary actors. Why????
– States focus on maximizing power and/or security,
placing interests above morality. Why????
– Pessimism about cooperation, IGOs, and
international law; guard state sovereignty against
supranational authority. Why???
– Emphasis on state-to-state relations over domestic
conditions within foreign countries
 1.1 Realism….
• Realists are interested in conflict management, but are less
optimistic about the effectiveness of international laws and
organizations.
• They also are not very optimistic about the extent of international
cooperation. Why????
• Realists view international relations almost exclusively as a
“struggle for power” among competing nation-states.
• Nation-states, like human beings, have an innate/inborn desire to
dominate others.
• To Realists, the ultimate goal of all countries is security in a hostile,
anarchic environment. Why????
 1.1 Realism….

• Realist policies are determined by power calculations in

pursuit of national security.
– Countries satisfied with their situation tend to pursue
the status quo.
– Countries that are dissatisfied tend to be expansionists.
– Alliances are made and broken based on the
requirements of “realpolitik."
 1.1 Realism….
• Realists focus on military strategy, the
elements of national power, and the nature
of national interests more so than on
international law and organization.
• From World War Two, they learned that the
way to prevent future wars was a “balance of
power” capable of deterring would-be
aggressors or on a “concert of powers”
willing to police the world.
 1.1 Realism…
• Human rights concerns have no
place in foreign policy unless
they happen to coincide with the
national interests.
Realism- origins and thinkers

20
Key thinkers of realism
Key thinkers of realism:
– Thucydides,
– Hobbes,
– Morgenthau,
– Waltz,
– Mearsheimer and,
– Machiavelli
 Realism- origins and thinkers

• Thucydides 1972 [400 BC]

– Premise:
• Justice only exists between equals
– Prescription:
• Strong do what they will, weak suffer what they must.
• Hobbes 1909 [1651]
– Premises:
• Men are equal, which leads to diffidence (suspicion), which
(along with competition and glory) leads to war
– Prescription:
• Submit to central authority
• Without central authority, man is in a state of war (no peace)

23
 Realism- origins and thinkers …
• Classical Realism: Morgenthau 1948
• Premises
– Objectivity: World is separate, can be observed,
relatively constant
– National interest is defined as power
• Analysis
– 1st Level: Man desires power (control of man over
man) as an end
– 2nd Level: Some states better than others at
balancing (not democracies)
– 3rd Level: Consider the interests of others
• Prescriptions
– Minimize risks, maximize benefits, balance power
24
 Realism- origins and thinkers …
Structural Realism I (Neorealism): Waltz 1979
• Premises
– Ordering principle: Anarchy (vs. Hierarchy)
– Character of the Units: States treated as
functionally identical, rational, seek survival
– Distribution of capabilities: Material
• Analysis (3rd level)
– States will balance against each other
– States will be concerned with relative power gains
– Bipolar systems more stable than multipolar ones
• Prescriptions
– States try to maintain status-quo: Defensive
Realism 25
 Realism- origins and thinkers …

 Machiavelli was an Italian Philosopher in the

1500s that believed effective leaders and nations
use deceit and violence as tools against other
states. He believed you had to be brutal at times to
succeed and deal with conflicts decisively.

26
 Realism- origins and thinkers …

Structural Realism II (Neorealism): Mearsheimer 2001

• Premises
– Anarchy
– Effective Offense
– Intentions are uncertain
– Own Survival
• Analysis (3rd Level)
– Fear: Other states are deadly enemies
– Self-Help: No subordination of interests
– Power Maximization: Only way to be secure (Means, not End)
• Prescriptions
– States are all revisionist except hegemon: Offensive Realism

27
1.2 Liberalism

28
 1.2 Liberalism

1. 2. Liberalism
 Liberalism developed in the 1970s as some scholars began arguing that
realism was outdated.
 It emphasizes that the broad ties among states have both made it difficult to
define national interest and decreased the usefulness of military power.
 Increasing globalization, the rapid rise in communications and the increase in
international trade meant that states could no longer rely on simple power
military to decide matters.
 Early liberalists like Woodrow Wilson argued that States mutually gained
from cooperation and that war was so destructive to be essentially futile.
 A new version of Liberalism focuses on human rights as the basis of the
legitimacy of international law.

29
 1.2 Liberalism…..

• Emphasizes that connections

among nations make it difficult
for nations to make decisions
that do not effect other
nations.
• The belief is that there are
consequences to nations acting
alone and not with regard for
others.
 1.2 Liberalism…
Liberalism claims the following
1. The world is a harsh and dangerous place, but the consequences of using
military power often outweigh the benefits.

2. Military power is not the only form of power; Economic and social
power matter a great deal too.

3. Exercising economic power has proven more effective than exercising

military power.

4. Different states often have different primary interests.

5. International rules and organizations can help foster cooperation, trust,

and prosperity.
So, security is the function of cooperation
31
 1.2 Liberalism…..
 Liberalism can be explained by the following Example.

– Relations among the major Western powers fit a model of complex

interdependence very well.
– The US has significant disagreements with its European and
Asian allies policies, but US has not been using military power
against any of these allies.
– Instead, the United States relies on economic pressure
and incentives to achieve its policy aims.

32
Liberalism- origins and thinkers

33
 Liberalism- origins and thinkers

• Hobbes 1909 [1651]

– Premises: State of Nature is War
– Prescription:
• Central Authority leads to commerce, internal peace
• Locke 1824 [1689]
– Premises: State of Nature is Peace, Violations cause War
– Prescription:
• Central Authority stops retribution cycle
• Kant 1917 [1795]
– Premises: State of Nature is War, Nations natural units
– Prescription:
• Republican (rule of law) Constitutions
• Interstate Trade
• International Organizations

34
 Liberalism- origins and thinkers…

(Classical) Liberalism: Doyle 1983

• Premises
– Treat others as ethical objects, with freedoms, representation, and
participation
– This can be applied to the international system as well
– Four institutions: Juridical equality, representative government,
private property rights, economy shaped by supply and demand
• Analysis
– 1st Level: Regular rotation of office
– 2nd Level: Individuals who rule the polity bear costs of wars;
states act more rationally; commerce and trade pacifies.
– 3rd Level: International law
• Prescriptions
– Promote trade, democratization, organizations

35
 Liberalism- origins and thinkers…

Liberal Institutionalism (Neoliberalism) : Keohane 1998

• Premises
– Cooperation is possible, but states need help
– Depends on factors other than material power
• Analysis (3rd Level)
– Institutions Reduce:
• Uncertainty of intentions
• Transaction Costs
– Institutions Increase:
• Shadow of the future (multiple plays, value of the future)
• Transparency
• Prescriptions
– More institutions!

36
1.3 Idealism

37
 1.3 Idealism
1.3 IDEALISM
 Idealism is a specific school of liberalism that stresses the need for states to pursue moral
goals and to act ethically in the international arena.

 Idealists believe that behavior considered immoral on an interpersonal level is also immoral in
foreign policy.

 Idealist believes that nations should pursue moral goals and act ethically in international
politics.

 They oppose the use of deception and violence in politics.

 Therefore, idealists argue that dishonesty, trickery, and violence should be shunned.
 Power is not the only thing that matters
 States have common interests and common values
 Trade is the key common interest

38
Idealism thinkers

39
 Idealism thinkers

Believes that nations

should pursue moral
goals and act ethically
in international politics.
They oppose the use of
deception and violence
in politics.
How do Realism and Idealism differ?

41
How do Realism and Idealism differ?...

42
How do Realism and Idealism differ?...

43
 1.4 Neo-liberalism

1.4. Neo-liberalism
 Neo-liberalism seeks to update classic liberalism by accepting the
presumption that States are the key actors in international relations, but
still they maintain that non-state actors also matter.
 Neo-liberals emerged in the 1980s as a response to classical liberalism and
they believe that the UN and other international institutions can play an
important role in resolving conflicts and wars in the globe.
 This means that nations are 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.
 Neo liberalism also contains an economic theory that is based on the use of
open and free markets with little, if any, government intervention to prevent
monopolies.

44
 1.4 Neo-liberalism…
Neo-liberalism
 States are important but not the only actors
 Human nature is not selfish & fitted by democracy
 Key feature of International system: interdependence
 Order emerges by interactions b/n governance methods,
law, norms, regimes & institutional rules
 Security is a function of integration

45
 1.5 Regim theory
1.5. Regime Theory
 Regime theory is derived from the liberal tradition that argues
international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states or
other actors.

 Regime theory assumes that cooperation is possible in the in the

international system.

• While Realists predict that conflict should be the norm in the

international relations, Regime theorists say that there is cooperation
despite the existing of anarchy.

• Often regime theorists cite cooperation in trade, human rights and

collective security among other issues.

46
 2. Post-positivist theories
2. Post-positivist theories
Under post-positivist theories, there are five sub theories.
2.1. International society theory
2.2. Constructivism theory
2.3. Critical Theory
2. 4. Post-structuralist theories
2.5. Marxist theory

47
 2.1 International society theory
2.1. International society theory
 International society theory focuses on the shared norms and values of
states and on how they regulate international relations. Examples of
such norms include diplomacy, order, and international law.

 International society theory focuses particularly on humanitarian

intervention, and is subdivided between solidaritists, who tend to
advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value on order.

48
 2.2 Constructivism
2.2. Constructivism
 According to this theory, nations are not all alike, they
have differences. This is because of the construction of:-
• Political culture of each nation shapes its nature and direction of
foreign policy
• Form of government shapes foreign policy
• History shapes foreign policy
• Domestic political trends of a nation shape
foreign policy

49
 Constructivism- origins and thinkers

Constructivism: Rousseau 1913 [1755]

• (A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality)

– Premises
• State of Nature is peaceful and lacks morality
• War is created through civilization
– Prescriptions
• Social reform, collective state with “General Will”

50
 Constructivism- origins and thinkers…

(Structural) Constructivism: Wendt 1992

• Premises
– People act towards other actors on the basis of their understanding of
those actors (collective meaning)
– Actors acquire (relational) identities by participating in collective
meanings
– Identities are the basis of interests
– An institution is a relatively stable set or structure of identities and interest
– Self-help is such an institution
• Analysis (3rd Level)
– Anarchy is what states make of it:
• Competitive (Hobbesian)
• Individualistic (Lockean)
• Cooperative (Kantian)
• Prescriptions
– States should act based on how their actions reinforce structures

51
 2.3 Critical theory
2.3. Critical Theory
 Critical international relation theory is the application of
'critical theory' to international relations.

 Proponents of this theory focus on the need for human

emancipation from States.

 Hence, it is "critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend

to be state-centric.

52
 2.4 Post-structuralist theories
2. 4. Post-structuralist theories
 Post-structuralism explores the de-construction of concepts
traditionally not problematic in IR, such as 'power' and
'agency' and examines how the construction of these concepts
shapes international relations.

 The examination of 'narratives' plays an important part in

poststructuralist analysis (example feminist poststructuralist
work has examined the role that 'women' play in global
society and how they are constructed in war as 'innocent' and
'civilians‘)

53
 2.5 Marxism
2.5 Marxism
 International politics takes place in capitalist
economy

 Key actors are not states, but classes

 All interests are analyzed on class conflicts

 Order is economic interests of international

capitalism

 Security is a function of class struggle

54
Reflection and Sharing
 • Reflection and Sharing

– What is your first memory of major theories of

IR
MMajor Theories of International Relations
f International Relations
End of chapter two

57