Theories of International Relations

The study of international relations and its influence on the international community can be best understood by analyzing realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Throughout history, these three approaches have played a crucial role in explaining us the major causes of some devastating wars and politics in the history of mankind. In the following below, the distinguishing characteristics of realism, liberalism, and constructivism will be explained vividly.
Realism is the view that world politics is driven my competitive self-interest. Therefore, relists believe that the decisive dynamic among countries is struggle for power in an effort by each to improve its military security and economic welfare in competition with other countries. Realists believe that nation-states are unitary and geographically-based actors in an anarchic international system with no authority above capable of regulating interactions between states, rather than IGOs, NGOs, or MNCs are the primary actors in international affairs. Thus states, as the highest order, are in competition with one another. As such a state acts as a rational autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own sovereignty and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of its interests, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by relative levels of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state’s military and economic capabilities. Some offensive realists believe that states are inherently aggressive, that territorial expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while defensive realists believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state’s existence.
As realist theory evolved, it split in to two schools of thought based primarily on different views of root cause of conflict. Classic realism is associated with Morgenthau and other realists who are pessimistic about human nature. They believe that political struggle among humans is probably inevitable because people have an inherent dark side. Therefore, classic realists believe that it is foolhardy to trust other countries and their people. On the other hand, Neorealism portrays politics as a struggle for power. It believes that the cause of conflict in the international system is its anarchy.
Whereas realism deals with security and material power, liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism where the state is seen as unitary actor, liberalism allows plurality in state actions. Thus preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. Liberalism also holds that interactions between states is not limited to the political/security, but also economic/cultural whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation. Unlike realists, liberalists reduce the chances of conflict at the international system by following three theories. First, by following collective security theory, liberal states get together to take action against the aggressors. Second, by following the liberal hegemonic theory, unlike the realists, liberals don’t balance against the large powers. Therefore, liberals believe that in the times of great hegemony, the great power will lead the international system by benefiting others. Third, by following the democratic peace theory, liberal states don’t pose any potential threats to other liberals. Therefore, liberals don’t tend to go to war against democracies.
Like realism, Liberalism is also divided into two schools of thought. Like classic realism, classic liberalism is based on its adherent’s view of human nature. However, in contrast to the pessimism of classic realism, classic liberalism is optimistic about human nature. On the other hand, neoliberals agree with neorealist that competition among sovereign states in an anarchical world system causes conflict. However, neoliberals contend that the system is not nearly an anarchical as neorealist claim. According to neoliberals, the system is marked by complex interdependence.
As realism deals with material power, and liberalism looks primary at economic interdependence and domestic-level factors, constructivism most concerns itself with the role of ideas in shaping the international system. Constructivists refer to goals, threats, fears, identities, and other elements of perceived reality that influence states and non-state actors within the international system. Constructivists believe that these ideational factors can often have far-reaching effects and that they can trump materialist power concerns. Constructivists do not see anarchy as the invariable foundation of the international system, but rather argue, in the words of Alexander Wendt, that “anarchy is what states make of it”. Constructivists also believe that social norms, shape and change foreign policy over time rather then security which realists cite.
In conclusion, by examining the information above, we can easily identify the distinguishing characteristics of realism, liberalism, and constructivism. All of these approaches are very crucial in understanding the studies of international relations. By now it is clear to us that while realism deals with security and material power, liberalism focuses on economic interdependence and domestic-level factors, and finally, constructivism deals with social norms and changes in foreign policy rather security.
(2) The 20th century was characterized by three different structures of international power- multipolarity before WWI and WWII, bipolarity in the post war period until 1991, and unipolarity from 1991 to the present. In terms of avoiding Great Power war, which structure is the safest and why? Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. History has shown us that both multipolar and unipolar systems failed to prevent war between great powers. Whereas multipolar and unipolar systems failed, the emergence of bipolar system after WWII succeeded in preventing war between great powers. In the following below, it will be vividly explained, why bipolarity is the safest structure in terms of avoiding war between great powers.
Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic, military and cultural influence internationally and regionally. According to Kenneth Waltz, bipolar system is more stable and thus provides a better guarantee of peace and security than multipolar and unipolar systems. Waltz mentions, with only two great powers, both can be expected to maintain the system. That is because in maintaining the system they are maintaining themselves. According to that view, the Cold War was a period of stability and peace. Waltz further claims that bipolar system is superior to both multipolar and unipolar systems because it provides greater international stability and thus greater peace and security. There are three basic reasons why bipolar systems are more stable and peaceful. First, the number of greater conflict is fewer, and that reduces the possibilities of war between great powers. Second, it is easier to operate an effective system of deterrence because fewer great powers are involved. Finally, only two powers dominate the system; therefore, the chances of miscalculation and misadventure are lower. In short the two superpowers can keep their eye steadily fixed on each other without the distraction and confusion that would occur if there were a larger number of great powers.
History shows us, a bipolar international system evolved during the Cold War period. The Cold War started within a couple of years of the end of World War II as Stalin aimed to turn East Europe into a belt of communist ruled satellites, proved its unfitness as a partner for Roosevelt’s grand design for postwar cooperation. Many feared that Stalin was also getting ready to move beyond East Europe. The Cold War was on as the United States openly stated its opposition to Soviet expansion and took steps to counter it. At the heart of the Cold War conflict, there were two very different world-views held by the two superpowers and their allies. The Soviet Union viewed capitalism as a monster, which, if unchecked, would consume the entire world with hedonistic abandon. On the other hand, the United States viewed communism as an inherently evil mechanism designed to destroy the rights and liberties of all mankind. Both superpowers believed that the other was seeking world domination. Therefore, both superpowers were acting to secure their own survival and security. To do so, they must create a system in which their own power was maximized, while that of their opponents must be reduced.
During the Cold War, even though the bipolar system was a dangerous but in some ways comforting system. West and East blocs watched each other like hawks, constantly looking for opportunities to exploit in the other bloc and guarding against possible attack. It was a tense world, with fingers too close to nuclear triggers. The bipolar system was also seen as a “zero-sum game” in which whatever one player won, the other lost. If the communist bloc stole a piece of the Free World, it won, and the West lost. To prevent such reverses, war was always possible (Korea and Vietnam), even nuclear war (Cuba). Because both superpowers possessed nuclear weapons, though, they always kept their conflicts at arm’s length, fighting by proxy and not directly. Both understood that a direct conflict could quickly turn nuclear, ending both the system and their dominance. Thus the Cold War was a period of peace and stability. Even though the two superpowers had the capability to engage in a devastating nuclear war to achieve dominance at the international system, they realized the consequences.
In conclusion, given the information above, it can be easily determined that where as multipolar and unipolar system failed to maintain peace at the international system, the bipolar system succeed in promoting peace during the Cold War periods. The post 1945 bipolar structure was a simple one that did not require sophisticated leadership to maintain it. The bipolar system realistically reflected the facts of where military power resided during the Cold War periods. The relative simple structure, alliances in this bipolar system tended to be more stable and peaceful than they had been during multipolar and unipolar international system.