The theory of international relations implies the expansion of conceptual theories and frameworks in facilitating the explanations and understandings regarding the phenomenon and developments in international politics, as also the provision of information and analysis as related to practices and policies. It becomes important to study and implement International Relations theories to enable international peace and to avoid future large-scale conflicts. The disciplines of IR were given official shape after World War I to make a meaningful goal in maintaining international peace and harmony. However, the present-day complications in international politics warrant an insight and awareness over a broader range of issues. We also need to conceptualize frameworks and theories to improve our assessment and to help in evolving more effective practices and policies. Different theories of international relations will be examined in this paper and then they will be compared and contrasted to ascertain the best practices in this regard.
Theories of international relations attempt to provide conceptual models based on which analysis can be made of international relations. All theories have their relevance in different international circumstances and rely on varying groups of assumptions. Each theory has its ways to make the reader understand the relevant issues as applicable to the given circumstances. Some theories are rationalist and positivist in focusing mainly on nation-level analysis and some are post-positivist and reflectivist that incorporates extended connotations relating to security factors such as gender, class, and postcolonial conditions.
Realism in International Relations theory makes several assumptions in primarily providing for the nations in being unitary. Nations are assumed to be geographical actors in an anarchic international system without having much authority in influencing the relationship between states in the absence of any understanding to make effective any agreements or collective course of action. Realism also assumes that the primary actors in international relations are the sovereign states without any influence or pressure from other entities such as MNCs and NGOs.
Consequently, states enjoy the maximum power and compete with each other in maintaining their respective securities. According to Jack Donnelly (2000), they act rationally and autonomously in pursuing their self-interests for survival and keeping intact their sovereignty. In making such pursuits, nations will accumulate resources and ultimately the relation amongst states is ascertained by the relative strength that each state enjoys. The strength is in turn dependent on the economic and military capabilities of the states. It is believed by some realists that nations are intrinsically aggressive and that their attempt to gain territories becomes limited only due to the strength of opposing states. Some defensive realists believe that nations are cultural, legal, and social safeguards must be that the state continues with its existence. However, such a defensive attitude can result in security dilemmas whereby opposing nations keep building on their defense resources thus creating ground for instability and a limitless arms race.
Both the theories of International Realism and Liberalism assume the existence of states of anarchy primarily because they also assume that there is no world government, which implies that every nation has to act on its own. Realism stresses the need to predict how a rational nation will behave in keeping with its interests. In this context, if every nation can judge how other nations will react against its actions, there can be a considerable reduction in the number of armed conflicts taking place in the world. Conversely, the Liberalism theory emphasizes ways and means to shun conflicts amongst states by modifying the behaviors of states. Essentially the theory of liberalism centers on international systems and institutions. The theory of liberalism is often compared to the theory of Rousseau whereby his social contract embodies the value attached by states to their freedom, which makes them take action in their self-interest by realizing that if they are in constant conflict with other nations, they lose a part of their freedom. Hence they compromise to some extent on such freedom on their own, thus paving the ground for the creation of international institutions. This way states bargain for their due share of influence in the international arena thus enabling the enhancement of mutual powers. Such institutions make possible regulatory procedures that enable cooperation amongst states in resolving interstate disputes and controversies. Theorists of liberalism get involved with organizations such as the European Union and United Nations (Scott Burchill et al. 2004).
A typical example of the working of the International Liberalism theory was when US President Woodrow Wilson pursued and succeeded in creating the League of Nations after the First World War as an institution that had the potential to resolve international controversies and disputes. Critics of the International Liberalism theory cite the failure of the League of Nations as a major cause for the occurrence of World War II. Nevertheless, it was by using the tenets of the International Liberalism theory that the United Nations Organization and European Union were formed, which are the most successful post-war international institutions. Under liberalism, it is not the capabilities of the state but its preferences that primarily determine its behavior in international relations.
Unlike realism, whereby the state works as a unitary actor, liberalism permits the state to partake in varied actions to achieve given objectives in international relations. Strategies in this regard vary from nation to nation and depend on variables such as type of government, economic system, and culture. Liberalism allows governments to interact not only based on security and political issues but also on cultural and economic matters by using the services of their government functionaries or other commercial organizations and agencies. Instead of relying on a chaotic international system, nations can thus use innumerable opportunities for improving cultural capital and cooperation in several other activities. Most importantly, international peace can be achieved by way of interdependence and cooperation thus enabling absolute gain for all parties.
Idealism was the forerunner of the liberal international relations theory and was used critically by theorists who believed that they were realists. Idealism was initiated by Woodrow Wilson, the American President, and it holds that a nation must transform its internal political philosophy as the main objective for its foreign policies. An idealist strongly believes that reducing poverty within the country should be directly related to making efforts in reducing poverty throughout the world. It was the idealism of Woodrow Wilson which became a precursor for the theory of international relations which would lay the foundation stone for the institution builders after World War II.
There are schools of thought in international relations that have criticized the positivist and post-positivist theories. Constructivism is a positivist theory while the feminist approach differs from both liberalism and realism. The social constructivist theory of international relations provides that communication and social interactions are vital in international relations. Constructivist theorists focus on the notion of cognitive expansion to understand common values and their distribution. This in essence becomes the commencing point for the establishment of value systems which further transform into supportive behaviours in international societies. International cooperation is understood in this framework as a sociological perception which is entirely based on a learning process. Under this approach common interests and values are understood by way of interactive actions which may prove to become common standards. This way identities are established between different segments such as the cooperative projects and programs conducted by different agencies under the direction of the European Union. Gradually the number of such frameworks increase amongst different state and non state bodies which results in the development of common cultural values which further paves the way for globalization in more and more areas (Maja Zehfuss, 2002).
Theorists who attempt to highlight the concerns of gender issues in the studies of international relations are called feminists in IR. It is important in international relations theory to understand that feminism emanates from a reflections school of thought (Annick T R Wibben, 2004). Women play varied roles in international politics and looking at international relations from the women’s point of view, one is forced to wonder about the role of the large number of women who are engaged in the international political system. Feminist scholars have always been concerned about the role of women in framing IR policies and they argue that such policies are mostly prejudiced in being masculine. They also cite the example of how masculine culture within defense establishments has led to the removal of human concerns and emotions. It is evident that feminist beliefs about IR look at the effects of international politics from the perspective of both men and women and how the central ideas prevalent within the systems of IR are entirely gendered. Scholars of feminist beliefs focus on the relevance of gender roles in shaping the present global economies. This ideology became strong during the late 1980s after the end of the Cold War. International relations came to be occupied with larger roles for females in the communities of international policy-making bodies such as the United Nations and World Bank in keeping with the increasing focus on giving equal opportunities to women (Christine Sylvester, 1994).
In the present day world, increasing globalization has led to the end of traditional politics and the decline of the nation state. Changes in work relationships and technology have started to move very fast in having much significance for cultures to react. If nations and individuals are to maintain their identity it is important that cultural, legal and social safeguards are protected for the common benefit of all. Effectually, globalization has made a complicated interconnection between democracy and capitalist societies which entail both positive and negative influences in either empowering or reducing the powers of states and individuals. But global political developments may cause the carefully built frameworks to be destroyed by the action of adopting new styles of living and working as brought about by the application of specific or a combination of international relations theories. The world of today demands a careful examination of the changes occurring in the political, economic, and social life of individuals before a framework of politics and international relations can be adopted in any state. However, every state has to adopt the most feasible system of international relations to ensure its goals from the perspective of security and economic advancement without disturbing the social framework of its people.
In the context of international relations, it is quite evident that most wars happen due to a combination of reasons that have their origins in conflicts over disputes concerning resources, clash of ideologies, and the power struggle. The most common cause for wars over the ages has been conflicting over resources such as energy, minerals, land, and critical geographical features. In the present day world, wars have often been waged due to a clash of ideologies and the struggle to gain the world or regional supremacy. By using practices as provided by the theories of international relations wars can be avoided by finding solutions targeted at making meaningful mutual agreements and settlements to avoid a large-scale loss to life and resources. Today there is a great risk for mankind as a whole due to the looming threat of nuclear war which can be ignited at any time if international disputes are not addressed with responsibility and concern for mankind. Nevertheless, wars can be avoided if the international community cooperates and comes to mutual settlements.
Works Cited
Annick T R Wibben, Feminist International Relations, 2004, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume X Issue 2.
Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, 1994, Cambridge University Press.
Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations, 2000, Cambridge University Press.
Joshua S. Goldstein, Jon C. Pevehouse, International Relations, 2007, Longman.
Maja Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations, 2002, Cambridge University Press.
Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson.
Christian Reus-Smit, Jacqui True, Theories of International Relations, 2005, Palgrave Macmillan.