INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES
Lecture Notes
International Relations theory requires the development of conceptual frameworks and
theories to facilitate the understanding and explanation of events and phenomena in world
politics. It also involves the analysis and recording of related policies and practices.
The discipline of IR was officially established as a university department during World
War I in 1913, at the University of Aberystwyth in Wales, in order to avoid future mass
conflicts and to ensure peaceful change. Today the scope and complexities of world politics
demand an understanding of a much wider range of issues. Moreover, new conceptual
frameworks and theories are required to improve our understanding and assist in the
development of better policies and practices.
Based on these three major points, the theories of international relations generally attempt
to create a conceptual model upon which international relations and the international system
can be analysed.
IR Theories can crudely be categorised under four headings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Realist approaches to IR;
Idealist approaches to IR;
Critical approaches to IR; and, finally,
Issue / agenda-specific approaches to international relations.
Generally, the Realist theories tend to focus on states and their relations in relation with
power. The power that is connected to this point of view is military and political power, the
ability to convince other agents in the international system to act in favour of your interests.
Realists, since Machiavelli, tend to give enormous emphasis on the coercive forces, in short
military power, of a country. In time, Realist theories developed into Neo-Realism and NeoConservatism.
Idealist or as what it is lately called, Liberal, theories tend to focus on the creation of a
peaceful world by integration –especially economic integration- of countries into the
international system. Idealists generally focus on economic power and political freedoms that
a country possesses. In time, Idealist theories developed into Neo-Liberal theories.
Critical theories are different than the first two because they generally do not ask how a
country or a[n international] system may be successful, but they question whether the theses
of the Realists and Idealists are actually truthful. Constructivism, which is a sub-division of
Critical Theories, for instance, challenges both Realism and Idealism by saying that they both
are “materialistic”, and for instance key issues as “power politics” or “soft power-centres” are
not in the natural environment of international relations, they are not there as a result of a
natural occurrence; but are just “social constructs,” that is, they can be changed by human
behaviour.
Issue or agenda oriented approaches, on the other hand, base their work on a specific
agenda item or a single issue or a combination of very similar issues. Marxism, for instance,
is based on the idea of class struggle and economic relations. Marxist and Neo-Marxist
international relations theories are, in short, positivist paradigms which reject the
realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; and focus instead on the economic and
material aspects. Feminism sees international relations as a gender-specific issue and
develops its theoretical framework on the male-female divide in the society. Hegemonic
Stability Theory works only when there is a dominant state, a hegemon in the international
system. Cosmopolitanism stresses that all human beings belong to an international
community and such concepts as fellow citizens of one country, a homeland, or a regional
culture do not exist.
Consequently, there are various approaches to International Relations in terms of theory.
All of these different groups of approaches, however, unite in their wish to explain the
current situation, in their categorisation of knowledge / of data to reach some generalisations,
and finally in their willingness to make projections and predictions concerning the future of
the international system, of states and their role in the international system, and international
relations.
When we look at the major theories and approaches in IR, two of the above four become
the most often used and hence the most important among the four approaches: These are the
Realist and Idealist/Liberal approaches.
We can see that Realist views generally focus on the preservation of order in the
international system. Therefore, they emphasise on the preservation of the existing system,
i.e., the status quo. That the system doesn’t change is something positive for the Realists.
They can, therefore, be categorised as Conservatives.
Idealists or Liberals, on the other hand, focus on the increase of freedoms and therefore the
evolution of the status quo to a better condition which is beneficiary for all states and
organisations represented in the international system. They are therefore Idealists.
As a result, we can say that when the international system is analysed in relation to power
relations, security related subjects, we use Realist approaches and when it is about freedom of
movement for goods, people, and money, or in general economic issues, it is Liberal/Idealist
approaches that we are employing.
THE AGENT-STRUCTURE DEBATE
Most social sciences, political science, sociology, psychology, and International Relations,
rely on establishing a connection and contact between agencies/agents and the structure. This
relationship can be to describe a relationship between micro and macro levels of analysis,
voluntarism and determinism or individuals and society.
When we look at the international system, there is a Structure and Agents or Agencies.
When we talk about the Structure, what we mean is ‘the sets of factors which together
construct the environment in which individual actors (agents) function. As a result, the
structure shapes the number, content, and possibility of choices the actors/agents can have by
limiting what is possible within the system. Also, when we talk about agents or agencies,
what we mean is actors who are able to make decisions and act in any given context. The
agencies may be single individuals, groups of people, organisations, nations, states, or
supranational organizations like the European Union. All agencies are characterized by
conscious goals.
There is a general agreement among the researchers of International Relations that
international politics is anarchic and that anarchy affects order. The meaning of an anarchic
system is that the states are not subject to a worldwide government, a higher authority who
tells them what they can do and what they cannot do. In International Relations Theories,
there are different explanations for the relationship of anarchy and world order.
Realists see a Hobbesian world starkly divided between peaceful domestic hierarchy and
aggressive international anarchy; Liberals see world politics as more flexible and potentially
peaceful; Constructivists see anarchy as an empty container which can be socially constructed
in various ways; and the English School sees a society of states engaged in and with the
structure, promoting legitimacy, rights, reciprocity and recognition. As a result, for the
Realists, structure determines the actions of the actors; for Liberals, agencies have their say in
the situation, and for Constructivists, there is an interaction between the agencies and the
structure that determines what is happening in the world political arena.
The agency-structure problem in social sciences is named in different ways such as
“individual and society,” “actor and structure,” “part and whole,” “individualism and
holism,” “micro and macro,” “voluntarism and determinism” debates.
In International Relations, conditions change over time due to the changes in existing
world orders, balance of power between states, and the interaction between states, nongovernmental organizations. Since neither structures nor actors remain constant over time,
any social theory has to consider not only the particular changes but also the social change
itself as an essentially dynamic experience, and consider both agency and structure as
variables that are independent from each other.
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
As a result, we have to develop tools to analyse what is going on in the world political arena
and to see the interaction between agencies and the structure more clearly. To this end, in
international politics, we use two important elements which are the Levels of Analysis and
Theoretical Frameworks.
According to Buzan, Jones, and Little (1993), levels of analysis are tools to explain the
system and the question of levels of analysis should arise “in any attempt behaviour within
the system”. The idea of levels of analysis is an abstract construct but is necessary to see how
sources of impact affect behaviour. Levels of analysis as a concept was first used by Kenneth
Waltz in his 1959 book Man, the State, and War and developed by J. David Singer (1961) in
his article and book chapter both titled The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International
Relations (both printed in 1961).
The level-of-analysis issue in the study of international politics and war was raised
initially by Waltz (1959) and Singer (1961). In his 1959 book Man, The State and War,
Kenneth Waltz outlined a classification system based on three layers which could be used to
categorize or characterize all theories of conflict and war. His First-Image Theory explained
state behaviour and international politics from the point of view of the individuals; his
Second-Image Theory explains them as a result of causal developments at the national level
that is made up of state and society; and, his Third-Image Theory argues that outcomes are
governed by international structures.
In 1961, in his article titled “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations”,
Singer (1961) improved on the model constructed by Kenneth Waltz and argued there were
two levels of analysis. Singer argued that the researchers of International Politics should
focus on either the State Level or the International System (Systemic) Level of analysis. He
included the Individual Level as a subdivision of the State-Level system. When these two
approaches are analysed, it can be seen that Kenneth Waltz chose to approach the issue of
‘levels of analysis’ in terms of war explanations drawn from the analytic levels of the
individual, the structure of separate states, and the structure of the system of states. On the
other hand, Singer's discussion was focused on the two levels of the state and international
system, with the explanatory level of the individual merged within the state level.
In time, the Individual Level of Analysis which focuses on individual decision-makers
who can be a single person or a group (e.g. a cabinet of ministers or a group in the
bureaucracy) emerged as a different level of analysis rather than being a part of the state
system. These levels of analysis are typically “used to explain the foreign policy behaviour of
states –the dependent variable” and explaining the behaviour of the state “could entail taking
into account factors at all of these levels of analysis.
In his book International Politics KJ Holsti (1988) argues that any model, conceptual
framework or framework of analysis is crated to help improve understanding of the field by
ordering facts and concepts into some meaningful shape. Laura Neack (2008) believes the
choice of the level of analysis depends on how much clarity the researcher wants in their
work. The complexity of the study may require a combination of levels of analysis as each
level limits one’s understanding as it answers some questions. However, it may leave some
other issues in question. One level of analysis may not hold all the answers to all the
questions about issues in international politics. Nuri Yurdusev distinguishes between levels
of analysis and units of analysis, and, claims that there are three logical units of analysis
which are a 1) a single individual as the actor, 2) groups made up of different actors, and 3)
universe or humanity as an actor that covers everything. Even as the researcher choses more
than one unit of analysis, all units fall into one of these categories.
In sum, levels of analysis can be described as “the different aspects of and agents in agents in
international affairs that may be stressed in interpreting and explaining global phenomena,
depending on whether the analyst chooses to focus on “wholes”… or on “parts””. At the
moment, in general, there are three levels of analysis that are described. These are:
1. The Individual-Level Analysis,
2. The State-Level Analysis, and,
3. System-Level Analysis.
The Individual - Level Analysis looks at the decision-makers as it is based on the view that
it is people who make policy. It involves the human decision-making process. According to
Neack, states speak with one voice in the international affairs and in this context; the focus is
on individual leaders who make decisions on behalf of their countries. In making foreign
policy decisions, cognitive factors such as using heuristic devices or seeking cognitive
consistency; emotional factors; psychological factors; biological factors ethology and gender;
and perceptions play their role at this level. It can be said that the personality, perceptions,
choices and activities of the individual decision-makers are the subject of this level of
analysis. The reason this level of analysis is crucial to understanding international
developments is that people make foreign policy; scholars might look at the roles of different
leaders; influential individuals in the bureaucracy or in power positions in politics or
economy may influence the final decisions of the leader of a country. For instance, individual
level of analysis can explain the start of the Second World War by analysing the role of Adolf
Hitler in the events leading to war or it may look at the role of George W. Bush to make
conclusions about the Global War on Terrorism in the 2000s. It may evaluate different parts
of the Cold War by studying Stalin, Kennedy, or Gorbachev and the bureaucratic circles that
affected their decision-making processes. This level of analysis also includes cognitive
theories which explain foreign policy by analysing how leaders perceive the world.
The State-Level Analysis focuses on a larger scale than individual level of analysis.
Policy-making has to take place in the context of a political structure and the most important
of the political structures is the state. The political structure, political forces, and subnational
actors within a country lead their government to adopt one or another foreign. The state-level
analysis contains the authoritative decision-making units that govern foreign policy processes
of countries and the internal attributes of these countries. These shape and limit the leaders’
foreign policy choices. At this level, type of government, the situation in which the decision
is to be made, political culture, political actors and bureaucracies and the links between them,
interest groups, voters have inputs and affect the final foreign policy decision. According to
Laura Neack, analysis at the state level involves examining different features of a country to
see which of those factors shape its foreign policy. Neack argues that this level of analysis is
the one that most directly borrows from the perceptions of comparative politics and regional
area studies. The focus at this level is what takes place within states that ultimately has an
impact on what takes place between states.
The System-Level Analysis, on the other hand, focuses on the “external restraints on
foreign policy,” and studies social-economic-political-geographic characteristics of the
international system and how these characteristics influence the actions of countries and other
actors in the international arena. The international system is a state-centric system has a
horizontal authority structure and therefore is anarchical. As a result, scope, level, and
intensity of interactions among the actors, power relations among the actors, and economic
realities play a major role at this level of analysis. According to Laura Neack, the principal
aim of analysts using this level is to get “outside” national borders in order to discuss the
interactions of states with other states, transnational actors, and within international
organizations.
As the levels of analysis problem is part of the larger agent-structure debate in
International Relations, there are other levels of analysis proposed by different theoretical
approaches such as the Classical Marxist class-level analysis or the gender-level analysis of
the Feminist Theory of International Relations.
REALISM
CLASSICAL & NEOCLASSICAL REALISM
Realism is possibly the oldest of all approaches and schools of thought related to the field of
International Relations. Realism explains international relations in terms of “power”.
Therefore, usually the realist approach is named as Realpolitik or power politics. The Realist
school is based on the views of Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes on human nature,
that is, they are pessimists on human nature and believe that each person will use others to
reach his/her goals, that is, people are in fact selfish. Power in this context, can be understood
as “the ability to make another actor do what it would not have normally done.” So, the main
idea behind Realism is that “actors in the international system are as powerful as their ability
to affect others more than these others affect them.”
The first Realist can be seen as the Chinese philosopher and strategist Sun Tzu who lived
in the 5th century before Christianity. Sun Tzu claimed that when confronting armed and
hostile neighbours, moral reasoning was not useful for state rulers. He developed theories
concerning the use of power to improve their positions. About a century later from Sun Tzu,
the Greek philosopher and historian Thucydides wrote the chronicles of the Peloponnesian
War. Thucydides famously argued that “the strong do what they have the power to do, and
the weak accept what they have to accept.” In the end of 15th century, the Florentine
philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli argued in his most famous work The Prince that a prince,
or a ruler, has a difficult task as he must stabilize his power and build a lasting structure. This
task may require the Prince to do things of an evil nature in order to achieve the greater good.
The Prince is the first book that doesn’t define an ideal state or an ideal sovereign.
Machiavelli just explains with examples which princes are the most successful in obtaining
and maintaining power. He uses personal observations and from history. The book’s central
argument is "the ends justify the means": any evil action can be justified if it is done for a
good purpose. However, because Machiavelli placed a number of restrictions on evil actions,
his arguments were not unethical. Again, the 17th century English philosopher Thomas
Hobbes argues with his famous maxim “homo homini lupus,” that any “man is a wolf to
another man.” Hobbes argued that a strong monarchy can create order.
However, the modern Realist views only emerged in the 19th century, when nation-states
became the norm in European politics. Especially after the German Unification of 1871, the
foreign policy of German Chancellor Bismarck which is called Realpolitik can be seen as
the application of Realism in the modern sense of it for the first time. The practice of many
states after World War I until today show a tendency to follow Realist point of view.
Basically, Realism has four major assumptions:
1. Human beings are selfish, interest-maximising creatures; human nature is not positive.
2. International relations are basically and necessarily conflictual and international
conflicts are generally resolved by war.
3. National survival and each state’s security are above and beyond all other matters. And,
finally,
4. Unlike domestic political life, there cannot be progress in international politics, because
there are no superior agencies that regulate the international system.
In the 20th century, the most important Classical Realist thinker was Hans J.
Morgenthau who believed men and women have “will to power”, and that international
politics isn’t any different from domestic politics in that respect. Morgenthau wrote in his
1965 book Scientific Man Versus Politics that “Politics is a struggle for power over men, and
whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring,
maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action.” Morgenthau
also believes that there is an animus dominandi, a human lust/craving for power, which
dictates a search for both relative advantage over others and a secure political space in which
a person can enjoy his life free from outside political pressures. The animus dominandi
eventually brings men and women into conflict with each other and that creates the
framework for power politics which is at the heart of all Realist thinking. So, Morgenthau
argues just like Machiavelli that there should be different sets of moralities, one for the
private sphere, and the other for the public sphere. Political ethics can be used to do some
things that cannot be accepted nor forgiven by private, personal, social ethics.
Therefore, it is safe to say that Classical Realists believe that the main component of
politics is power; and that the goal of power, the means of power, and the uses of power are
the main preoccupations of the Realist approaches to international relations. Realists also
have a very important view: the international system is an anarchical society, that is, the
international system has no dominant authority, there is no world government to arrange the
international system. As there is no higher authority, they say, the state is the supreme actor
in the international system. All other actors, that is to say, IGOs, NGOs, civil society
organisations, aid and relief organisations and all others, are either less important or
unimportant in and for the international system. According to the Realists, the main point of
foreign policy is to protect and defend the interests of one’s state in international politics.
However, they also believe that states are unequal because there is an international hierarchy
of power amongst states: at the top, there are the Great Powers and the core of international
relations, according to the Realists is the power struggle between these great powers for
domination and security.
Consequently, the normative, standard-setting core of realism is national security and state
survival. States, in a Hobbesian tradition, are considered as essential for the good life of their
citizens, therefore the main aim of foreign policy should be the defence and improvement of
national interest. Concomitantly, as each state is to pursue the improvement of its own
national interest, no other country or government can be trusted.
If we look at Morgenthau’s Neoclassical Realism, we can see general patterns emerging:
Morgenthau’s Concepts of Neoclassical Realist Statecraft:
Human Nature
Political Situation
Animus Dominandi
Power Politics
Political ethics (avoiding risk, etc.)
Self-interest
Political Power
Human needs (security, etc.)
Political circumstances
Political Skills
Political Conduct
National Interest
Balance of power
During the 1950s and 1960s, social sciences were transformed by what is known as the
Behaviouralist Revolution. Behaviouralism is an approach in political science which aims to
provide an objective, quantified approach to explaining and predicting political behaviour,
taking its model from natural sciences, trying to apply the methods of natural, quantitative
sciences to social sciences. This changed the way people approached social sciences and
hence to IR, as well. The last important Classical/Neoclassical Realist thinker is Thomas
Schelling who wrote in 1960s till 1990s. Schelling’s idea of realism is called Strategic
Realism which mainly focuses on foreign policy decision-making. According to Schelling,
when state leaders face diplomatic and military problems, they have to think strategically and
actively to be successful. Schelling tried to provide tools for strategic thinking. Schelling saw
diplomacy and international relations of great powers and especially of US, as a rationaloperational activity which can best be understood by applying a form of logical analysis
named the “game theory”. Schelling argues in his book The Strategy of Conflict (1960), that
diplomacy is simply bargaining in which both involved parties seek an outcome which would
not be ideal for each side but will be far better than some of the alternatives such as waging
war. With enough military force, a country may not need to bargain at all.
NEOREALISM / STRUCTURAL REALISM
Kenneth Waltz is the creator, the major advocate, and the leader of the next and newest
stage of Realism which is called Neorealism. The idea of Neorealism is based on Strategic
Realism of Schelling. Neorealism has two major branches which can be labelled as Defensive
Realism and Offensive Realism. The main difference between the Neorealists and the
Classical, Neoclassical, and Strategic Realists is that the Classical Realists think of power,
as Morgenthau does, as an end, as a goal to be reached. However, Neorealists see power as a
means, as something to use to reach their goal, and their main goal is the survival of the state.
Kenneth Waltz tried to explain in his famous books Man, the State, and War (1959) and
Theory of International Politics (1979) that human nature and political ethics in order to
create a “scientific theory of IR”. His approach is heavily influenced by positivist economic
models. Waltz believes that a scientific IR theory will help us understand how states will
behave, and the best way to do it is the neorealist systems theory. This theory focuses directly
on the international system, its components and their interactions, as well as the continuities
and the changes in the system. While classical realism focuses on leaders and their intentions,
Neorealism focuses on the system itself.
STRUCTURES AND OUTCOMES IN WALTZ’s NEOREALIST THEORY
INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURE
INTERNATIONAL OUTCOMES
[state units and relations]
[effects of state competition]
International Anarchy
Balance of Power
States as “similar units”
International competition
Unequal state capabilities
International conflict; war
Great Power relations
International change
There is no central authority, so there is no hierarchy. However, there are differences among
different kinds of anarchical systems in terms of stability. A bipolar system as in the Cold
War period is more stable than multipolar systems as in the Interwar Period.
Neorealism is built on five main assumptions. These assumptions are:
1. States are rational actors. They generally come up with reliable strategies which
maximise their expectations for survival.
2. The main goal of any state is survival. States aim to maintain their territorial integrity
and the autonomy of their domestic political system. These two always come before
other goals.
3. All states own some offensive military capability. Each state can harm its neighbours to
a degree, and surely this capability changes from state to state and in time.
4. A state can never be certain about the intentions of other states. One can never know if
a state in the system wants to change, alter, the existing balance of power and hence is a
revisionist state or whether they are happy with the current balance of power, hence is a
status quo state. Intentions are only in the minds of decision-makers, and even if we can
understand a state’s position at present, we cannot be sure of its future position; so, one
can never be sure about the intentions of any state at any given time.
5. Great Powers are the main actors in world politics and they operate in an anarchical
system. The outcome of any international event and how the world system is shaped are
issues directly related to the situation of the Great Powers that exist at any time. The
number of and the balance of power between the great powers affect the world system’s
construction, the rules and values that are seen as valid in the international system at that
time, and how lesser powers manage to act. As a result, the main actors are the great
powers as all other states and all other, lesser, actors have to act according to the needs
and wishes of the great powers.
These five requirements of the Neorealist system lead to a series of new areas of study.
The existence of an anarchical international system and an unsaid need for balancing in the
system lead to sub-branches of the Realist worldview. For example, Herz’s and Glaser’s
theories of security dilemma states that most of the steps a Great Power takes to ensure its
security leads to the increased insecurity of others, and so limits other states’ positions. The
threatened states do whatever they need to do to stop this change, and this leads to a security
competition.
PRISONERS’ DILEMMA AND SECURITY DILEMMA
The above-cited Neorealist assumptions lead to the idea that states cannot be sure of what
their neighbours and/or competitors are going to do. As a result, they stay face to face with a
dilemma called the Security Dilemma. It is based on the Prisoners’ Dilemma of Game Theory
which is generally used in Economics and Management. However, the Prisoners’ Dilemma is
the most widely used Game Theory scenario in International Relations. The Prisoners’
Dilemma is this:
Two people are arrested because of a crime. They are taken into two separate interrogation
rooms, so one doesn’t know what the other will do. The prosecutor gives them three options:
 If both do not speak at all, if both stay silent, they both leave without any punishment.
 If one of them remains silent and the other confesses to their crime, the one who remains
silent is sentenced to 25 years in prison.
 If both confess to their crimes, they both serve 10 years in prison.
Even though what serves their best interest is to remain silent, they cannot be sure of their
partner’s position and don’t want to go to prison for 25 years. So, they choose the second best
option and begin to confess, hence making sure they will be in prison for 10 years instead of
not talking and walking free.
States, like these two prisoners, face a dilemma. Just like in the Prisoners’ Dilemma, a
state faces three options because it is a rational actor which wants to guarantee its survival
and security. The options for a state are these:
 It can trust its neighbour and not spend any money on buying arms and strengthening its
armed forces, and so can its neighbouring state;
 It can choose not to trust its neighbouring state and spends money on strengthening its
armed forces while its neighbour doesn’t do that;
 It can spend money on strengthening its armed forces while its neighbour also spends
money on strengthening its armed forces.
If the state in this scenario remains weak while its neighbour becomes stronger, it faces a
possible war and annexation by its neighbour. If it spends too much, it would provoke the
neighbouring state and start an “arms race” which would decrease the state’s resources and
which may lead to an even more terrible war. If they both don’t spend on armament, they can
spend on more rational areas such as improving education, industrial infrastructure,
strengthening educational and medical sectors. However, because there is no trust, every state
faces a Security Dilemma in which it has to choose the best option for itself: Will it help its
nation but risk their security and the state’s survival, or will it help its armed forces to secure
survival but risk industrial, educational, cultural development and improvement? This
question, according to Neorealists, is answered only one way: The state has to –and doeschoose its survival over development because state’s survival is the most important thing in
the world.
DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE REALISM
Both Schelling’s Strategic Realism and Waltz’s Neorealism were parts of the Cold War
political environment. They were aimed at understanding and explaining that unique
international system problem. However, after the end of the Cold War, some aspects of these
theories seemed not too reliable in explaining the international system. So, in 1993, John
Mearsheimer tried to improve the Neorealist argument with his article titled “Back to the
Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” and applied Waltz’s argument to both the
past and the future. He claims that Waltz was right to describe only two systems, Bipolar and
Multipolar and asks the question what is to happen if a Bipolar world system is replaced by a
multipolar system. His answer is that instability will grow and lead to violent conflicts.
Mearsheimer sees the Cold War as an agent which transformed a very violent region like
Europe to a peaceful region. He famously claims that “the West has an interest in maintaining
peace in Europe. It therefore has an interest in maintaining the Cold War order, and hence has
an interest in the continuation of the Cold War confrontation; developments that threaten to
end it are dangerous.”
However, as the two groups of Neorealism differ from each other in general, they are now
seen as two sub-branches of Neorealism. The Waltz school is named now as Defensive
Realism and Mearsheimer’s school is named as Offensive Realism. The Defensive Realists
believe that it is unwise for states to try to maximise their share of world power because if
they attempt to gain too much power, the system will punish them. Offensive Realists, on the
other hand, claim that it makes good strategic sense for a state to gain as much power as
possible and if the situation is right, to try to become the system’s hegemon, because to have
overwhelming power ensures survival.
Defensive Realists like Kenneth Waltz, Barry Posen, Jack Snyder, and Stephen van
Evera claim that states should not maximise their power because if any state becomes too
powerful, balancing will take place just like in the examples of Napoleonic France, and Nazi
Germany. According to defensive realism, when a great power invades another country, it
brings more trouble than benefits, e.g., US and Iraq. These basic facts should be apparent for
all states in the international system and should limit their appetite for more power. If not,
they would threaten their own existence. Offensive Realists such as John Mearsheimer and
DC Copeland think otherwise; they think that yes, there is an attempt to balance the
aggressive states, but the balancing is generally not enough and so, the aggressor states may
benefit from this inefficiency. Both sides agree that nuclear weapons have little utility for
offensive purposes except the cases when only one side of the conflict owns them. Offensive
realists expect that the great powers will always look for opportunities to gain advantage over
each other.
In the 21st century, the Realist doctrines seem to have problems due to three major problems
in world politics that contrast with the Realist worldview. These problem areas are:
The War against Terror: According to Realism, all other actors except the state are
unimportant or, at least, not very important. However, the international environment is hugely
affected by non-state actors such as the Al-Qaida terrorist organisation. So, the states of the
world are facing a threat from a non-state actor and the Realists have no means to develop a
meaningful relationship for terrorism in the international system. Some try to use Samuel P.
Huntington’s “clash of civilisations” concept as a general cover to connect not only states but
non-state actors, but the Realist theory is not very strong in this point.
Globalisation: Due to globalisation, goods, people, money and information flow from one
state to another far more freely than at any previous time in human history. As a result,
globalisation reduces the strength of the states as the major actors of international relations
and sometimes it limits their sovereignty on their own territories.
Failed States: The concept of “failed state” became important in the studies of IR in the last
decade. These states have names, borders, even administrations, but they lack the power
associated with normal functions of state. For instance, Chad, Iraq, and Rwanda are failed
states: They cannot exercise authority and rule of law over their citizens, they cannot collect
taxes, they cannot provide services that a state is expected to provide for its citizens such as
health, education, roads, safety, etc. So, the failed states are a problem that challenges the
Realist school of thought.
In recent years, the major debate in Neorealist circles is the NATO expansion issue. Some
as Christopher L. Ball look at it as spreading the stability towards the East, and that the
prime objective is regional security. Those who argue against NATO expansion as Michael
McGwire claim it will threaten Russia and therefore cause greater insecurity. When we look
at both sides, we see that they both operate within the same realist arguments but have
different judgements on the issue. Those who are in favour seem to be more on the
Classical/Neoclassical Realist line who favour moral responsibilities and other classical
arguments and those who oppose are Neorealists.
LIBERALISM (Idealism)
Idealism, or Liberalism as it is widely called now emphasizes different features of world
politics from non-governmental ties between societies to organised cooperation between
states, but the different branches of Liberalism unite in three basic assumptions. The
three basic assumptions that Liberalism is based on are:
1. Human nature is positive;
2. International relations can be cooperative instead of conflictual; and,
3. We should believe in progress in human nature, in the state system and in the
international system.
The Realists are pessimists. They don’t trust human beings thinking their nature is bad,
they don’t trust other states because the main aim of a state should be to maximise their
national interests and they believe in conflict. The Idealists (Liberals) are optimists.
Liberalism first emerged in the second half of the seventeenth century, with John Locke.
However, it gained speed with the Industrial Revolution, when progress was the magic
keyword for the society. Industrialisation created new norms of living for all parts of the
society, new social classes were born, and all of a sudden everything began to change.
The Classical Liberal philosophers, beginning with John Locke, saw great potential for
human progress in the modern civil society and capitalist economy. Locke thought that both
the civil society and the capitalist economy might succeed in states where individual liberties
were guaranteed. For Locke, unlike the Realists, a state exists only to improve the liberty of
its citizens so that they could live their lives and pursue their happiness without interference
from other people. Locke claimed that Modernity meant a life without an authoritarian
government, and with much higher material welfare. From Locke on, liberals began to think
that state is a constitutional entity, not an instrument for power. A state must establish and
protect the rule of law and must respect its citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and property.
The Industrial Revolution made Locke’s ideas reach other parts of Europe and North
America and in time, the people who we call the Enlightenment Thinkers such as Adam
Smith and David Hume became convinced that human rationality and reason were keys to
everything. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Utilitarians led by Jeremy
Bentham even developed a way of calculating the best life for the society based on the
concept of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people in the society.” Bentham
also claimed that constitutional states should respect each other and invented the term
“international law” and wrote that each state should abide by the international law because it
is to the rational interests of states to follow international law in their foreign policies.
In the second half of the nineteenth century the German philosopher Immanuel Kant
came up with ideas that can be considered as the roots of the current varieties of Liberalism.
Following Bentham, Kant believed that constitutional states must respect each other and
constitutional and mutually respectful states could at the end establish “perpetual (lasting)
peace” in the world. Kant’s main contribution is the “democratic peace” doctrine. Kant
believed that wars did not start because the international system forced wars on nations, but
because domestic problems led governments into war.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
GENERAL FOCUS: Cooperation, peace, progress
John Locke (1632-1704)
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Constitutional States
International Law
Progress
Toleration of all
Reciprocity among states
Perpetual Peace
Liberalism actually has two major branches: Rationalist and Constructivist Liberalism.
RATIONALIST LIBERALISM
CONSTRUCTIVIST LIBERALISM
ACTOR-CENTRED
Liberal Intergovernmentalism
Constructivism
Utilitarian Liberalism
Ideational Liberalism
Two-level Games
STRUCTURE-CENTRED
Rationalist Democratic Peace
Interdependence Theories
Constructivist Democratic Peace
theories
Modern Liberalism, that is, Liberalism after World War II, may be divided into these
categories: 1) Sociological Realism; 2) Interdependence Liberalism; 3) Institutional
Liberalism; 4) Republican Liberalism.
1. Sociological [Pluralist] Liberalism: They believe that the Realists are wrong when they
assume IR is a sum of state-to-state relationships. Instead, Sociological Liberals believe that
IR is about transnational relations, i.e., relations between people, groups, and organisations
belonging to different countries. Relations between people and between NGOs are more
cooperative and more supportive of peace than relations between governments. Karl Deutsch
is a prominent scholar of Sociological Liberalism. Deutsch argued in his book Political
Community and the North Atlantic Area (1957) that a high degree of transnational ties
between societies led to peaceful relations which would benefit both sides and that is far
more important than the absence of war, because it leads to integration and to a sense of
community so, no-one would want to use violence to find solutions to their problems. In his
book World Society (1972), John Burton proposed a “cobweb model” of transnational
relationships; that is, each segment in any given society such as religious groups, schools,
businesses, worker’s groups, each have different foreign relations on their own. Burton
claimed that Realists tried to show each state as a billiard ball while they were cobwebs. As a
result, he and other Sociological Liberals believe that mutually beneficial cooperation is far
preferable for nations than antagonistic conflict. James Rosenau developed Burton’s model
further and tried to analyse transnational relations both in the macro level of human
populations and in the micro-level of individuals. Rosenau believes that individual
transactions are now far more important than ever and states’ capacity to control their citizens
is rapidly decreasing. So, he argues that the state-centric and anarchic system is evolving
towards a multi-centric world which also has elements that are free from states’ control.
2. Interdependence Liberalism: The Interdependence Liberalism is based on the
assumption that when two nations depend on each other, peace will rule. Interdependence
means mutual dependence. People and governments are affected by the actions of their
counterparts in other countries, so a higher level of transnational relations means greater
interdependence. Also, when Modernization increases, interdependence increases, as well.
Basically, what Interdependence Liberals argue is that a high division of labour in the
international economy increases interdependence between states and that high level of
interdependence discourages and reduces violent conflicts between states. According to
Richard Rosencrance, War happens in less developed countries because these states only
reached lower levels of economic development and therefore these states are not integrated
enough to the world economy. Hence, in these countries, land ownership and agriculture
continues to be the dominant factor of wealth and production.
David Mitrany (1966) set up a theory of integration during World War II, and argued that
greater interdependence in the form of transnational ties between countries can lead to peace.
He believed that cooperation should be arranged by expert technicians, not by politicians. It is
the main idea behind the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
which led to the formation of the EU.
Ernst Haas developed the neofunctionalist theory of international integration in 1958,
developing Mitrany’s ideas. Haas claimed that integration cannot be achieved by neglecting
politics; instead, integration can be achieved by increased cooperation of self-interested
elites. When cooperation begins, cooperation in one field leads to cooperation in another field
and becomes stronger. This process is called the ‘spillover effect’.
In 1977, Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye wrote Power and Interdependence. They
argued that previously, use of military force in conflicts between states was an option,
because the ‘high politics’ of security and survival came before the ‘low politics’ of
economics and social affairs. However, with the new level of integration the World was
experiencing since the 1960s, this was no longer the case. They called this new situation
Complex Interdependence. They claimed that firstly, relations between states are now
different than before because they are no more the limited relations just between state leaders,
but relations are far more complex and include many other layers of the society. Secondly,
military force is less useful as an instrument in international relations. As a result, IR is
becoming more like domestic politics, with different issues creating different coalitions and
different levels of conflict, and in most of these issues, military power is irrelevant. So,
leaders and countries now have to deal with “low politics” of economics and social matters,
and wars are therefore even less likely to take place. In this new environment, states will have
more focus points in their foreign policies and NGOs and international organisations will
have greater control in the international politics.
3. Institutional Liberalism: Institutional Liberalism is based on the idea that international
organisations are influential and work for the good of humanity. American President
Woodrow Wilson believed that international institutions would change international politics
from a “jungle” to a “zoo.” They believe that international organisations are very important,
and they can promote cooperation between states.
They define an international institution as either independent international organisations
such as the NATO or the European Union or as a set of rules which administers state action
in a particular area. These sets of rules are called “regimes” and generally operate with an
international organisation that oversees the set of rules’ application. For example,
international trade regime is overseen by the World Trade Organisation (WTO); the
international maritime (sea) regime is overseen by the Law of the Sea Conference of the
United Nations Organisation.
Institutional liberals claim that international institutions help promote cooperation between
states and the extent of this cooperation is analysed in terms of depth and scope. To analyse
depth, commonality, specifity, and autonomy of the issue at hand are analysed. Commonality
is the amount of shared beliefs in appropriate behaviour and understanding on how to
interpret a problem; specifity is the degree these beliefs turn into forms of rules; and finally,
autonomy is the degree of independence of the organisations to change their working rules
without the interference of states from outside the organisation. The scope is calculated by
counting the number of different issues an organisation may deal with.
In short, for Institutional Liberals, international institutions:

Create a flow of information and opportunities to negotiate with others for each state;

Enhance the ability of governments to monitor the compliance of other governments
with some rules or a set of rules (e.g. Kyoto Accord), and to put their own
commitments into operation; and,

Strengthen expectations about the solidity of international agreements.
4. Republican Liberalism: The Republican Liberals believe that liberal democracies are
more peaceful and law-abiding than any other political system. The main idea is not that
democracies never go to war; they do; but it is that democracies do not fight each other. This
idea is based on the idea of “perpetual peace” by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century.
However, it is used again in 1964 by Dean Babst in an article printed in the journal
Wisconsin Psychologist and later in 1972; in Industrial Research with the title “A Force for
Peace” and many others followed his lead. Michael Doyle wrote in his article “Kant, Liberal
Legacies and Foreign Affairs” in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1983 that democracies do
not fight with each other. He presented three reasons: Firstly, in a democracy, domestic
political culture is based on peaceful conflict resolution; and the voters will not support a
government which would declare war. Secondly, democracies share a common set of values
that lead to the formation of a peace zone based on democratic moral values. And thirdly,
peace between democracies is strengthened by economic cooperation and interdependence.
Among different liberal models of today, Republican Liberalism is the most normative,
the most value-based. The Republican Liberals are optimists; they believe in progress and
therefore to the coming of a time when war will not be a reality.