International Relations Theories Flashcards

Elements of a Good IR Theory

A good IR theory should be:

• Coherent: Logically consistent without internal contradictions.
• Explanatory: Explains conflict, cooperation, and change in international politics.
  • Realism (R): Focuses on conflict and power. International system is anarchic, states use power to survive.
  • Liberalism (L) & International Society (Inter. Soci.): Focus on cooperation, forming the basis of International Political Economy (IPE).
  • Change explained:
    • Realism: Balance of power.
    • Liberalism: International institutions.
• Predictive: Able to predict future events. Realism, for example, failed to predict the collapse of communism.
• Based on assumptions: About the international system.
  • Realists: System is anarchic; powerful states pursue goals by any means unless balanced.
  • Liberals: Humans are good and want peace; international systems can be governed by law.
  • International Society theorists: Both power and law are important; “anarchical society” with rules and norms.
• Identifies key actors: Answers "Who made this decision?" or "Who benefits from this policy?"
  • Realism: States are the main actors.
  • Liberalism: Individuals and organizations are important.
  • International Society theory: All actors are relevant.
• Explains conditions of peace:
  • Realism: Peace when no alliance is too powerful; imbalance leads to war.
  • Liberalism: Peace through cooperation, institutions, and economic interdependence which make war costly.
  • Constructivists: Consider both Realist and Liberal views, focusing on ideas, norms, and identities.

Paradigms – Elements, Changes, Proponents

Four main classical traditions:

• Realism
• Liberalism
• International Society
• International Political Economy (IPE)

Alternative approaches, especially:

• Social Constructivism (ideas, identity, social meaning).

Realism

Basic ideas and assumptions:

1. Pessimistic view of human nature: selfish and power-hungry.
2. International relations are always conflictual; war settles major conflicts.
3. Focus on national security and state survival.
4. Skepticism about progress; world doesn’t become more peaceful over time.

International system is anarchic; no world government. The state is the most important actor. Agreements are temporary, based on power, not law or ethics.

Two main types:

• Classical Realism: Traditional, moral approach, emphasizing state survival.
  • Thucydides: Studied Peloponnesian War.
  • Machiavelli: Power (lion) and deception (fox) are key.
  • Hobbes: Sovereign states in a permanent “state of nature”.
  • Morgenthau: People lust for power (animus dominandi); politics is a struggle for power.
• Scientific Realism (Structural/Strategic/Neorealism):
  • Schelling: Strategy in foreign policy, especially nuclear threats.
  • Waltz (Neorealism): States behave due to system structure (anarchy and unequal power), not human nature. Leaders are not central; power and structure are.

Liberalism

Basic assumptions:

1. Positive view of human nature.
2. Cooperation is possible.
3. Belief in progress through institutions, democracy, and trade.

Four strands:

• Sociological Liberalism: Transnational connections, not just states.
  • James Rosenau: Individuals, groups, and societies interact across borders.
  • Quote: “Relations between people are more peaceful than those between governments.”
• Interdependence Liberalism: Economic connection reduces war.
  • Trade and modernization increase the cost of war.
  • Proponents: Mitrany, Haas.
• Institutional Liberalism: International organizations reduce conflict and promote cooperation.
  • Proponents: Woodrow Wilson, Robert Keohane.
• Republican Liberalism: Liberal democracies don’t fight each other.

International Society (English School)

Focuses on power and international law. World is anarchic but has a society of states with rules, norms, and shared values.

Main ideas:

1. People and values—like justice and order—are central.
2. States act on power, international law, and diplomacy.
3. World politics is an “anarchical society,” not chaos; it has order, institutions (like the UN), and procedures.

Three traditions in IR thought (Martin Wight):

• Realists (power/anarchy)
• Rationalists (law and institutions)
• Revolutionists (universal morality)

Hedley Bull emphasized commutative justice (fairness in procedures) and distributive justice (fairness in outcomes). Three levels of justice:

• Between states (sovereignty)
• Individual (human rights)
• World (global standards)

IPE – International Political Economy

Studies wealth and poverty; asks: Who gets what and why?

Three classical IPE theories:

• Mercantilism: State power in economics.
• Economic Liberalism: Markets, individuals, and free trade.
• Neo-Marxism: Class struggle, especially between rich and poor nations.

IPE moves beyond war/peace; focuses on economic structures and inequality.

Actors in IR According to Different Paradigms

Realism

• States are only important actors, especially great powers.
• The state is a “black box”; leaders act for survival and power.
• NGOs, MNCs, or individuals have no significant power.

Liberalism

• States are important, but also:
  • International institutions (UN, WTO) help make states follow rules.
  • NGOs, MNCs, and individuals play growing roles.
  • Wealthy corporations can be stronger than some states.
  • Groups like Greenpeace and Human Rights Watch are now active international actors.

International Society

• Focuses on states and their recognition of each other.
• Main actors: statespeople, who engage in diplomacy, trade, spying, treaties, war, and join organizations.
• Other actors (NGOs, corporations) exist, but they are subordinate to states.
• Sovereign states control the world’s territory, so they remain the foundation of global politics.

IPE

• Mercantilists focus on states as economic actors.
• Liberals focus on individuals and private firms.
• Marxists focus on social classes: capitalism vs. working class.
  • The state is seen as a tool of the ruling class, with no independent will.

Realism vs. Utopianism – The First Major Debate

Goal of Early Liberal (Utopian) IR Theory:

• Prevent wars like WWI.

Why Was Early IR Influenced by Liberalism?

• In 1917, the United States joined WWI and helped the Allies win.
• U.S. President Woodrow Wilson promoted liberal democratic values.
• IR as an academic subject first developed in democratic countries.
• In 1918, Wilson introduced his "14 Points":
  • Open diplomacy, reducing weapons, and creating international institutions to protect peace.
  • Influenced the creation of the League of Nations after WWI.

The Utopian View

• Peace is possible if governments follow rational rules, public opinion and moral values influence politics, and international institutions manage global affairs.
• British historian E. H. Carr criticized this view:
  • Too naïve and optimistic.
  • Ignored power struggles between countries.
  • Cooperation isn’t natural; international politics is mostly about conflict and inequality.

Morgenthau’s Realist View

• Human nature itself is selfish, ambitious, and obsessed with power.
• Wars happen because power politics is natural.
• History is cyclical; the same types of conflicts happen over and over because international politics is based on things that don’t change.

Who “Won” the Debate?

• Realism became the dominant theory in IR.
• Carr and Morgenthau were seen as more realistic.
• Liberalism evolved and would come back in later IR debates.

Realism vs. Utopian Liberalism in IR Feature

Progress vs. History in Different Paradigms

• Realism: Skeptical of progress, history as static and cyclical due to anarchic system.
• Liberalism: Cooperation leads to peace and progress; learning from history is essential; believes in modernization.
• Constructivism: Progress is not natural; focuses on how ideas change over time.
• IPE (International Political Economy):
  • Mercantilism: Trade is conflict, no progress through globalization.
  • Marxism: History as series of stages (feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism), progressive through class struggle.
  • Economic Liberalism: Economic cooperation is progress; globalization is positive.
• English School (International Society): Values history, uses history, international law, and political philosophy to understand current international society.

International System

• Tradition of Thought: Hobbesianism (Realism)
  • Based on Thomas Hobbes, human nature is selfish and competitive. States seek power to survive.
• Views on History: Pessimistic / History Repetition
  • History repeats itself: wars, conflicts, and power struggles are inevitable. No progress is expected.
• Core Elements: Anarchy / Power
  • No world government, so international politics is anarchic. States rely on self-help and focus on power and security.

International Society

• Tradition of Thought: Grotianism (Rationalism)
  • Based on Hugo Grotius, states cooperate through shared norms, laws, and diplomacy.
• Views on History: Cautious Progressive Improvement
  • International relations can improve gradually through institutions and law.
• Core Elements: International Interaction / Order
  • Emphasizes diplomacy, customs, and international law.

World Society

• Tradition of Thought: Kantianism (Revolutionalism)
  • Based on Immanuel Kant, a peaceful federation of republics is possible.
• Views on History: Positive / Progress
  • Strong belief in historical progress and the potential for peace and justice.
• Core Elements: Community of Mankind / Justice
  • Emphasizes human rights, cosmopolitan ethics, and global citizenship.

Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Political Realism

1. Politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature; politics can be studied scientifically, as human nature does not change.
2. The concept of interest defined as power: Nations act to secure their national interest by increasing or protecting power. Good intentions can lead to bad outcomes, power politics is crucial.
3. Interest is dynamic: National interest varies over time depending on the political environment.
4. Abstract moral principles cannot be applied to politics: States cannot follow universal moral rules like individuals do; government’s duty is to its citizens, not moral ideals.
5. No identification between national morality and universal morality: States claim their actions are moral to hide national interest.
6. Autonomy of the political sphere: Politics is a distinct area of human activity; realists study power and national interest.

The Four Functions of Force (Robert Art)

1. Defensive: Protect oneself from an attack, includes building defenses or launching a first strike.
2. Deterrent: Prevent an enemy from doing something by threatening retaliation. Based on fear.
3. Compellent: Force an opponent to start or stop doing something. Aggressive; aims to change behavior.
4. Swaggering: Gain prestige or demonstrate power without conflict. Symbolic.

The Anarchic Structure of World Politics – Kenneth Waltz

• No central authority or world government; international politics is anarchic.
• States act independently based on internal needs; form alliances to increase safety or influence.
• States are key actors in trade, diplomacy, military action, and foreign policy; predictable behavior.
• International system lacks formal hierarchy.
• States interact to meet their needs independently.
• Powerful states have military strength, economic resources, and technological advancement.
• Weaker states engage in conflict due to insecurity; stronger states stabilize the system.
• System structure does not change without a shift in power.
• States prioritize self-interest above all else.
• Alliances reduce disorder but don’t erase anarchy; international politics remains disordered until a universal system of rules is created.

Alliances and Bandwagoning – Stephen M. Walt

• Facing a threat, states can balance (form alliances against threat) or bandwagon (join the threatening power).
• Walt calls this the balance-of-threat theory.
• Balancing: A state allies to resist a stronger power.
• Bandwagoning: A state joins with the stronger power.
• If balancing is dominant, aggressive states will be met with resistance.
• If bandwagoning is common, aggressors gain allies and become stronger.
• States balance to prevent a dangerous state from becoming too strong, and to gain influence.
• States bandwagon because it’s easier; if a powerful state seems unstoppable, weaker states join it.
• Power, proximity, military capabilities, and intentions shape the perceived threat.
• If balancing dominates, peace is more likely; if bandwagoning dominates, rivalries grow.
• Intentions can change; bandwagoning depends on hope, balancing assumes caution.

Hypotheses on Balancing

1. When a state feels threatened, it will try to join with other states to resist the threat.
2. The stronger the threatening state is, the more likely other states will unite to balance against it.
3. If a threatening state is very close geographically, nearby countries are more likely to unite against it.
4. If a state has strong offensive military capabilities (weapons meant for attack), other countries are more likely to balance against it.
5. If other states believe a powerful state has aggressive intentions (it seems like it wants to attack), they are more likely to form alliances against it.
6. Alliances made during war fall apart once the common enemy is defeated.

Hypotheses on Bandwagoning

1. When threatened, a state might decide to ally with the threatening power instead of resisting it.
2. The more powerful a state is, the more likely other states are to join it instead of opposing it.
3. If a threatening power is nearby, its neighbors are more likely to bandwagon with it (for protection or fear).
4. If a state has strong military forces for attacking, others may prefer to align with it rather than become a target.
5. If a state seems aggressive, other states might be too scared to oppose it, so they align with it instead.
6. Alliances that were meant to resist a threat often fall apart once the threat becomes very serious.

Hypotheses Favoring Either Balancing or Bandwagoning

1. Balancing is more common than bandwagoning.
2. Stronger states prefer balancing. Weaker states, however, might balance against other weak states but are more likely to bandwagon when a great power threatens them.
3. If a state thinks its allies will support it, it's more likely to balance.
4. If a threatening state is seen as very aggressive and unlikely to change, others are even more likely to balance against it.
5. In wartime, if one side is clearly winning, others are more likely to bandwagon with the likely winner.

Elements of the Structures of International Systems Barry Buzan and Richard Little

• International system began developing as early as 3500 BC.

Basic Features of International Systems:

1. Who the actors are: Sovereign states, non-state actors.
2. Distribution of power: Balanced or unbalanced.
3. Distribution of wealth: Economic gaps.
4. Polarization: Alliance flexibility.
5. The goals of actors: States want to gain land, spread an ideology etc.
6. The tools actors use: Military force, diplomacy, economic pressure, and propaganda.
7. Mutual dependence and vulnerability: How connected states are.

Historical Classifications (according to Pearson and Rochester):

1. Classical system (1648–1789).
2. Temporary system (1789–1945).
3. Post-war system (1945–1973).
4. Contemporary system (since the 1970s).

Classification by Power Distribution:

• Unipolarity: One major power (e.g., Roman Empire, post-Cold War USA).
• Bipolarity: Two major powers (e.g., the Cold War: USA vs. USSR).
• Multipolarity: Many centers of power (e.g., today’s system with the USA, China, the EU, etc.).

Understanding Power

• Power: One actor can make another do something they wouldn’t do otherwise.
• Hard Power: Using force or payments (e.g., military, economic sanctions).
• Soft Power: Using attraction or ideas (e.g., culture, ideology, diplomacy).
• Smart Power: Combination of both hard and soft power.

Anarchy in International Relations:

• International system is anarchic, meaning there is no world government.
• Anarchy by itself doesn’t determine behavior. (Donnelly).

Contemporary Multipolarity:

• Many centers of power exist, creating a multipolar international system.

Security Dilemmas

Hobbes’ Security Dilemma

• Thomas Hobbes described “state of nature” as constant state of war.
• To escape this, people agree to give up some freedoms and form a government/authority guaranteeing security.
• Quote: People are “civilised by fear of death” (Sørensen).
• Explains why sovereign states exist within countries, but not how the security dilemma works between countries.

What the Security Dilemma Really Means in IR

• Action a state takes to make itself feel safer makes other states feel less safe.
• Example: One country builds up its military, other countries respond by building up their own.
• Leads to an arms race where both sides feel less secure, even though no one wants war.

Main Characteristics of the Security Dilemma

1. Term coined by John H. Herz (1950).
2. It happens because there is no world government ,every state must protect itself.
3. Even if a country has no bad intentions, other states might interpret its actions as preparation for attack.

The Security Spiral

• State A builds weapons → State B gets worried and builds more → State A sees that and builds even more.
• Eventually, situation may lead to war because both sides feared each other too much.

Tragedy of the Security Dilemma

• States may start wars even though they want peace.
• Both sides want safety, but mutual fear makes conflict more likely.

Regime Type and the Security Dilemma

• The type of government can affect how intense the security dilemma becomes.

When Two Democracies Face Each Other:

• Dilemma is less severe, reduce uncertainty and build trust
  • Democracies have transparent decision-making
  • They have checks and balances

When Two Autocracies, or a Democracy and Autocracy Face Each Other:

• Mistrust is higher, Security spirals can get out of control quickly.
• Actions are more likely to be interpreted as aggressive.

Key Point from Jervis: No Monopoly of Violence

• No such monopoly exists domestically. Each state must act like its own policeman; uncertainty and fear are dangerous.

Perception and Misperception

• The real problem isn’t just the actions, but how those actions are perceived.

Subjective Security

• Subjective security = how much security a state feels it needs.
• When a state feels very vulnerable, it will respond aggressively.
• When states are geographically protected, they may feel less threatened.

How to Reduce the Dilemma

1. Clear communication. 2. Arms control. 3. Transparency. 4. Agreements & inspection. 5. Different types of weapons

Neorealism – Kenneth Neal Waltz

• Neorealism is also known as structural realism.
• Developed by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics
• Waltz wanted to turn key ideas of classical realism (Hobbes or Morgenthau) into modern scientific language of social science.

Key Claims of Neorealism

• The important force shaping international relations is the structure of the international system:
  1. Anarchy (no world government)
  2. Self-help (states must take care of their own survival)
  3. Distribution of capabilities (power differences among states)

What Makes Neorealism Different from Classical Realism?

1. Methodology: Neorealism uses scientific methods
2. Level of Analysis: Neorealism looks only at the international system.

Key Concepts in Neorealism

• States are “unitary rational actors” aiming to survive and maximize their security.
• All states perform the same basic functions (diplomacy, defense, governance), so they are called functionally undifferentiated.
• Power varies between states, and this power difference affects how states behave.

Structure of the International System

1. Anarchy: 2. Self-help: States cannot trust each other. 3. Distribution of Capabilities: States are ranked based on how much power they have.

Real-Life Behavior of States According to Neorealism

• States tend to balance power.
• They form alliances to protect themselves, but only when it helps their self-interest.
• Even if states are very different inside, they behave similarly in the international system if they are in the same position.

Summary of Waltz's System Structure

Liberalism

Core Ideas of Liberalism in International Relations (IR)

1. Liberalism focuses on individuals and society. Individuals and private groups are main actors which create demands and ideas that affect what governments want.
2. The liberal view of the state. The state represents different groups which pushed to use institutions which lead to governments doing the pushing and making use of government institutions.
3. Preferences shape global outcomes more than power does.Realists believe power and military strength matter most yet Liberals disagree that what states want is more important.

Three Types of Liberalism (from Moravcsik)

1. Ideational Liberalism (based on identity and values). If 2 states share values like Democracy, they are more likely to cooperate.
2. Commercial Liberalism (based on economics and trade). if States trade a lot and benefit form it, they are less likely to war with each other.
3. Republican Liberalism (based on domestic political systems). Democracies avoid fighting each other due to them being transparent, having public checks and approval before war.

Additional Key Points from Zacher & Sorensen

• Progress is possible and they trust to progress gradually over time.
• Cooperation is central to Liberals where institutions suchs add UN,WTO and the EU facilitate state actions.
• Modernization and globalization support liberal peace in that that world becomes more interconnected so war becomes less likely and cooperation become a better alternative.
• Multiple actors matter—not just states: individuals, NGOs, international organizations, and multinational corporations lead to political influence.

What Does Liberalism Focus On?

• Focus on individuals and collectivities of individuals not only on states.
• Liberalism is optimistic in progress and peace through human action.
• War is unaceptable and the goal is to prevent conflict through cooperation.
• Main players include states, corporations and the associations mentioned above.

Human Nature and Rationality

• Because our ability to think and reason, liberalism believes people and countries can avoid conflict in return for mutual cooperation.

Modernization as Progress

• Liberals see the world through modernization and the progress the leads various lifestyles involving relations.

Roots of Liberalism

• based on classical liberalism in the idea that Humans are rational with a belief for freedom,responsivilty and individual rights.

Core Liberal Goals:

• -Peace
• -Prospterity
• -Progress

🏛 Importance of Republics:

• Peaceful international relations are more likely between republics given it is costly and leads to life and deconomic loss.

⚖ Conflict and Mutual Interests:

• These interests can lead to periods of cooporation.

The Three Main Liberal Theses

1. Mutual conflict and cooperation can coexist: Countries can disagree with eachother and still work 2gether.
2. Growth of international cooperation is key, Cooperation minimizes harm and creates ops for prosperous justice and peace prosperity.
3. Modernization is transforming international relations through better cooperation and greater peace.

Components of the Modernization Process Liberalism sees modernization as a process with several key parts:

1. Liberal democracy or republican government
2. International interdependence
3. Cognitive progress
4. International sociological integration
5. International institutions

🕊 Historical Development of Liberal Theory

Enlightenment Roots:

• Used scientific methods to understand politics and connected to christain moral values in reason,freedon for progess.

1rst Variant: Laissez-faire Liberalism:

• View: Government is a necessary evil. originated for liberty but had its downfall in war situations.

2nd variant: Democratic or Interventional Liberalsm:

• Believed government could promote liberals value but had liited international effects.

18th-19th Century Liberalism:

• Believed war and violence were cause of anti-Democratic policies.

🏛 Immanuel Kant’s Contribution:

• Gave theory in most complete form to argue that word peace happens gradually and will occur to more stable forms of governments.

The Role of Preferences in Liberalism

Preferences explain why states act, strategy explain how they act

Liberalism vs. Realism: What's the Difference?

• Realist believe that power and survival are the man power to the world yet Liberalist believe that states cannot have the same amount of wanting.

Moravcsik's 3 Core Assumptions About Preferences:

1. Primacy of Societal Actors- Most important actors are individuals and groups and and not all theories are equal.
2. Representation and state preference which says state preferences are what the state would want but they are not indeoendent and are shaped from political groups and voters.
3. Interdependence and the International System- How state actions affect international relations and and systems.

Why Are Preferences So Important?

• They help explain states affect those with he sam power.

Types of Preferences in Liberalism

There are ideological, commercial and republican preferences.

Preferences Are Not the Same as Strategy

• Preferences are what states want, Strategies are how they try to get it.

What Happens When Preferences Clash?

• It leads to situations of cooperation, conflict and or negotiations.

Preferences Make Liberalism a Systemic Theory

• Liberalist does well to highlight what happens with countries for good or worst.

Institutional Liberalism and Neo-liberalism

🏛 Why Do Institutions Matter in International Relations?

1. To create social order and cooperation. They allow structured behavior with a certain social order that are organized to allow countries to work together
2. To make written agreements between countries( Koromens), These agreements allow states top follow legal obligations and actions in certain cases. They either enforce freedom or ban them.
3. To create cooperation across borders,( Plano and Oiton)- In order for people to work together and build certain cooperation in certain situations.

How Institutions Are Designed (Koremenos et al.)

-Membership- what membership allots for the individuals
-Scope - what topics are covered
-Centrilazation- what decisions are being regulated and how they are managed
-Control - who makes laws and rules?
Flexibility what rules all for and how they are made or executed with ease

🕰 History of International Institutions

-Physical construction happened after WW2.
-Then came the idea that the rules and expectations created needed topic (climate trade and weapons(.
-Institutions grew because of the great need for management for cooperation.

⚖ Neoliberal Institutionalism: What It Believes

Neoliberalism says
states have to cooperate with each other and if they refuse, the institutions help them by being able to
--Lower the cost of making and keeping agreements
--Encourage reciprocity i enforce rules and i expect yu to be as well)
-Making state ehavior more predictable

Important Neoliberal Thinkers

Robert Keohane
Oran Young
-Charles Lipson
Kenneth Oye
Helen Milner
-Lisa Martin
-Robert Axrlrod
-Duncan Snidal

Realist Criticisms (Mearsheimer)

Realists argue that
-Institutions work in low politics (rade heath) but no in war or naiona security
-Power matters more than ruls. Institutions rlect Power not chang it
-Relaive gains re ignored. States want to win more than thers not just imprve themselvs
Insiiuions can be unfair. Powerful saies reale rus and fra athrs to follow

⚠ Institutional Failure: Why Some Don’t Work

Unrealistic cxpcatins They ay even trena saverignly and create dmasic paliical aeklash eg Bresit eu critician

Realist vs. Liberal Views on International Institutions