IR Theories
Contrasting Views on Sovereignty & National Interests - The September 2017 speech by US President Donald Trump and the September 2016 speech by US President Barack Obama encapsulate divergent philosophies on international relations and global governance.
President Trump's Perspective (2017):
Emphasized a nationalist approach, prioritizing the importance of strong, independent, and sovereign nations.
Focused on mutual respect among diverse countries while asserting national interests as primary.
The term "sovereignty" was used 21 times, underscoring a commitment to state autonomy and non-interference.
His rhetoric suggested a skeptical stance on supranational institutions and a preference for bilateral agreements over multilateral ones.
President Obama's Perspective (2016):
Advocated for increased international cooperation, integration, and the strengthening of global institutions.
Warned against the dangers of retreating into divisions based on nation, tribe, race, and religion, promoting a more interconnected worldview.
His address highlighted the necessity of collective action to address shared global challenges like climate change, poverty, and terrorism, implying that some aspects of sovereignty must be pooled for the common good.
These two contrasting perspectives highlight fundamental competing notions of how international relations should be conducted: one prioritizing national sovereignty and self-interest, the other emphasizing global cooperation and shared responsibility.
Realism
Definition of Realism
Definition: Realism, also termed power politics or realpolitik, is a theoretical framework that focuses on the acquisition, maintenance, and exercise of state power as the primary driver of international relations. It posits that states operate in an anarchic international system where self-help is paramount.
Power Types:
Hard Power: Refers to tangible military and economic capabilities that a state can use to coerce or induce cooperation from other states. Examples include sophisticated military technologies (e.g., tanks, planes, warships, missiles), a large standing army, and economic sanctions or incentives.
Soft Power: Encompasses the ability to influence other states through attraction and persuasion, rather than coercion. This influence typically stems from a country's culture, political values, and foreign policies (e.g., popular cultural exports, democratic values, economic innovation, or diplomatic leadership).
Central Questions of Realism
What accounts for order and stability in international relations, given the absence of a global authority?
How does international order deteriorate, and why does it break down into conflict or war?
Historical Underpinnings of Realism
Realism emerged largely from European historical experiences characterized by recurrent wars, shifting alliances, and security dilemmas, which highlighted the persistent struggle for power among states.
Examples of historical conflicts include:
Thirty Years War (1618–1648): A devastating religious and political conflict that ultimately led to the Treaty of Westphalia, which institutionalized the modern state system based on sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815): Demonstrated the dangers of hegemonic ambition and led to the formation of the Concert of Europe, an early attempt to manage security through great power cooperation.
World Wars (1914-1918, 1939-1945): Global conflicts that challenged notions of progress and peaceful international relations, reinforcing the realist belief in the inevitability of conflict and the importance of national defense.
Realism has been profoundly influenced by the historical realities of imperialism and brutal power struggles. The British Empire, with its vast global territories and formidable naval power, perfectly exemplified how a state could project its influence worldwide through a combination of hard and soft power, securing economic resources and strategic advantages.
View on International Organizations (IGOs)
Realists are generally pessimistic about the capacity of international organizations (IGOs) to genuinely constrain state behavior, fundamentally alter the anarchic nature of international politics, or prevent interstate war. They see IGOs as epiphenomenal, meaning they are secondary to state power.
While many significant IGOs were formed in the aftermath of major wars with the explicit aim of preventing future conflicts, realists argue they are limited by state interests:
Congress of Vienna & Concert of Europe (post-Napoleonic Wars): Aimed to restore the balance of power and prevent future hegemonic wars in Europe.
League of Nations (post-World War I): Created to promote international cooperation and peace but ultimately failed to prevent World War II due to a lack of enforcement power and the prioritization of national interests by major states.
United Nations (post-World War II): Established to maintain international peace and security, but its effectiveness is often seen as reliant on the political will and cooperation of its most powerful member states, particularly the permanent members of the Security Council.
From a realist perspective, IGOs are viewed primarily as extensions of the interests of powerful states. They reflect existing power distributions and serve as tools through which dominant states promote their values, norms, and strategic goals, rather than acting as independent entities serving a genuine collective good.
Philosophic Roots of Realism
Thucydides (ca. 460-401 B.C.)
As a historian of Athens, Thucydides meticulously analyzed power dynamics and the causes of conflict among city-states in his seminal work, The Peloponnesian War.
His The Melian Dialogue stands as a classic illustration of realist thought, demonstrating how the relative power of states dictates the terms of justice and morality in international relations. Athens, the powerful state, explicitly told the Melians, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Key lessons for realists:
The principle of "might makes right" often prevails in an anarchic environment.
Powerful states dictate terms in disputes, while weaker states have fewer options.
Alliances are considered viable only if credible and if they serve the self-interest of the member states; otherwise, they can expose smaller states to vulnerabilities.
Niccolò Machiavelli (A.D. 1469-1527)
In The Prince, Machiavelli provided advice on how political leaders could acquire and maintain state power, often at any cost. His work is a guide to pragmatic, ruthless statecraft.
Advocated for the strategic use of violence, deception, and cruelty for political survival and stability, arguing that a ruler must be prepared to act immorally if it serves the interests of the state.
Famously posed the question: "Is it better to be loved or feared?" and concluded that being feared is superior, as fear provides a more reliable basis for control and obedience in a turbulent world.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
His masterpiece, Leviathan, depicts human nature as fundamentally selfish, competitive, and driven by a perpetual desire for power, which, in the absence of a strong sovereign, leads to a "state of nature" that is a "war of all against all" (bellum\ omnium\ contra\ omnes).
Advocated for a strong, centralized, and absolute sovereign authority to prevent chaos and ensure domestic order, extrapolating this idea to international relations.
Introduced the concept of anarchy in international relations, characterizing it as a dangerous state without a powerful global government to enforce rules and mediate disputes, thus forcing states into a self-help system where they must rely on their own capabilities for survival.
Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831)
A Prussian general and military theorist, Clausewitz's On War famously declared that war is not merely an act of policy but "a continuation of political activity by other means." He emphasized that military power is a rational instrument for achieving state goals and political objectives.
His work underscores the instrumental role of military force in statecraft, highlighting that military strategy and tactics must always be subservient to political aims.
Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804)
A key American Founding Father, Hamilton argued for strong economic nationalism. He believed that a robust and self-sufficient national economy (protected by tariffs and supported by a strong central government and national bank) was essential for national security and international standing.
His views align with realism by emphasizing that economic strength is a crucial component of overall state power and a prerequisite for effective foreign policy.
Assumptions of Contemporary Realism
State as the Primary Actor:
Since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which established the principle of state sovereignty, states are considered the most significant and authoritative units in international relations. They are the ultimate decision-makers in global politics.
The recognition of state sovereignty means that each state has exclusive jurisdiction over its territory and domestic affairs, free from external interference, fundamentally reshaping the structure of international politics.
State is a Unitary & Rational Actor:
For analytical purposes, realists simplify the state by assuming it acts as a single, cohesive entity with unified preferences regarding its national interests.
States are presumed to make rational decisions, meaning they weigh available options based on costs and benefits, aiming to maximize their security and power in the international system.
Conflictual Nature of International Relations:
Traditional and neoclassical realists emphasize that inherent human nature—characterized by selfishness, a will to power, and aggression—is the ultimate source of conflict in the international system.
Structural realists (neorealists), like Kenneth Waltz, attribute conflict primarily to the anarchic structure of the international system itself, not human nature. In an environment without a central authority, states are compelled to arm themselves for self-preservation, leading to a security dilemma and an inevitable predisposition towards conflict.
Security/Geostrategic Priority:
National security, defined as the protection of a state's borders, citizens, and interests from external threats, is considered the paramount concern for all states. This often includes military defense and strategic positioning.
Issues like economics, environmental concerns, human rights, and social welfare are often categorized as "low politics" and are considered secondary to "high politics" (security and survival) because a state must first exist and be secure to address other concerns.
Balance of Power:
Realists contend that order and stability in international relations are best maintained through a "balance of power," where military capabilities are distributed among states (or coalitions of states) in such a way that no single state can dominate others.
This balance is crucial for deterrence, preventing hegemony, and ensuring the survival of independent states. States achieve this balance through internal armament and economic development, as well as external strategies like forming alliances or counter-alliances.
Game Theory & International Organizations
Game theory provides a sophisticated analytical tool that complements realist perspectives by illustrating the difficulties of collective action and cooperation in an anarchic international system, particularly when states are driven by self-interest.
The Prisoners' Dilemma is a classic example: it illuminates why rational actors, when prioritizing their individual short-term interests (e.g., maximizing their own security), may choose not to cooperate even when mutual cooperation would lead to a collectively superior outcome. This often results in a sub-optimal equilibrium for all parties, such as an arms race instead of disarmament, due to mutual suspicion and the lack of an enforcing authority.
Liberalism
Definition of Liberalism
Challenges realism by presenting a more optimistic view of international cooperation, progress, and the potential for a peaceful, rule-based global order.
Components: This perspective emphasizes the importance of democratic governance (which fosters peaceful relations), the development of international law and institutions (to regulate state behavior), the promotion of human rights (as a universal standard), and economic interdependence (which creates shared interests and disincentives for conflict).
Fundamental Changes Since World War II
Decline of Military Force Utility:
The sheer destructiveness of modern warfare, particularly with the advent of nuclear weapons, has made large-scale conventional military force less effective or desirable as a primary instrument for achieving state goals. The costs, both human and economic, often outweigh potential benefits, leading to a search for alternative solutions, such as diplomacy and economic leverage.
Spread of Democracy:
The increase in the number of democratic states globally has been observed to promote more peaceful international relations, as democracies tend to resolve disputes through negotiation, compromise, and established legal processes rather than immediate military action. This is often linked to the Democratic Peace Theory, which posits that democracies rarely go to war with one another.
Increased Global Interdependence:
Technological advancements in communications, transportation, and finance have fostered unprecedented levels of interconnectedness between societies. This extensive web of trade, investment, and cultural exchange creates mutual vulnerabilities and shared interests, reducing isolationism and increasing the incentives for states to cooperate on common challenges rather than resort to conflict.
Philosophic Roots of Liberalism
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645): - Widely regarded as the father of international law, Grotius's The Law of War and Peace (1625) laid foundational principles for a legal framework governing relations between states. He emphasized the importance of norms, treaties, and natural law as crucial for regulating interstate interactions, minimizing conflict, and fostering cooperative relations even in the absence of a global sovereign.
John Locke: - A key Enlightenment thinker, Locke stressed the necessity for limited government, advocating for a social contract where government's authority derives from the consent of the governed. He emphasized the protection of individual rights (life, liberty, property) and promoted citizen participation in governance, influencing liberal ideas about self-determination and human rights in international affairs.
Adam Smith: - Authored The Wealth of Nations, advocating for free markets, minimal government intervention in the economy (laissez-faire), and individual economic behavior. He argued that rational individual self-interest, guided by an "invisible hand," could lead to collective societal well-being and prosperity, principles that underpin liberal economic internationalism and free trade.
David Ricardo: - Building on Smith's ideas, Ricardo introduced the theory of comparative advantage, which demonstrates how states can maximize overall wealth and efficiency through international trade, even if one country is more efficient in producing all goods. This theory forms a core justification for liberal arguments in favor of open economies and globalization.
Immanuel Kant: - In Perpetual Peace, Kant envisioned a "federation of states" or a "pacific union" based on republican (democratic) ideals, international law, and hospitality, which he believed could lead to lasting peace among nations. His work profoundly influenced the liberal idea that democratic governance and international cooperation are prerequisites for global tranquility.
Jeremy Bentham: - A leading proponent of utilitarianism, Bentham argued that laws, policies, and international systems should be designed to achieve "the greatest good for the greatest number." This principle guides liberal efforts to create international institutions and policies that promote global welfare, human rights, and collective benefits.
Contemporary Liberalism Assumptions
State and Non-State Actor Importance: - Unlike realism's state-centric view, contemporary liberalism recognizes a broader array of actors as vital in international relations, including individuals, multinational corporations (MNCs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international governmental organizations (IGOs).
These non-state actors play significant roles in shaping global issues, delivering aid, advocating for specific causes, and influencing state policies, thus complicating and enriching the tapestry of global interactions.
Non-Unitary State Analysis: - Liberals move beyond the realist assumption of a unitary state, viewing government interests and foreign policy decisions as arising from a complex interplay of various domestic entities. These can include different political groups, bureaucracies, interest groups, and public opinion, leading to more varied and less predictable state behaviors.
Conflict and Cooperation: - Liberals acknowledge that interdependence can lead to both conflict (due to shared vulnerabilities or intensified competition over resources) and cooperation (due to shared interests and the high costs of conflict). They believe that states have strong incentives to cooperate to manage these complex interdependencies effectively.
Diverse Issue Priorities: - While security remains important, contemporary liberalism asserts that a wide range of international issues—including global health crises, environmental degradation, economic stability, and human rights—can gain significant attention and even supersede traditional security concerns. These issues are often seen as "high politics" in their own right, requiring collective global solutions.
Nature of International Organizations (IOs)
Liberalism places significant emphasis on the crucial roles of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and Multinational Corporations (MNCs) as key players in fostering international cooperation, promoting sustainable development, and facilitating peaceful conflict resolution by providing forums for dialogue, setting norms, and coordinating actions.
Roles of International Organizations
Overcoming Collective Action Problems: - IOs are critical in providing frameworks and mechanisms to address issues like free-riding, where states benefit from collective goods (e.g., clean air, stable oceans) without contributing their fair share. They establish rules, monitor compliance, and facilitate burden-sharing, thereby maintaining international cooperation on shared challenges (e.g., climate change treaties, arms control agreements).
Promoting Economic Prosperity: - Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank are central to establishing interconnected global markets, promoting free trade, stable currencies, and international investment. This fosters economic growth, alleviates poverty, and improves living standards globally, creating further incentives for peaceful relations.
Fostering Shared Values: - IOs, particularly those like the United Nations, contribute to enhancing collaboration by promoting and institutionalizing established democratic norms, principles of human rights, and rule-of-law. They can serve as platforms for disseminating these values, influencing domestic governance, and creating a more cohesive international community.
Integrative Function: - Multinational corporations (MNCs) play critical economic roles by providing goods, services, and employment across borders. Their transnational operations establish complex supply chains and investment networks that integrate national economies, creating substantial economic interdependence and a shared interest in stable, predictable international relations free from conflict.
Assistance for Victims: - NGOs, such as Doctors Without Borders or Oxfam, are vital in addressing humanitarian crises, providing disaster relief, advocating for human rights, and promoting long-term development in vulnerable regions. They often operate where states cannot or will not, embodying a global civil society focused on collective welfare.
Conclusion on Realism and Liberalism
Realism and Liberalism present fundamentally contrasting views of the world. While realism is inherently cautious and often pessimistic regarding the ability of international organizations to fundamentally alter the self-interested nature of states, liberalism champions expansive cooperation, the rule of law, and the progressive development of international relations through institutions and shared values.
Critical Theories
Critical approaches such as Marxism, Feminism, and Constructivism offer alternative and often foundational challenges to the core assumptions of both realism and liberalism. By integrating socioeconomic factors (Marxism), gender perspectives (Feminism), and the social construction of reality, norms, and identities (Constructivism), these theories provide deeper insights into how power operates, whose interests are served, and how international organizations are shaped by and in turn shape the underlying structures of global politics, moving beyond state