International Relations: Perspectives, Levels of Analysis, and Causal Reasoning

The Attacks of September 11 (Illustrative Case)

• Basic facts
  • Terrorists hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners on Sept 11, 2001.
  • Targets included the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and (intended) either the Capitol or White House; one plane crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers intervened.
  • Death toll ≈ 2,977 people, the single-largest terrorist attack in modern history.
• Why the case matters for theory building
  • Serves as a comparative lens to illustrate how each IR perspective (Realist, Liberal, Identity, Critical Theory) selects different causal arrows and levels of analysis to explain the same event.
• Competing explanations
  • Realist → Power asymmetry: weak non-state actor (Al Qaeda) vs. strong state (U.S.); a classic case of the security dilemma playing out across systemic, domestic, and individual levels.
  • Liberal → Failed institutional relationships: diplomatic disputes, inadequate multilateral engagement; breakdown in reciprocity and interdependence generated space for extremism.
  • Identity → Ideological mismatch: authoritarian Arab regimes + anti-Western narratives; democratic reform at the domestic level could realign identities and mitigate conflict.
  • Critical Theory → Pervasive structural violence: global inequalities and hegemonic domination reproduce cycles of resistance; international level emphasizes historically-rooted oppression.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) Across Perspectives

• General concept: Two rational actors choose to cooperate or defect; individual rationality → collective sub-optimality.
• Realist interpretation
  • Assumption: Anarchy + self-help compel states to defect (arms race).
  • Security dilemma captured formally as PD payoff matrix.
• Liberal interpretation
  • Repeated PD (iterated games) + institutions facilitate reciprocity ⇒ higher probability of sustained cooperation.
  • Shadow of the future and interdependence raise the cost of cheating.
• Identity interpretation
  • The meaning of “defect” or “cooperate” is socially constructed; shared norms can redefine payoffs, possibly transforming PD into a coordination game.

The Realist Perspective

• Core causal arrow: Distribution of material power → state behavior.
• Key principles
  • Anarchy (absence of world government) ⇒ self-help.
  • States are principal, sovereign, rational, unitary actors.
  • Security dilemma: defensive measures by one state decrease others’ security.
  • Balance of power: States form alliances or arm internally to prevent hegemony.
• Polarity typology
  • Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar systems; each shapes war probability differently.
• Policy implications
  • Favor unilateralism/“minilateralism” (small coalitions) when interests align; skepticism toward broad IGOs.
  • Constant readiness for war, contingency planning.

The Liberal Perspective

• Core causal arrow: Patterns of reciprocity, interdependence, and institutions → outcomes.
• Technological change & modernization
  • Spread of communication tech enables NGOs, civil society, and transnational relations.
  • Rise of human security (focus on individuals, not just states).
• Institutions & regimes
  • Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) and international regimes create rules, lower transaction costs, encourage information sharing.
  • Path dependence: early institutional decisions constrain future options.
  • Global governance = aggregation of overlapping regimes, norms, and organizations.
• International law & legitimacy
  • Growth of human rights norms; multilateralism is the essence of liberal strategy.
  • Non-state actors can be independent variables shaping state behavior.

The Identity Perspective

• Core causal arrow: Ideas, norms, and identities → interests & behavior.
• Constructivism
  • Reality is socially constructed; “anarchy is what states make of it.”
  • Two strands: social constructivism (structures shape agents) vs. agent-oriented (agents reproduce/change structures).
  • Example: Gorbachev redefined Soviet identity, enabling end of Cold War.
• Identity typology (Table 1-7 excerpt)
  • Internal dimension (democracy vs. non-democracy) × external dimension (cooperative vs. conflictual historical memories).
  • Creates matrix of relative & shared identities (e.g., U.S.–U.K. = strongest convergence; U.S.–China today = weakest).
• Democratic Peace hypothesis
  • Democracies rarely fight one another; shared liberal identities + institutions help escape the security dilemma even when power is equal.
• Other strands
  • Soft power (attraction, culture), belief systems, psychology (cognitive biases).
  • Feminism: critiques male bias in IR; may align with critical theory; distinguishes rationalist feminists (work within positivist methods).

Critical Theory Perspectives

• Common features
  • Normative, forward-looking; question taken-for-granted structures; history is contingent.
• Marxism
  • Focus on class, economic exploitation; globalization and digital divide ↑ inequality; calls for radical redistribution.
  • Historical examples: Russia (1917), China (1949).
• Post-modernism
  • “Deconstruct” dominant discourses; expose marginalization by Western, patriarchal, or colonial narratives.
  • Power is embedded in language and knowledge production.

Levels of Analysis

• Purpose: pinpoint origin of cause behind an outcome.
• Standard levels
  1. Systemic – structure of international system (polarity, power distribution).
  2. Domestic – internal characteristics of states (regime type, culture, economy).
  3. Individual – leaders’ perceptions, psychology, decision styles.
  4. Foreign-policy (sometimes treated as sub-systemic) – interaction of domestic and external pressures on state decision-making.
• Interactions: The same causal substance (e.g., nationalism) may originate at different levels; outcomes often multi-causal.

Causal Arrows & Hypothesis Testing

• Causal arrows diagram potential directions of influence (e.g., systemic → domestic or domestic → systemic).
• Functions
  • Provide hypotheses to guide empirical testing.
  • Help scholars formulate “appropriate” policy responses by identifying the most important causes.
  • Encourage researchers to uncover overlooked variables and gather supporting data.

Integrative Take-Aways

• Each perspective highlights a different independent variable (power, institutions, identities, structural injustice) and makes distinct policy prescriptions.
• Analytical pluralism is valuable: combining levels of analysis and perspectives yields a richer, more accurate understanding of complex events like 9/11, great-power rivalry, or climate governance.