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.