1. International Relations Major

International relations (IR) or international affairs (IA) — commonly also referred to as international studies (IS), global studies (GS), or global affairs (GA) — is the study of interconnectedness of politics, economics and law on a global level. Depending on the academic institution, it is either a field of political science, an interdisciplinary academic field similar to global studies, or an entirely independent academic discipline in which students take a variety of internationally focused courses in social science and humanities disciplines. In all cases, the field studies relationships between political entities (polities) such as sovereign states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs), and the wider world-systems produced by this interaction. International relations is an academic and a public policy field, and so can be positive and normative, because it analyses and formulates the foreign policy of a given state.

As political activity, international relations dates from the time of the Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460–395 BC), and, in the early 20th century, became a discrete academic field (no. 5901 in the 4-digit UNESCO Nomenclature) within political science. In practice, international relations and international affairs forms a separate academic program or field from political science, and the courses taught therein are highly interdisciplinary.^[2]

For example, international relations draws from the fields of politics, economics, international law, communication studies, history, demography, geography, sociology, anthropology, criminology, psychology, and gender studies. The scope of international relations encompasses issues such as globalization, diplomatic relations, state sovereignty, international security, ecologicalsustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance, terrorism, and human rights.

International relations theories come in a variety of forms, and this chapter will introduce three general theories and one newer perspective. Theory and the Levels of Analysis. In a categorization first used by Kenneth Waltz, three different sources of explanations are offered.

• 1History
• 2Theory
  • 2.3Positivist theories
    • 2.3.2Liberalism
  • 2.4Post-positivist/reflectivist theories
  • 2.5Leadership theories
• 3Levels of analysis
  • 3.1Systemic level concepts
    • 3.1.5Power blocs
  • 3.2Unit-level concepts in international relations
• 4Institutions in international relations
  • 4.1Generalist inter-state organizations
  • 4.3International legal bodies
• 7Bibliography

History[edit]

The history of international relations can be traced back to thousands of years ago; Barry Buzan and Richard Little, for example, consider the interaction of ancient Sumerian city-states, starting in 3,500 BC, as the first fully-fledged international system.^[3]

The history of international relations based on sovereign states and many more types are often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, a stepping stone in the development of the modern state system. Prior to this the European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order. Contrary to popular belief, Westphalia still embodied layered systems of sovereignty, especially within the Holy Roman Empire.^[4] More than the Peace of Westphalia, the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 is thought to reflect an emerging norm that sovereigns had no internal equals within a defined territory and no external superiors as the ultimate authority within the territory's sovereign borders.

The centuries of roughly 1500 to 1789 saw the rise of the independent, sovereign states, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. The French Revolution added to this the new idea that not princes or an oligarchy, but the citizenry of a state, defined as the nation, should be defined as sovereign. Such a state in which the nation is sovereign would thence be termed a nation-state (as opposed to a monarchy or a religious state). The term republic increasingly became its synonym. An alternative model of the nation-state was developed in reaction to the French republican concept by the Germans and others, who instead of giving the citizenry sovereignty, kept the princes and nobility, but defined nation-statehood in ethnic-linguistic terms, establishing the rarely if ever fulfilled ideal that all people speaking one language should belong to one state only. The same claim to sovereignty was made for both forms of nation-state. (In Europe today, few states conform to either definition of nation-state: many continue to have royal sovereigns, and hardly any are ethnically homogeneous.)

The particular European system supposing the sovereign equality of states was exported to the Americas, Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the 'standards of civilization'. The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during the Cold War. However, this is somewhat over-simplified. While the nation-state system is considered 'modern', many states have not incorporated the system and are termed 'pre-modern'.

Further, a handful of states have moved beyond insistence on full sovereignty, and can be considered 'post-modern'. The ability of contemporary IR discourse to explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed. 'Levels of analysis' is a way of looking at the international system, which includes the individual level, the domestic state as a unit, the international level of transnational and intergovernmental affairs, and the global level.

What is explicitly recognized as international relations theory was not developed until after World War I, and is dealt with in more detail below. IR theory, however, has a long tradition of drawing on the work of other social sciences. The use of capitalizations of the 'I' and 'R' in international relations aims to distinguish the academic discipline of international relations from the phenomena of international relations. Many cite Sun Tzu's The Art of War (6th century BC), Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC), Chanakya's Arthashastra (4th century BC), as the inspiration for realist theory, with Hobbes' Leviathan and Machiavelli's The Prince providing further elaboration.

Similarly, liberalism draws upon the work of Kant and Rousseau, with the work of the former often being cited as the first elaboration of democratic peace theory.^[5] Though contemporary human rights is considerably different from the type of rights envisioned under natural law, Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and John Locke offered the first accounts of universal entitlement to certain rights on the basis of common humanity. In the 20th century, in addition to contemporary theories of liberal internationalism, Marxism has been a foundation of international relations.

Study of international relations[edit]

International relations as a distinct field of study began in Britain. IR emerged as a formal academic discipline in 1919 with the founding of the first IR professorship: the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, University of Wales (now Aberystwyth University),^[6] held by Alfred Eckhard Zimmern^[7] and endowed by David Davies. Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service is the oldest international relations faculty in the United States, founded in 1919. In the early 1920s, the London School of Economics' department of international relations was founded at the behest of Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker: this was the first institute to offer a wide range of degrees in the field. This was rapidly followed by establishment of IR at universities in the US and in Geneva, Switzerland. The creation of the posts of Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at LSE and at Oxford gave further impetus to the academic study of international relations. Furthermore, the International History department at LSE developed a focus on the history of IR in the early modern, colonial and Cold War periods.^[8]

The first university entirely dedicated to the study of IR was the Graduate Institute of International Studies (now the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies), which was founded in 1927 to form diplomats associated to the League of Nations. The Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago was the first to offer a graduate degree, in 1928. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a collaboration between Tufts University and Harvard, opened its doors in 1933 as the first graduate-only school of international affairs in the United States.^[9] In 1965, Glendon College and the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs were the first institutions in Canada to offer an undergraduate and a graduate program in international studies and affairs, respectively. Also in Canada, in 2000, Peter Munk sponsored the formation of the Munk School of Global Affairs, which, with its flagship program the Master of Global Affairs (MGA), considers IR with a particular emphasis on the implications for the private sector. In 2012, Ramon Llull University initiated the first International Relations degree in Barcelona, the favourite city fully in English.

Theory[edit]

Normative theory[edit]

In the academic discipline of international relations, Smith, Baylis & Owens (2008) make the case that the normative position or normative theory is to make the world a better place, and that this theoretical worldview aims to do so by being aware of implicit assumptions and explicit assumptions that constitute a non-normative position and align or position the normative towards the loci of other key socio-political theories such as political liberalism, Marxism, political constructivism, political realism, political idealism and political globalization.^[10]

Epistemological theory[edit]

IR theories are roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: 'positivist' and 'post-positivist'. Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. They typically focus on features of international relations such as state interactions, size of military forces, balance of powers etc. Post-positivist epistemology rejects the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way. It rejects the central ideas of neo-realism/liberalism, such as rational choice theory, on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied to the social world and that a 'science' of IR is impossible.

A key difference between the two positions is that while positivist theories, such as neo-realism, offer causal explanations (such as why and how power is exercised), post-positivist theories focus instead on constitutive questions, for instance what is meant by 'power'; what makes it up, how it is experienced and how it is reproduced. Often, post-positivist theories explicitly promote a normative approach to IR, by considering ethics. This is something which has often been ignored under 'traditional' IR as positivist theories make a distinction between 'facts' and normative judgments, or 'values'.

During the late 1980s and the 1990s, debate between positivists and post-positivists became the dominant debate and has been described as constituting the Third 'Great Debate' (Lapid 1989).

Positivist theories[edit]

Realism[edit]

Realism focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realists such as E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival.^[11] Cooperation between states is a way to maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons). Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory.

Realists argue that the need for survival requires state leaders to distance themselves from traditional morality. Realism taught American leaders to focus on interests rather than on ideology, to seek peace through strength, and to recognize that great powers can coexist even if they have antithetical values and beliefs.^[12]

History of the Peloponnesian War, written by Thucydides, is considered a foundational text of the realist school of political philosophy.^[13] There is debate over whether Thucydides himself was a realist; Ned Lebow has argued that seeing Thucydides as a realist is a misinterpretation of a more complex political message within his work.^[14] Amongst others, philosophers like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau are considered to have contributed to the Realist philosophy.^[15] However, while their work may support realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves as realists in this sense. Political realism believes that politics, like society, is governed by objective laws with roots in human nature. To improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion—between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.

Placing realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however. E. H. Carr's 'What is History' was a deliberate critique of positivism, and Hans Morgenthau's aim in 'Scientific Man vs Power Politics' was to demolish any conception that international politics/power politics can be studied scientifically. Morgenthau's belief in this regard is part of the reason he has been classified as a 'classical realist' rather than a realist.

Major theorists include E. H. Carr, Robert Gilpin, Charles P. Kindleberger, Stephen D. Krasner, Hans Morgenthau, Samuel P. Huntington, Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer.

Liberalism[edit]

According to liberalism, individuals are basically good and capable of meaningful cooperation to promote positive change. Liberalism views states, nongovernmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations as key actors in the international system. States have many interests and are not necessarily unitary and autonomous, although they are sovereign. Liberal theory stresses interdependence among states, multinational corporations, and international institutions. Theorists such as Hedley Bull have postulated an international society in which various actors communicate and recognize common rules, institutions, and interests. Liberals also view the international system as anarchic since there is no single overarching international authority and each individual state is left to act in its own self-interest. Liberalism is historically rooted in the liberal philosophical traditions associated with Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant that posit that human nature is basically good and that individual self-interest can be harnessed by society to promote aggregate social welfare. Individuals form groups and later, states; states are generally cooperative and tend to follow international norms.^[16]

Liberal international relations theory arose after World War I in response to the inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell, who argued that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be essentially futile.^[17]

Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and derisively termed idealism by E. H. Carr. A new version of 'idealism' that focused on human rights as the basis of the legitimacy of international law was advanced by Hans Köchler.

Major theorists include Montesquieu, Immanuel Kant, Michael W. Doyle, Francis Fukuyama, and Helen Milner.^[18]

Neoliberalism[edit]

Neoliberalism seeks to update liberalism by accepting the neorealist presumption that states are the key actors in international relations, but still maintains that non-state actors (NSAs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) matter. Proponents argue that states will cooperate irrespective of relative gains, and are thus concerned with absolute gains. This also means that nations are, in essence, free to make their own choices as to how they will go about conducting policy without any international organizations blocking a nation's right to sovereignty. Neoliberal institutionalism, an approach founded by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, emphasize the important role of international institutions in maintaining an open global trading regime.

Prominent neoliberal institutionalists are John Ikenberry, Robert Keohane, and Joseph Nye.

Regime theory[edit]

Regime theory is derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behaviour of states (or other international actors). It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, indeed, regimes are by definition, instances of international cooperation.

While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they cite cooperation in trade, human rights and collective security among other issues. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition of regimes comes from Stephen Krasner, who defines regimes as 'principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area'.^[19]

Not all approaches to regime theory, however, are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like Joseph Grieco have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say cooperation never happens, just that it is not the norm; it is a difference of degree).

Post-positivist/reflectivist theories[edit]

Constructivism[edit]

Social constructivism encompasses a broad range of theories that aim to address questions of ontology, such as the structure-and-agency debate, as well as questions of epistemology, such as the 'material/ideational' debate that concerns the relative role of material forces versus ideas. Constructivism is not a theory of IR in the manner of neo-realism, but is instead a social theory which is used to better explain the actions taken by states and other major actors as well as the identities that guide these states and actors.

Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Ted Hopf (1998) calls 'conventional' and 'critical' constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the role that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivist scholar, Alexander Wendt, noted in a 1992 article in International Organization —and later in his 1999 book Social Theory of International Politics—that 'anarchy is what states make of it'. By this he means that the anarchical structure that neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by states.

For example, if the system is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation (what Wendt terms a 'Hobbesian' anarchy) then the system will be characterized by warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted (a 'Lockean' anarchy) then a more peaceful system will exist. Anarchy in this view is constituted by state interaction, rather than accepted as a natural and immutable feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR scholars.

Prominent social constructivist IR scholars are Rawi Abdelal, Michael Barnett, Mark Blyth, Martha Finnemore, Ted Hopf, Kathryn Sikkink and Alexander Wendt.

Marxism[edit]

Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the economy trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.

A prominent derivative of Marxian thought is critical international relations theory which is the application of 'critical theory' to international relations. Early critical theorists were associated with the Frankfurt School which followed Marx's concern with the conditions that allow for social change and the establishment of rational institutions. Their emphasis on the 'critical' component of theory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of positivism. Modern-day proponents such as Andrew Linklater, Robert W. Cox and Ken Booth focus on the need for human emancipation from the nation-state. Hence, it is 'critical' of mainstream IR theories that tend to be both positivist and state-centric.

Further linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory and the core–periphery model, which argue that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, appropriate developing states through international banking, security and trade agreements and unions on a formal level, and do so through the interaction of political and financial advisors, missionaries, relief aid workers, and MNCs on the informal level, in order to integrate them into the capitalist system, strategically appropriating undervalued natural resources and labor hours and fostering economic and political dependence.

Marxist theories receive little attention in the United States. It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the more important theoretic contributions of Latin American academia to the study of global networks.^{[citation needed]}

Feminism[edit]

Feminist IR considers the ways that international politics affects and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves gendered. Feminist IR has not only concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security, but feminist IR scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global political economy. In this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists working in IR and those working in the area of International Political Economy (IPE). From its inception, feminist IR has also theorized extensively about men and, in particular, masculinities. Many IR feminists argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article 'Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals' Signs (1988), Carol Cohn claimed that a highly masculinized culture within the defence establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion.

Feminist IR emerged largely from the late 1980s onwards. The end of the Cold War and the re-evaluation of traditional IR theory during the 1990s opened up a space for gendering International Relations. Because feminist IR is linked broadly to the critical project in IR, by and large most feminist scholarship has sought to problematize the politics of knowledge construction within the discipline – often by adopting methodologies of deconstructivism associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism. However, the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy communities (for example at the World Bank and the United Nations) is more reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women.

Prominent scholars include Carol Cohn, Cynthia Enloe, Sara Ruddick, and J. Ann Tickner.

International society theory (the English school)[edit]

International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the shared norms and values of states and how they regulate international relations. Examples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and international law. Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily positivist. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention, and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value in order and sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler is a prominent solidarist, while Hedley Bull and Robert H. Jackson are perhaps the best known pluralists.

Leadership theories[edit]

Interest group perspective[edit]

Interest group theory posits that the driving force behind state behaviour is sub-state interest groups. Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists, the military, and the corporate sector. Group theory argues that although these interest groups are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in the exercise of state power.

Strategic perspective[edit]

Strategic perspective is a theoretical^{[citation needed]} approach that views individuals as choosing their actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of others with the intention of maximizing their own welfare.

Inherent bad faith model[edit]

The 'inherent bad faith model' of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles' beliefs and his model of information processing.^[20] It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent.^[21] A state is presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles' position regarding the Soviet Union, or Israel's initial position on the Palestinian Liberation Organization.^[22]

Post-structuralist theories[edit]

Post-structuralism theories of international relations developed in the 1980s from postmodernist studies in political science. Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of concepts traditionally not problematic in IR (such as 'power' and 'agency') and examines how the construction of these concepts shapes international relations. The examination of 'narratives' plays an important part in poststructuralist analysis; for example, feminist poststructuralist work has examined the role that 'women' play in global society and how they are constructed in war as 'innocent' and 'civilians'. (See also feminism in international relations.) Rosenberg's article 'Why is there no International Historical Sociology'^[23] was a key text in the evolution of this strand of international relations theory. Post-structuralism has garnered both significant praise and criticism, with its critics arguing that post-structuralist research often fails to address the real-world problems that international relations studies is supposed to contribute to solving.

Levels of analysis[edit]

Systemic level concepts[edit]

International relations are often viewed in terms of levels of analysis. The systemic level concepts are those broad concepts that define and shape an international milieu, characterized by anarchy. Focusing on the systemic level of international relations is often, but not always, the preferred method for neo-realists and other structuralist IR analysts.

Sovereignty[edit]

Preceding the concepts of interdependence and dependence, international relations relies on the idea of sovereignty. Described in Jean Bodin's 'Six Books of the Commonwealth' in 1576, the three pivotal points derived from the book describe sovereignty as being a state, that the sovereign power(s) have absolute power over their territories, and that such a power is only limited by the sovereign's 'own obligations towards other sovereigns and individuals'.^[24] Such a foundation of sovereignty permits, is indicated by a sovereign's obligation to other sovereigns, interdependence and dependence to take place. While throughout world history there have been instances of groups lacking or losing sovereignty, such as African nations prior to Decolonization or the occupation of Iraq during the Iraq War, there is still a need for sovereignty in terms of assessing international relations.

Power[edit]

International Relations Major

The concept of Power in international relations can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up into the concepts of hard power and soft power, hard power relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering economics, diplomacy and cultural influence. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two forms of power.

National interest[edit]

Perhaps the most significant concept behind that of power and sovereignty, national interest is a state's action in relation to other states where it seeks to gain advantage or benefits to itself. National interest, whether aspirational or operational, is divided by core/vital and peripheral/non-vital interests. Core or vital interests constitute the things which a country is willing to defend or expand with conflict such as territory, ideology (religious, political, economic), or its citizens. Peripheral or non-vital are interests which a state is willing to compromise. For example, in the German annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 (a part of Czechoslovakia) under the Munich Agreement, Czechoslovakia was willing to relinquish territory which was considered ethnically German in order to preserve its own integrity and sovereignty.^[25]

Non-state actors[edit]

In the 21st century, the status-quo of the international system is no longer monopolized by states alone. Rather, it is the presence of non-state actors, who autonomously act to implement unpredictable behaviour to the international system. Whether it is transnational corporations, liberation movements, non-governmental agencies, or international organizations, these entities have the potential to significantly influence the outcome of any international transaction. Additionally, this also includes the individual person as while the individual is what constitutes the states collective entity, the individual does have the potential to also create unpredicted behaviours. Al-Qaeda, as an example of a non-state actor, has significantly influenced the way states (and non-state actors) conduct international affairs.^[26]

Power blocs[edit]

The existence of power blocs in international relations is a significant factor related to polarity. During the Cold War, the alignment of several nations to one side or another based on ideological differences or national interests has become an endemic feature of international relations. Unlike prior, shorter-term blocs, the Western and Soviet blocs sought to spread their national ideological differences to other nations. Leaders like U.S. President Harry S. Truman under the Truman Doctrine believed it was necessary to spread democracy whereas the Warsaw Pact under Soviet policy sought to spread communism. After the Cold War, and the dissolution of the ideologically homogeneous Eastern bloc still gave rise to others such as the South-South Cooperation movement.^[27]

Polarity[edit]

Polarity in international relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. The concept arose from bipolarity during the Cold War, with the international system dominated by the conflict between two superpowers, and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two opposing powerbases and ideologies. Consequently, the international system prior to 1945 can be described as multipolar, with power being shared among Great powers.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had led to unipolarity, with the United States as a sole superpower, although many refuse to acknowledge the fact. China's continued rapid economic growth (in 2010 it became the world's second-largest economy), combined with the respectable international position they hold within political spheres and the power that the Chinese Government exerts over their people (consisting of the largest population in the world), resulted in debate over whether China is now a superpower or a possible candidate in the future. However, China's strategic force unable of projecting power beyond its region and its nuclear arsenal of 250 warheads (compared to 7700 of the United States^[28]) mean that the unipolarity will persist in the policy-relevant future.

Several theories of international relations draw upon the idea of polarity. The balance of power was a concept prevalent in Europe prior to the First World War, the thought being that by balancing power blocs it would create stability and prevent war. Theories of the balance of power gained prominence again during the Cold War, being a central mechanism of Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism. Here, the concepts of balancing (rising in power to counter another) and bandwagonning (siding with another) are developed.

Robert Gilpin's Hegemonic stability theory also draws upon the idea of polarity, specifically the state of unipolarity. Hegemony is the preponderance of power at one pole in the international system, and the theory argues this is a stable configuration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in the international system. This is contrary to many neorealist arguments, particularly made by Kenneth Waltz, stating that the end of the Cold War and the state of unipolarity is an unstable configuration that will inevitably change.

The case of Gilpin proved to be correct and Waltz's article titled 'The Stability of a Bipolar World' ^[29] was followed in 1999 by William Wohlforth's article titled 'The Stability of a Unipolar World'^[30]

Waltz's thesis can be expressed in power transition theory, which states that it is likely that a great power would challenge a hegemon after a certain period, resulting in a major war. It suggests that while hegemony can control the occurrence of wars, it also results in the creation of one. Its main proponent, A. F. K. Organski, argued this based on the occurrence of previous wars during British, Portuguese, and Dutch hegemony.

Interdependence[edit]

Many advocate that the current international system is characterized by growing interdependence; the mutual responsibility and dependency on others. Advocates of this point to growing globalization, particularly with international economic interaction. The role of international institutions, and widespread acceptance of a number of operating principles in the international system, reinforces ideas that relations are characterized by interdependence.

Dependency[edit]

Dependency theory is a theory most commonly associated with Marxism, stating that a set of core states exploit a set of weaker periphery states for their prosperity. Various versions of the theory suggest that this is either an inevitability (standard dependency theory), or use the theory to highlight the necessity for change (Neo-Marxist).

Systemic tools of international relations[edit]

• Diplomacy is the practice of communication and negotiation between representatives of states. To some extent, all other tools of international relations can be considered the failure of diplomacy. Keeping in mind, the use of other tools are part of the communication and negotiation inherent within diplomacy. Sanctions, force, and adjusting trade regulations, while not typically considered part of diplomacy, are actually valuable tools in the interest of leverage and placement in negotiations.
• Sanctions are usually a first resort after the failure of diplomacy, and are one of the main tools used to enforce treaties. They can take the form of diplomatic or economic sanctions and involve the cutting of ties and imposition of barriers to communication or trade.
• War, the use of force, is often thought of as the ultimate tool of international relations. A popular definition is that given by Carl von Clausewitz, with war being 'the continuation of politics by other means'. There is a growing study into 'new wars' involving actors other than states. The study of war in international relations is covered by the disciplines of 'war studies' and 'strategic studies'.
• The mobilization of international shame can also be thought of as a tool of international relations. This is attempting to alter states' actions through 'naming and shaming' at the international level. This is mostly done by the large human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International (for instance when it called Guantanamo Bay a 'Gulag'),^[31] or Human Rights Watch. A prominent use of was the UN Commission on Human Rights 1235 procedure, which publicly exposes state's human rights violations. The current UN Human Rights Council has yet to use this mechanism
• The allotment of economic and/or diplomatic benefits such as the European Union's enlargement policy; candidate countries are only allowed to join if they meet the Copenhagen criteria.
• The mutual exchange of ideas, information, art, music and language among nations through cultural diplomacy has also been recognized by governments as an important tool in the development of international relations.^{[32][33][34][35]}

Unit-level concepts in international relations[edit]

As a level of analysis the unit level is often referred to as the state level, as it locates its explanation at the level of the state, rather than the international system.

Regime type[edit]

It is often considered that a state's form of government can dictate the way that a state interacts with others in the international relation.

Democratic peace theory is a theory that suggests that the nature of democracy means that democratic countries will not go to war with each other. The justifications for this are that democracies externalize their norms and only go to war for just causes, and that democracy encourages mutual trust and respect.

Communism justifies a world revolution, which similarly would lead to peaceful coexistence, based on a proletarian global society.

Revisionism/status quo[edit]

States can be classified by whether they accept the international status quo, or are revisionist—i.e., want change. Revisionist states seek to fundamentally change the rules and practices of international relations, feeling disadvantaged by the status quo. They see the international system as a largely western creation which serves to reinforce current realities. Japan is an example of a state that has gone from being a revisionist state to one that is satisfied with the status quo, because the status quo is now beneficial to it.

Religion[edit]

Religion can have an effect on the way a state acts within the international system. Different theoretical perspectives treat it in somewhat different fashion. One dramatic example is the Thirty Years' War (1618–48) that ravaged much of Europe. Religion is visible as an organizing principle particularly for Islamic states, whereas secularism sits at the other end of the spectrum, with the separation of state and religion being responsible for the liberal international relations theory. Events since the September 11 attacks in the United States, the role of Islam in terrorism, and the strife in the Middle East have made it a major topic. There are many different types of religions. One being Confucianism, which is China's major world view (Alexander, 1998).^[36]

Individual or sub-unit level concepts[edit]

The level beneath the unit (state) level can be useful both for explaining factors in international relations that other theories fail to explain, and for moving away from a state-centric view of international relations.^[37]

• Psychological factors in international relations – Evaluating psychological factors in international relations comes from the understanding that a state is not a 'black box' as proposed by realism, and that there may be other influences on foreign policy decisions. Examining the role of personalities in the decision making process can have some explanatory power, as can the role of misperception between various actors. A prominent application of sub-unit level psychological factors in international relations is the concept of Groupthink, another is the propensity of policymakers to think in terms of analogies.
• Bureaucratic politics – Looks at the role of the bureaucracy in decision making, and sees decisions as a result of bureaucratic in-fighting, and as having been shaped by various constraints.
• Religious, ethnic, and secessionist groups – Viewing these aspects of the sub-unit level has explanatory power with regards to ethnic conflicts, religious wars, transnational diaspora (diaspora politics) and other actors which do not consider themselves to fit with the defined state boundaries. This is particularly useful in the context of the pre-modern world of weak states.
• Science, technology and international relations – How science and technology impact global health, business, environment, technology, and development.
• International political economy, and economic factors in international relations^[38]
• International political culturology – Looks at how culture and cultural variables impact in international relations^[39][40][41]
• Personal relations between leaders^[42]

Institutions in international relations[edit]

International institutions form a vital part of contemporary international relations. Much interaction at the system level is governed by them, and they outlaw some traditional institutions and practices of international relations, such as the use of war (except in self-defence).

Generalist inter-state organizations[edit]

United Nations[edit]

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a 'global association of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity'; It is the most prominent international institution. Many of the legal institutions follow the same organizational structure as the UN.

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation[edit]

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is an international organization consisting of 57 member states. The organisation attempts to be the collective voice of the Muslim world (Ummah) and attempts to safeguard the interests and ensure the progress and well-being of Muslims.

Other[edit]

Other generalist inter-state organizations include:

Economic institutions[edit]

International legal bodies[edit]

Human rights[edit]

Legal[edit]

Regional security arrangements[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

1. ^François Modoux, 'La Suisse engagera 300 millions pour rénover le Palais des Nations', Le Temps, Friday 28 June 2013, page 9. (in French)
2. ^'International Relation', Columbia Encyclopedia (1993) pp.000–0000.
3. ^Barry Buzan, Richard Little. International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. published 2000
4. ^Stéphane Beaulac: 'The Westphalian Model in defining International Law: Challenging the Myth', Australian Journal of Legal History Vol. 9 (2004), [1]; Krasner, Stephen D.: 'Westphalia and all that' in Judith Goldstein & Robert Keohane (eds): Ideas and Foreign Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993), pp.235–264
5. ^'Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy'. Stanford press. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
6. ^'Aberystwyth University – Department of International Politics'. www.aber.ac.uk.
7. ^Abadía, Adolfo A. (2015). 'Del liberalismo al neo-realismo. Un debate en torno al realismo clásico'. Telos. Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales (in Spanish). 17 (3): 438–459. ISSN1317-0570.
8. ^Carlsnaes, Walter; et al., eds. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–28. ISBN9781446265031. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
9. ^Fletcher History. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/About/Fletcher-History
10. ^ISBN9780199297771, Fourth edition, pp.2–13
11. ^Morganthau, Hans (1978). Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace. New York. pp. 4–15. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
12. ^Baylis, John (2011). The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN978-0-19-956909-0.
13. ^Norris, Cochrane, Charles (1929). Thucydides and the Science of History. Oxford University Press. p. 179.
14. ^Lebow, Richard Ned (2001). 'Thucydides the Constructivist'. The American Political Science Review. 95 (3): 547–560. doi:10.1017/S0003055401003112. JSTOR3118232.
15. ^Baylis, John; Smith, Steve (2001). The globalization of world politics : an introduction to international relations (2. ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. p. 149. ISBN978-0198782636.
16. ^Mingst, Karen A., & Arreguín-Toft, Ivan M. (2011). Essentials of International Relations (5th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
17. ^Wilson, Woodrow. 'History Learning site'. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
18. ^Mingst, Karen A., & Snyder, Jack L. (2011). Essential Readings in World Politics (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
19. ^Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. 'Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.' In International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 1.
20. ^Stuart, Douglas; Starr, Harvey (1981). 'The 'Inherent Bad Faith Model' Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger'. Political Psychology. 3 (3/4): 1–33. doi:10.2307/3791139. JSTOR3791139.
21. ^'...the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one’s opponent...', The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1-2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey
22. ^'...the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one's opponent', The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1–2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey
23. ^Rosenberg, Justin (2006). 'Why is There No International Historical Sociology?'. European Journal of International Relations. 12 (3): 307–340. doi:10.1177/1354066106067345. ISSN1354-0661.
24. ^p. 13, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. 'Globalization: The Politics of Global Economic Relations and International Business.' Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2012.
25. ^p. 17-20, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. 'Globalization: The Politics of Global Economic Relations and International Business.' Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2012.
26. ^pp. 14–15, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. 'Globalization: The Politics of Global Economic Relations and International Business.' Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2012.
27. ^pp. 15–16, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. 'Globalization: The Politics of Global Economic Relations and International Business.' Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2012.
28. ^Historical nuclear weapons stockpiles and nuclear tests by country
29. ^Daedalus, 93/3: (1964), 881–909
30. ^International Security, 24/1: (1999), 5–41
31. ^'Error – Amnesty International'. www.amnesty.org.
32. ^Music, Art and Diplomacy East-West cultural Interactions and the Cold War Editors: Siom Mukkonen & Pekka Suutari. Ashgate Books, 2016 See Introduction & Chapter 1 – Introduction to the Logic of East-West Artistic Interactions -Cultural Diplomacy on books.google.com
33. ^The History of United States Cultural Diplomacy – 1770 to the Present Micahael L. Krenn. Bloomsbury Academic, New York 2017 ISBN978-1-4725-0860-7 p. 1-8 Introduction
34. ^Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy Editors: Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht & Mark C. Donfried. Berghahn Books , Oxford 2010 ISBN978-1-845-45-746-4 p. 3-13 Introduction – cultural diplomacy (around the world before and during the cold war) on google.books
35. ^Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National Interest? Editors: Len Ang, Yudhishthir Raj Isar, Philip Mar. Routledge, UK 2016 Chapter 1 – Cultural Diplomacy- Beyond the National Interest? on google.books.com
36. ^Snyder, ed., Jack (2011). Religion and International Relations Theory. Columbia University Press. pp. 1–23. ISBN9780231153386. Retrieved 2016-02-24.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
37. ^Morin, Jean-Frederic and Jonathan Paquin, Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox, Palgrave, 2018.
38. ^E.g., Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace, Oxford University Press, 2006. Donald Markwell, Keynes and International Economic and Political Relations, Trinity Paper 33, Trinity College, University of Melbourne.
39. ^Fabrice Rivault, (1999) Culturologie Politique Internationale : Une approche systémique et matérialiste de la culture et du système social global, McGill Dissertation, Montréal, publiée par Culturology Press
40. ^Xintian, Yu (2005) 'Cultural Factors In International Relations', Chinese Philosophical Studies. Archived 2010-04-10 at the Wayback Machine
41. ^Xintian, Yu (2009),'Combining Research on Cultural Theory and International Relations'
42. ^'US-Russian relations: Demanding equal treatment – Russia Beyond the Headlines'.

Bibliography[edit]

• Carlsnaes, Walter; et al., eds. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publications. ISBN9781446265031. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
• Dyvik, Synne L., Jan Selby and Rorden Wilkinson, eds. What's the Point of International Relations (2017)
• Reus-Smit, Christian, and Duncan Snidal, eds. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (2010)

Theory[edit]

• Norman AngellThe Great Illusion (London: Heinemann, 1910)
• Hedley BullAnarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977)
• Robert CooperThe Post-Modern State
• Enloe, Cynthia. 'Gender' Is Not Enough: The Need for a Feminist Consciousness'. International Affairs 80.1 (2004): 95–97. Web. 17 Sept. 2013.
• Goodin, Robert E., and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds. A New Handbook of Political Science (1998) ch 16–19 pp 401–78
• Charlotte Hooper 'Masculinities, IR and the 'Gender Variable': A Cost-Benefit Analysis for (Sympathetic) Gender Sceptics.' International Studies 25.3 (1999): 475–491.
• Andrew HurrellOn Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society (Oxford University Press, 2008). https://global.oup.com/academic/product/on-global-order-9780199233113?cc=us&lang=en&
• Robert KeohaneAfter Hegemony
• Hans Köchler, Democracy and the International Rule of Law. Vienna/New York: Springer, 1995
• Andrew LinklaterMen and citizens in the theory of international relations
• Donald MarkwellJohn Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
• Reinhold NiebuhrMoral Man and Immoral Society 1932
• Joseph NyeSoft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs Ltd 2004
• Paul RaskinThe Great Transition Today: A Report from the Future
• J. Ann TicknerGender in International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
• Kenneth WaltzMan, the State, and War
• Kenneth WaltzTheory of International Politics (1979), examines the foundation of By Bar
• Michael WalzerJust and Unjust Wars 1977
• Alexander WendtSocial Theory of International Politics 1999
• J. Martin Rochester Fundamental Principles of International Relations (Westview Press, 2010)
• An Introduction to International Relations Theory
• James C. Hsiang Anarchy & Order: The Interplay of Politics and Law in International Relations 1555875718, 9781555875718 Lynne Rienner Pub 1997

Textbooks[edit]

• Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (2011)
• Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations (5th ed. 2010)
• Nau, Henry R. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, Ideas (2008)
• Roskin, Michael G., and Nicholas O. Berry. IR: The New World of International Relations (8th ed. 2009)
• Alexander, F. (1998). Encyclopedia of World History. New York: Oxford University Press.

History of international relations[edit]

• Beaulac, Stéphane. 'The Westphalian Model in defining International Law: Challenging the Myth', Australian Journal of Legal History Vol. 9 (2004).
• Black, Jeremy. A History of Diplomacy (2010)
• Calvocoressi, Peter. World Politics since 1945 (9th Edition, 2008) 956pp
• E. H. CarrTwenty Years Crisis (1940), 1919–39
• Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500–2000 (1987), stress on economic and military factors
• Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy (1995), not a memoir but an interpretive history of international diplomacy since the late 18th century
• Krasner, Stephen D.: 'Westphalia and All That' in Judith Goldstein & Robert Keohane (eds): Ideas and Foreign Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993), pp. 235–264
• New Cambridge Modern History (13 vol 1957–79), thorough coverage from 1500 to 1900
• Ringmar, Erik. History of International Relations Open Textbook Project, Cambridge: Open Book, forthcoming.
• Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics 1763–1848 (Oxford History of Modern Europe) (1994) 920pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy
• Taylor, A.J.P. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 (1954) (Oxford History of Modern Europe) 638pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy

External links[edit]

• Issues in development cooperation at Wikibooks

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It attempts to provide a conceptual framework upon which international relations can be analyzed.^[1]Ole Holsti describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory; e.g., an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. The three most prominent theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism.^[2] Sometimes, institutionalism proposed and developed by Keohane and Nye is discussed as an paradigm differed from liberalism.

International relations theories can be divided into 'positivist/rationalist' theories which focus on a principally state-level analysis, and 'post-positivist/reflectivist' ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to gender, to postcolonial security. Many often conflicting ways of thinking exist in IR theory, including constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, neo-Gramscianism, and others. However, two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent: realism and liberalism.

The study of international relations, as theory, can be traced to E. H. Carr'sThe Twenty Years' Crisis, which was published in 1939, and to Hans Morgenthau'sPolitics Among Nations published in 1948.^[3] International relations, as a discipline, is believed to have emerged after the First World War with the establishment of a Chair of International Relations at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth.^[4] Early international relations scholarship in the interwar years focused on the need for the balance of power system to be replaced with a system of collective security. These thinkers were later described as 'Idealists'.^[5] The leading critique of this school of thinking was the 'realist' analysis offered by Carr.

However, a more recent study, by David Long and Brian Schmidt in 2005, offers a revisionist account of the origins of the field international relations. They claim that the history of the field can be traced back to late 19th Century imperialism and internationalism. The fact that the history of the field is presented by 'great debates', such as the realist-idealist debate, does not correspond with the historic evidence found in earlier works: 'We should once and for all dispense with the outdated anachronistic artifice of the debate between the idealists and realists as the dominant framework for and understanding the history of the field'. Their revisionist account claims that, up until 1918, international relations already existed in the form of colonial administration, race science, and race development.^[6]

A clear distinction is made between explanatory and constitutive approaches when classifying international relations theories. Explanatory theories are ones which postulates the world is something external to theorize about. A constitutive theory is one which suggest that theories actually help construct the world.^[7]

• 1Realism
• 2Liberalism

Realism[edit]

Realism or political realism^[9] has been the dominant theory of international relations since the conception of the discipline.^[10] The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Early realism can be characterized as a reaction against interwar idealist thinking. The outbreak of World War II was seen by realists as evidence of the deficiencies of idealist thinking. There are various strands of modern-day realist thinking. However, the main tenets of the theory have been identified as statism, survival, and self-help.^[10]

• Statism: Realists believe that nation states are the main actors in international politics.^[11] As such it is a state-centric theory of international relations. This contrasts with liberal international relations theories which accommodate roles for non-state actors and international institutions. This difference is sometimes expressed by describing a realist world view as one which sees nation states as billiard balls, liberals would consider relationships between states to be more of a cobweb.
• Survival: Realists believe that the international system is governed by anarchy, meaning that there is no central authority.^[9] Therefore, international politics is a struggle for power between self-interested states.^[12]
• Self-help: Realists believe that no other states can be relied upon to help guarantee the state's survival.

Realism makes several key assumptions. It assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically based actors in an anarchic international system with no authority above capable of regulating interactions between states as no true authoritative world government exists. Secondly, it assumes that sovereignstates, rather than intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. Thus, states, as the highest order, are in competition with one another. As such, a state acts as a rational autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own security—and thus its sovereignty and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's military, economic, and political capabilities.

Some realists, known as human nature realists or classical realists,^[13] believe that states are inherently aggressive, that territorial expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while others, known as offensive/defensive realists,^[13] believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state's existence. The defensive view can lead to a security dilemma, where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms, making security a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

Neorealism[edit]

Neorealism or structural realism^[14] is a development of realism advanced by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics. It is, however, only one strand of neorealism. Joseph Grieco has combined neo-realist thinking with more traditional realists. This strand of theory is sometimes called 'modern realism'.^[15] Waltz's neorealism contends that the effect of structure must be taken into account in explaining state behavior. It shapes all foreign policy choices of states in the international arena. For instance, any disagreement between states derives from lack of a common power (central authority) to enforce rules and maintain them constantly. Thus there is constant anarchy in international system that makes it necessary for states the obtainment of strong weapons in order to guarantee their survival. Additionally, in an anarchic system, states with greater power have tendency to increase its influence further.^[16] According to neo-realists, structure is considered extremely important element in IR and defined twofold as: a) the ordering principle of the international system which is anarchy, and b) the distribution of capabilities across units. Waltz also challenges traditional realism's emphasis on traditional military power, instead characterizing power in terms of the combined capabilities of the state.^[17]

Liberalism[edit]

The precursor to liberal international relations theory was 'idealism'. Idealism (or utopianism) was viewed critically by those who saw themselves as 'realists', for instance E. H. Carr.^[19] In international relations, idealism (also called 'Wilsonianism' because of its association with Woodrow Wilson who personified it) is a school of thought that holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the 'institution-builders' after World War I.

Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism, where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security ('high politics'), but also economic/cultural ('low politics') whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of films leading to the popularity of the country's culture and creating a market for its exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-operation and interdependence—thus peace can be achieved.

The democratic peace theory argues that liberal democracies have never (or almost never) made war on one another and have fewer conflicts among themselves. This is seen as contradicting especially the realist theories and this empirical claim is now one of the great disputes in political science. Numerous explanations have been proposed for the democratic peace. It has also been argued, as in the book Never at War, that democracies conduct diplomacy in general very differently from non-democracies. (Neo)realists disagree with Liberals over the theory, often citing structural reasons for the peace, as opposed to the state's government. Sebastian Rosato, a critic of democratic peace theory, points to America's behavior towards left-leaning democracies in Latin America during the Cold War to challenge democratic peace.^[20] One argument is that economic interdependence makes war between trading partners less likely.^[21] In contrast realists claim that economic interdependence increases rather than decreases the likelihood of conflict.

Neoliberalism[edit]

Neoliberalism, liberal institutionalism or neo-liberal institutionalism^[22] is an advancement of liberal thinking. It argues that international institutions can allow nations to successfully cooperate in the international system.

Complex interdependence[edit]

Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to neorealism, develop an opposing theory they dub 'complex interdependence.' Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye explain, '... complex interdependence sometimes comes closer to reality than does realism.' In explaining this, Keohane and Nye cover the three assumptions in realist thought: First, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international relations; second, force is a usable and effective instrument of policy; and finally, the assumption that there is a hierarchy in international politics.

The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is that in international politics there are, in fact, multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional Westphalian system of states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. Here they define their terminology; interstate relations are those channels assumed by realists; transgovernmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist assumption that states act coherently as units; transnational applies when one removes the assumption that states are the only units. It is through these channels that political exchange occurs, not through the limited interstate channel as championed by realists.

Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a hierarchy among issues, meaning that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a state's agenda, but that there are a multitude of different agendas that come to the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations.

Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails. The idea is developed that between countries in which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact important in that 'alliance's political and military relations with a rival bloc.'

Post-liberalism[edit]

One version of post-liberal theory argues that within the modern, globalized world, states in fact are driven to cooperate in order to ensure security and sovereign interests. The departure from classical liberal theory is most notably felt in the re-interpretation of the concepts of sovereignty and autonomy. Autonomy becomes a problematic concept in shifting away from a notion of freedom, self-determination, and agency to a heavily responsible and duty laden concept. Importantly, autonomy is linked to a capacity for good governance. Similarly, sovereignty also experiences a shift from a right to a duty. In the global economy, International organizations hold sovereign states to account, leading to a situation where sovereignty is co-produced among 'sovereign' states. The concept becomes a variable capacity of good governance and can no longer be accepted as an absolute right. One possible way to interpret this theory, is the idea that in order to maintain global stability and security and solve the problem of the anarchic world system in International Relations, no overarching, global, sovereign authority is created. Instead, states collectively abandon some rights for full autonomy and sovereignty.^[23] Another version of post-liberalism, drawing on work in political philosophy after the end of the Cold War, as well as on democratic transitions in particular in Latin America, argues that social forces from below are essential in understanding the nature of the state and the international system. Without understanding their contribution to political order and its progressive possibilities, particularly in the area of peace in local and international frameworks, the weaknesses of the state, the failings of the liberal peace, and challenges to global governance cannot be realised or properly understood. Furthermore, the impact of social forces on political and economic power, structures, and institutions, provides some empirical evidence of the complex shifts currently underway in IR.^[24]

Constructivism[edit]

Constructivism or social constructivism^[27] has been described as a challenge to the dominance of neo-liberal and neo-realist international relations theories.^[28] Michael Barnett describes constructivist international relations theories as being concerned with how ideas define international structure, how this structure defines the interests and identities of states and how states and non-state actors reproduce this structure.^[29] The key element of constructivism is the belief that 'International politics is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture, and social identities.' Constructivism argues that international reality is socially constructed by cognitive structures which give meaning to the material world.^[30] The theory emerged from debates concerning the scientific method of international relations theories and theories role in the production of international power.^[31]Emanuel Adler states that constructivism occupies a middle ground between rationalist and interpretative theories of international relations.^[30]

Constructivist theory criticises the static assumptions of traditional international relations theory and emphasizes that international relations is a social construction. Constructivism is a theory critical of the ontological basis of rationalist theories of international relations.^[32] Whereas realism deals mainly with security and material power, and liberalism looks primarily at economic interdependence and domestic-level factors, constructivism most concerns itself with the role of ideas in shaping the international system; indeed it is possible there is some overlap between constructivism and realism or liberalism, but they remain separate schools of thought. By 'ideas' constructivists refer to the goals, threats, fears, identities, and other elements of perceived reality that influence states and non-state actors within the international system. Constructivists believe that these ideational factors can often have far-reaching effects, and that they can trump materialistic power concerns.

For example, constructivists note that an increase in the size of the U.S. military is likely to be viewed with much greater concern in Cuba, a traditional antagonist of the United States, than in Canada, a close U.S. ally. Therefore, there must be perceptions at work in shaping international outcomes. As such, constructivists do not see anarchy as the invariable foundation of the international system,^[33] but rather argue, in the words of Alexander Wendt, that 'anarchy is what states make of it'.^[34] Constructivists also believe that social norms shape and change foreign policy over time rather than security which realists cite.

Marxism[edit]

Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories are structuralist paradigms which reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. Marxist approaches argue the position of historical materialism and make the assumption that the economic concerns transcend others; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. A sub-discipline of Marxist IR is Critical Security Studies. Gramscian approaches rely on the ideas of Italian Antonio Gramsci whose writings concerned the hegemony that capitalism holds as an ideology. Marxist approaches have also inspired Critical Theorists such as Robert W. Cox who argues that 'Theory is always for someone and for some purpose'.^[35]

One notable Marxist approach to international relations theory is Immanuel Wallerstein'sWorld-system theory which can be traced back to the ideas expressed by Lenin in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of capitalism. World-system theory argues that globalized capitalism has created a core of modern industrialized countries which exploit a periphery of exploited 'Third World' countries. These ideas were developed by the Latin American Dependency School. 'Neo-Marxist' or 'New Marxist' approaches have returned to the writings of Karl Marx for their inspiration. Key 'New Marxists' include Justin Rosenberg and Benno Teschke. Marxist approaches have enjoyed a renaissance since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.

Criticisms of Marxists approaches to international relations theory include the narrow focus on material and economic aspects of life.

Feminism[edit]

Feminist approaches to international relations became popular in the early 1990s. Such approaches emphasize that women's experiences continue to be excluded from the study of international relations.^[36] International Relations Feminists who argue that gender relations are integral to international relations focus on the role of diplomatic wives and marital relationship that facilitate sex trafficking. Early feminist IR approaches were part of the 'Third Great Debate' between positivists and post-positivists. They argued against what they saw as the positivism and state-centrism of mainstream international relations. J. Ann Tickner argues that these approaches did not describe what a feminist perspective on world politics would look like.^[37]

The feminist international relations scholar Jacqui True differentiates between empirical feminism, analytical feminism and normative feminism. Empirical feminism sees women and gender relations as empirical aspects of international relations.^[38] It is argued that mainstream international relations emphasis on anarchy and statecraft mean that areas of study that make the reproduction of the state system possible are marginalized.^[39] Analytical feminism claims that the theoretical framework of international relations has a gender bias. Here gender refers not to the 'biological' differences between men and women but the social constructs of masculine and feminine identity.^[38] It is claimed that in mainstream international relations masculinity is associated with objectivity. Analytical feminists would see neo-realism's dislike of domestic explanations for explaining interstate behaviour as an example of this bias. Normative feminist sees theorizing as part of an agenda for change.

Criticisms of feminist international relations theory include its portrayal of women in developing countries.^[40]

Feminist International Relations is sometimes oversimplified into a women's issue or simply a need to 'add women and stir'. 'Masculinities, IR and the 'gender variable': a cost-benefit analysis for (sympathetic) gender sceptics', an article by Charlotte Hooper, makes the case that looking at international relations through a gendered lens is important for all genders. The article illustrates that the hyper-masculinity used in international relations has a negative impact on all genders. It privileges only a certain kind of man, forcing all others to fit into the constraints of one vision of masculinity. Hooper also argues that this gendered lens requires a complete overhaul of traditional methods, rather than just adding women to the study. 'In order to investigate the intersections between gender identities and international relations, one cannot rely on approaches which would take gender identities as 'givens' or as independent, externally derived variables'.^[41] Traditional methods do not meet the needs of men or women. They attempt to reduce our needs to security, failing to take into account class, education level, gender, or experience. Hooper argues that traditional studies of international relations are causing us to miss many factors for more than just women and children.

To appeal to sympathetic sceptics, Hooper explains that international relations shapes masculinity in a way that affects us all. To establish this she explains that masculinity and femininity are social constructs that can be influenced by theories and discourse. Hooper turns so called feminist international relations into gendered international relations, which brings in all people and highlights the importance of new methods to the field. Genders just like class, ethnicity, age, etc. can help inform our understanding of how people and nations act and if we ignore the range of masculinities and femininities we are only working with half the puzzle. The system that Feminist International Relations is trying to subvert affects us all and influences many of our traditional theories. Hooper offers the example of war which has shaped the male body; it has created men as takers of life and women as givers of it.^[41] We proceed to tell men they simply have more natural aggression. Hooper also illustrates the ways masculinity, like femininity, has been influenced by colonization. The hierarchy formed by colonization labels Asians as effeminate, Africans as savage and white men as the proper balance at the top the hierarchy. War and colonialism still influence international relations to a large extent.

Green theory[edit]

Green theory in international relations is a sub-field of international relations theory which concerns international environmental cooperation.

Alternative approaches[edit]

Several alternative approaches have been developed based on foundationalism, anti-foundationalism, positivism, behaviouralism, structuralism and post-structuralism. These theories however are not widely known.

Behaviouralism in international relations theory is an approach to international relations theory which believes in the unity of science, the idea that the social sciences are not fundamentally different from the natural sciences.^[42]

English School[edit]

The 'English School' of international relations theory, also known as International Society, Liberal Realism, Rationalism or the British institutionalists, maintains that there is a 'society of states' at the international level, despite the condition of 'anarchy', i.e., the lack of a ruler or world state. Despite being called the English School many of the academics from this school were neither English nor from the United Kingdom.

A great deal of the work of the English School concerns the examination of traditions of past international theory, casting it, as Martin Wight did in his 1950s-era lectures at the London School of Economics, into three divisions:

• Realist or Hobbesian (after Thomas Hobbes)
• Rationalist (or Grotian, after Hugo Grotius)
• Revolutionist (or Kantian, after Immanuel Kant)

In broad terms, the English School itself has supported the rationalist or Grotian tradition, seeking a middle way (or via media) between the power politics of realism and the 'utopianism' of revolutionism. The English School reject behavioralist approaches to international relations theory. The international relations theories have become a typical learning of the fundamental insight and origin of international relations.

Functionalism[edit]

Functionalism is a theory of international relations that arose principally from the experience of European integration. Rather than the self-interest that realists see as a motivating factor, functionalists focus on common interests shared by states. Integration develops its own internal dynamic: as states integrate in limited functional or technical areas, they increasingly find that momentum for further rounds of integration in related areas. This 'invisible hand' of integration phenomenon is termed 'spillover'. Although integration can be resisted, it becomes harder to stop integration's reach as it progresses. This usage, and the usage in functionalism in international relations, is the less common meaning of functionalism.

More commonly, however, functionalism is an argument that explains phenomena as functions of a system rather than an actor or actors. Immanuel Wallerstein employed a functionalist theory when he argued that the Westphalian international political system arose to secure and protect the developing international capitalist system. His theory is called 'functionalist' because it says that an event was a function of the preferences of a system and not the preferences of an agent. Functionalism is different from structural or realist arguments in that while both look to broader, structural causes, realists (and structuralists more broadly) say that the structure gives incentives to agents, while functionalists attribute causal power to the system itself, bypassing agents entirely.

Post-structuralism[edit]

Post-structuralism differs from most other approaches to international politics because it does not see itself as a theory, school or paradigm which produces a single account of the subject matter. Instead, post-structuralism is an approach, attitude, or ethos that pursues critique in particular way. Post-structuralism sees critique as an inherently positive exercise that establishes the conditions of possibility for pursuing alternatives. It states that 'Every understanding of international politics depends upon abstraction, representation and interpretation'. Scholars associated with post-structuralism in international relations include Richard K. Ashley, James Der Derian, Michael J. Shapiro, R. B. J. Walker, and Lene Hansen.

Post-modernism[edit]

Post-modernist approaches to international relations are critical of metanarratives and denounces traditional IR's claims to truth and neutrality.^[43]

Postcolonialism[edit]

Postcolonial International relations scholarship posits a critical theory approach to International relations (IR), and is a non-mainstream area of international relations scholarship. Post-colonialism focuses on the persistence of colonial forms of power and the continuing existence of racism in world politics.^[44]

Evolutionary perspectives[edit]

Evolutionary perspectives, such as from evolutionary psychology, have been argued to help explain many features of international relations.^[45] Humans in the ancestral environment did not live in states and likely rarely had interactions with groups outside of a very local area. However, a variety of evolved psychological mechanisms, in particular those for dealing with inter group interactions, are argued to influence current international relations. These include evolved mechanisms for social exchange, cheating and detecting cheating, status conflicts, leadership, ingroup and outgroup distinction and biases, coalitions, and violence. Evolutionary concepts such as inclusive fitness may help explain seeming limitations of a concept such as egotism which is of fundamental importance to realist and rational choice international relations theories.^[46][47]

Neuroscience and IR[edit]

In recent years, with significant advances in neuroscience and neuroimaging tools, IR Theory has benefited from further multidisciplinary contributions. Prof. Nayef Al-Rodhan from Oxford University has argued that neuroscience^[48] can significantly advance the IR debate as it brings forward new insights about human nature, which is at the centre of political theory. New tools to scan the human brain, and studies in neurochemistry allow us to grasp what drives divisiveness,^[49] conflict, and human nature in general. The theory of human nature in Classical Realism, developed long before the advent of neuroscience, stressed that egoism and competition were central to human behaviour, to politics and social relations. Evidence from neuroscience, however, provides a more nuanced understanding of human nature, which Prof. Al-Rodhan describes as emotional amoral egoistic. These three features can be summarized as follows: 1. emotionality is more pervasive than rationality and central to decision-making, 2. we are born neither moral, nor immoral but amoral, and circumstances decide how our moral compass will develop, and finally, 3. we are egoistic insofar as we seek to ensure our survival, which is a basic form of egoism. This neurophilosophy of human nature can also be applied to states^[50] - similarly to the Realist analogy between the character (and flaws) of man and the state in international politics. Prof Al-Rodhan argues there are significant examples in history and contemporary politics that demonstrate states behave less rationality than IR dogma would have us believe: different strategic cultures, habits,^[51]identity politics influence state conduct, geopolitics and diplomacy in profound ways.

Queer and transgender perspectives[edit]

Queer international relations scholarship aims to broaden the scope and method of traditional international relations theory to include sexed and gendered approaches that are often excluded in the discipline at large. While affiliated with feminist theory and gender studies, as well as post-structuralism, queer IR theory is not reducible to any other field of international relations scholarship. Queer international relations theory works to expose the many ways in which sexualities and gender affect international politics. This includes the ways in which queer subjects and practices are disciplined, normalized, or capitalized on by traditional sites of power; how queer identities have often been the focus of domestic and foreign policy in heteronormative states; and how the order-versus-anarchy dichotomy in traditional international relations theory socially manifests itself in normal-versus-perverse and hetero/homo-normative versus queer dichotomies. Queer IR theory takes sites of traditional international relations scholarship (war and peace, international political economy, and state and nation building) as its subjects of study. It also expands its scope and methods beyond those traditionally utilized in Realist IR scholarship. Ontologically, queer IR utilizes a different scope from traditional IR, as it aims to non-monolithically address the needs of various queer groups, including trans-, inter-, cross-, and pan- gendered, sexed, and sexualized bodies. Epistemologically, queer IR explores alternative methodologies to those traditionally used in IR, as it emphasizes the sexual dimension of knowledge within international relations.^[52]

Criticism for queer theory in general, and queer international relations in particular, addresses worries of the minimization or exclusion of certain groups. While queer IR incorporates transgender individuals in its expanded scope, some argue its emphasis on sexuality fails to adequately capture transgender experiences. Susan Stryker contests that queer theory’s approach merely treats the ‘T’ in LGBT as another, detached genre of sexual identity, “rather than perceived, like race or class, as something that cuts across existing sexualities, revealing in often unexpected ways the means through which all identities achieve their specificities.” While queer theoretical spaces remain friendly to transgender work, Stryker argues that ‘queer’ often acts as code for ‘gays’ or ‘lesbians,’ implicitly excluding transgender issues by privileging sexual orientations and identities. This leads Stryker to advocate that transgender studies follows its own trajectory.^[53]

Laura Sjoberg advocates for allying trans-theorizing and feminist theorizing in IR. She suggests some possible improvements that trans-theorizing may offer for feminist IR theory, which include a more nuanced understanding of gender hierarchy through a pluralist approach to sex, a holistic view of gender that resists viewing gender entirely either as a social construction or as biologically essential, and an increased awareness of gender as involving power relations among different sexes and genders. Additionally, Sjoberg argues, trans-theorizing makes important contributions to traditional IR’s understanding of global politics. Discussions of ‘outness,’ visibility, invisibility, and hypervisibility in transgender theorizing are applicable to questions of identity, relations between individuals and groups, and the enforcement of norms in IR. Additionally, transgender understandings of transition and liminality can fill the gap in traditional IR’s need for an account of change and unrest in the international system. Moreover, talk of “crossing” and “passing” in trans-theorizing may assist in explaining the process, logic, and consequences of states shifting identities. Finally, transgender disidentification, either from exclusionary movements or from their assigned sex, can help in unpacking “the problem of difference” in international relations. As such, Sjoberg advocates for the inclusion of trans-theorizing in feminist IR theory in the interests of improving explanations and understandings of global politics.^[54]

Theory in international relations scholarship[edit]

Several IR scholars bemoan what they see as a trend away from IR theory in IR scholarship.^{[55][56][57][58][59]} The September 2013 issue of European Journal of International Relations and the June 2015 issue of Perspectives on Politics debated the state of IR theory.^[60][61] A 2016 study showed that while theoretical innovations and qualitative analyses are a large part of graduate training, journals favor middle-range theory, quantitative hypothesis testing and methodology for publishing.^[62]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^'The IR Theory Home Page'. Irtheory.com. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
2. ^Snyder, Jack, 'One World, Rival Theories, Foreign Policy, 145 (November/December 2004), p.52
3. ^Burchill, Scott and Linklater, Andrew 'Introduction' Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill ... [et al.], p.1. Palgrave, 2005.
4. ^Burchill, Scott and Linklater, Andrew 'Introduction' Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill ... [et al.], p.6. Palgrave, 2005.
5. ^Burchill, Scott and Linklater, Andrew 'Introduction' Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill ... [et al.], p.7. Palgrave, 2005.
6. ^Schmidt, Brian; Long, David (2005). Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations. New York: State University of New York Press. ISBN9780791463239.
7. ^Smith,Owens, 'Alternative approaches to international theory', 'The Globalisation of World Politics', Baylis, Smith and Owens, OUP, 4th ed p176-177
8. ^See Forde, Steven,(1995), 'International Realism and the Science of Politics:Thucydides, Machiavelli and Neorealism,' International Studies Quarterly 39(2):141–160
9. ^ ^ab'Political Realism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'. Iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
10. ^ ^abDunne, Tim and Schmidt, Britain, The Globalisation of World Politics, Baylis, Smith and Owens, OUP, 4th ed, p
11. ^Snyder, Jack, 'One World, Rival Theories, Foreign Policy, 145 (November/December 2004), p.59
12. ^Snyder, Jack, 'One World, Rival Theories, Foreign Policy, 145 (November/December 2004), p.55
13. ^ ^abMearsheimer, John (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 25–26. ISBN978-0-393-07624-0.
14. ^'Structural Realism'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on March 17, 2009. Retrieved October 18, 2009.
15. ^Lamy,Steven, Contemporary Approaches:Neo-realism and neo-liberalism in 'The Globalisation of World Politics, Baylis, Smith and Owens, OUP, 4th ed,p127
16. ^The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN978 0 19 929777 1.
17. ^Lamy, Steven, 'Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism', The Globalisation of World Politics, Smith, Baylis and Owens, OUP, 4th ed, pp.127–128
18. ^E Gartzk, Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace, American Journal of Political Science, 1998
19. ^Brian C. Schmidt, The political discourse of anarchy: a disciplinary history of international relations, 1998, p.219
20. ^Rosato, Sebastian, The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory, American Political Science Review, Volume 97, Issue 04, November 2003, pp.585–602
21. ^Copeland, Dale, Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Spring, 1996), pp.5–41
22. ^Sutch, Peter, Elias, 2006, Juanita, International Relations: The Basics, Routledge p.11
23. ^Chandler, David (2010). International Statebuilding – The Rise of the Post-Liberal Paradigm. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 43–90. ISBN978-0-415-42118-8.
24. ^Richmond, Oliver (2011). A Post-Liberal Peace. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-66784-5.
25. ^Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge. (Spring, 1998), p.41: 'The end of the Cold War played an important role in legitimizing constructivist t realism and liberalism failed to anticipate this event and had trouble explaining it.
26. ^Hay, Colin (2002) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave, P. 198
27. ^[1]
28. ^Hopf, Ted, The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory, International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1998), p.171
29. ^Michael Barnett, 'Social Constructivism' in The Globalisation of World Politics, Baylis, Smith and Owens, 4th ed, OUP, p.162
30. ^ ^abAlder, Emmanuel, Seizing the middle ground, European Journal of International Relations, Vol .3, 1997, p.319
31. ^K.M. Ferike, International Relations Theories:Discipline and Diversity, Dunne, Kurki and Smith, OUP, p.167
32. ^In international relations ontology refers to the basic unit of analysis that an international relations theory uses. For example for neorealists humans are the basic unit of analysis
33. ^'The IR Theory Knowledge Base'. Irtheory.com. 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
34. ^Wendt, Alexander, 'Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics' in International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, 1992
35. ^Cox, Robert, Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations TheoryCox Millennium – Journal of International Studies.1981; 10: 126–155
36. ^Zalewski, Marysia, 'Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters With(in)' British Journal of Politics & International Relations, Volume 9, Issue 2 p.304
37. ^Tickner, J. Ann (1997-12-01). 'You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists'. International Studies Quarterly. 41 (4): 611–632. doi:10.1111/1468-2478.00060. ISSN0020-8833.
38. ^ ^abTrue, Jacqui, 'Feminism' in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al., 3rd ed, Palgrave, p. 221
39. ^Grant, R. and Newland, K. (eds) (1991) Gender and International Relations, (London).
40. ^Mohanty, C, (1991) 'Under Western Eyes:Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses' in C. Mohanty, T.A. Russo and L.Torres (ed), Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, Bloomington
41. ^ ^abHooper, Charlotte (1999). 'Masculinities, IR and the 'gender variable': a cost-benefit analysis for (sympathetic) gender sceptics'(PDF). Review of International Studies. 25 (3): 475–491. doi:10.1017/s0260210599004751.
42. ^Jackson, Robert, Sorensen, Georg, “Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches', OUP, 3rd ed, p305
43. ^'Archived copy'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2012-03-28. Retrieved 2011-07-21.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
44. ^Baylis, Smith and Owens, The Globalisation of World Politics, OUP, 4th ed, p187-189
45. ^McDermott, Rose; Davenport, Christian (2017-01-25). 'Toward an Evolutionary Theory of International Relations'. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001 (inactive 2019-03-15).
46. ^Bradley A. Thayer. Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict. 2004. University Press of Kentucky.
47. ^Bradley A. Thayer (2010). 'Darwin and International Relations Theory: Improving Theoretical Assumptions of Political Behavior'(PDF). Psa.ac.uk. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2013-03-06. Retrieved 2017-04-04. Prepared for Presentation at the 60th Political Studies Association Annual Conference Edinburgh, Scotland
48. ^'Neuro-philosophy of International Relations Nayef Al-Rodhan'. Themontrealreview.com. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
49. ^Nayef Al-Rodhan (2016-10-19). 'Us versus Them. How neurophilosophy explains our divided politics - OxPol'. Blog.politics.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
50. ^Nayef Al-Rodhan (2016-10-19). 'The emotional amoral egoism of states - OxPol'. Blog.politics.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
51. ^Hopf, Ted (2010). 'European Journal of International Relations : The logic of habit in International Relations'. European Journal of International Relations. 16 (4): 539–561. doi:10.1177/1354066110363502.
52. ^Weber, Cynthia. “Queer International Relations: From Queer to Queer IR.” International Studies Review 16 (2014). 596–622. Web. March 10. 2015.
53. ^Stryker, Susan. “Transgender Studies: Queer Theory’s Evil Twin.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10.2 (2004). 212–215. Web. March 21. 2015.
54. ^Sjoberg, Laura. “Towards Trans-gendering International Relations?” International Political Sociology 6 (2013). 337–354. Web. April 7. 2015.
55. ^Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen M. (2013-09-01). 'Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations'. European Journal of International Relations. 19 (3): 427–457. doi:10.1177/1354066113494320. ISSN1354-0661.
56. ^Aggarwal, Vinod K. (2010-09-01). 'I Don't Get No Respect:1 The Travails of IPE2'. International Studies Quarterly. 54 (3): 893–895. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00615.x. ISSN1468-2478.
57. ^Keohane, Robert O. (2009-02-16). 'The old IPE and the new'. Review of International Political Economy. 16 (1): 34–46. doi:10.1080/09692290802524059. ISSN0969-2290.
58. ^Desch, Michael (2015-06-01). 'Technique Trumps Relevance: The Professionalization of Political Science and the Marginalization of Security Studies'. Perspectives on Politics. 13 (2): 377–393. doi:10.1017/S1537592714004022. ISSN1541-0986.
59. ^Isaac, Jeffrey C. (2015-06-01). 'For a More Public Political Science'. Perspectives on Politics. 13 (2): 269–283. doi:10.1017/S1537592715000031. ISSN1541-0986.
60. ^'Table of Contents — September 2013, 19 (3)'. ejt.sagepub.com. Retrieved 2016-02-17.
61. ^'Perspectives on Politics Vol. 13 Issue 02'. journals.cambridge.org. Retrieved 2016-02-17.
62. ^Colgan, Jeff D. (2016-02-12). 'Where Is International Relations Going? Evidence from Graduate Training'. International Studies Quarterly. 60 (3): 486–498. doi:10.1093/isq/sqv017. ISSN0020-8833.

Further reading[edit]

• Baylis, John; Steve Smith; and Patricia Owens. (2008) The Globalisation of World Politics, OUP, 4th edition.
• Braumoeller, Bear. (2013) The Great Powers and the International System: Systemic Theory in Empirical Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
• Burchill, et al. eds. (2005) Theories of International Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave, ISBN1-4039-4866-6
• Chernoff, Fred. Theory and Meta-Theory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Guilhot Nicolas, ed. (2011) The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory.
• Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, Columbia University Press.
• Jackson, Robert H., and Georg Sørensen (2013) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford, OUP, 5th ed.
• Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations
• Pettman, Ralph (2010) World Affairs. An Analytical Overview, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN9814293873.
• Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics
• Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State, and War, Columbia University Press.
• Weber, Cynthia. (2004) International Relations Theory. A Critical Introduction, 2nd edition, Taylor & Francis, ISBN0-415-34208-2
• Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press.

External links[edit]

• Theory Talks Interviews with key IR theorists
• Jack Snyder's 'One World, Rival Theories' in Foreign Policy
• Stephen Walt's 'One World, Many Theories' in Foreign Policy