Theories Of International Relations 2 Dersi 1. Ünite Özet

Major theories

The discipline of International Relations (IR) can be studied in three categories:

• traditional theories,
• global society theories
• neo-Marxist theories.

It is also possible to name them

• realism
• pluralism
• globalism.

According to Buzan they can also be defined as

• conservatism
• liberalism
• radicalism

The most common ones used in different studies are

• realism
• liberalism
• Marxism.

Shimko preferred the basic division of realism and liberalism and went into detail with the division as Machiavellianism, Grotianism and Kantianism.

The realist approach claims that states are the major actors of international politics. According to the realist paradigm, not only individuals but also states have negative characters. They are interest-seeking and aggressive. In order to ensure the state existence, security issues are considered as high politics while other issues related to commerce, finance, money and health are considered as low politics. The struggle for power has always been the central subject for IR. Because of the lack of central authourity to govern the relations among states, security has become more and more important. Their longing for security has caused the states to increase their military capability which is being perceived as a threat by other states.

According to neorealism , states might establish international institutions or sign treaties in order to cope with the instabilities in international structure which threaten the security of states. For Hobbesian approach - also called Machiavellianism- conflicts among states are very natural and moral principles do not guide politics and politicians do not pay attention to moral principles when making decisions.

While realist writers think, international law and organizations are not sufficient to maintain the peace and security and there is a need of balance of power , idealists think the norms and rules relevant to international law and international organizations should be applied to international relations in order to preserve peace and order.

Different from realism or conservatism, Wilsonian idealism depends on Kantian liberalism, and it emphasizes the importance of expansion of the rights of individuals. One of the conditions of pluralism is that the state is not the only actor and that there are other political actors like nongovernmental organizations or civil society organisations. For Kantian universalism, which represents the cosmopolitan outlook, the root of international relations is transnational relations and linkages rather than the struggle for interest. Cooperation is the main point instead of struggle for conflicting interests. This approach is also called liberal/ idealist view.

Unfortunately, neither complete struggle of interest like Hobbesian view nor complete harmony of interest like in Kantian thought is the real situation in international relations.

Another classificiation is Grotianism or international society approach which can be located between both extreme points of Hobbesian and Kantian thoughts.

Different from realist approach which focuses on the security problems of the states in the anarchical nature of the international system, and pluralist approach which focuses on peace and cooperation, the globalist approach criticizes the reasons of the underdevelopment of Third World countries. Also Non-Marxist writers pay attention to this problem which is why the IR theory is known as globalism instead of Marxism. Marxist theories try to explain war and peace through economic reasons. Wars and conflicts arise from contradictions of capitalism.

State-Centrism and Non-State Centrism

The 1970s brought a new paradigm debate in IR. This debate was a contention between state-centrism and transnationalism/non-state centrism. The emergence of new actors encouraged the development of transnationalism as a new paradigm which caused statecentric approach to lose its attractiveness. At the same time, new international structure demonstrated that old fashioned approaches could not help to understand and explain new developments. The debate intensified during 1980s and resulted with the contention whether IR is a field of science or only a field of study.

The paradigm debate began with the rejection of the role of the state as a basic actor of IR and claimed the possibility of explanation of existing international system by traditional methods. Because of the dominance of the state-centric paradigm issues like war and peace shaped the main agenda and the policies were analyzed in the context of anarchical international system which divided states as super powers and small powers.

However, after 1970’s a group of scientists claimed clearly the invalidity of the state-centric approaches as a result of globalization and emerging non-state actors. Concepts such as inequality and exploitation were being discussed which caused a new contention about the new era, There were several theories and approaches competing with each other to stay as valid .

Level of Analysis/Unit of Analysis

Another contention in IR is about the concepts of level of analysis and unit of analysis. Different assumptions lead to different uses of the concepts like two level approaches such as state-system, unit-state or actor-state, and three or more level of analysis such as unit-state-system. Concerning the level of analysis and unit of analysis debate, the first one is related to the causes and the second one is related to the results. Level of analysis is related to the framework the states as units of analysis are situated in. But level of analysis might change according to theories used for the purposes of an analysis.

If the systems approach is used, the structure becomes the main focus to emphasize and the features of each state and their decision makers or power capabilities are not taken into consideration. In models based on the system level of analysis, foreign policy is accepted as a response of the state to the foreign environment.

However, in the case of state level analysis the state is accepted as the main determinant for foreign policy process and in some theories the state is assumed to maximize its gains. But for realist theories the state takes balance of power into consideration and tries to get more power to survive.

David Singer reduced the number of levels of analysis to two categories

• system level analysis
• state level analysis.

For system level analysis the structure and distribution of power among the states are very important and determine the state’s foreign policy; this means in the level of international system, structure as a whole is taken into consideration for analysis.

In Singer’s opinion the basic advantages of approaches receiving the state as a level of analysis is that they point out the differences between states by taking each state’s characteristics into consideration. On the other hand, in system level analysis, characteristic differences among states are neglected.

Approaches or theories which analyze foreign policy at state level are:

• classical realism
• neorealism
• game theory
• theory of strategies
• some conflict theories

One of the important features of state level analysis is to provide valuable opportunities to show the motivations and objectives behind the national policies.

Waltz offered a two track analysis

• sometimes system level
• sometimes unit level

which could be taken as an independent variable to analyze the foreign policy as a dependent variable. With his approach, Waltz has been the pioneer of neorealism/structural realism.

Epistemological Debates

Epistomology is the theory of knowledge or the theory of science. This means epistomology searches the answer to the question what scientific knowledge is and how it is produced. In this context, there are three theories of knowledge or three epistemologies for scientific knowledge:

• empricism
• rationalism
• pragmatism

The basic feature of positivism as a methodological position and philosophical thought is that science is accepted only as valid scientific knowledge and acts are basic objects to be experimented on. This point of view is based on two important philosophical beliefs:

• The main source of human knowledge is data (fact) and it is easily observed,
• Data (or fact) is available only as a result of our senses.

One of the theories of knowledge is empricism , a way to reach knowledge.The basic assumption here is that true knowledge can only be acquired through senses and observations. So, empiricists do not accept priori knowledge, instead knowledge can only be gained by experience and the consequences of empirical observations.

Positivism representing empricism refers to a scientific method which was applied to philosophy by Saint Simon and further by August Comte. It became a noun of philosophical movement. Finally, in 1920s by Vienna Circle, logical positivism/empricism began to be known as logical empiricism and neo-positivism.

Positivism is distinguished by four important assumptions:

• the belief about the uniqueness of science.
• there should be a distinction between facts and values
• the belief that as in the universe or natural world, there are also regularities in the social world
• research must be based on the methods of empirical verification or falsification

Another epistemology is rationalism represented by some philosophers belonging to Cartesian School such as Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza. Rationalism reached to the top with Hegel. The scientific method that rationalism has adopted is deduction which depends on the reason and intuition and a source of knowledge rather than observation and experiment and it is called priori knowledge. According to this approach, the nature is commanded by certain rules and laws the results of which could only be observed rather than themselves. Rationalists do not completely believe that knowledge can only be reached through reason.This means they do not ignore experimental knowledge stemming from experiences and observations.

Kant accepted priori knowledge as universal and deductive. Priori knowledge is concrete and absolute but posteriori knowledge might change and cannot be trusted. Kant, separated from classical rationalists in some points, accepted the limits of reason, but explored a logic extending from reason to experimentation.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel thought reality can be acquired through speculative ways and without experiment or observation but only within the limits of mind. Knowledge can only be reached by reason.

Third epistemology besides empiricism and rationalism, is pragmatism which is a practical way of approaching or assessing or solving problems. Another definition could be the pursuit of practicality over aesthetic qualities; a concentration on facts rather than emotions or ideals. Pragmatism represents a midway approach between empiricism and rationalism.It believes that every belief or assumption is questionable and might change if necessary. Also, there can be more than one theory at a time and the researcher can be forced to choose one of them. According to pragmatism, our beliefs influence our actions directly and direct them to a certain way. Pragmatism evaluates the validity and reality through the results of actions.

Behaviouralism has been very effective in the studies made during 1950s and 1960s. Behaviorists are interested in philosophy of science, emphasizing the possibility of studying social sciences through the methods of natural sciences. Behaviouralism is a methodological position and it is related to the principles that could be used for the study of IR and the methods to be used for analyses in this field.

Normativism is distinguished from empiricism and positivism because it uses value laden propositions and relative judgements. Assumptions of normativism cannot be verified or tested by empirical facts as they are not related to the actual and observed world. They are different from positivist approaches which depend on value free assumptions concerning the real world as it is and verified by actual observation and experiences. Normative theories are not only philosophical comments. They take ethical subjects for analysis of the following concepts into consideration:

• war
• peace
• foreign intervention
• exploitation
• human rights
• dependency
• interdependency
• foreign aid
• selfdetermination

Ontological Debates and Postmodernism Turn

Ontology and epistemology are two different ways of viewing a research philosophy. Ontology can be defined as “the science or study of being” and it deals with the nature of reality. Objectivism (or positivism) and subjectivism are two important aspects of ontology.

The major debates in the field were:

• the debate between realism and idealism (liberalism) in the 1930s and 1940s
• the debate of traditionalism and behaviouralism in the 1960s
• the debate between positivism and postpositivism after the 1980s

All critical approaches to the IR were post-positivist. In spite of this, positivism is still very influential in the field of IR.

Post-modernism can be defined as an approach challenging the scientific and social standpoints of modernism. It is also an alternative effort related to the international relations and social and natural sciences. It rejects the traditional approaches which are concerned with the general principles and universal rules that science and society would be managed by. The influence of postmodernism is felt in many fields of science opposing to the fundamental moral and religious principles in social life. The result of postmodernism can be expressed as anarchy. This methodological challenge in general can be divided into the following sub categories:

• post-positivism
• post-structuralism
• feminism