Introduction
The life of people among States and
Nations is governed by interests that bind them to interrelate. Such
relationships constitute the basis to formulate foreign policies which in turn
regulate cooperation at sub regional, regional, continental and/or worldwide
level. The subject of international relations is a science that deals with the
relationships between countries including the roles of states,
intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental
organizations (INGOs) and multinational co-operations (MNCs). The field of IR
is closely connected with other subjects grouped under social sciences like
economics, history, anthropology, geography, politics, etc. Having in mind that
in 1st Year of Social Sciences, students have already acquired
basics in international relations, the 2nd year aims at going deeper
in learning matters on International relations.
During the course of 2nd Year at university level in the
department of International Relations and, based on the number of periods
allocated, the subject of the advanced international relations covers a number
of most important chapters. The first chapter will tackle to theories and
methods of IR through which we shall discuss about positivist and post
positivist approaches to international relations. Theoretical concepts like
realism, idealism, liberalism, democratic peace will be discussed with specific
examples of their application in day to day life of nations. The second chapter will discuss issues
related to the rise and fall of the Cold War. Thereafter, in chapter three and
four, we shall try to analyse aspects underlying the international system and
the influence of power among States. Chapter five will concentrate on the
changing balance of global economy while chapter six will discuss about
international trade and multinational corporations. Before the general
conclusion, the last chapter will equip the students with tools to understand
stakes underpinning the international politico-economical relations.
CHAP I:
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
I.0 Introduction
In the
field of IR, theories provide a conceptual framework for analysis and subject
matter expert like OLE HOLSTI describe international relations theories act as
a pair of colored sunglasses that permit the wearer to see only the salient
events relevant to the theory.
In other
words, an adherent of one theory may completely disregard what views by another
one as crucial and most popular theories are Realism, liberalism and constructivism.
IR theories can be divided into positivist/ rationalist theories focusing on a
principally state-level analysis and post-positivist/reflectivist theories that
incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to gender, to
postcolonial security. Conflicting ways of thinking exist in IR theory,
including constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, neo-gramscianism, and
others.
Over time,
scholars have developed a number of approaches to the study of international
relations. These approaches include realism, neorealism, idealism and
liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Marxism.
I.1 Idealism/
Liberalism
According to Walter Johnson, the idealism is a decision-making based upon
ideas, rather than other causes such as material self-interest or passion. In International Relations, idealism holds
that older models of international interaction, based on the concern for power,
can be discarded and states can interact based on things such as human rights,
humanitarian concerns or peace. As a result, idealism in Int. Relations
stresses international cooperation and international law.
Idealism, more specifically, Wilsonianism or Wilsonian
Idealism, refers to the school of thought personified in American
diplomatic history by Woodrow
Wilson. Idealism holds that a state should make its internal
political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy.
Idealism
is also marked by the prominent role
played by international law and international
organization in its conception of policy formation. One of the most well-known
tenets of modern idealist thinking is democratic
peace theory, which holds that states with similar modes of democratic
governance do not fight one another.
Idealism
transcends the left-right political
spectrum and Idealists can include both human rights campaigners
(traditionally, but not always, associated with the left) and American neo conservatism which is
usually associated with the right.
Idealism
may find itself in opposition to Realism, a worldview which argues that a nation's national
interest is more important than ethical or moral considerations;
however, there need be no conflict between the two (see Neo-conservatism for an example of
a confluence of the two). Realist
thinkers include Hans Morgenthau, Niccolo Machiavelli, Otto Von
Bismarck, Georges F Kennan and others.
According
the historian David Kennedy, the American foreign relations have rested on
Wilsonian idealism since 1914 though adjusted somewhat by the
"realism" represented by Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger and Wilson's ideas continue to dominate
American foreign policy in the twenty-first century.
I.1.2
Descendant Theories
Idealism
proper was a relatively short-lived school of thought, and suffered a crisis of
confidence following the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak
of WW II.
I.1.2.1 Liberalism
Liberalism is one of the main schools of international
relations theory. Its roots lie in the broader liberal thought originating
in the Enlightenment. The
central issues that it seeks to address are the problems of achieving lasting
peace and cooperation in international relations, and the various methods that
could contribute to their achievement.
The Democratic peace theory and, more
broadly, the effect of domestic political regime types and domestic
politics on international relations;
The Commercial peace theory, arguing that
free trade has pacifying effects on international relations. Current
explorations of globalization and interdependence are
a broader continuation of this line of inquiry;
Institutional peace theory,
which attempts to demonstrate how cooperation can be sustained in anarchy,
how long-term interests can be pursued over short-term interests, and how
actors may realize absolute gains instead of seeking relative gains;
Related, the
effect of Int Organizations on
international politics, both in their role as forums for states to pursue their
interests, and in their role as actors in their own right;
I.1.2.2 Neo liberalism
In
the study of Int Relations, neo liberalism refers to a
school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be,
concerned first and foremost with absolute
gains rather than relative
gains to other nation-states. Although both theories use common
methodologies including game theory neoliberalism is not the same as
neoliberal economic ideology.
Neoliberal
international relations thinkers often employ game theory to explain
why states do or do not cooperate; since their approach tends to emphasize the
possibility of mutual wins, they are interested in institutions which can
arrange jointly profitable arrangements and compromises.
I.1.2.3 Democratic peace theory (liberal peace theory)
Some
theorists prefer terms such as "mutual democratic pacifism" or
"inter-democracy nonaggression hypothesis" so as to clarify that a
state of peace is not singular to democracies, but rather that it is
easily sustained between democratic nations.
I.1.2.3.1
Defining Democracy
Democracies
have been defined differently by different theorists and researchers. Rummel
(1997) is one of them and he states:
"By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold
power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide
franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3 of adult males); where
there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional
framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees
equal rights."
In other words, democracy is a form
of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions
that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate
equally, either directly or through elected representatives in the proposal,
development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and
cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political
self-determination.
According
to Karl Popper, democracy is defined in
contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on
opportunities for the people to control
their leaders and to oust them
without the need for a revolution.
I.1.2.3.2
Variants
of Democracy
Though
there are several variants of democracy, two of them are basic forms and both
concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will.
Direct
democracy: in which all eligible citizens have
direct and active participation in the decision making of the government.
Representative
democracy: In most modern democracies, the
whole body of all eligible citizens remains the sovereign power but political
power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives. The concept of
representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that
developed during the European middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment,
and the American and French Revolutions.
I.1.2.4 defining war
War should be understood as an actual,
intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities.
War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political
communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to
become states (in order to allow for civil war).
Classical war is international war, a war between different states, like
the two World Wars.
Civil War: This is a war within a state between rival groups or
communities. Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations,
might also be considered “political communities,” in that they are associations
of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to
statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands. One of
many examples of Political communities is El Shabbab in Somalia, JEM (Justice
Equity Movement) in Darfur-Sudan
I.1.2.5 Monadic vs. Dyadic Peace
Most
research is regarding the dyadic peace, that democracies do not fight
one another. Very few researchers have supported the monadic peace,
that democracies are more peaceful in general. There are some recent papers
that find a slight monadic effect. Müller and Wolff (2004), in listing them,
agree "that democracies on average might be slightly, but not strongly,
less warlike than other states," but general "monadic explanations is
neither necessary nor convincing".
I.1.2.6 Democratic Norms
Some norms
regulate political life in democratic states as follows:
A
liberal democratic culture makes the leaders accustomed to negotiation and compromise (Weart, 1998).
A
belief in human rights may make people in democracies reluctant to go to war, especially
against other democracies (Müller & Wolff 2004).
The
decline in colonialism, also by democracies, may be related to a change in perception of non-European
peoples and their rights (Ravlo & Gleditsch, 2000).
Bruce
Russett also argues that the democratic
culture affects the way leaders resolve conflicts.
The
question of transnational democracy to empowering the individual citizen by
involving him, through procedures of direct
democracy, in a country's international affairs,
Bruce
Russett calls for the restructuring of the United Nations Organization
according to democratic norms referring in particular to the Swiss practice
of participatory democracy.
The
market-oriented development creates the norms and values that explain both
democracy and the peace. (Mousseau 2000, 2005).
I.1.2.7 Political similarity
One
general criticism motivating research of different explanations is that
actually the theory cannot claim that "democracy causes peace",
because the evidence for democracies being, in general, more peaceful is very
slight or nonexistent; it only can support the claim that "joint democracy
causes peace". According to Rosato (2003), this casts doubts on whether
democracy is actually the cause because, if so, a monadic effect would be
expected.
Perhaps
the simplest explanation to such perceived anomaly is that democracies are not peaceful to each other because they are
democratic, but rather because they are similar. This line
of thought started with several independent observations of an "Autocratic
Peace" effect, a reduced probability of war (obviously no author claims
its absence) between states which are both non-democratic, or both highly so.
This
has led to the hypothesis that democratic peace emerges as a particular case
when analyzing a subset of states which are, in fact, similar. Or, that
similarity in general does not solely affect the probability of war, but only
coherence of strong political regimes such as full democracies and stark
autocracies.
Autocratic peace
and the explanation based on political similarity is a relatively recent
development, and opinions about its value are varied. Henderson (2002) builds a
model considering political similarity, geographic distance and economic
interdependence as its main variables, and concludes that democratic peace is a
statistical artifact which disappears when the above variables are taken into
account. Werner (2000) finds a conflict reducing effect from political
similarity in general, but with democratic dyads being particularly peaceful,
and noting some differences in behavior between democratic and autocratic dyads
with respect to alliances and power evaluation.
Petersen
(2004) uses a different statistical model and finds that autocratic peace is
not statistically significant, and that the effect attributed to similarity is
mostly driven by the pacifying effect of joint democracy. Ray (2005) similarly
disputes the weight of the argument on logical grounds, claiming that
statistical analysis on "political similarity" uses a main variable
which is an extension of "joint democracy" by linguistic redefinition,
and so it is expected that the war reducing effects are carried on in the new
analysis. Bennett (2006) builds a direct statistical model based on a triadic
classification of states into "democratic", "autocratic"
and "mixed". He finds that autocratic dyads have a 35% reduced chance
of going into any type of armed conflict with respect to a reference mixed
dyad.
Democratic
dyads have a 55% reduced chance. He concludes that autocratic peace exists, but
democratic peace is clearly stronger. However, he finds no relevant pacifying
effect of political similarity, except at the extremes of the scale.
To
summarize a rather complex picture, there are no less than four possible
stances on the value of this criticism:
- Political similarity, plus some
complementary variables, explains everything. Democratic peace is a
statistical artifact. Henderson subscribes to this view.
- Political similarity has a
pacifying effect, but democracy makes it stronger. Werner would probably
subscribe to this view.
- Political similarity in general
has little or no effect, except at the extremes of the democracy-autocracy
scale: a democratic peace and an autocratic peace exist separately, with
the first one being stronger, and may have different explanations. Bennett
holds this view, and Kinsella mentions this as a possibility
- Political similarity has little
or no effect and there is no evidence for autocratic peace. Petersen and
Ray are among defendants of this view.
A
majority of researchers on the determinants of democracy agree that economic
development is a primary factor which allows the formation of a stable and
healthy democracy (Hegre, 2003; Weede, 2004). Thus, some researchers have
argued that economic development also plays a factor in the establishment of
peace.
Mousseau
argues that a culture of contracting in advanced market-oriented economies may
cause both democracy and peace (2000; 2002; 2003; 2005). These studies indicate
that democracy, alone, is an unlikely cause of the democratic peace. A low
level of market-oriented economic development may hinder development of liberal
institutions and values. Hegre (2000) and Souva (2003) confirmed these
expectations.
Mousseau
(2005) finds that democracy is a significant factor only when both democracies
have levels of economic development well above the global median. In fact, the
poorest 21% of the democracies studied, and the poorest 4–5% of current
democracies, are significantly more likely than other kinds of
countries to fight each other. Mousseau, Hegre & Oneal (2003) confirm that
if at least one of the democracies involved has a very low level of economic
development, democracy is ineffective in preventing war; however, they find
that when also controlling for trade, 91% of all the democratic pairs had high
enough development for the pacifying effect of democracy to be important during
the 1885–1992 period and all in 1992. The difference in results of Mousseau
(2005) and Mousseau, Hegre & Oneal (2003) may be due to sampling:
None
of the authors listed argues that free trade alone causes peace. Even so, the
issue of whether free trade or democracy is more important in maintaining peace
may have potentially significant practical consequences, for example on
evaluating the effectiveness of applying economic sanctions and restrictions to
autocratic countries.
Several
studies have controlled for the possibility of reverse causality from peace to democracy. For example, one study
supports the theory of simultaneous
causation, finding that dyads involved in wars are likely to experience a
decrease in joint democracy, which in turn increases the probability of further
war. So they argue that disputes between democratizing or democratic states
should be resolved externally at a very early stage, in order to stabilize the
system.
I.1.2.8 other factors related to
democracies being more peaceful
According
to Azar Gat's War in Human Civilization, there are several related
and independent factors that contribute to democratic societies being more
peaceful than other forms of governments:
Wealth and comfort:
Increased prosperity in democratic societies has been associated with peace
because civilians are less willing to endure hardship of war and military
service due to a more luxurious life at home than in pre-modern times.
Increased wealth has worked to decrease war through comfort (Gat, 597–598).
Metropolitan service society:
The majority of army recruits come from the country side or factory workers.
Many believe that these types of people are suited for war. But as technology
progressed the army turned more towards advanced services in information that
rely more on computerized data which urbanized people are recruited more for
this service (Gat 600–602).
Sexual revolution:
The availability of sex due to the pill and women joining the labor market
could be another factor that has led to less enthusiasm for men to go to war.
Young men are more reluctant leave behind the pleasures of life for the rigors
and chastity of the army (Gat 603- 604).
Fewer young males:
There is greater life expectancy which leads to fewer young males. Young males
are the most aggressive and the ones that join the army the most. With less
younger males in developed societies could help explain more pacificity (Gat
604–605).
Fewer Children per Family:
During pre-modern times it was always hard for families to lose a child but in
modern times it has become more difficult due to more families having only one
or two children. It has become even harder for parents to risk the loss of a
child in war. However, Gat recognizes that this argument is a difficult one
because during pre-modern times the life expectancy was not high for children
and bigger families were necessary (Gat 605–606).
Women's franchise:
Women are less belligerent than men. Therefore women are less inclined to
serious violence and do not support it as much as men do. Electing more women
could have an effect on whether liberal democracies take a more aggressive
approach on certain issues (Gat 606- 607).
Nuclear weapons:
Nuclear weapons could be the reason for not having a great power war. Many
believe that a nuclear war would result in mutually assured destruction (MAD)
which means that both countries involved in a nuclear war have the ability to
strike the other until both sides are wiped out.
I.1.2.8 Sociological
Liberalism
Sociological liberalism is an international relations theory. It is
critical of realist theory which it sees as too state-centric.
Sociological liberals see international relations in terms of relationships
between people, groups and organizations in different countries. Many
sociological liberals believe that increased transnational relations could help
create new forms of human society.
I.1.2.9 Interdependence
Liberalism
Interdependence
liberalism is a strand of liberal international relations thinking
which argues that increased interdependence between countries reduces the
chance of them engaging in conflict. Interdependence liberals see
modernization as increasing the levels and scope of interdependence between
states leading to greater cooperation. Such thinkers also see welfare as the
primary concern of states.
I.1.2.10 Institutional
liberalism or liberal institutionalism
Institutional
liberalism or liberal institutionalism is modern theory of
international relations which claims that international institutions and
organisations such as the United Nations, NATO and
the European Union can increase and aid cooperation between states.
The theory can be compared to idealism, the international relations theory
which emerged after the First World War when the League of
Nations was founded.
I.1.2.11 Republican liberalism
Republican
liberalism is an international relations theory which claims
that liberal democracy are more peaceful than other states. This is
explained as a result of the existence of similar domestic political cultures,
common moral values, economic cooperation and interdependence.
I.2 Realism
Realism is an international relations theory which
claims that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest.
I.2.1 Common assumptions
Realism
is a tradition of international theory centered upon four propositions.
a. The international system is anarchic
In
summary, realists think that humankind is not inherently benevolent but rather
self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists
such as Thomas Hobbes, views
human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless
there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. This view contrasts with
the approach of liberalism to international relations.
I.2.2 Background of realism in Int
Relations and branches
Realism in
IR is not recent rather this theory exists since before the birth of Christ.
Realism in IR has a rich background and many thinkers wrote many on this so
expanded theory.
I.2.2.1 Historic antecedents
While
Realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive
until WW II, its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier
writings and here we only evocate few:
Han
Feizi, Chinese scholar who theorized Legalism (or
Legism) and who served in the court of the King of Qin - later unifier of China
ending the Warring States Period. His writings include The Two Handles (about punishments and rewards as tools of
governance). He theorised about a neutral, manipulative ruler who would act
as head of state while secretly controlling the executive through his
ministers - the ones to take real responsibility for any policy.
Niccolo
Machiavelli, a Florentine political philosopher, who wrote IL Principe (The
Prince) in which he held that the sole aim of a prince (politician) was to
seek power, regardless of religious or ethical considerations.
Cardinal
Richelieu, French statesman who destroyed domestic factionalism and guided
France to a position of dominance in foreign affairs.
Carl Von
Clausewitz, 18-19th century Prussian general and military theorist who
wrote On War.
Otto von
Bismarck, Prussian statesman who coined the term balance of power. Balancing power means keeping the peace and
careful realpolitik practitioners try to avoid arms races.
I.2.2.2 Branches of Realism
a. Classical Realism
Classical
realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of man that pushes states
and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies.
Classical realism is an ideology defined as the view that the "drive for
power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human
nature".
b. Liberal realism or the English
school or rationalism
The
English School holds that the international system, while anarchical in
structure, forms a "society of states" where common norms and interests
allow for more order and stability than what might be expected in a strict
realist view. Hedley Bull remained the prominent English School writer and
a prominent liberal realist.
c. Neorealism or structural realism
Neorealism
derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its
focus is predominantly on the anarchic structure of the international system. States are primary actors because
there is no political monopoly on force existing above any sovereign. While
states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces
above and below the states through levels of analysis or structure-agency
debate. The international system is seen as a structure acting
on the state with individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on
the state as a whole.
d. Neoclassical realism
Neoclassical
Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the
classical authors of the first wave like Machiavelli/Thomas Hobbes and the
neorealists (eg. Kenneth Waltz). The neoclassical realism has a double meaning
as follows:
The
primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was the
fact that neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified
as being 'theories of international politics'), but had nothing to offer about
particular states' behavior (or 'theories of foreign policy'). The basic
approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth
Waltz", by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives
and a state's foreign policy decision.
e.
Symbiotic realism
The
Symbiotic Realism theory of IR is based on four interlocking
dimensions of the global system:
o
Interdependence;
o
Instant connectivity;
o
Global anarchy;
o
The neurobiological substrates
of human nature.
He
defines the neurobiological substrates of human nature that motivate
behavior as basic needs, ego and fear. When basic survival needs
met, Nayef Al-Rodhan argues that humans can aspire to higher things
such as morality. Thus, in order for society to prosper, the state of
nature among individuals must be mitigated. This has historically been done
through the establishment of states and of domestic governments.
Internationally,
however, the relations between states have historically and continue to be
dominated by anarchy. With no overarching authority to regulate state
behavior and ensure the safety and prosperity of all, international
life could be considered somewhat precarious. Nayef Al-Rodhan argues that
increased integration brought about by globalization helps to mitigate the consequences of global anarchy.
However, globalization is also undermining the capacities of states
to act as viable sites for collective action and credible commitments. This is
because the states are becoming more intertwined in webs of power that are
linked to shifts in the material distribution of power and authoritative
resources.
f. Realism in statecraft
The
ideas behind George F Kennan’s work as a diplomat and diplomatic historian
remain relevant to the debate over American foreign policy, which since the
19th century has been characterized by a shift from the Founding Fathers'
realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international
relations. In the realist tradition,
security is based on the principle of a balance of power and the reliance on
morality as the sole determining factor in statecraft is considered impractical.
I.2.2.3 Criticisms of Realism
The democratic
peace theory advocates also that realism is not applicable to
democratic states' relations with each another, as their studies claim that such
states do not go to war with one another. However, Realists and
proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the studies
which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of "war"
and "democracy" must be tweaked in order to achieve the desired
result.
I.2.2.4 Federalism
The
term refers to the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final
authority is divided between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a Unitary
state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial
levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently
of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two
authorities.
I.2.3 Post-realism
Post
realism suggests that Realism is a form of social scientific
and political rhetoric. It opens a debate about what is real and what is
realistic in international relations. The post realism bears aspects of
offensive and defensive kinds. Prominent Post-Realists are Francis A Beer,
James Der Derian , Robert Hariman and Micheal J Shapiro.
- Offensive
Realism
This structural theory belonging to the realist
school of thought first postulated by John Mearsheimer that holds
the anarchic nature of the international system responsible for
aggressive state behavior in international politics. It fundamentally differs
from defensive realism by depicting great powers as power-maximizing
revisionists privileging buck-passing over balancing strategies
in their ultimate aim to dominate the international system. The theory brings
important contributions for the study and understanding of IR but
remains nonetheless the subject of criticism.
Ø
Main Tenets of offensive Realism
The
offensive realism theory is grounded on five central assumptions which are
similar to the ones that lie at the core of Kenneth Waltz’s defensive realism.
These are:
Great
powers are the main actors in world politics and the international system
is anarchical
All
states possess some offensive military capability, States can never
be certain of the intentions of other states, States have survival as their
primary goal, and States are rational actors, capable of coming up
with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival
Ø Status Quo Vs. Power-Maximizing States
John
Mearsheimer’s offensive realism intends to fix the ‘status quo bias’ of Kenneth
Waltz’ defensive realism theory. While
both realist variants argue that states are primarily concerned with maximising
their security, they disagree over the amount of power required in the process.
Indeed, in offensive realism, the international system provides great powers
with strong incentives to resort to offensive action in order to increase their
security and assure their survival. The international system characterized
by anarchy the absence of a central authority capable of enforcing rules
and punishing aggressors uncertain state intentions and available offensive
military capabilities, leads states to constantly fear each other and resort to
self-help mechanisms to provide for their survival. In order to alleviate this
fear of aggression each holds of the other, states always seek to maximize
their own relative power, defined in terms of material capabilities.
This
relentless quest for power inherently generates a state of "constant
security competition, with the possibility of war always in the background.”
Only once regional hegemony attained do great powers become status quo states.
Ø Balancing Vs. Buck-Passing State Behavior
The
emphasis offensive realism puts on hegemony as states’ end aim stands in sharp
contrast to defensive realism’s belief that state survival can be guaranteed at
some point well short of hegemony. In a defensive realist mindset, security
increments by power accumulation end up experiencing diminishing marginal
returns where costs eventually outweigh benefits. Responding to defensive realists’ posture on
state behaviour towards the most powerful state in the international system,
Mearseimer believes that threatened states will reluctantly engage in balancing
against potential hegemons but that balancing coalitions are unlikely to form
against a great power that has achieved regional hegemony. This lack of
balancing is best explained by the regional hegemon’s newly acquired status quo
stance, which follows from the geographical constraints on its power projection
capability.
Ø
Contributions and Criticism
Mearsheimer’s
offensive realism represents an important contribution to international
relations theory yet also generated important criticism. While the inputs and
critics below provide a good sample of the theory’s contributions and the kind
of arguments that have been addressed against it, the listing should in no case
be considered as exhaustive.
Ø Theoretical Inputs
Firstly, scholars believe that
Mearsheimer’s offensive realism provides a nice complement to Waltz’ defensive
realism. The theory adds to defensive realists’ argument that the structure of
the international system constrains state behaviour. Setting to rectify the
status quo bias pertaining to defensive realism by arguing that anarchy can
also generate incentives for states to maximise their share of power, offensive
realism solves anomalies that Waltz’ theory fails to explain. Mainly, the
theory is able to provide an explanation for the amount of conflict occurring
among states in the international system. As Snyder states, Mearsheimer’s
offensive realism "enlarges the scope of neorealist theory by providing a
theoretical rationale for the behavior of revisionist states. Moreover, this
complementarity could signify theoretical interrelation with the two theories
working in alternation to explain state behaviour, thereby allowing for a
"more complete structural realist theory that can more accurately account
for both defensive and offensive state behaviour. Secondly, these scholars
uphold the argument that Mearsheimer’s offensive realism significantly
contributes to foreign policy theory and alliance theory. More specifically,
Mearsheimer’s theory goes a step further than structural defensive realism by
successfully theorizing both international politics and foreign policy. Contrary
to Waltz’ rejection of defensive realism as a theory capable of explaining
foreign policy on top of international politics, offensive realism
includes explanations of both international outcomes pertaining to the systemic
level of analysis and individual state behavior.
Ø Theoretical Flaws
To begin with, scholars have pointed
out several logical issues within Mearsheimer’s offensive realism. Snyder rejects Mearsheimer’s view of the
security dilemma as "a synoptic statement of offensive realism."
He argues that offensive realism’s
positing of all states as revisionists removes the central proposition
uncertainty about other states’ intentions on which the whole concept of
security dilemma is grounded.
Considering the theory’s regional
security analyses, he further argues that offensive realism fails to clearly
define what constitutes a region with "entities like Europe or North-East
Asia (taken) for granted", leaving room for scholarly
disapproval. Christopher Layne further highlights problems associated with
the geography variable.
He criticizes Mearsheimer’s
reasoning according to which the "stopping power of water" prevents a
great power from achieving global hegemony as this constraint doesn’t seem to
apply to the case of an emerging rival’s capacity to exercise influence beyond
its own neighbourhood.
A second group of criticism
addresses the issue of offensive realism’s restrictive focuses. Scholars have
criticized Mearsheimer’s theory for failing to take into account domestic
politics. No attention is paid to a rising power’s internal political
functioning, its economy or society, which play a role in a state’s
decision-making process, in turn influencing its behaviour in international
politics.
Most importantly, scholars have
questioned the theory’s empirical validity and prediction ability, which in
turn can negatively affect the validity of offensive realism’s prescriptions
for state behaviour in international politics. In addition to mentioning the
theory’s failure to account for Japan’s 20th century territorial acquisitions,
NATO’s continuation or Germany’s non-achievement of regional hegemony in the
post-Cold war era, they have also expressed serious doubts regarding
offensive realism views on China’s rising power and U.S. regional hegemony.
According to them, there is no
reason to believe that China as a rational power wanting to ensure its survival
will seek hegemony rather than rely on cooperative mechanisms. They
similarly contradict Mearsheimer’s arguments regarding the United States.
Firstly, weak opposition or balancing inefficiencies rather than geographical
constraints are taken as explanations for the uniqueness of the United States’
regional hegemonic position. Toft and Layne go a step further by asserting that
Mearsheimer misjudges the U.S. as a regional hegemon engaged in offshore
balancing.
Defensive Realism
In IR, defensive
realism is a variant of political. Defensive realism looks at
states as socialized players who are the primary actors in world affairs.
Defensive realism predicts that anarchy on the world stage causes states to
become obsessed with security. This results in Security
Dilemma wherein one state's drive to increase its security can, because
security is Zero Sum, result in greater instability as that state's opponent(s)
respond to their resulting reductions in security.
Among defensive realism's most
prominent theories is that of offense-defensive theory which states that there
is an inherent balance in technology, geography, and doctrine that favors
either the attacker or defender in battle. Offense-Defense theory tries to
explain the First World War as a situation in which all sides believed the
balance favored the offense but were mistaken.
Defensive structural realists break
with the other main branch of structural realism, offensive realism, over
whether or not states must always be maximizing relative power ahead of all
other objectives. While the offensive realist believes this to be the case,
some defensive realists believe that the offense-defense balance can favor the
defender, creating the possibility that a state may achieve security.
In modern times, several economic
and political groups are known to benefit from the effects Defensive
Realism, in terms of both the economic activity generated in delivering the
resources or technology needed to increase a particular state's own security,
as well as the positive feedback effect caused by the perceived
destabilization to an opponent’s own security by comparative observation.
I.3 Maximist
This theory
was first developed by Karl Marx, a German philosopher (19th
century) who observed the existence of inequity between the rich and poor in
society and the tendency for the wealthy, more powerful classes to exploit the
poorer, weaker ones. Marxists consider the international relations as an
extension of the struggle between the classes, with wealthy countries
exploiting poor countries. Marxists mainly study the imperialism; a practice of
powerful nations to control and influence weak nations. The theory of imperialism
was developed by Vladmir Lenin before the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia
and sees the economic relationships as both the cause of and potential solution
to the problem of war.
I.3.1 Marxist
and Neo-Marxist international relations theories
Are paradigms which reject the
realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation, instead focusing on
the economic and material aspects. It purports to reveal how the economic
trumps other concerns, which allows for the elevation of class as
the focus of the study. Marxists view the international system as an
integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation.
Thus, the period of colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and
captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities
in the form of dependence.
I.3.2
Dependency theory
Dependency
theory is a body of social
science theories predicated on the
notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and
underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the
latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of
dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by
the way poor states are integrated into the "world system."
This
theory came as a reaction to modernization theory, an
earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that
today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's
developed areas at some time in the past, and that therefore the task in
helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along
this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment,
technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. The dependency theories argue that
underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed
countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and,
importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market
economy.
I.3.3 Basics
The premises of dependency theory
are that:
a. Poor nations provide natural resources, cheap labor, a destination
for obsolete technology, and markets for developed nations, without which the
latter could not have the standard of living they enjoy.
b. Wealthy nations actively perpetuate a state of dependence by
various means. This influence may be multifaceted, involving economics,
media control, politics, banking and finance, education, culture, sport and all
aspects of human resource development (to include recruitment and training of
workers).
c. Wealthy nations actively counter attempts by dependent nations to
resist their influences by means of economic sanctions and/or the use
of military force.
Dependency theory states that the
poverty of the countries in the periphery is not because they are not
integrated into the world system, or not 'fully' integrated as is often
argued by free market economists, but because of how they are
integrated into the system. This introduces a paradoxical effect, in that
although both the first and third-world countries are benefitting, the poorer
side is being locked into detrimental economic position.
I.3.4 Historical background of dependency theory
In 1949, Hans Singer and Raul Prebisch observed that the term of
trade for underdeveloped countries relative to the developed countries had
deteriorated over time: the
underdeveloped countries were able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured
goods from the developed countries in exchange for a given quantity of their
raw materials exports. This idea is known as the Singer-Prebisch Thesis.
Prebisch, an Argentine economist at the United Nations Commission for Latin
America (UNCLA) suggests that the underdeveloped
nations must employ some degree of protectionism in trade if they were to enter
a self-sustaining development path. According to Prebisch, the Import-substitution industrialization
(ISI) and not the trade-and- export orientation, was the best strategy for
underdeveloped countries.
The third-world debt crisis of the
1980s and continued stagnation in Africa and Latin America in the 1990s caused
some doubt as to the feasibility or desirability of "dependent development".
Vernengo (2004) has suggested that
the sine qua none of the dependency
relationship is not the difference in technological sophistication, as
traditional dependency theorists believe, but rather the difference in
financial strength between core and peripheral countries particularly the
inability of peripheral countries to borrow in their own currency. He believes
that the hegemonic position of the
United States is very strong because of the importance of its financial markets
and because it controls the international reserve currency the US dollar.
He believes that the end of the Bretton Woods international financial
agreements in the early 1970s considerably strengthened the United States'
position because it removed some constraints on their financial actions.
I.3.5 Other dependency theorists
Among many other dependency
theorists, we can talk of Tausch and Fernando Henrique Cardoso for their
thorough analysis on dependency of periphery nations to core ones in the world
systems theory.
a.Tausch
Tausch (2003) traces the beginnings
of World systems theory to the writings of the Austro-Hungarian socialist Karl Polanyi after the First World
War. In its present form it is usually associated with the work of Immanuel
Wallerstein. Ever since the capitalist world system evolved, there is a stark
distinction between the nations of the center and the nations of the periphery.
Tausch (2003), based on works of Amin from 1973 to 1997, lists the following
main characteristics of periphery capitalism:
Ø Regression in both agriculture and small scale industry
characterizes the period after the onslaught of foreign domination and
colonialism
Ø Unequal international specialization of the periphery leads
to the concentration of activities in export oriented agriculture and or
mining.
Ø These structures determine in the long run a rapidly growing
tertiary sector with hidden unemployment and the rising importance of rent in
the overall social and economic system
Ø Chronic current account balance deficits, re-exported
profits of foreign investments, and deficient business cycles at the periphery
that provide important markets for the centers during world economic upswings
Ø Structural imbalances in the political and social
relationships, inter alia a strong 'compradore' element and the rising importance of state capitalism and
an indebted state class (Tausch ,2003)
The analysis of development patterns
in the 1990s and beyond is complicated by the fact that capitalism develops not
smoothly, but with very strong and self-repeating ups and downs, called cycles.
I.3.6
Functionalism
Functionalism arose during the inter-War period principally from the
strong concern about the obsolescence of the State as a form of social
organization. Rather than the self-interest of
nation-state seen by realists as a motivating factor, functionalists
focus on common interests and needs shared by states (but also by non-state
actors) in a process of global integration triggered by the erosion of state
sovereignty and the increasing weight of knowledge and hence of scientists and
experts in the process of policy-making (Rosamond, 2000).
Functionalism is a pioneer in globalisation theory and
strategy. States had built authority structures upon a principle of
territorialism. State-theories were built upon assumptions that identified the
scope of authority with territory (Held 1996, Scholte: 1993, 2000, 2001), aided
by methodological territorialism (Scholte 1993). Functionalism proposed to
build a form of authority based in functions and needs, which linked authority
with needs, scientific knowledge, expertise and technology, i.e. it provided a
supraterritorial concept of authority. The functionalist approach excludes and
refutes the idea of state power and political influence (realist approach) in
interpreting the cause for such proliferation of international organizations
during the inter-war (which was characterized by nation-state conflict) and the
subsequent years.
Ø Assumptions of functionalism
There are strong assumptions
underpinning functionalism:
a. The process of integration takes
place within a framework of human freedom,
b. Knowledge and expertise are
currently available to meet the needs for which the functional agencies are
built.
c. States will not sabotage the
process.
I.3.5.1 Neo-functionalism
Neofunctionalism reintroduced
territorialism in the functional theory and downplayed its global dimension.
Neofunctionalism is simultaneously a theory and a strategy of regional
integration, building on the work of David Mitrany. Neofunctionalists
I.3.6 Critical International relations theory
Critical
international relations theory is a diverse set of schools of thought
in IR that have criticized the theoretical, meta-theoretical and/or
political statu quo, both in IR theory and in international politics more
broadly from positivist as well as post
positivist positions. Positivist critiques include Marxist and
neo-Marxist approaches and certain ("conventional") strands
of social constructivism. Post
positivist critiques include poststructuralist, postcolonial,
"critical" constructivist, critical theory (in the
strict sense used by the Frankfurt School), Neo-Gramscian,
most feminist and some English School approaches, which differ
from both realism and liberalism in their epistemological and
ontological premises.
I.3.6.1 Constructivism
Constructivism is the claim that
significant aspects of international relations are historically and socially
contingent, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature or other
essential characteristics of world politics.
Primarily, this theory seeks to
demonstrate how core aspects of international relations are, contrary to the
assumptions of Neorealism and Neoliberalism, socially constructed,
that is, they are given their form by ongoing processes of social practice and
interaction.
·
Basic tenets of Constructivism
Alexander
Wendt calls two increasingly accepted basic tenets of Constructivism:
Ø The structures of human association are determined primarily
by shared ideas rather than material forces,
Ø The identities and interests of purposive actors are
constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature.
By focusing on how language and
rhetoric are used to construct the social reality of the international system, constructivists are often seen as more
optimistic about progress in international relations than versions
of realism loyal to a purely materialist ontology, but a growing
number of constructivists question the "liberal" character of
constructivist thought and express greater sympathy for realist pessimism
concerning the possibility of emancipation from power politics.
I.3.6.2 Feminism
Feminism in international relations is a broad term given to works of those scholars who
have sought to bring gender concerns into the academic study
of international politics.
In terms of IR theory it is
important to understand that feminism is derived from the school of
thought known as reflectionism referring to the many different roles that women
play in international politics as plantation sector workers, diplomatic wives,
sex workers on military bases etc. The important point of this work was to
emphasize how, when looking at international politics from the perspective of
women, one is forced to reconsider his or her personal assumptions regarding
what international politics is 'all about'.
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).
However, the growing influence of
feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy
communities (for example at the World Bank and the UN) is more
reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for
women
I.3.6.3 World system theory
World-systems
theory (also known as world-systems
analysis or the world-systems perspective) is a
multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to World
History and social change that stresses that
the world-system (and not nation states) should be the primary
(but not exclusive) unit of social analysis.
World-system refers to the
inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the
world into core, semi-periphery and periphery countries. Core
countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the
rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and
extraction of raw materials.
Immanuel Wallerstein has developed the
best-known version of world-systems analysis, beginning in the 1970s. Wallerstein traces the rise of the world
system from the 15th century, when European Feudal economy suffered a
crisis and was transformed into a Capitalist
One. The West Europe utilized its advantages and gained control over
most of the world economy, presiding over the development and spread
of industrialization and capitalist economy, indirectly resulting
in unequal development.
Wallerstein's project is frequently
misunderstood as world-systems "theory," a term that he consistently
rejects. For Wallerstein, world-systems analysis is above all a mode of
analysis that aims to transcend the structures of knowledge inherited from the
19th century. This includes, especially, the divisions within the social
sciences, and between the social sciences and history.
·
Influences and major thinkers
World-systems theory traces emerged
in the 1970s and its roots could be found in sociology, but it has
developed into a highly interdisciplinary field.
World-systems theory was aiming to
replace modernization theory. Wallerstein criticized modernization theory
due to:
ü Its focus on the state as the only unit of analysis,
ü Its assumption there is only a single path of
evolutionary development for all countries,
ü Its disregard of transnational structures that constrain
local and national development.
Three major predecessors of
world-systems theory are: the Annales School, Marxist, and dependence theory.
The Annales School tradition (represented most notably by Fernand Braudel)
influenced Wallerstein in focusing on long-term processes and geo-ecological
regions as unit of analysis. Marxist theories added:
ü a stress on social conflict,
ü a focus on the capital accumulation process and
ü competitive class struggles,
ü a focus on a relevant totality,
ü the transitory nature of social forms, and
ü a dialectical sense of motion through conflict and
contradiction.
World-systems theory was also
significantly influenced by dependency theory -
a neo-Marxist explanation of development processes.
Wallerstein sees the development of
the capitalist world-economy as detrimental to a large proportion of the
world's population. Wallerstein views the period since the 1970s as an
"age of transition," one that will give way to a future world-system
(or world-systems) whose configuration cannot be determined in advance.
I.3.7 Other approaches
I.3.7.1
International Ethics
International
ethics is an area
of international relations theory which concerns the extent and scope
of ethical obligations between states in an era of globalization. Schools
of thought include cosmopolitanism and anti-cosmopolitanism.
Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism are ethical traditions that conceptually
address moral issues in international relations.
I.3.7.2
Postcolonial International relations scholarship
Postcolonial
International relations scholarship posits
a critical theory approach to International (IR), and is a
non-mainstream area of international relations scholarship. According to
Baylis, postcolonial international relations scholarship has been largely
ignored by mainstream international relations theorists and has only recently
begun to make an impact on the discipline. Post colonialism focuses on the
persistence of colonial forms of power and the continuing existence of racism
in world politics.
I.3.7.3
Postmodern International relations
Approaches have been part
of international relations scholarship since the 1980s. Although
there are various strands of thinking, a key element to postmodernist theories
is a distrust of any account of human life which claims to have direct access to
the "truth". Post-modern international relations theory critiques
theories like Marxism that provide an overarching
metanarrative to history. Key postmodern thinkers include Lyotard,
Foucault and Derrida.
I.3.7.4
Regime theory
Regime theory is a theory within IR derived from the
liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes
affect the behavior of states (or other international actors). It assumes
that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, as
regimes are by definition instances of international cooperation.
The theoretical foundations of
Regime theory is based on the fact that while realism predicts that
conflict should be the norm in international relations, 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.
I.3.7.5 State Cartel Theory
State cartel theory is a new concept in the field of IR theory and
belongs to the group of institutionalist approaches. Up to now the
theory has mainly been specified with regard to the EU, but could be made
much more general
a. The starting material of a state cartel
theory is the intellectual corpus of a broad existing theory of international
relations. For instance the following theories might be adaptable:
the Realism, the neo-functionalist Europe-science, or even a
Marxist imperialism theory. Their statements on the relationships between
the industrialized nation states are called into question as these are thought
to be ideologically biased and therefore these are marked up for revision and
change.
b. The losses and vacancies are now to be
refilled by another theory, the classical cartel theory of economic
enterprises. This theory, made up mainly in Germany, was authoritative in
Europe till the end of the World War II and was pushed aside globally by the
American anti-trust policy up to the 1960s.
c. In a third step the transfer results were
rechecked in the light of available facts of international relations and they
were stated more precisely and with greater differentiation.
The cartel
gain: Cooperating within international institutions normally provides the
participating states with substantial benefits. "The cartel gain of the EU
consists of the various gains in prosperity, which result from economic
integration and now make the member states adhere like being glued together.
Tendencies
for crises: According to state cartel theory
inter-state organizations typically develop severe problems and crises. The
EU is seen to be in a permanent crisis.
The causes for this are thought to lie in the clashes of increasingly
unbridgeable interests between the participating nations. The EU as a
particularly advanced cartel combine – would strike more and more against
a systemic barrier of development, i.e. could only be upgraded effectively by a
change-over of power, by a Federal revolution, in which the cartel form
will be conquered and a federal state with its considerable potentials for
rationalization will be erected.
One of the element explain the
Weber’s theory
2.
Libertarianism
1. Anarchy
4. Liberalism
5.
Socialism and Communism
Individualism
6. Despotism
Author Prof. Dr. Rugema D. Muyombano
0Awesome Comments!