Lecture 03:Debates and theories in International Relations

The beginnings of IR

• Before 1918, International Relations did not exist as a separate subject

• Issues now considered as part of International Relations were seen as part of other subjects – political theory, history, economics and international law

• International Relations began as an attempt to make sense of a significant event in world history – World War I

Explaining World War I

• For several thinkers, particularly in English-speaking countries, a new approach was necessary to understand World War I

• These thinkers felt there was a need to explain how the world could fight such a disastrous war, and to ensure it could never happen again

Liberal internationalism

• This was the first body of IR theory

• Developed by liberal thinkers in the USA and Britain

• The most famous proponent of these ideas was the US President Woodrow Wilson

LIs and the causes of war

• For the liberal internationalists, the war was possible for two reasons:

• The absence of democracy in domestic politics – they argued that people do not want wars, and wars are started by autocratic regimes

• Flawed international institutions – the anarchic system with secret diplomacy meant there was no mechanism to prevent war

LI and democracy

• If the absence of democracy caused war, then the LI aim was to promote democratic political systems

• LIs believed if all states were democracies, there would be no wars

• These ideas owed much to the earlier claims of Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776) and especially Immanuel Kant (Perpetual Peace, 1795)

LI and the League of Nations

• LIs felt the problem of anarchy – the absence of a higher authority – would be solved by creating the League of Nations

• The League could replace the old system of secret treaties and alliances with ‘collective security’ – every member would guarantee the security of other members

• Law would replace war as the underlying principle of the new system

LI assumptions

• The LI belief in democratic systems and international cooperation assumed a ‘harmony of interests’

• This assumed international politics was not a zero-sum game, with automatic winners and losers

• Democratic states could always find peaceful solutions to apparent clashes of interest

Problems with the LI vision• Although liberal internationalism was the first body of

IR theory, many were unconvinced from the start• Events in Europe and elsewhere undermined LI

beliefs• Several undemocratic regimes enjoyed obvious

popularity, and many of these regimes glorified war• The League of Nations was powerless to prevent

aggression without going to war to protect peace• It seemed LIs had been mistaken about states and

about human nature

A new IR theory: Realism

• Realism as a theory of International Relations began as a critique of liberal internationalism

• As the shortcomings of LI became only too obvious, many thinkers looked for a new approach to explain contemporary events

• Like the LIs, realists drew heavily on older ideas from political theory and elsewhere

The path towards Realism• Niebuhr (Moral Man and Immoral

Society, 1932) criticised LI assumptions about the goodness of human nature

• EH Carr (The Twenty Years Crisis, 1939) criticised LI beliefs as ‘utopian’ – he claimed that LIs deal with the world as they want it to be, but ‘Realists’ deal with the world as it is

• Carr claimed that conflict is inevitable because of the scarcity of resources – only those who possess resources promote ‘law and order’

Morgenthau and Classical Realism

• After World War II, Hans J Morgenthau produced the standard work of Classical Realism (Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, 1948)

• Morgenthau’s work dominated IR theory for a whole generation

• Morgenthau used ideas from older political thinkers – Thucydides and Machiavelli – to support his own ideas

Morgenthau’s Realism

• Morgenthau’s Realism had three main principles:

• Statism: states are the most important actors in IR; other actors are less important

• Survival: in a dangerous world (dangerous because of human nature), states have to concentrate on survival

• Self-help: no other state or institution can be counted on to ensure survival

Classical Realism and the past (1)

• Classical realists used ideas from older thinkers to support their concepts

• In Ancient Greece, Thucydides' account of the Melian Dialogue stressed the importance of power and the dangers of being weak: “The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”

Classical Realism and the past (2)

• Classical Realists also recalled the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince (written around 1513)

• Machiavelli stressed two necessary ideas for a wise ruler:

• policies are more important than principles

• the end justifies the means

Waltz and Structural Realism

• Kenneth Waltz has dominated IR debate since 1979

• His Theory of International Politics claimed that structures of international politics – not human nature – made states act the way they do

• He proposed ‘defensive realism’ – the idea that states want to maximise security

• Waltz’s aim was to establish a proper scientific basis for Realism

Later strands of Realism

• John Mearsheimer (2001): “offensive realism” – claimed all states seek to maximise power as the best path to peace

• Randall Schweller (1996): “neoclassical realism” – not all states have similar interests – can be ‘status quo’ states or revisionist states

• Fareed Zakaria (1998): not all states are ‘like units’ – some are better at translating national power into state power

Problems with Realism• Are states the most important actors? Are

globalisation and interdependence changing this?

• Do states act only out of self-interest?• Does realism preclude co-operation between

states (and other actors)?• Are all forms of international action about

maximising power?• Is this a conservative theory that doesn’t allow

for changes that make the world a better place? Is it unethical?

Neoliberalism• Some ideas of Liberalism resurfaced in the work of

pluralists such as Keohane and Nye, who developed ideas of ‘complex interdependence’

• In response to Waltz, these ideas crystalised into Neoliberalism

• Neoliberalism acknowledges the Realist claim that states are the most important actors, but still stresses the importance of cooperation

• The debate between Neoliberals and Neorealists has been dubbed the “neo-neo debate”; there are significant differences between the two, but also far more common ground than there was in the 1930s

Outside the debates: Marxism

• Marxist theories in International Relations build on the work of Karl Marx, with contributions from Friedrich Engels

• Marx’s main interest was in the conflict between social classes: the proletariat or working class and the bourgeoisie or ruling class

Marxism in International Relations

• The application of Marx’s ideas to International Relations came long after Marx’s death in 1883

• In all the many strands of Marxism, the focus is on class rather than states, and economic issues are of central importance

Lenin and imperialism• The first key Marxist contribution to

what became International Relations was Lenin’s Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917)

• He argued that the colonial exploitation of under-developed states was a natural consequence of capitalism

• Lenin’s work built on the ideas of the non-Marxist John Hobson, whose Imperialism (1902) warned that colonialism was driven by economic competition between the developed states

Dependency theories• Dependency theories developed around the same

time as decolonisation, and tried to explain how economic exploitation could continue after the end of colonial rule

• Core or developed countries integrate periphery or developing countries into the capitalist system in order to exploit their resources

• Using inequalities in the system, the core countries maintain the dependency of the periphery

• Many non-Marxists also developed such theories

World systems analysis

• Immanuel Wallerstein treated the world as the main unit of analysis

• He refined the dependency theory model to describe the history of world capitalism

• In WSA, the core exploits the periphery; the semi-periphery is an intermediate stage, both exploiting the periphery and exploited by the core

Problems with Marxist IR theory

• Is class as important as Marxists say? Can other factors influence what happens in IR?

• Are conflicts/wars always about class?• Does capitalism dominate what happens in

the world? Are there different agendas that are important?

• Are Marxist theories too ‘rigid’ or ‘prescriptive’ in describing what happens in international politics?

RealismFocus Power relationships between states

Main points

Statism – states are the only important actors (sovereignty is important)Survival – the world is anarchic (no institution is more powerful than states) and dangerous, so states must pursue self-interest in order to survive (as survival is their priority)Self-help – in the dangerous world, states cannot count on others to guarantee their survival

Main variants

Classical realism:EH Carr (1939) The Twenty Years’ Crisis – a fierce attack on early liberalismHans Morgenthau (1948) Politics Among Nations – the first true work on realism – human nature causes states to pursue self-interestStructural realism or neorealismKenneth Waltz (1979) Theory of International Politics – states pursue self-interest because of ‘structures of international politics’ (that is, anarchy), not human nature; ‘defensive realism’ – states seek to maximise securityJohn Mearsheimer (2002) Tragedy of Great Power Politics – ‘offensive realism’ – states should maximise their power rather than just survive

LiberalismFocus Wider relationships between a wider range of actors

Main points

The world is not always dangerous or insecureCooperation is possible and desirableStates are not the only important actors – other actors are also importantSovereignty is not everythingStates are interdependent

Main variants

Liberal Internationalism – the set of theories emerging from Wilsonian idealism; developed after the end of World War I; closely linked with belief in the League of Nations, peace, law (‘law not war’), democracy; lost popularity after the failure of the LeagueNeoliberalism or Liberalism Institutionalism – a response to neorealism; acknowledges the realist emphasis on the central importance of states, but still stresses the benefits of cooperation

MarxismFocus Economic relationships between richer and poorer states

Main points

Richer states exploit poorer states because of the nature of world capitalismThe concerns of Realists and Liberals are irrelevant – world capitalism is the dominant factor

Main variants

Lenin (1917): Imperialism – tried to explain imperialism – the conquest of overseas territories by European states – using economic termsDependency theories – a set of theories developed by Marxists and non-Marxists to explain how the economic exploitation of poorer countries could continue after the dismantling of the European empires; divided states into the core and peripheryWallerstein: World Systems Analysis – a refinement of dependency theories; this added a third, intermediate group of states – the semi-periphery