Download GREAT DEBATES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

 The
discipline of International Relations (IR)
emerged in 1919.
 The great subject of IR at that time was to
understand the reasons of the war. According
to IR scholars their duty is to discover the
causes of the war so the world might avoid a
similar catastrophe in the future.
 In
its effort to find answers to political and
societal crises and problems, the discipline
of International Relations, over time, has
produced a number of different Grand
Theories of international politics on the basis
of
 different perspectives of
perception/interpretation
 different sets of questions
 different anthropological
 different normative and ethical
 and different methodological predispositions
and presuppositions
 Grand
Theories formulate different premises
and assumptions regarding
- the international environment, i.e. the
characteristic outlook, quality, and structure
of the environment in which international
actors act
- the quality, character, and substance of
international actors themselves
- actors’ aims and interests and the means
which actors, as a rule, use in the fulfillment
of their aims and interests.
 These
disputes throughout IR’s short history
have come to be known as ‘The Great
Debates’, and though disputed it is generally
felt there have been four, namely
‘Realism/Liberalism’,
‘Traditionalism/Behaviouralism’,
‘Neorealism/Neoliberalism’ and the most
recent ‘Rationalism/Reflectivism’.
 All have had an effect on IR theory, some
greater than others, but each merit analysis
of their respective impacts.
 •Realism,
also known as political realism,
encompasses a variety of theories and
approaches, all of which share a belief that
states are primarily motivated by the desire
for military and economic power or security,
rather than ideals or ethics. This term is
often synonymous with power politics.
 From
the Peloponnesian War, through
European poleis to ultimately nation states,
Realist trends can be observed before the
term existed.
 Similarly, the evolution of Liberalist thinking,
from the Enlightenment onwards, expressed
itself in calls for a better, more cooperative
world before finding practical application – if
little success – after The Great War.
 •The
term "Realism" is used with such
frequency that it appears to defy the need
for definition - all that needs to be known
about the concept seems to be encapsulated
in the word. Yet closer examination uncovers
a great deal of variation.
 Each of the principal Realist theorists - Carr,
Morgenthau and Waltz - offer their own
definitions, and often focus on the aspects
they wish to emphasize.
 •Divisions
of opinion exist between the
classical (or traditional) Realists and the
structural Realists (neorealists); and within
these broad groupings there are further
variations and shades of opinion.




Morgenthau’s theory is based on six principles he
enumerates in his first chapter. In summary, these
principles are:
•1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by
objective laws that have their roots in human nature
which is unchanging: therefore it is possible to develop
a rational theory that reflects these objective laws.
•2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept
of interest defined in terms of power which infuses
rational order into the subject matter of politics, and
thus makes the theoretical under-standing of politics
possible. Political realism stresses the rational,
objective and unemotional.
•3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is
an objective category which is universally valid but not
with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. Power is
the control of man over man.



•4. Political realism is aware of the moral signifigance of
political action. it is also aware of the tension between moral
command and the requirements of successful political action.
•5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations
of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the
universe. It is the concept of interest defined in terms of
power that saves us from moral excess and political folly.
•6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the
political sphere. He asks "How does this policy affect the
power of the nation?" Political realism is based on a pluralistic
conception of human nature. A man who is nothing but
"political man" would be a beast, for he would be completely
lacking in moral restraints. But, in order to develop an
autonomous theory of political behavior, "political man" must
be abstracted from other aspects of human nature.
The most important assumptions of Realism:
 •International relations are subject to objective
study. Events can be described in terms of laws, in
much the same way that a phenomenon in the
sciences might be described. These laws remain true
at all places and times.
 •The state is the most important actor of
international politics. Sovereign states are the
principal actors in the international system.
International institutions, non-governmental
organizations, multinational corporations, individuals
and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed
as having little independent influence. Thus the
United Nations, Shell, political parties, interest
groups, etc, are all relatively unimportant to the
Realist.

•The international system shows a structure of
anarchy, with no common sovereign.

According to Realists, the international system is
anarchic. For the realist, anarchy signifies that
there is no supranational authority that is able to
provide security.

International anarchy in this sense does not
necessarily imply disorder or conflict. Rather, it
is a framework for interpreting other “players”
actions.

•State behaviour is rational - or can best be
approximated by rational decision-making.
States act as though they logically assess the
costs and benefits of each course open to them
and then optimize/maximize their gains.
 Because of anarchy at the international level,
states revert to “state of nature” and act in
their own self-interest (think Machiavelli,
Hobbes).






•States act to maximize either their security or
power. The distinction here often proves moot as the
optimum method to guarantee one‘s security is
frequently equated with maximizing one‘s power.
•States often rely on the threat of or application of
force to achieve their ends.
•The most important factor in determining what
happens in international relations is the distribution
of power between international actors.
•Ethical considerations are usually discounted.
Universal moral values are difficult to define, and
unachievable without both survival and power.
•States are rational unitary actors each moving
towards their own national interest. There is a
general distrust of long-term cooperation or
alliance.
 •The overriding 'national interest' of each state
is its national security and survival.
 •Relations between states are determined by
their comparative level of power derived
primarily from their military and economic
capabilities.
 •There are no universal principles which all
states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a
state must be ever aware of the actions of the
states around it and must use a pragmatic
approach to resolve the problems that arise.




•To
sum up, realists believe that mankind is not inherently
benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This
Hobbesian perspective, which views human nature as selfish
and conflictual, leads to a state of nature which can only be
overcome by a social contract on the societal level. Thus
establishing a Leviathan on the state level, the state of
nature is freed to move up the ladder of analysis to the level
of the international system.
• Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive
(offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive
realism); and that territorial expansion is only constrained by
opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads
to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can
bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) build up
their own arms. Thus, international and/or security politics is
a zero-sum game where an increase in one party’s security
means a loss for the security of others.

•Liberalism or Idealism covers a fairly broad
perspective ranging from Wilsonian Idealism
through to contemporary neo-liberal theories
and the democratic peace thesis.

•States are but one actor in world politics, and
even states can cooperate through institutional
mechanisms and bargaining that undermine the
propensity to define survival interests simply in
military terms.


•States are interdependent and other actors such as
Transnational Corporations, INGOs, IGOs, and the
United Nations play a decisive international role
•The goal of liberal internationalism is to achieve
global structures within the international system that
are inclined towards promoting a liberal world order.
To that extent, global free trade, liberal economics
and liberal democratic political systems are all
encouraged. In addition, liberal internationalists are
dedicated towards encouraging democracy to emerge
globally. Once realized, it will result in a 'peace
dividend', as liberal states have relations that are
characterized by non-violence, and that relations
between democracies is characterized by the
democratic peace thesis.
 •Variants:
 –Idealism/
Liberal Internationalism: A
political theory founded on the natural
goodness of humans and the autonomy of the
individual. It favours civil and political
liberties, government by law with the
consent of the governed, and protection
from arbitrary authority. Corporations, the
IMF and the United Nations play a role.
 –Neoliberalism
 –Complex Interdependence
 –Democratic Peace Theory (Kant)
 After
the First World War Liberalist thinking
became dominant in International Relations .
With Woodrow Wilson at the vanguard, the
belief that conflict could be tamed and
eventually defeated through institutional
order was applied with the creation of the
League of Nations.
 The League was immediately undermined by
the failure of the American legislature to
ratify participation in an organization that at
least during its formative years enjoyed
considerable public support.
 Given
that Realists had a long historical
narrative of power-plays and conflicts from
which to draw, it was little wonder they
questioned the views of Liberalists during the
later Inter-War period, labelling them
Idealists or Utopians.
 Just as Liberalists regarded Realists as far too
pessimistic about change and lacking in
imagination to see the possibilities of
cooperation and extension of law, diplomacy
and security, so did Realists see their
idealistic opponents as dangerously naïve.
 Though
Realists generally agreed that
morality should be observed and even
advanced, they felt these were best
incubated in domestic environments made
secure thanks to the state’s power. Loading
security guarantees onto the weak shoulders
of international bodies was seen as
dangerous, given the risks posed to national
survival if such arrangements failed. Indeed
the very idea that the League could function
as envisioned given the variety of states
involved, their ideals and relative power, was
suspect.
 The
actions of Germany, Italy and Japan
throughout the 1930’s demonstrated the
importance of the League in the face of
aggressive expansionism by revisionist states.
The credibility of both it and Liberalism were
seriously undermined, then finished off with
the commencement of World War Two.
 Realists had ammunition to effectively gun
down the Liberalist case, and no one wielded
the weapon more brutally than EH Carr in his
1939 text The Twenty Year’s Crisis.
 Some
dispute the need for such assaults.
Lucian Ashworth charges that basic idealist
tenets applied to Liberalist writers of the
time did not accurately describe them, that
this distorted debates they conducted
between themselves and exaggerated their
differences with Realists; altogether
drastically oversimplifying the issue to the
extent that Ashworth even questions calling
this a Great Debate at all.
 Indeed
it can be suggested that a more
pragmatic Liberalism enjoyed a revival
following the War with the formation of
international organizations, such as the
United Nations, NATO, the EEC and its
descendants, which have enjoyed
accomplishments despite inherent issues.
Also John Mearsheimer points out that
Idealism remains entrenched in the British
school today – not the hallmark of a fatally
undermined position.

Still, the bulk of the literature calls this Debate
for Realists. The impact was that Realist theory
found far greater respect in academic and policy
circles than its rival, and indeed it is clear that
Liberalism has since grown closer to Realist
sentiment, as evidenced in the Neo-Neo debate
discussed later. A negative impact was the
effective ‘shutting out’ of alternative positions
in the face of Realist dominance. This
established a pattern in American and European
academies, generally Realist and Liberalist
respectively, where rebels were and are often
given short shrift, ultimately doing no favours for
the overall development of IR theory.
 Taking
place in the 1960’s, this was
essentially a methodological debate
revolving around the belief of Behaviouralists
that IR could only advance itself by applying
the methods of naturalist science. They
believed that the field was too dominated by
historians, who they labelled Traditionalists
(or Classicists), who took the view that IR
should be developed through more
interpretive historicist methods.
 Behaviouralist
focus was on the observation
of systems and that those analyses, and any
subsequent hypotheses and/or implying of
causality, should be subject to empirical
testing, mainly via falsification. That way
knowledge in IR could be progressively built
up, allowing for greater intuitions and
progress in theory development.




The battle lines were drawn between the likes of
Hedley Bull on the Traditionalist side, and Morton
Kaplan on the Behaviouralist.
There were other recognizable figures on either side,
such as Carr and Schelling, as well as divisions within
opposing camps, but Bull and Kaplan’s arguments get
to the heart of the matter.
Though acknowledging the swift rise of scientific
methods in America, Traditionalists maintained that
the ebbs and flows of global politics were necessarily
interpretive, as one could not impose a neat system
on a field with so many variables.
An opposing Bull wrote of the method, that with such
‘‘strict standards of verification and proof there is
very little of significance that can be said about
international relations’’.
 Kaplan
countered that Traditionalism’s
inherent breadth of analysis meant that its
‘‘generalizations are applied indiscriminately
over enormous stretches of time and space.
They are sufficiently loosely stated so that
almost no event can be inconsistent with
them’’ and thus would do nothing to enhance
understanding or develop theory.
 For Behaviouralists, a theory that was not
falsifiable was not a theory at all, more a
subjective notion to be believed or
disbelieved as suited.
 Behaviouralism
was also critiqued over what
its perceived weaknesses could bring to IR
study. It had roots in positivism and so strict
application would mean rejecting factors
that could not be measured, such as human
perception and motivation and would also
prevent the development of normative
theories since they focused on empirically
non-testable ‘what ought to be’. As well as a
charge of failing to grasp societal nuances,
criticism was also leveled at Behaviouralism’s
early practice of supposedly separating
theory and values from observations.

Behaviouralists countered these criticisms by
largely recognizing the potential value of
knowledge produced by other methods of
research, such as Kaplan’s acknowledgment of
Bull’s contributions to arms control literature for
example, but they reserved the right to test
their own assumptions empirically.
Behaviouralists even recognized their own
perceived weaknesses, such as Hempel and
Popper’s criticism of ‘narrow inductivist’ views
and the impossibility of some kind of theory or
values remaining absent from observation, thus
placing positivism on a more deductive than
inductive path.
Behaviouralism never sought to be a
replacement theory, but a means of discovering
one and facilitating Thomas Kuhn’s idea that ‘‘a
new area of research spins off from an
established one on the basis of a new
exemplar’’.
 Whether its proponents intended it or not
however, Behaviouralism became orthodoxy, its
key strength over Traditionalism being the ability
of researchers to replicate and analyze their
colleagues’ processes and findings, with impacts
including the encouragement of diligent and
detailed work by IR theorists, and that positivist
America came to be seen as a greater engine of
political theory discourse.
