Download International relations theory in policy debate

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
THEORY IN POLICY DEBATE
Houston Urban Debate League
Discussion Overview

Why discuss IR?
 Depth
and sophistication of debate
 Creative argumentation


Goal: Better understand leading schools of thought
and areas of contention in international relations
theory
Three Theories: Realism (Neo-Realism); Liberalism
(Neo-Liberal Institutionalism); Constructivism
Realism (Neo-Realism)

Nature of the International System: Anarchy
 For
the realist, anarchy signifies that there is no
supranational authority that is able to provide security
 Disclaimer: International anarchy in this sense does not
necessarily imply disorder or conflict.
 Rather, it is a framework for interpreting other
“players” actions.
 Differs from anarchy advocated in counterplans and
kritiks. Anarchist philosophy seeks to end state coercion
while realists are distinctly statist.
Realism (Neo-Realism)

Primary Actors: States (“unit-level” politics)
 Because
of anarchy at the international level, states
revert to “state of nature” and act in their own selfinterest (think Machiavelli, Hobbes).
 Neo-realists (also called Structural Realists) examine
how non-state structures influence decisions, but still
place states at the center.
Realism (Neo-Realism)

Key Interest: Survival (Classical Realism)
Security (Neo-Realism)
 Because
there is no guarantor of security at the
international level, states pursue survival.
 Classical Realists viewed states as inherently
aggressive, checked only by other powers
 Neo-realists argue that states are merely interested in
existence (post-WWII security dilemma furthers this).
 Relative gains problems create zero-sum international
order where states might forego perceived gains if
other states make greater gains. This discourages
cooperation.
Realism (Neo-Realism)

Debate Applications
 Hegemony
 What
international system is most stable: hegemonic,
unipolar, bipolar, multipolar?
 Can troop reduction lead to relative gains for the United
States by balancing against more meaningful threats? Does
this make the topic bi-directional?
 Balance
of Power, Balance of Threat, Securitization
 Does deterrence apply to counter-insurgency strategy
(Afghanistan, Iraq) and asymmetric warfare (counterterrorism)?
Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism)

Nature of the International System: Anarchy
 For
the liberalist, anarchy signifies that there is no
supranational authority that is able to enforce
agreements.
 While liberalism and realism share the assumption of
international anarchy, neoliberals criticize realists for
underestimating opportunities for cooperation within
that system.
 Question becomes how to create an international
system that encourages cooperation.
Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism)

Primary Actors: Pluralist System (states at the
center, but also corporations, international
organizations, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), law and protocol)
 States
cooperate with non-state entities when in their
personal interest.
 Because there is no international enforcement
mechanism to ensure states follow through on
agreements, cheating becomes the central concern.
 Leads to desire to create “sticky” institutions that hold
states to cooperative agreements.
Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism)

Key Interest: Preferences (Utility determined by the
state)
 Unlike
realism, where states worry about relative gains
and would forego cooperation under certain situations,
institutionalists seek absolute gains.
 Argue that even in situations where partners make
relatively greater gains, cooperation on common
interests creates “sticky” alliances.
 Game Theory describes methods states use to
determine when cooperation is in their best interests
(prisoner’s dilemma is most common).
Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism)

Debate Applications
 Cases/Counterplans:
 Alliances/Coalition
Building
 United
Nations
 International Law
 Economic Interests/International Corporations
 Problem
of changing preferences and shifting alliances
(especially true with democratic systems in wartime)
Constructivism

Nature of the International System: Socially
Constructed/Contingent
 Unlike
realism and liberalism, whose causal
epistemology draws from positivist (scientific) and
structuralist (empirical) traditions, constructivism is postpositivist, deconstructing the ontological assumptions of
other IR theories.
 “Anarchy is what states make of it…” –Alexander
Wendt
Constructivism

Key Actors: Shared Ideas (technically, states are still
the key actors, but ideas underlie state paradigms
about the international system)
 Theory
developed as a possible explanation for the
failure of dominant theories to predict major
international events (e.g. fall of the Soviet Union)
 Identities and Interests are constructed by cultural
norms and shared philosophies.
 While the primary function of constructivism is as a
critique of leading IR theories, does it advocate
anything (for the purposes of policy debate)?
Constructivism

Key Interests: Define/Determine Core Ideas;
Cooperate to redefine International System
 This
1.
2.
element of constructivism has been criticized for
Being no more than a post-positivist variant of neoliberalism due to its agreement that social agency shapes
state preferences.
Not being truly post-modern due to its rational discourse
about how ideas can address and solve “external”
problems.
Constructivism

Debate Applications:
 Security
Kritik
 Link:
Power/Threats are socially constructed
 Impacts:


Pre-Fiat:
 Ontology: threat discourse causes violence
 Epistemology: the human element (can’t know if threats are
real or percieved.
Post-Fiat: Violence, Military Escalation, Environmental
Degradation, Economic Collapse
 Alternatives:


Typically, rejection (voting aff precludes end of threat construct)
CP Alt: Use Neo-Liberal Institutionalist construct to redefine values
NEO-REALISM
NATURE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM
KEY ACTOR(S)
KEY INTEREST(S)
NEO-LIBERAL
INSTITUTIONALISM
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Anarchy (No
international security
mechanism)
Anarchy (No
Socially
international mechanism Contingent/Socially
to enforce agreements) Constructed
States
Plural (States,
Corporations,
International
Organizations, NGOs)
Security/Survival
Preferences (individual Define Core Ideas
utility to the state)
Cooperate on Shared
Interests
DEBATE APPLICATIONS Hegemony, Balance of
Power, Balance of
Threat, Security
Construction
Alliances, NonState/Supranational
Organizations,
Preference Problem
Shared Ideas
Security Kritik/Threat
Construction