Theories of International Relations by Malik Assignment

Theories of International Relations by Malik Assignment Words: 8198

THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1-Behavioralism:- Behavioralism is an important approach among the different approaches of international relations. This approach is actually generalization. They study a phenomenon generally. They say that we can not get factual knowledge of a phenomenon that we study rather we can get causal knowledge of the phenomenon. Behavioralists isolate the factors to study so we can call them holistic. They believed in careful study that based on analytical methods. They say that characteristic of a phenomenon are qualitative.

If a behavioralist studies the democracy of different countries, he will study all the cases generally. In his study he will separate all the factors affecting the democracy and then study them separately. Following are some important points of this approach. 1- Behavioralists argue that in order to develop the scientific understanding of the social phenomena we should pay attention to their apparent behavior and those aspects which can be experienced through our senses and can be measured in qualitative terms. They do not believe in quantitative study of the phenomenon.

Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!


order now

They argue that things are as they are visible there is no difference in their apparent and inner structure or behavior. 2- Behavioralists believe that social phenomenon is similar in nature with the natural phenomena. Therefore the mathematical and quantitative approaches of natural sciences should also be applied to study and understand the social phenomenon. As social phenomenon is the phenomenon which is procreated by human beings by altering the natural phenomenon in such a way that its use value is increased for human living.

They think that by altering the natural phenomenon the nature of the actual material used is not changed so the basic characteristics will be same in both natural and social phenomenon. 3- Behavioralists argue that social phenomenon like natural phenomenon is governed by the generalized rules of behavior. Therefore to understand the reality and causal factors of the social phenomenon we have to study all the cases of a social phenomenon at the same time and only those factors which are common to all the cases of a social phenomenon should be considered the social factors of that phenomenon.

They ignore the differences while studying different cases of a social phenomenon and only consider the differences. As they believe that social phenomenon is similar in nature with natural phenomenon so they apply general rules to all the cases of a social phenomenon so they have to ignore the differences between different cases of s social phenomenon otherwise they cannot apply general rules. 4- Behavioralists believe that social groups or social collectivities are made of the individual units.

Therefore by studying the characteristics of individual units and by adding those characteristics we can understand the characteristics of the social groups or the social collectivities. They actually do not study a social phenomenon as a whole rather they split it into its units and then study all the units separately. After studying all the units separately they then add the characteristics of all the units to get the knowledge about the phenomenon as a whole. – Behavioralists argue that in order to develop scientific knowledge of the social phenomenon we should study only its observable behavior rather than the normative and formalistic aspects of the social phenomenon. This is so because the normative and the formalistic factors bring biases that hinder the real understanding of the social phenomenon. By keeping in mind the normative and formalistic behavior of a social phenomenon we cannot study it objectively, and by studying a social phenomenon subjectively we cannot get complete and true knowledge about the phenomenon. – Behavioralists believe that individual case study method would not help to develop scientific understanding of the social phenomenon. In order to develop the scientific understanding of a social phenomenon the social scientists should select the plausible variables which should be carefully observed along all the cases of a social phenomenon. Only this way we can find the real causal factors of a social phenomenon. They concentrate on apparent behavior or plausible variables of a social phenomenon not on the inner behavior or hidden variables of the phenomenon.

They think that in this way they can get complete knowledge and can develop scientific under standing of the social phenomenon. 2-Traditionalism:- Traditionalism is an important approach among the different approaches of international relations. This approach is actually particularization. They study a phenomenon separately in different places. They say that we can not get causal knowledge of a phenomenon that we study rather we can get factual knowledge of the phenomenon. Traditionalists study a combination of factors so we can call them Analytics.

They believe in the study that based on impression not on analytical methods. They say that characteristics of a social phenomenon are qualitative not quantitative. If a traditionalist studies democracy in Pakistan, France and U. K, he will study the democracy of all the countries separately. But in each case he will study all the factors, affecting the democracy positively or negatively, combine. Following are some important points of this approach 1- Traditionalists argue that the social phenomenon has both quantitative and qualitative properties.

Therefore we can not understand them properly by studying their quantitative properties only. In order to properly understand the social phenomenon we should develop methodologies which should consider not only the qualitative but also the quantitative properties of the social phenomenon. Therefore the quantitative behavioralist approach is faulty and it should not be followed because if we study only the quantitative behavior or quantitative properties of a social phenomenon and ignore the qualitative behavior or qualitative properties then we cannot get complete and correct knowledge of the social phenomenon.

There may be a possibility that by ignoring on aspect of properties we get incomplete as well as incorrect knowledge about the social phenomenon. 2- Traditionalists believe that social phenomena are different in nature than the natural phenomena. Therefore to study the social phenomenon we should develop approach which is more suitable to the nature of social phenomenon. By altering the natural phenomenon it changes completely. Its shape, color, use value etc changes completely so we cannot apply the methods and techniques used to study and understand the natural phenomenon in the study of social phenomenon.

Tree is a natural phenomenon while chair is a social phenomenon we can use chair for sitting on it and can do many works but we cannot do so while sitting on the tree. Tree is a living thing while chair is a non-living thing. Keeping in mind this vast difference between the two, we cannot study them with the same techniques, methods and methodologies. To study the social phenomenon we should use the method or develop the approach which is suitable for social phenomenon. – Traditionalists argue that the social phenomena are particularistic in nature and therefore they are not governed by the generalized rules of behavior. They say that no two cases of the same phenomenon are similar in all aspects. Therefore each case of a social phenomenon should be studied separately and the unique factors causing those particular cases should be paid attention along with the generalized factors. As they believe that social phenomenon has both qualitative and quantitative properties so they argue that no two cases of a similar phenomenon can be same completely.

There are some differences also due to time, place, environment, circumstances etc and to study the phenomenon we should deal all the cases separately and consider both similarities and differences in order to get complete knowledge or to develop a scientific understanding of a social phenomenon. 4- Traditionalists believe that the behavior of collective social entities can not be understood just by adding the behavior of the individual units because the behavior of collective social entities can be more or less or different than the adding of the behavior of the individual units.

Therefore the collective social entities should be studied independent of the individual units. This is not necessary that all the units of a group are identical completely in all aspects so there properties, abilities and capabilities also cannot be same completely so by studying the units of a group or collective social entity and then adding their properties we can not get complete understanding of the social phenomenon or the collective social entity.

When units combine and interact with each other their properties may change and their abilities and capabilities can also increase or decrease so we should study the social group or collective social entity as a whole rather than studying the units individually and then adding them. 5- Traditionalists argue that the normative and formalistic aspects of the social phenomenon can not be excluded while studying the social phenomenon because these factors influence the social actor’s practical behavior.

Therefore in order to develop the proper understanding of the real behavior of the social phenomenon normative and formalistic factors should also be considered. Nothing can remain uninfluenced by normative and formalistic aspects specially the social phenomenon. The behavior of social phenomenon is influenced greatly by normative and formalistic aspects. If we ignore these aspects while studying the social phenomenon we cannot understand the practical behavior of the social phenomenon. The liberals’ point of view is not correct that normative and formalistic aspects create biases and so they should be ignored is totally wrong. – Traditionalists believe that it is the scholarly inside and the intuitive judgment as well as the in-depth holistic study of the individual cases of a social phenomenon rather than the study of selective variables of all the cases of a social phenomenon that would produce the better understanding of that phenomenon. They believe that to understand a social phenomenon we should study its all the cases and all the variables not only the plausible variables. 3-Classical Realism:- Realism is an important theory in international relations for a long time.

It is divided in two main branches 1- Classical Realism 2- Neo Realism Here we will discuss classical realism. Philosophical or classical realism is said to have developed as a reaction to the philosophies of the utopian liberalism. It has its roots in late 17th and early 18th century. These realists called Utopian Liberalism Idealism because in their view the arguments of the liberals were less than practical and their approach was unrealistic. With the onslaught of the devastating Second World War, the liberal point of view suffered a blow and the realists such as Hans J.

Morgenthau flourished. Important jurists of this theory are 1) Thucydides 2) Thomas Hobbes 3) Machiavelli 4) Clause Witz The important points of classical realism are as under 1- Classical realists believe that human beings are basically selfish and all they want is to secure their self interest so they cannot be selfless and altruistic. Being selfish they see others gains as their own loss. Therefore they are forced by their nature not to cooperate with others unless they are forced by an out side power or an agency and such power has to be a dominant power over them.

They further argue that human beings have instinctive lust for power and to dominate others, which makes others insecure and thus force them to fight back if they can. International politics according to these realist philosophers is nothing but a struggle for power. Therefore war and conflict is inevitable in international politics. According to them the only purpose of human struggle in the world is to secure his/her own interest he/she has nothing to do with others.

At the same they argue that there is a lust for power in the nature of humans so we can say that ultimately the most prioritize interest of any human being will be to become more and more powerful using each and every mean. As humans are basically selfish according to them so when someone secure power others will consider him a threat for themselves and feel in secure. They will also try to enhance their power and this will start a game of power in the world, as it is going on in the form international politics (a struggle for power). – Classical realists argue that international institutions no matter how much reformed they are, cannot stop warring behavior among the individual states unless a sovereign power is created in international system. They also believe that such a sovereign power cannot be created in the international system because the states individually and collectively are too powerful to be dominated by any one power. They believe that international institutions are not so powerful or authoritarian that they can stop war activities. They give the example of Second World War where the League of Nations failed badly to stop the war.

They argue that to stop the war in the world is possible only when there will be a sovereign power which can control all the states and prevent them to resort the war activity. They also believe that as international system is anarchic in nature so it is not possible to create such a dominant power which can dominate all other states individually and collectively. So they say that war and conflict is inevitable in the international system. 3- Classical realists believe that international political system is anarchic by nature and there is no sovereign power to provide security to the individual states.

Therefore states have to secure themselves on their own by developing their own military power and also by creating military alliances with other states to balance their power with that of their adversaries and thus by creating balance of power among themselves the individual states secure themselves. There is no other way to provide security to the individual states in the international system. International institution lacking the sovereign power cannot provide security to the individual states. Therefore the system of alance of power is the only mechanism which should be adopted to create peaceful conditions in the international political system. In anarchic system the smaller states have only two possible ways to secure themselves firstly to enhance their power to such extant that it would mach with power of their adversaries, secondly they make alliances with other states to create balance of power among themselves and their adversaries. Due the limited capabilities, resources and techniques smaller states cannot increase their own power to a great extent so they have to join hands with other states to create alliances and balance of power.

In this the smaller states secure themselves. According to classical realists there is no other possible way or mechanism except balance of power (BOP) to provide security to the individual states. 4- Classical realist argue that free flow of ideas, goods and services among the different actors of international system is not possible due to the anarchic nature of international system because in an anarchic system states feel threaten by one another.

Therefore they would not be willing to open up themselves for the entry of ideas, goods and services of the other states. Specially during the periods of war when the insecurity would be at higher stage any system of free trade will collapse and therefore the liberal argument of free flow of ideas, goods and services among the different actors of international system is not supported by the historic facts as international trade and communications has gone to crises for many times in history.

The only reliable mechanism of stopping war in the international system is only the balance of power. They argue that if a state open up itself for the free flow of ideas, goods and services its adversaries can take advantage, as basically the nature of humans is selfish so they can inspect the capabilities, structure and power of the state and then by increasing their own power they can attack on the state following the concept of free flow of ideas, goods and services. 4-Classical Liberalism:-

Liberalism is an important theory of international relations. It is further divided in two branches 1- Classical Liberalism 2-Neo Liberalism Here we will discuss classical liberalism. Liberals believed their approach to be pragmatic especially during the years between the two world wars when they were particularly active. One of the most influential figures in the world that promoted liberalism was the Professor and President of the United States in years leading to the First World War, Woodrow Wilson.

He had a liberal point of view and he actively propagated it. His influence can clearly be seen in the Treaty of Versailles. It is the belief of liberal scholars that the nature of the international and domestic political system is the primary cause of war among the states. The important jurists of this theory are 1) Immanuel Kant 2) David Hume 3) John Stuart Mill 4) Rousseau 5) Woodrow Wilson They gave three basic ideas to avoid war 1- Collective Security 2- International Law 3- Free Trade The important points of classical liberalism are as under – Classical liberals use to believe that human nature is essentially good and altruistic. Therefore human beings are capable of cooperating with one another voluntarily through the application of there reason. The cooperative behavior in human beings is the result of there nature. Therefore in order to be cooperative human beings do not need any out side force or agency to compel them for cooperation. They also use to believe that human beings become sinful and wicked only in the presence of evil and fraud institution.

Therefore if the institutions or their collective organizations reformed in a way that helps those to become good human beings their behavior would change and they would become good and cooperative humans. They believe that human beings are cooperative by their nature. The only problem is the fraud and evil institutions which prevent the human beings from cooperating with others. So they said that by just reforming the international institutions human beings will start to cooperate with one another, they do not need any kind of outside force or agency to do so. – Classical liberals believe that war and conflict in international political system is not inevitable. The frequency of war in the international system can be reduced or minimized by creating proper international institution or collective organization of the institutions, that would promote a system of collective security, international law and free flow of ideas, goods and services. They believe that in the presence of collective security system no one will attack others because in consequences it should have to face all other countries at the same time.

Similarly if international institutions have sovereign power and they promote international law, they can also minimize the intensity of war. In the presence of the system of free trade (free floe of ideas, goods and services) states become interdependent and they will avoid going into war activity. 3- Classical liberals say that war is a global problem therefore it requires global institutions and global efforts to solve it. War and conflict in the international system cannot be stopped by the efforts of the individual states or through the systems of balance of power as the realists believe that it can be stopped.

Creation of military alliances and counter alliances for the sake of maintaining balance of power is rather counter productive because such activities on the part of individual states breed distrust and insecurity among the adversaries and such a situation then led to the war among them. They said that as the human nature is basically good and cooperative so if war starts between two countries others will also cooperate with them and take part in the war against the adversaries so it will be a world wide war or global phenomenon.

They also said that by creating alliances and counter alliances war cannot be stopped because such activities bring mistrust among the states so balance of power is not the way to stop the war and attain and maintain the peace in the world. 4- Classical liberals believe that war and conflict can be eliminated in the international system by promoting the free flow of ideas, goods and services among the different nations and different actors of the international system.

This free flow of ideas, goods and services will make the nations and international actors interdependent on one another and this interdependence then would promote cooperation among them which would help in eliminating war and conflict in the international system as the states would come interdependent on one another, they would not resort the war among them. Because if they do so they would harm themselves their relations with the other countries will be spoiled and they cannot get the advantage of dependency any more. 5&6-Neo-Realism and Classical Realism:-

Neo-realism is a relative reincarnation of realist school of thought that emphasizes the effects of the international distribution of power in the international political system. i. Human nature and its role:- Both classical realists and neo-realists agree that human beings are egoistic and power seeking. They believe that there is a lust for power in the nature of human beings. Classical realist scholars argue that it is the nature of the state leaders that determine their international behavior as well as external policies of the states.

They said that if the leader of a state is a dictator the policies of the states will be very much offensive and so as the international behavior of the state. Neo-realists argue that the human nature of state leaders is immaterial in shaping the foreign policies and external behavior of states. It is rather the nature of the international system which determines the external behavior of states. They believe that the nature of the leaders do not influence the policies of a state rather the nature of the international system influences the behavior and external policies of the state.

In an anarchic international state will be too much conscious about its security and behave offensively but in the presences of a hierarchical system state will behave and act differently; it will not be too much conscious about its security and will cooperate with others. ii. National interest:- Both classical and neo-realists define national interest in terms of military and territorial security of states. Keeping in mind the basic argument of realist scholars that there is a lust for power in the human nature we can say that national interest of the states is their security and to gain more and more power.

Classical realists argue that it is the nature of the national interest that determines the foreign policies of the states. They believe that national interest and foreign policies of the states are inter-linked. They say that if the national interest of a state is its security then it will follow an aggressive foreign policy but if the national interest of the state is economic development then it will follow the defensive foreign police. In this way national interests of the states determine the foreign policies of the states.

Neo-realists argue that both national interests as well as the foreign policies of the states are determined by the nature of international system. They believe that national interest and foreign policy do not have any kind of influence on one another; they are rather influenced by international system. In the presence of an anarchical international system the national interest of the state will be its security and to secure more and more power but in the presence of hierarchical international system the national interest of the state will be totally changed.

Similarly the nature of the international system also influences the foreign policies of the states. iii. Balance of power:- Both classical and neo-realists agree that the presence of the system of balance of power is responsible for peace and stability in the international system. Because in the presence of system of balance of power the states are aware of the power and capabilities of the adversaries and as there is a balance of power the abilities, capabilities and power of the adversaries are the same so they refrained from attacking one another. In this way the stability and peace is achieved in the world.

Classical realists argue that the maintenance and break down of balance of power is a result of conscious decisions of the state leaders. They say that state leaders are very much conscious about the security of their state and there conscious decisions are mainly responsible for the maintenance and breaking of the system of balance of power. Neo-realists argue that the maintenance and break down of balance of power in international system is the result of changes and cyclic movement of international political system and not the conscious decisions of the state leaders.

They believe that international political system is not stable and permanent. It keeps changing and these are cyclical changes and movements occurred in the international political system. They say that the conscious decisions of the state leaders do not have any affect on the system of balance of power it is rather influenced and changed by the cyclical changes and movements occurred in the international political system. iv. The nature and the role of international system:-

Classical and neo-realists agree that international system is anarchic in nature which implies that they believe there is an uneven and unequal distribution of power among the states of the world. They vary in their views about the role of international system in determining the outcomes of international politics. Classical realists argue that it is the nature of the state leaders and their diplomatic skills which determine the outcome of different international events.

Neo-realist scholars argue that it is only the nature of the international system which determines the states behavior and the out come of international events. v. The nature of the discipline of I. R:- Both classical and neo-realist scholars agree that the scope of the international relations as a discipline should be limited to political power relations among the states and the international political system should not be reduced to economic or any other type of relations among the international actors.

International system should be viewed and analyzed only with reference to political power relations among the states of the international system. In other words both classical and neo-realists agree that economic, cultural and social relations among the international actors should not be studied in the discipline of I. R as it is being done by the liberal scholars. They are basically focusing on the politics and not on the other aspects such as economic power, social power, cultural power etc. 7&8-Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism:-

Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism are theories in which both realist and liberalist political scholars had tried to improve the theoretical problems of their respective theories which were being faced by these theories. Neo-realism is a relative reincarnation of realist school of thought which emphasizes that effects of the international distribution of power in the international political system whereas neo-liberalism, of the 1970s and 80s stresses on the importance of international institutions in reducing inherent conflict between states. The debate between the two schools is on everal issues, as explained below I. The nature and consequences of anarchy in international system:- Both Neo-Realist and Neo-Liberalist scholars agree that the international system is anarchic in nature but they differ with one another on the nature and the consequences of the international system. ? Neo-Realist scholars are of the view that anarchy in international system is not problematic. It is rather preferable as compare to the international institutions or any other type of international governing bodies.

Because the condition of anarchy in the international system produces the condition of balance of power which in turn produces stability and peaceful condition in international system. ? Neo-Liberal scholars on the other hand are of the view that anarchy in the international system is problematic which is responsible for the conflict, war and instability at the international level. Therefore they are of the view that unless international institutions or international governing bodies are created the order and the peaceful condition in the international system cannot be created.

Therefore they recommend such international institutions and governing bodies should be produced by the willful actions of state leaders and only by doing that the problems of international political system can be resolved. The conditions of balance of power which are created through the politics of military alliances are rather the source of insecurity and conflict in the international system. So the conditions of anarchy in the international system cannot be dependent and the only way to create peaceful conditions and cooperation among the international actors is through reforming the international institutions.

II. Capability vs. intention of international actors:- ? Neo-Realist scholars are of the view that the relative capabilities and common power positions of states in the international system are responsible of determining their behavior. In other words they argue that it is the nature of distribution of power or the relative power of the states in the international system rather than the nature of their domestic political system or the nature of their states functionaries is what determines their policies and behavior in international political system. Neo-Liberals maintain that the domestic factors such as the nature of domestic political system as well as the nature, intentions, ideas and the level of information of state leaders is what determines the behavior of state in the international system. They argue that if the domestic political system of a state is dictatorial the behavior of the state would be aggressive and when the state is democratic its behavior will be cooperative and peaceful. Similarly the personal traits and the ideological beliefs of the state leaders would also determine their behavior in the international political system e. . Hitler in Germany and his personality was responsible of the aggressive behavior of German state at that time and which then became the cause of World War II. Similarly they also argue that democratic states have never fought with one another in the history. Therefore the realist point of view that it is the anarchic nature of international system which determines the behavior of states in international political system is not true. III. Institutions and regimes:- ? Institution is a social practice which is practiced over a long time by the consensus of a human community. Regime is a set of values, norms, rules, regulations and procedures on which the expectation of a human community converge Both Neo-Realists and Neo-Liberalists agree that states have created variety of institutions and regimes especially after World War II. ? Neo-Realists argue that international organizations and international regimes do not dictate the actions of their members, they are rather arenas(areas) where states carry out their traditional competition and political rivalry in order to gain influence and power in international system. Neo-Liberals on the other hand are of the opinion that international institutions and regimes create rules and norms that control the behavior of states and other international actors. To them international actors and institutions can solve most of the problems of anarchy in the international system. IV. Priority of state goals:- ? Neo-Realists argue that states in the international system give priority to their security issues over other issues in the international system. Neo-Liberals argue that especially after the World War II the economic welfare of societies and other economic issues of the international community have become more important agenda of international politics. V. International cooperation:- ? Neo-Realist scholars believe that international cooperation among the states is possible but highly difficult to sustain, as they believe that basically human nature is evil and selfish and there is a lust for power so humans cannot cooperate with each other especially in long term.

Humans see others gains as their own losses so a kind of mistrust always stays there among the humans. ? Neo-Liberal scholars believe that cooperation among the international actors is not only possible but also easy to sustain because once cooperation among international actors started it would then produce rewards which would then further strengthen the behavior of cooperation among states. VI. Relative vs. absolute gains:- ? Neo-Realists argue that states in the international system are concerned with relative gains rather than absolute gains.

If they do not gain in the relative sense they do not cooperate in the international system. ? Neo-Liberals on the other hand believe that even the absolute gain motivate and induce international actors to develop the behavior of cooperative exchange. 9-Theory of complex interdependence Or Theory of transnational interdependence Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye both were the American political scientists and they presented their theory which argued the changes that came into international politics after the World War II.

They have mainly opposed realist understanding of the international politics but at time they have also differed with the liberal scholars too, but basically they are considered Neo-Liberals. They have argued that nature of interdependence between and among different international actors has change dramatically since then and as a result the nature of the international system has also changed.

Prior to the Second World War, they argued, the nature of interdependence among the international actors was simple and the international relations were directed mainly by the state leaders. The use of military force was always an option in the case of conflict between the states in the international system. They are also of the view that high politics of military and territorial security had priority over lower politics of international economics and social affairs.

This situation has changed since World War II in the following ways; 1. They argued that the nature of international politics after the World War II has changed what it used to be before World War II, states were the major, predominant actors in the international politics and the military security issues were the dominant agenda of international politics but after the World War II issues of low politics such as economic, cultural, environmental and even moral issues have become more important in the international politics. 1.

The use of military force in the international politics has diminished in its importance to achieve the objectives of international actors. Instant in order to solve the conflicts among international actors other methods such as direct negotiations or through the use of international organizations or platforms have become more important. 2. The power resources of nations as well as other international actors have also changed. Previously military resources were more important power resources whereas after World War II economic and other resources have become more important sources of power. . The power positions of states as well as the other international actors have become specific to different issue areas. A state can be a powerful state in one issue area and weak in another issue area. Similarly another state can be powerful in more than one issue areas but not in all issue areas. This was not the case previous to World War II, where a state which was dominated in military area was also use to dominate the other issue areas of international politics. 4.

They have also pointed out that international relations are no longer the relations just between the states and state leaders but they include relations between non-state actors such as different social and political groups, multi-national corporations, other business corporations, NGOs and international organizations; they have acquired the status of independent actors in the international politics. They are no longer interacting in the international politics through the states.

They are interacting with one another directly and independently of the concerning states. In some cases these actors have become so powerful that even states are becoming dependent on them. Further more the interdependence between states is no longer only political in nature but is also economic and social in nature and these economic and social relations have become more important than the political relations between the states. 5. International organizations have required more importance in the international politics especially with reference to smaller states.

Because the smaller states have started using these organizations for their collation formation among themselves. By forming collation at the international level the smaller states can increase their power in the international system. The example of this development is the group of 77 in the general assembly, the non-alignment movement as well as the other international organizations made by the smaller states. These organizations have been very influential in the international politics especially during the cold war period.

Conclusion:- On the basis of these arguments both Keohane and Nye argue that realist theories have less applicable to explain the international politics after Second World War. Thus new comprehensive studies should be developed to explain the new developments in their international political system. 10- Neo-Classical Realism:- ss Neo-classical realists share the basic assumptions of realism with the other scholars of realism such as 1- Human beings are basically egoistic and power seekers in nature. – International political system is anarchic in nature. 3- The states as well as the other international actors have to ensure their security on their own Neo-classical realists differ with other realist scholars in the following points 1. Neo-classical realists differ with classical realist scholars that human nature or the personal traits of the state leaders’ determine their external behavior in the international system.

They disagree with the neo-realist scholars who believe that it is the power structure of the international political system which determines the external behavior of the states. Neo-classical realist scholars on the other hand argue that it is the interaction of the anarchic nature of the international political system and the domestic institutional and other structural constraints of the domestic political system as well as the complex domestic political process that collectively affects the ecision making of the state leaders and the external behavior of state in international political system. 2. Particular states try to adjust their power positions in response to the external imbalances of power viz-a-viz that particular states. States do that by building their own arms or/and by forming alliances with the other states however most of the time they do not succeed in creating the balance of power with their adversaries.

Therefore it is very rare that a situation of balance of power is created among the adversary states in the regional or international system. Therefore they argue that neo-realist assumption that international political system is being managed or being kept stable through the system of balance of power is not supported by the facts of international politics, that is why international politics is never stable nor peaceful at most of the time of its duration.

It very rare that a situation of balance of power emerges in international or regional political system that provides stability and security to the actors of international system. Therefore they argue that a continuous process of instability flux and chain is carried on in the international politics. So they argue that seeking neo-realist scholar’s wishes of creating a stable and peaceful international system is ill-founded and not supported by the theoretical facts of international relations. 3.

The classical and neo-classical realist scholars both define national interest in terms of military and territorial security of states but the neo-realist classical scholars argue that foreign policy of a state is dependent not only on the nature of the national interest but also on the nature of the power structure of the regional as well as the international political system whereas the classical realist scholars believe that it is the national interest that shapes the foreign policy of a state. 11&12- Positivism and Interpretism:- Positivism:-

It is the approach or belief that IR scholarship is an objective inquiry that is concerned with uncovering verifiable facts or regularities of world politics and is based on valid scientific research techniques. It is one of the oldest approaches of studying IR, having its roots in the times of Renaissance and rationalism. Previously, knowledge was subordinate to religion. The 16th and 17th centuries brought the industrial revolution in Europe and with it came the printing press and a faster method of disseminating knowledge and a new appreciation for the scientific mode of acquiring information.

Intellectuals began to favor applying reason to understand the truth of things and hence rationalism progressed. Positivism developed as part of rationalism. One of the pioneers of this approach was the French sociologist Emile Durkheim. She along with other positivists had the view that humans can know the actuality of things with an objective study opposed to the Interpretists that greatly disagree. Interpretism:- Interpretism began sometime after the end of First World War though its traces can be found as far back as the 18th century and the work of Max Weber.

Interpretism essentially argued that human beings in their attempt to know things interpret them basis of their previous knowledge of things, beliefs, socialization, cultural and religious values. Hence in order to understand any given phenomenon we should also try to know the basis of mental interpretation of the subjects who are trying to know the phenomenon. Comparison:- Thus from the above discussion it is clear that Positivism is in contradiction with Interpretism. The differences between the two on different issues are discussed as under; 1- Objectivity vs. Subjectivity:-

Positivists are of the opinion that humans are capable of knowing phenomena objectively by applying reason. If there is some subjectivity, they believe that they can develop methods and techniques that will eliminate that subjectivity and hence objective knowledge is quite attainable. On the other hand interpretists are of the view that human beings cannot know phenomena objectively. There subjectivity will always enter into their knowledge of the phenomena they study and it can never be eliminated by any tool or method. The best approach to acquiring knowledge is to recognize the subjectivity and acknowledge it while studying the phenomena. – Uniqueness vs. Regularities:- Positivists are of the opinion that social phenomena are governed by generalized rules. There are regularities and thus generalized principles of things can be known. For example an Oxygen molecule exists with the same consistency throughout nature. Similarly democratic institutions are the same whether in the US, the UK or in Pakistan. Interpretists consider social phenomena to be unique in nature any one unit of social phenomena cannot be equated to all or any other unit. They are not governed by generalized rules and hence there can be no generalized social phenomena.

Thus one should study each phenomenon individually and perhaps generalized patterns may emerge though generalized phenomenon will not be witnessed. 3- Normative vs. Non-normative:- Positivists are of the view that knowledge should be objective and non-normative. Social reality is out there and could be known objectively. Cultural norms should be separated from any study of social phenomena. They iterate the historical uproar against Galileo’s work though scientifically correct, was against the religious norms of those times and hence his work was violently discredited.

Thus for truth to be truly uncovered, personal biases and values should be eliminated from the pursuit of knowledge. Interpretists argued however that knowledge should be normative and not norm free. Social reality is not out there but in the mind. Subjectivity cannot be eliminated and hence religious and cultural values and personal biases should be acknowledged. Each person belongs to a distinct culture and each culture is different from the other. People belonging to a particular culture share a certain system of meaning.

If the cultural values of a person are isolated and acknowledged then it would be possible to find the actual truth about things by understanding the system of meanings that person employed. For example, democratic institutions are different in different areas i. e. democracy works differently in the US and in the UK as it does in India or Pakistan. Thus each phenomenon should be dealt separately and individually. 13- Defensive Structural Realism:- Relationship of units of a system is called structure. Structuralists elieve that when units interact with one another they work according to the nature of the structure of the system. Defensive-structural realists oppose the rise and fall realism saying that hegemony is not possible in the international system and all those states that develop policies to achieve hegemony cannot succeed in their objectives and therefore expansionist policies adopted by the states to establish their hegemony in the international system is self defeating e. g. France of Napoleon, Germany of Will Helm and Hitler as well as Italy of Mussolini.

The reason revisionist policies of states failed in international system because the structure of the international system favors those states that favor the status-qou and follow the defensive security policy. How system favors defensive security policies, they argue that the international system being anarchic forces those states that feel threatened by the states which follow the aggressive or offensive security policies to create balance of power by entering into alliances with other threaten states and thus the alliance of threaten states by creating balance of power makes impossible for the offensive states to establish hegemony.

In the international system states perceived threat posed by other states by their relative power, their geographical opportunity, intentions of other states and ofensive-deffense balance. On the basis of these four considerations states try to balance their power viz-a-viz the states by which they feel threaten and thus international system never makes it possible for any state to establish hegemony.

Therefore the defensive structural realists argue that states should follow the policies supporting the status-qou rather than the revisionist policies because ultimately the status-quo security policies will succeed in the international system. At the same time they agree that time to time some states oppose the status-quo and adopt the revisionist policies the reason that these states adopt the revisionist security policies because the security dilemma dynamics of international system.

This security dilemma in the international system is created because it is difficult for states to distinguish between defensive and offensive military preparations. A state following defensive military preparation may be viewed by other states as offensive military preparation which would make them also to adopt offensive security or military preparations these policies then would make the status-quo states to follow the offensive ecurity preparation and thus the competition among the different states of the international system creates a dynamics and spiraling effect in the international system which then force some states to adopt revisionist security policies but such policies would be self defeating because of the phenomenon of pervasive balancing of power that normally prevail in the international system. 14-Marxist Theory of Imperialism:- Main and prominent jurists of the theory are Hobson and Lenin.

The basic argument of the Marx is that human societies are divided in social classes and their conflict is basically class conflict, which causes conflict at greater level e. g. international level. 1-They argue that capitalism results overproduction of services, goods and capital and under consume all these things. The main purpose of a capitalist is to earn more and more profit so he give less wages to the labor and get maximum production from them for this purpose capitalists form cartels.

When labor class gets less wages ultimately their purchase power decreases which then results into overproduction of services, goods and capital. This overproduction then brings the saturation point of the market, a point where further production and consumption is not possible. After the market reaches to the saturation point capitalist then colonize the underdeveloped or developing countries to sell his products and to earn more profit. This colonization then results Capitalist Imperialism.

In the colonized markets the same process is repeated, less wages to labor class———- lower purchasing power—————-high production===== overproduction—————- saturation point of the colonized market. At this point capitalists start fighting with one another to colonize more countries or markets. It then produces international wars. 2-Untill capitalist system exists wars and conflicts will continue, unless a class less system come in the human societies we cannot achieve peace.

When capitalists start fighting with each other to get more markets the proletariats are suppressed badly. They deprived of all their rights. In the consequence proletariats start agitations to get their rights which were suppressed during war and ultimately by getting their rights back and by the agitations proletariats come into power and then using state power they produce class less society (socialist mode of production).

How to cite this assignment

Choose cite format:
Theories of International Relations by Malik Assignment. (2019, Mar 19). Retrieved July 19, 2019, from https://anyassignment.com/social-science/theories-of-international-relations-by-malik-assignment-52916/