International Relations Theory Essay Example

International Relations Theory Essay Example International Relations Theory Essay International Relations Theory Essay In the current Hobbesian world, true security depends on the possession and use of military might. Some argue, however, that liberalism or even constructivism has replaced realism as the proper lens through which to view the international system. Proponents of liberalism often cite Europe’s ever increasing use of laws, transnational negotiations, and cooperation or the increasing interdependence between the East and the West as evidence of the waning influence of realpolitik, or power politics. Constructivists point to the expansion of social sciences and human rights to prove that ideas hold the real power in the international system. What both of these camps miss is the underlying element, or foundation, which allows norms, ideas, economic trade, and every other positive element of the international system to exist: stability underwritten by military might and the balance of power. The following analysis will outline the influence of the theories of realism, liberalism and constructivism on the international system. Moreover, it will outline why power politics and the balance of power remain the most important influences in international relations, and why realism is the only theory adequate to explain the balance of power among states through military might. Before outlining why balance of power is the most important factor in the international system, it is important first to define and understand the three prevailing theories in international relations realism, liberalism, and constructivism and also to define the term â€Å"norm. For the purpose of this paper, norms are â€Å"a standard of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity,† and â€Å"one difference between ‘norm’ and ‘institution’ †¦ is aggregation: the norm definition isolates single standards of behavior, whereas institutions emphasize the way in which behavioral rules are structured together and interrelate (a ‘collection of practices and rules’). † (Finnemo re and Sikkink, p. 891). Realism During the era of the Cold War, realism became the dominant paradigm within international relations (Walt, p. ). Its emphasis on the power politics, balance of power, and most importantly the actions of states within an anarchic international system provided a sense of understanding (Waltz, p. 121). According to realists, states are the only actors on the political stage. They are driven to seek power in an anarchical system, in which there is no higher, trans-governmental and universally recognized authority. States are driven by the law of human behavior, which is the drive for power, will to dominate, self-interest, and ambition. States have no one but themselves to rely on for protection and they will do all they can in order to maximize their likelihood of survival. Moreover, as all states exist in a state of anarchy, they all pursue self-interest and try to acquire power to secure themselves and ensure their survival in a system where no other state or authority will come to save them if they fail to do so. (Waltz, 1979, p. 104). Kenneth Waltz defines anarchy as a condition of possibility for or ‘permissive’ cause of war, arguing that â€Å"wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them. (Waltz, 2001, p. 232). In realist view, the world is uncertain and dangerous. Realists assume that all states have some military power and no state knows what its neighbors’ intentions are. Waltz says, â€Å"Because some states may at any time use force, all states must be prepared to do so or live at the mercy of their militarily more vigorous neighbors. † (Waltz, 1979, p. 102) However, Mearsheimer explains that there is â€Å"relentless security competition with the possibility of war looming in the background,† not a constant war. Mearsheimer, 1994, p. 9) Hobbes argues, â€Å"Man cannot assure the power and means to live well which he hath present, without the acquisition of more. † (Hobbes, 1651, p. 61). Similarly, Machiavelli states that â€Å"men never appear to themselves to possess securely what they have unless they acquire something further from another. † (Carr, in Betts, p. 91). Thomas Hobbes characterizes human nature as â€Å"competition, diffidence and gl ory† amongst humans. (Hobbes, in Betts, p. 80). The balance of power theory, according to Waltz, explains how states, being unitary actors who seek their own preservation in the first place (at a minimum) or seek universal domination (at a maximum), use all the means they have available in order to achieve a balance of power against their rivals. Waltz then divides those means into two categories internal efforts, which include increasing military and economic strength and developing clever strategies and external efforts, which include forming an alliance or weakening an opposing one. Waltz, 1979, p. 118) Once the balance of power is achieved, it becomes a game of preserving this balance to ensure the state’s survival. To reach such an equilibrium, and to achieve mutual goals and interests, states in an alliance must accept the restraints on them due to the framework of which they are a part. â€Å"Only if states recognize the same rules of the game and play for the same limited stakes can the balance of power fulfill it s functions for international stability and national independence. † (Waltz, 1979, p. 120) Liberalism Liberalism can be defined as the â€Å"freedom for the individual,† as it believes, in contrast with realism, that humans are good-natured beings. For liberals, humans are beings of progress and strive for perfection during life. â€Å"Unlike Realism, it strives for, and believes in, improvement in human condition and provides a rationale for building cooperative institutions that can facilitate better lives for human beings. † (Keohane, p. 127) The main characteristics of liberalism are individual freedom, political participation, freedom from authority and equality of opportunity. (Doyle, p. 206, 207) Liberals see a heterogenous state of global peace, in which the expectation of war disappears, instead of a homogenous state of war. â€Å"Liberal societies compete to become rich, glorious, healthy, cultured, all without expecting to have to resolve their competition through war. † (Doyle, p. 210) Although liberals agree with realists that the international system is anarchic, they also believe that international institutions are able to mitigate anarchy’s effects on interstate cooperation. Their contest is not a zero-sum game, but rather a positive- or negative-sum game, meaning that they can win or lose together (Doyle, p. 11). Liberals distinguish between liberal and non-liberal societies, capitalist from communist, republican from autocratic. These differences reflect the differences in international behavior. â€Å"The aims of the state, as do the aims of the individual, go beyond security to the protection and promotion of individual rights. † (Doyle, p. 2 11) According to liberal institutionalists, institutions are to facilitate cooperation among states, but many critics say that they cannot force states to behave in ways that are contrary to their own selfish interests. Kant, in Perpetual Peace, stipulates three â€Å"definitive articles† of peace. The first article states that â€Å"The Civil Constitution of Every State Should be Republican. † (Kant, in Betts, p. 136) Kant argues that if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared, it is natural that the people will not be willing to pay the costs of the war from their own resources and take upon their shoulders the devastation that war leaves behind. (Kant, in Betts, p. 136). The second article states that â€Å"The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States. (Kant, in Betts, p. 137) The concept of pacific union between liberal states is a treaty of the nations among themselves, which prevents wars and steadily expands. The third article states that â€Å"Cosmopolitan Right should be limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality. † (Kant, p. 105) The theory of democratic peace is built on the claim that democraci es are inherently more peaceful than autocratic states. (Walt, p. 39). It can be crudely defined as â€Å"democracies do not fight each other. † Although democracies seem to fight wars often, like other states do, they very rarely fight against each other. Walt says, â€Å"Democracies embrace norms of compromise that bar the use of force against groups espousing similar principles. † (Walt, p. 39) This perspective suggests that, for example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the newborn democracies should embrace each other in their emerging markets and live happily ever after; instead, we have witnessed years of bloody conflict. According to this perspective, we would expect â€Å"mother Russia† to support the newly emerging democracies; instead, we witnessed the blockade of Georgian goods at the Russian market, closed borders, and in 2008, military invasion of Georgia. Many believe that Russia wanted to demonstrate its sphere of influence and to show Georgia, Ukraine, and the West, that there is no way Russia is going to respect the acceptance of these countries in NATO. As a realist would say, it is the underlying balance of power being the main underlying purpose for their actions, and not the liberal democratic peace, because even democracies fight each other. Constructivism Rather than a theory, we could call constructivism an ontology- a certain set of assumptions about the world and the motivation of people. Therefore, constructivist theories are quite diverse and do not offer a unified set of explanations on any of the issues mentioned above. Realism and liberalism tend to focus on material factors power or trade. (Walt, p. 40) â€Å"Constructivists contend that their theory is deeper than realism and liberalism because it explains the origins of the forces that drive those competing theories. † (Snyder, p. 60) According to Hopf, constructivism offers alternative understandings of the issues discussed above (in the sections on realism and liberalism) including balance of power and the meaning of anarchy. However, instead of taking the state for granted and assuming that it simply seeks power, constructivists â€Å"regard the interests and identities of states as highly malleable products of specific historical processes. † (Walt, p. 40) While realists view the war as unavoidable and the international system as static, constructivists argue that interests and identities change over the course of history, allowing cooperation between states which were previously enemies. A good example might be the European Union in which member countries after World War II learned how to cooperate in order to be better off altogether. For constructivists, to explain the behavior of states, we have to recognize the importance of identity and interests. Some constructivists admit that ideas will have greater impact when backed by powerful states and reinforced by enduring material forces (Walt, p. 43). However, a constructivist would not agree with the assessment that material power is all that matters their main concerns are norms, ideas and discourse. Some constructivists might actually agree with the realist view of balance of power, but they would add the reasoning and background. Hopf contends that constructivism in general â€Å"does not specify the existence, let alone precise nature of its main causal/constitutive elements: identities, norms, values and social structure† (Hopf, p. 189) . He also states that constructivism is weak in dealing with what precisely norms are. â€Å"Constructivists are good at describing changes in norms and ideas, but they are weak on the material and institutional circumstances necessary to support the emergence of consensus about new values and ideas. † (Snyder, p. 1) Constructivism might be a way to approach international relations theory, but the fact is that theory does not create practice, as constructivists assume, but practice theory, as Machiavelli states: â€Å"Good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels. † (Machiavelli, p. 50) Conclusion Realism is often criticized for not being able to explain contemporary world politics because it oversimplifies things and the world we live in today is much more complex and complicated. Realism has been valid for over 2,500 years. We have witnessed even recently that when it comes to the point no international law, treaty, or institution can stop one state from invading another. I agree with Walt that â€Å"each of these competing perspectives captures important aspects of world politics† and that the â€Å"‘compleat diplomat’ of the future should remain cognizant of realism’s emphasis on the inescapable role of power, keep liberalism’s awareness of domestic forces in mind, and occasionally reflect on constructivism’s vision of change. † (Walt, p. 44) Realism builds on fear rather than hope. The first duty of political leaders is to prevent the worst. As Waltz says, â€Å"although many academics (and more than a few policymakers) are loath to admit it, realism remains the most compelling general framework for understanding international relations. † (Waltz, p. 43) States are still worried about the possibility of major conflict. They still keep their arsenals fully armed, even though their economic ties may be very healthy and the possible costs of a conflict are high. The Kantian paradise we want to live in is great, but whether we like it or not, there are wolves in the backyard.