International Relations: A Deep Dive into Key Theories and Concepts

Posted on Nov 23, 2024 in Social sciences

International Society: Although individual states are sovereign and independent, lacking an overarching international government, common interests and necessary intercourse unite them into an indivisible community. For centuries, this has been called the “family of nations” or “society of nations”.

State and Sovereignty

Elements:

  • Territory (land, sea, subsoil, air, cyberspace)
  • Population (citizens, migrants, public opinion)
  • Power (legislative, executive, and judiciary)
  • Defense
  • Taxation
  • Currency

Sovereignty (Bodin):

Supreme, perpetual, and indivisible power, marked by the ability to make law without external consent. Possession by a single ruler, a group, or the entire citizenry defines a commonwealth as a monarchy, aristocracy, or popular state, respectively.

State (Kelsen):

The current and valid legal system in a certain territory, a system of assumptions of regulated human behavior forming the content of a normative system.

Politics as a Vocation (Max Weber):

Monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. A state’s administrative team maintains this monopoly in executing its functions.

Rule of Law

A model for organizing sovereign public power, structuring the state’s institutional machinery according to values, principles, and instruments intended to realize these ideals.

Geopolitics

  • The study of how geography affects a state’s foreign policy.
  • How geographic elements influence political decisions.
  • How political decisions depend on geographic factors: water scarcity, energy sovereignty, food security, lack of natural resources.
  • Geostrategy incorporates values and principles beyond geography in foreign policy.

International Relations Studies

The discipline analyzes the international system’s structure, changes within it, and relationships between its players.

Use of War

Historically, war aimed to control territory, population, and collect taxes. Modern warfare is less focused on destruction (except in specific cases like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen) and more on establishing shared values for economic benefit.

Realism

Postulates of Realism:

  1. Humans are inherently selfish, pursuing self-interest.
  2. The state is the sole actor in international relations.
  3. Harmony of interests is impossible; only competition, victory, or submission exist.
  4. All states act similarly, seeking to increase power.
  5. National interest, equated with national security, guides state action.
  6. Politics and morality are incompatible.

Authors: Morgenthau, Raymond Aron, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger.

Idealism

  • States rely on international institutions for peace.
  • Relationships are based on cooperation (win-win).
  • Democracy promotes peace (democratic peace theory).

Three Main Theses of Liberal-Internationalist Thought:

  1. International relations progress towards greater freedom, peace, prosperity.
  2. Modernization, driven by scientific advances, triggers transformation.
  3. International cooperation advances peace, welfare, and justice.

Behaviouralism

  1. Contributions from other scientific disciplines.
  2. Predominantly quantitative approach.
  3. Emergence of new non-state actors.
  4. Social theory should be based on observable behaviors for measurable data.

Relativism

There is no objective truth or science.

Current Trends:

  • Rationalists: Neorealism and Neoliberalism.
  • Reflectivism: Globalism (integration processes), Structuralism (theories of globalization and interdependence).
  • Other methods: decision analysis, speech analysis, game theory, simulation.

Neorealism

Systematic application of theories to realism. The international system comprises a defined structure and interacting units.

Three Main Elements in a Structure:

  1. Organizing principle (anarchy; state equality).
  2. Unit differentiation and function specification (irrelevant internationally due to anarchy).
  3. Resource/capability distribution (essential element).
  • Bandwagoning: Aligning with a stronger state.
  • Balance of power: Countering the most threatening state.
  • Buck-passing: Passing responsibility for countering a threat to other affected states.

John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions”

Basic Theoretical Assumptions:

  1. International anarchy.
  2. States possess offensive military capability.
  3. State intentions are uncertain.
  4. Survival is the primary state motive.
  5. States employ strategic thinking for survival.

Defensive vs. Offensive Neorealism

Defensive Neorealism (Kenneth Waltz): Anarchy encourages defensive, moderate policies. States prioritize maintaining their position, not maximizing power. Security is paramount due to the anarchic system. The security dilemma explains conflict despite benign intentions.

Offensive Neorealism: Anarchy encourages aggressive power maximization. States are inherently aggressive. Uncertainty about intentions necessitates power accumulation.

The Kaplan Systems

Balance of Power:

No state should possess overwhelming power against its neighbors (Hume).

Kaplan’s Rules (for Multipolarity):

  1. Increase capabilities, prioritize negotiation.
  2. Fight for capability gains.
  3. Avoid eliminating major actors.
  4. Prevent supranational organizations.
  5. Reintegrate or accept defeated/new members.

Neoliberalism

  • Heir to realism and globalism.
  • Power relations dominate international politics.
  • Rational actors cooperate despite anarchy.
  • Neorealism-neoliberalism synthesis became mainstream.

Constructivism

  • Shared ideas, norms, and values have constitutive effects.
  • Structures and agents constitute each other.
  • Break from positivism.
  • Knowledge is culturally and historically contingent.

Structuralism (Marxist)

  • Applies Marxist theory to the international system (core-periphery).
  • Focuses on exploitation: rich countries exploit poor countries, multinationals control governments.
  • North-South divide replaces social classes.

The Security Dilemma

Increased security in one state (e.g., military buildup) can trigger fear and reciprocal actions in others, leading to unintended escalation. Example: Ukraine’s pursuit of EU and NATO membership.

Tang:

Three factors converge in the security dilemma: international anarchy, absence of hostile intentions, power/military capability accumulation.

Butterfield:

Six propositions: fear as the source, uncertainty of intentions, unintentional origin, tragic results, psychological exacerbation, fundamental conflict cause.

Herz:

States’ security efforts unintentionally increase others’ insecurity due to perceived defensive/threatening actions.

Jervis:

Defensive actions unintentionally produce undesired consequences, increasing insecurity and tension.

Ancient Greece

Thucydides (c. 460-395 BC):

History of the Peloponnesian War details the conflict between the Peloponnesian League (Sparta) and the Delian League (Athens). Athenian support for Corcyra against Corinth, who appealed to Sparta, triggered the war. Sparta perceived Athens as violating their peace treaty by expanding power. The Naval Battle of Syvota (433 BC) demonstrated Athenian influence. Athens’ siege of Potidaea further escalated tensions.

Alexander the Great (356-322 BC):

Defeated Darius III (332 BC). Alexander’s empire, diverse in governance and customs, fragmented into military-dynastic regimes (Seleucids in Persia, Ptolemies in Egypt).

Thucydides Trap

Describes a rising power (China) challenging a dominant power (USA). Allison’s research analyzed 16 historical cases, finding war in 12 and accommodation in 4 (e.g., Cold War, European Union). Hegemonic conflict is a danger. Two trajectories are analyzed: balance of power/hegemony and balance of hierarchies. China’s rise and America’s relative decline increase war likelihood. Both recognize the trap’s dangers. Managing this relationship requires skilled leadership and deep analysis.