Seba

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, PRINCIPAL THEORIES

International Relations, Principal Theories
Anne-Marie Slaughter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Realism................................................................................................................................................... 2 Institutionalism ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Liberalism ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Constructivism...................................................................................................................................... 19 The English School ............................................................................................................................... 24 Critical Approaches.............................................................................................................................. 26 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 28

A. Introduction
1 The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself; others have been imported, in whole or in part, fromdisciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by thevariables they emphasize—eg military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs.

B. Realism
2 For Realists (sometimes termed ‘structural Realists’ or ‘Neorealists’, as opposed to the earlier ‘classical Realists’) the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority (Waltz). States are sovereign and thus autonomous of each other; no inherent structure or society canemerge or even exist to order relations between them. They are bound only by forcible → coercion or their own → consent. In such an anarchic system, State power is the key—indeed, the only—variable of interest, because only through power can States defend themselves and hope to survive. Realism can understand power in a variety of ways—eg militarily, economically, diplomatically—but ultimatelyemphasizes the distribution of coercive material capacity as the determinant of international politics. This vision of the world rests on four assumptions (Mearsheimer 1994). First, Realists claim that survival is the principal goal of every State. Foreign invasion and occupation are thus the most pressing threats that any State faces. Even if domestic interests, strategic culture, or commitmentto a set of national ideals would dictate more benevolent or cooperative international goals, the anarchy of the international system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance their material interests necessary for survival. Second, Realists hold States to be rational actors. This means that, given the goal of survival, States will actas best they can in order to maximize their likelihood of continuing to exist. Third, Realists assume that all States possess some military capacity, and no State knows what its neighbors intend precisely. The world, in other words, is dangerous and uncertain. Fourth, in such a world it is the Great Powers—the States with most economic clout and, especially, military might, that

3

4...