Catherine Owens Only

3.IntroductiontoInternationalRelations-Kaufman.pdf

Home >Political Science homework help >Catherine Owens Only

Theoretical Overview 2

This chapter outlines the basic theoretical approaches that are the foundations of international relations and are critical to understanding the field. As a start- ing point, we will begin with realist/power politics, as articulated by Hans J. Morgenthau. This has been one of the founding tenets of international relations since the end of World War II. (His seminal text, Politics Among Nations, was initially published in 1948.) Since then, the international political landscape has changed; new organizations tied to the notion of collective security assumed idealistically that security could best be assured not by having nations increase their power but by working cooperatively toward common goals and ends that would benefit all. Thus, a competing or (perhaps more appropriately) alterna- tive theory of international relations was born, which challenged the basic prin- ciples of realism. This new approach focused more on cooperation between and among nations rather than competition for power, and it embodied many of the ideals earlier espoused by Woodrow Wilson. Referred to as “liberal theory,” it incorporates economic ideas as well as political ones, and it has grown in prominence and importance since the end of the Cold War. Hence, the changes in the international system have contributed to a proliferation of other theories, all of which were designed to explain on a macro level, or more often on a micro level, some aspect of international relations.

In this chapter, we present a brief introduction to these various theo- retical models (i.e., realism and structural realism, liberalism, constructivism,

Kaufman, J. P. (2018). Introduction to international relations : Theory and practice. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from humber on 2021-04-17 02:31:11.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

32 C h a P t e r 2

Marxism and its offshoots, and feminist approaches), with concrete examples of how each can be applied to understanding the international system and world events. Note that this is not meant to be a comprehensive study, as there are a number of approaches that we will not address in this short over- view, nor do we go into a lot of detail on the basic theories that we do explore. If you are interested in learning more, there are many readings you can delve into. Rather, what we want to do here is offer an introduction to the major approaches so that you can determine which of these makes the most sense to you and when and how you can apply each approach. This starting point will lead into the body of the remainder of the text.

What is theorY and WhY is it iMPortant?

Before we can delve into IR theories, however, it is important to set out a few basic assumptions and to situate international relations within the broader field of political science. As noted in chapter 1, IR is the most macro level of all the subfields of political science. In contrast to the other subfields, such as American politics or comparative politics, international relations deals with the entire international system, which generally is made up of nation-states but also nonstate actors. Most nation-states have a political structure of some type, a culture and social organization that help define their values, and in- dividuals who influence the decisions that are made and who are, in turn, affected by those decisions. Within each nation-state there are countless other groups that play a role in the decision-making process and interact with the political system in some way. This structure does not even begin to take into account the ways in which these broad entities, the nation-state or country, interact with and influence one another, although these too are legitimate questions for exploration within the area of international relations.

Given this proliferation of actors and variables that can affect these ac- tors and the international system as a whole, how can we begin to under- stand this complexity? That is the role of theory, which exists to provide the framework that can help guide our understanding of various events that occur within this complex system.

theory and international relations: some Basic assumptions

Every field of study has its theories or basic paradigms, as does inter- national relations. These theories provide the framework that allows us to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 33

begin to simplify reality so that we can better address the complexities of the world. Theory is a linked set of propositions or ideas that simplify a complex reality so that we can describe events that have happened, explain why they happened, and predict what might happen in the future. In the field of in- ternational relations, it is very difficult to predict with certainty, as there are so many variables that can affect the outcome of events. Unlike the “hard” sciences, where it is possible to work in a lab and control the environment, in the social sciences in general, and in IR in particular, it is virtually impos- sible to control any single variable, let alone the interaction among these variables—although political scientists who employ various modeling tech- niques do try. This means that the theoretical perspectives are dynamic and evolve as situations change, as do the variables. Nonetheless, the main theories that have emerged allow us to identify general patterns that help us understand what has happened and why (i.e., describe and explain), and in so doing give us some indicators of what might happen in the future under similar sets of circumstances (predict). So theories are important guides that allow us to navigate the complexity of the world.

Using these theories or paradigms can help us know how to ask and how to answer some of the fundamental questions in the field. As a macrolevel field, IR tends to ask macrolevel questions—for example, what is war and why do countries go to war? Why did a particular country act as it did or respond to events in a particular way? How can one country influence another to engage in a particular pattern of behavior or stop it from behaving in a particular way? Why do some states appear to be cooperative and others appear to be warlike? These are but some of the general questions that we see often in the field of IR and that any number of theories and theorists have tried to answer. But how can we answer such questions in a world in which we can’t identify all the variables or hold things constant?

Political scientist Christine Sylvester provides some important clues when she writes, “In an international system filled with tensions, IR analysts are keenly interested in questions of continuity and discontinuity. States persist as key political entities, as does a world capitalist system of commodity produc- tion and exchange” (emphasis added). She continues, “Conventional wisdom has it that this is a world of states, nonstate actors and market transactions. It is a world in which neither men nor women figure per se, the emphasis being on impersonal actors, structures, and system processes.”1

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

34 C h a P t e r 2

Sylvester seems to be telling us that in the traditional approaches to IR, people don’t matter; IR is a field of actors, structures, and processes. But underlying this is another reality that Sylvester touches on later in her book, which gives us a more complete understanding of international relations— and that is who makes the decisions for these actors that result in the actions that we can see. Are states monolithic entities that operate on their own? Or, put another way, what roles do individuals really play in steering the direc- tion of a state?

This leads us to another component of our basic framework: the assump- tions we have to make about nation-states and their behavior in order to arrive at generalizations (theories) about them. Whether they are accurate or not, making certain assumptions allows us to generalize, which in turn enables us to identify patterns as well as to draw conclusions based, in part, on studying cases that don’t fit the patterns. These generalizations and pat- terns, and determining where there are deviations from these patterns and why, contribute to further information about and knowledge of the behavior of the international system.

To begin, we assume that states will behave as monolithic actors (that is, they will behave as if they were one single entity rather than being made up of many individuals and groups) and that they will act in a rational manner (that is, they will make decisions based on a process that weighs costs and benefits to arrive at a decision that allows them to further their self-interest). States might choose to act in a certain way in order to maximize their power (the re- alist theoretical perspective) or because they feel that they will better achieve their interests by cooperating with other states (the liberal approach). But this also suggests that states have a way to identify what is in their national inter- est and that they will then act accordingly. Again, one can easily question this assumption, as any state has a number of competing interests, all of which can be argued to be in the best interest of the state. Nonetheless, for realists especially, it is important to assume that national interest can be identified and that states will pursue policies that help them achieve that interest.

the Concept of national interest

What is national interest and how do countries actually achieve it? This is one of the critical concepts in IR and one that is addressed in virtually every textbook on the subject. For example, according to political scientist Charles

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 35

Kegley, “The primary obligation of every state—the goal to which all other national objectives should be subordinated—is to promote its national inter- est and to acquire power for this purpose” (emphasis in original).2 Realist thinkers define national interest in terms of power, in the belief that only by acquiring power can a country achieve its primary goals. But some political scientists define national interest more broadly than simply the acquisition of power, such as protecting what the state sees as its core interests, which are those that involve the protection and continuation of the state and its people. For example, Barry Hughes sees core interests as those that “flow from the desire [of the state] to preserve its essence: territorial boundaries, population, government, and sovereignty.”3 From his perspective, core interest is more than simply security defined in traditional military terms, but it also means assuring a country’s economic vitality, its values, and other components that are central to the essence of the state. One can argue that these are also es- sential to a country’s security, but they fall outside the traditional definition, a point that we will return to later. So a country will pursue the policies that it deems to be in its national interest while also furthering its core interests related to its survival.

A point made in a recent book by Richard Haass is that a country might choose to pursue what it believes to be in its national interest even if that de- fies the wishes or norms of the international system. The example that he gives is Pakistan, which pursued its nuclear ambitions in the face of international sanctions and alienation. In his words, “There is scant evidence that sanctions can ever be made strong enough to dissuade a country from pursuing what it believes to be a vital national interest” (emphasis added).4 We can also see that type of behavior with North Korea, which continues to build and test nuclear-capable missiles despite international warnings and sanctions. What this tells us is that a country’s perception of its own national and core interests can determine its behavior, even if doing so appears to result in international condemnation and even questions about the rationality of the decision.

Tied directly to core interests/values and a country’s national interest in general is the traditional notion of security, since one of the core values of any country is ensuring the safety and protection of the population. But this also leads to the dangers of the “security dilemma,” which is a situation in which one state improves its military capabilities as a way of trying to ensure its own security. However, in doing this, the military buildup is seen by other states as

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

36 C h a P t e r 2

an act of aggression and therefore a direct threat. Thus, each state tries to in- crease its own level of protection and hence its security to meet the perceived threat coming from another state, which contributes directly to the insecurity of others. The result is often an arms race, and no greater sense of security.

Generally, security is thought of in military terms. However, feminist theo- rists have challenged this preconception by expanding the definition to make a distinction between security defined in terms of the military and militarism and “human security,” which refers to a broader set of issues necessary for human survival (core issues)—for example, protection of the environment, eradication of diseases, freedom from hunger, access to potable water, and so on. In looking at these security issues, “feminists focus on how world politics can contribute to the insecurity of individuals, particularly marginalized and disempowered populations” (emphasis added).5 Put another way, “IR femi- nists frequently make different assumptions about the world, ask different questions, and use different methodologies to answer them.”6

Feminist IR theorists would argue that only by broadening the approach to international relations as a field of study is it possible to get a complete picture of and accurate answers to many of the basic questions asked. As feminist theorist Gillian Youngs describes it, “In arguing that women and gender are essential to the field of International Relations, feminist scholars have had to address the core concepts and issues of the field: war, militarism and security; sovereignty and the state; and globalization” (emphasis in original).7 In other words, while feminist theorists address the critical con- cepts, they inject a different perspective that should give us a more complete understanding of the issues studied.

This is not to suggest that one theory or approach is better or worse than another, or that one is right and another is wrong. What we do want to make clear, though, is that there are any number of approaches that can be used to understand international relations and that it is important to be clear about the questions we want to ask and then to draw on the appropriate approach to answering those questions.

introduCtion to LeveLs of anaLYsis: a fraMeWorK for understandinG internationaL reLations

We noted above that international relations deals with the international system, which we can think of as being made up of nation-states but also

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 37

nonstate actors, each of which has a distinct political structure of some type, a culture and social organization that help define its values, and individuals who influence the decisions that are made and who in turn are affected by those decisions. In effect, what we are referring to here are the levels of analy- sis. It is important to know more about what this concept means, as it is one of the primary building blocks for understanding international relations.

We can think of levels of analysis as forming a pyramid. At the base is the international system as a whole, which is made up of nation-states, nonstate actors, and international/multinational organizations. If we look within the international system, we can focus on the individual nation-state, the major component of the international system. Each nation-state, in turn, has a gov- ernment and a society, which has its own culture, and then the individuals who make the decisions (see figure 2.1).

F I G U R E 2 . 1

Levels of Analysis

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

38 C h a P t e r 2

Put another way, we can start with the individual decision maker who emerges from the society and the culture of the nation and who should reflect those norms and values. Similarly, the government makes decisions for the nation-state and is tied directly to the society and culture. (In demo- cratic societies, the government is elected, at least in part, by the members of the society.) Taken together, these are the primary component parts of the nation-state. Nation-states combine to create the international system. In fact, according to realist thinking, nation-states are the essence of the international system.

The logical question to ask here is, why does this structure matter? It mat- ters because it is important when asking a question about international rela- tions to understand what level the question is really addressing so that it can be answered correctly.

For example, the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 was one of the defining events of the Cold War. We can look at that incident and ask why President John F. Kennedy made the decisions that he did which ultimately resulted in a peaceful end to the crisis. When asked that way, the focus of the question is the level of the individual decision maker, and it can be answered by reading about the processes Kennedy followed in order to make his deci- sions. What was he thinking? Whom did he turn to for advice?

But we can also ask how the American people reacted to what was going on at this time of heightened tension. To answer this question, we would have to look at the society and culture, which we can gauge through polls, newspaper accounts, and so on. Asking what role the formal governmental structure played gives us another insight into the crisis and how it was addressed. Was the Congress involved, and if so, in what ways? Or were decisions made by a small group of advisers to Kennedy, and what does that tell us about the role of government in crisis decision making and how decisions were made?

We can ask even more macrolevel questions, such as how did the mis- sile crisis change U.S. and Soviet relations during the Cold War? This is a question that can be answered by focusing on the nation-state level. At that level, we are looking at the United States and the Soviet Union as two major players in the international system and focusing on their reactions to one another given their tense relationship during the Cold War. And, finally, we can ask how the missile crisis affected the global balance of power. This question can best be answered at the macro level by looking at the patterns

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 39

of behavior of nation-states, what took place in the United Nations, and other macrolevel indicators.

The point here is that using levels of analysis as a framework makes it pos- sible to ask specific questions and get the answers that are appropriate to the particular questions being asked. Each of the questions asked above is a valid one and can be answered. Using the levels of analysis allows us to focus on one level at a time, holding the others constant, in order to simplify the real- ity. This is the best way we can approximate what scientists do in a laboratory. It also allows us to look at a specific event and, using the basic framework for theory, describe what happened, explain why things happened as they did, and then draw lessons about what that might mean for similar events in the future. (Note that we are not saying that we can predict, but we can make educated guesses.) When the answers are taken together, it is possible to get a more complete picture of the event—what happened, how, and why.

The notion of using levels of analysis as a framework for approaching international relations goes back to the early 1960s and the work of political scientist J. David Singer. His article “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in Inter- national Relations”8 draws on the even earlier work of Kenneth Waltz, who in his seminal book, Man, the State, and War, suggests that in order to really un- derstand international relations in general and to address specific questions, such as why wars occur and whether there can ever be peace, it is necessary to understand human behavior (individual level), states (nation-state level), and how they are constructed (society, culture, and government levels), and finally to then address the international level.9

What Singer does in his article is to remind those of us who study inter- national relations that until this point we have “roamed up and down the ladder of organizational complexity with remarkable abandon,” which in turn has contributed to a failure “to appreciate the value of a stable point of focus.”10 After reminding us of the importance of a model or theory (to de- scribe, explain, and predict), Singer illustrates the ways in which approaching international relations by using levels of analysis can provide a critical focal point for analysis. Furthermore, he alerts us to the fact that while the “big picture” might be lost by focusing on one level at the expense of another, what is gained is a picture that is richer in detail.

Singer describes for us the importance of being able to distinguish between levels, thereby aiding us in answering important questions. “So the problem

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

40 C h a P t e r 2

is really not one of deciding which level is most valuable to the discipline as a whole and then demanding that it be adhered to from now unto eternity. Rather, it is one of realizing that there is this preliminary conceptual issue and that it must be temporarily resolved prior to any given research undertaking” (emphasis in original).11 Thus, it is important to identify the appropriate level to be addressed early in the research process. But Singer also warns us of the dangers that can come with shifting between or among levels. “We may utilize one level here and another there, but we cannot afford to shift our orientation in the midst of a study.”12 When the answers are taken together and a number of levels analyzed, it is possible to get a more complete picture of the event— what happened, how, and why.

the “system” in the international system

In order to start applying these ideas and to be able to focus the theories most effectively, we also need to define what we mean by the concept of the international system. Here we can draw on the work of political scientist Da- vid Easton, who wrote in the 1960s about the concept of a “political system.”13 He drew on the ideas of systems theory to view political life as a “system of behavior” that has certain characteristics that can be defined, analyzed, and therefore understood. This approach makes certain assumptions that may or may not be accurate. However, it provides a good starting point for our understanding of international relations.

As Easton described it, political life can be seen as a pattern of behavior that exists within an environment that exerts influence on it and that it, in turn, influences. Components within this system are dynamic, and as each moves or acts, it affects the actions and behaviors of the other actors that also exist within the system. Since one of the primary functions of any system is to endure, the system as a whole will constantly be adjusting to changes within the environment. Another assumption is that these patterns of behavior have a certain regularity that can be identified and can therefore be described and explained. It is the role of theory to help us do these things.

But, we might ask, is there really such a thing as an international system? Clearly, there are political relationships that exist within the international community that can be identified, such as the United Nations (UN) or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), both of which are made up of nation-states. But do these organizations exhibit regular patterns of behavior?

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 41

Do they ensure that nation-states will do so? The only way we can answer these questions and continue to build our theories of international relations is to make assumptions about the ways in which those entities or actors in the inter- national system behave. We can then learn more by comparing the reality that we study with our assumptions to see how well the theory describes reality.

So, we can assume that there is an international system that can be identi- fied, that it is made up of actors that exhibit some regular and identifiable patterns of behavior, that the nation-states that are the bases of international relations will act rationally (maximize gains and minimize losses), and that they act as monolithic entities. Without those assumptions, it would be impossible to understand or address the international system/international relations, let alone answer the complex questions that emerge in this field of study. And this brings us back to theory.

Theory provides the framework that allows us to begin to address the complexity of the world by providing us with a way to simplify it. But it is also important to remember that theory does not emerge in a vacuum but must be tied to reality in some way, nor can it be so grounded in abstraction as to be virtually useless. Rather, good theory draws on concrete examples to arrive at generalizations that can help us explain real-world events. Ideally, a theory should be able to be tested in order to see whether it can be proved or disproved and whether it holds up under a range of circum- stances. It was in the attempt to do these things that the basic theories of international relations evolved.

Power

One of the assumptions of IR theories, especially within realist thinking, is that nation-states will be motivated in no small part by a desire to increase their power. Hence, power is one of the most critical concepts in international relations. Simply put, power is the ability of one actor to influence the behav- ior of another in order to achieve a desired end. If we were to graph this very simply, it would look like this:

Country A wants Country B to do X.

Country A can then use its power to “persuade” (or encourage, motivate, or even coerce) Country B to take a particular action. This example assumes

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

42 C h a P t e r 2

that Country A is the more powerful or has power over B and that it can persuade Country B to take the desired action. It also assumes that Country A has determined what the desired outcome (X) is and how and why it needs Country B in order to achieve that outcome. But it is also important to re- member that power is not necessarily unidirectional (Country A imposing its will on Country B), nor is it symmetrical. Or, looking at it another way, if Country A wants Country B to do X, Country B says that it will, but it wants something in exchange. In that case, there might be a negotiation that results in each country asking something of the other, and in that way, both can get what they want.

Another important point to remember when we introduce the concept of power is that it is a relative term. One country has power over another (A over B), meaning that it is relational; one has “power over” in relative terms. Although the feminist theorists have problems with this understanding of power, as noted below, it represents one of the easiest and most straight- forward ways to think about this concept, and so we will continue with this basic approach. Given this relationship and understanding of power, a third country might be more powerful than both, in that it might have a greater number of weapons or resources than either of the two. These are the capa- bilities or materials and resources that a country has relative to others. And it is not only having the resources that makes a country powerful, but the willingness to use them, or its credibility. We will come back to these points in more detail below.

Countries have a range of policy options available to them that can be placed along a continuum from positive (rewards) to negative (punish- ment), which can be used in order to get a desired outcome. In all cases, Country A decides which particular course of action to pursue by weighing the relative costs and benefits. Country B can then decide how to respond, based on what Country A is asking but also on what it is offering. Like Country A, Country B will engage in an evaluation of what it wants and needs, what it can get in exchange, and what is in its best interest. Thus, we are looking at a dynamic process.

A government, acting rationally, should choose the option that promises to give it the desired outcome at the least possible cost. In most cases, while a country might decide to offer or grant a reward to a country unilaterally, it generally will look to other countries to support it when the option chosen is

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 43

negative. Threatening or imposing economic sanctions, for example, is a far more credible threat when more than one country agrees to abide by those sanctions. In deciding which option to pursue, the other thing any country must remember is that it must be credible; that is, it must have the resources and the will to follow through on the policy decision made.

Political scientist Joseph Nye identifies power as either hard power or soft power.14 According to him, “Hard power rests on inducements (carrots) or threats (sticks),” whereas “soft power rests on the ability to set a political agenda in a way that shapes the preferences of others.”15 Generally, hard power is associated with military and/or economic strength, while soft power is tied to values. Nye later built on that starting point and included the con- cept of smart power, which he defines as “the ability to combine hard and soft power resources into effective strategies.” And then he elaborates on this idea by adding, “Unlike soft power, smart power is an evaluative as well as a de- scriptive concept. Soft power can be good or bad from a normative perspec- tive, depending on how it is used. Smart power has the evaluation built into the definition.”16 According to Nye, then, smart power is something that is available to all states, large or small, and is a function of the policies a country develops and the ways in which a country chooses to use its resources.

Another author, Walter Russell Mead, divides power into four types: sharp (military), sticky (economic), sweet (culture and ideals), and hegemonic. Sharp, sticky, and sweet together contribute to hegemonic power, as they come together and create a whole that is bigger than the sum of the parts.17 Clearly, power can be defined in any number of ways. A country is deemed powerful if it can use its power and the capabilities that make up that power (whether real or perceived) to influence the outcome of events. But this also assumes that County A knows what it wants to achieve, has an understand- ing of its own power relative to the needs and power of Country B, and can determine how best to use that power in order to achieve what it wants. That assessment governs many of the interactions in international relations.

It is important to note here that not all of the patterns between and among countries are conflictual. It should be clear from figure 2.2 that sometimes the best way for a country to get what it wants is to find ways to cooperate and negotiate with other countries. Offering rewards, such as foreign aid or other inducements (i.e., “carrots”) can sometimes be a more effective policy tool than threatening or imposing economic sanctions (i.e., “sticks”). But it is also

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

44 C h a P t e r 2

important to remember that the particular policy chosen should grow out of an understanding of the situation, the desired goals, and the relative power of each of the countries involved.

In thinking about power and the international system, it is important to think about which countries have power and what gives them their power. As noted above, power is a relative concept, so when we talk about which countries are powerful, we mean relative to other countries with which a country interacts.

There would be little dispute that the United States is a powerful country because of its economic and military strength. Similarly, China has clearly become a powerful country, not only because of its growing economic role internationally and its military strength, but also because of its size and its population; people are a capability that can enhance a country’s power. So are a country’s size and geography and topography. But if you were asked to make a list of other powerful countries, what would that list look like? What countries are powerful?

How about a country like Sudan—is it powerful? Generally, we would say that because of its lack of resources and relatively low level of economic development, it is not powerful. But it was able to perpetrate genocide in Darfur in defiance of the wishes of most other countries in the international system, including the United States. Does that mean it has power? If so, what is the basis for that power? What about a country like Nigeria? It is

F I G U R E 2 . 2

Continuum of Actions

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 45

politically unstable, but it has oil. Does that make it powerful? Venezuela is a similar case—is it powerful?

In other words, we can argue and make lists of what countries are power- ful, as long as we have established criteria for defining power and as long as we see power as relative rather than in absolute terms.

When we talk about power, which clearly is one of the central concepts in understanding international relations, each of the theoretical perspectives has its own way of viewing the concept and even of understanding how critical it is. For example, power is central to realist thinking, as we have noted. Liberal thinking and constructivist thinking focus less on power and more on other components of nation-state relationships, including cooperation and the structures that can hold them together rather than leading to competition. In contrast, feminist IR theorists inject some warnings into the discussion of power that are worth considering here. Specifically, they question the as- sumption that “power” equates to “power over” or “the ability to get someone to do what you want.”18 Feminist theorists are concerned that this approach to power “emphasizes separation and competition: Those who have power use it (or its threat) to keep others from securing enough to threaten them.”19 In effect, they argue that defining power in this way obscures critical aspects of relationships and does not take values into account. In contrast, they suggest that we need to think about a different definition of power that is less coercive and more about interdependence and relationships, less about zero-sum ap- proaches and more about achieving a desired outcome through cooperation rather than conflict. In other words, it requires rethinking our definitions of basic concepts such as security and power. However, as Tickner and other feminist scholars note, “Imagining security divested of its statist connotations is problematic; the institutions of state power are not withering away.”20

When we think of many of the basic concepts in IR, such as power, they tend to fall into the public realm (that is, they are considered part of the state, the government, and decision making), which tends to exclude women who exist in the private realm (that is, the home and the family). However, femi- nist theorists remind us, first of all, that more women are moving from the private realm to the public, thereby making women more visible. (We can see this with women such as Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, both of whom were U.S. secretaries of state, and one, Hillary Clinton, was the first

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

46 C h a P t e r 2

woman to run for president from a major U.S. party.) But sometimes that might mean working at a grassroots or community level, where women can often have a direct impact, rather than at the national or international level. In general, though, this suggests that women are finding ways to have their voices heard and to play more of a role in political decision making. This was not something that was considered when the field of IR came into its own, and it was certainly not part of the thinking of the realist theorists.

There are many other concepts and definitions that will come into play as we continue our study of international relations, and we will review them as needed. But with the main concepts outlined, we will now turn to an intro- duction of the basic theories.

introduCtion to BasiC ir theories

As noted above, the major role of theory is to provide a framework that will allow us to simplify a complex reality so that we can describe the events that took place in the past, try to explain them in causal terms (“this happened because that happened”), and, in doing so, try to predict or at least anticipate what might happen in the future. Each of the major theoretical approaches at- tempts to do this. Remember that no one theory can explain all events or sets of circumstances. Thus, which theory is the most appropriate to use is partly a function of the question(s) asked, understanding the context for the par- ticular event, and the assumptions we choose to use. Some IR scholars believe that one theory is inherently better at answering questions than another. But others take the viewpoint that the question(s) we ask should determine the theoretical approach we use to find the answer. The main point is that theory should provide a framework or a guide to help us understand the world.

realism and neo-/structural realism

As noted above, the major role of theory is to serve as a framework or a guide. In the words of one political scientist, “The realist tradition is certainly regarded by an overwhelming majority of scholars to be the definitive tradi- tion in the field of international relations.”21 Because of the importance of realist theory in defining international relations, we will begin with that, and we will give a lot of attention to it. As you will see, many of the other modern theories grew up, at least in part, as reactions to realist theory. This means that realist theory should be our starting point.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 47

The realist school puts the concept of power at the center of all the be- haviors of the nation-state; the assumption is that nations act as they do in order to maximize their power so that they can better achieve their own goals. As described by Hans Morgenthau, the father of realist theory, “the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power” (emphasis added).22

Although it is most associated with the work of Hans Morgenthau, realist thought can be found throughout history. Early versions of this description of the competition for power can be attributed to Thucydides, whose His- tory of the Peloponnesian War is seen as one of the first examples of realist thinking. The “Melian Dialogue” between the Athenians (the stronger group) and the Melians (the weaker) describes a situation that took place during the Peloponnesian War as the great city-states of the time were vying for power. There are important lessons to be learned from this history, written almost twenty-five hundred years ago. In fact, in a recent book, Graham Allison updates this idea by focusing on the United States and China in the twenty- first century and a number of other cases in order to draw lessons for current international politics.23

The Melian Dialogue describes not only issues of power but also the role of alliances as a strategy that states can use to maximize their power or to provide additional security. These are concepts that are central to the current understanding and application of realist thinking, and the same basic ideas can be and have been applied in modern times.

Thomas Hobbes, who wrote in the seventeenth century, also talked about the “state of nature,” which is an anarchic world in which everyone pursues his or her own self-interest. Hobbes was heavily influenced by his time—he wrote his famous work Leviathan (published in 1651) while he was in exile—and he is best known for his discussion of the state of nature.24 Like the realist think- ers, Hobbes begins with his understanding of basic human nature, which he believed required a strong government to keep people in check. For Hobbes, without that government, people would constantly be vying for power.

For modern realist political thinkers,

Hobbes’s description of the state of nature has been viewed as analogous to the international system. Just as in the state of nature in which individuals stand

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

48 C H A P T E R 2

T H E M E L I A N D I A L O G U E

Written in approximately 400 BCE, the Melian Dialogue is an example of the belief that in the real world, basic ideals such as justice and freedom will fall to the demands of the powerful. In the dialogue, for example, the Athenians do not worry about whether they are acting in a way that is just or right. Rather, the Athenians argue that “you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in ques- tion between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (emphasis added). In response, the Melians contend that “we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest—that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in dan- ger to invoke what is fair and right” (emphasis added).

And foreshadowing the idea of balance of power, in which one coun- try aligns with another in order to balance the power of a superior one, the Melians also state, “You may be sure that we are as well aware as you of the difficulty of contending against your power and fortune, unless the terms be equal. But we trust that the gods may grant us for- tune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians, who are bound, if only for very shame, to come to the aid of their kindred. Our confidence, therefore, after all is not so utterly irrational.”

In this case, the Lacedaemonians were a rival of the Athenians whom the Melians hoped to enlist as allies in their fight against the Athenians. However, the Lacedaemonians were engaged in their own battles and did not support the Melians, as the Athenians correctly anticipated (“and as you have staked most on, and trusted most in, the Lacedaemonians, your fortune, and your hopes, so will you be most completely deceived”). Ultimately, the outcome of the conflict was that the Melians were defeated by the Athenians.

Source: Thucydides, “The Melian Conference,” in History of the Peloponnesian War, chapter 17, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm.

B O X 2 . 1

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 49

alone, so too in the international system are states driven to maintain their independence. As in the state of nature, the international system is marked by constant tension and the possibility of conflict.25

Thus, there is historical precedent for the realist approach to understand- ing international relations and the idea of countries seeking to maximize their power using whatever means are necessary. In many ways, that understand- ing fits with the overall approach to the international system at a time when countries were vying for colonies, wealth, military superiority, and therefore power. When countries did enter into alliances, they were transitory and often seemed to create more problems for the countries than they gained in security, which has become the more modern interpretation of an alliance.

L E V I A T H A N , B Y T H O M A S H O B B E S

Nature has made men so equal, in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body; or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned to- gether, the difference between man, and man is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit which another may not pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others that are in the same dan- ger as himself. . . .

Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a com- mon power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war and such a war, as is of every man, against every man. . . .

To this war of every man against every man, this is also consequent: that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law.

Source: Thomas Hobbes, “Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery,” in Leviathan, part 1, “Of Man,” chapter 13 (India- napolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958), 104–9.

B O X 2 . 2

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

50 C h a P t e r 2

Thus, there were few opposing perspectives or understandings of the ways that states (city-states or nation-states) behaved beyond what we now know or think of as the realist tradition.

It was really after World War II, especially with the writings of Hans Morgenthau, that we saw the development of realist theory as we know it today. Realism presumes that the nation-state is the primary actor in the international system, that it will act rationally and as a unitary (monolithic) actor, that states are sovereign entities with sole responsibility to act within their borders, and that they will act to maximize their power. (We will explore the concept of the nation-state, its evolution, and the concepts such as sover- eignty that are part of it in more detail in the next chapter.) To Morgenthau, states act in a way that assures their survival or their core interests, which in turn stems from maximizing their power; it is the phrase “interest defined as power” that embodies realist thought.

As Morgenthau assumes that the statesman and the state he26 represents are virtually identical, it is logical that he would conclude that “statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of his- tory bears that assumption out.”27 Thus, while understanding motives would be helpful, he does not believe that is necessary in order to understand events. In fact, Morgenthau says that what is important to know “is not primarily the motives of the statesman, but his intellectual ability to comprehend the essentials of foreign policy, as well as his political ability to translate what he has comprehended into successful political action.”28 And, according to real- ist thinking, that necessarily ties to power.

For Morgenthau and other realist thinkers, the principles of this approach are grounded in the belief that all relationships are ultimately rooted in power. To the realists, then, the ongoing struggle for power, whether between individuals or nations, means that conflict is inevitable. It is in this basic ap- proach to and understanding of human nature that other theorists—liberals and constructivists, especially—deviate from the realists. But realism also advocates that alternative political actions must be weighed, with their con- sequences assessed and evaluated and placed within the specific political and cultural environment. This means that the concept and conditions for the uses of power can and will change and that the change must be recognized by those who make decisions.

M O R G E N T H A U ’ S S I X F U N D A M E N T A L P R I N C I P L E S O F P O L I T I C A L R E A L I S M

1. “Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.”

2. “The concept of interest defined as power. This concept provides the link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood” (emphasis added).

3. “Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all.”

4. “Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action.”

5. “Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a par- ticular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.”

6. “The difference, then, between political realism and other schools of thought is real, and it is profound.”

Source: Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, brief ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1993), 4–16.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

t h e o r e t i C a L o v e r v i e W 51

Morgenthau and realist theory gave rise to a number of other important political thinkers, such as Kenneth Waltz (who in turn was one of the earlier theorists of neorealist or structural realist refinement, described below) and John Mearsheimer.29 Realist theory influenced the approach of important pol- icy makers such as George Kennan, who was the architect of the U.S. Cold War foreign policy of containment, and Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state under President Nixon and helped frame the diplomatic opening between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Many would argue that until the end of the Cold War, virtually all of U.S. foreign policy was based on realist thinking—specifically, the constant assessment of U.S. power vis-à-vis Soviet power—and finding ways to ensure that power was balanced, at the very least.