The theory to the Study of International Relations - Essay Example

 The theory to the Study of International Relations Introduction After the end of the cold war, the world saw the break-up of the erstwhile Soviet Union. More and more countries that broke away from the Soviet Union led Eastern Bloc, joined Europe and applied for permanent membership with the Union. There was a lot of debate on whether Marxism had lost out to an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Czechoslovakia divided, Poland tilted westward, East Germany merged with West Germany, Turkey joined the European Union, and there was the formation of CIS group of countries from Russia. The debate on whether Marxism had given way to Liberalism and Realism became the focal point in International Relations. What was it that made people revolt against the leadership of the former Soviet Union? Did the people see a better and secure life far from Marxism? Was Liberalism and Realism what they craved for? The term critical theory is used in a very broad perspective in international relations theory. In the rest of social science it is typically used to refer to the ideas of the Frankfurt School of German social theory. In IR, everyone from feminists, green theorists, Marxists, post-Marxists, postmodernists - you name it - are all critical theorists! What is distinctive about critical theory? Just as not all Realists are realistic, the term critical does not imply that only critical theorists are critical of the international system. The term critical theory implies a certain sort of criticism. This paper takes a look at the critical theory to the study if International Relations with emphasis on Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and Neo Marxism. How are they important in the context of the title? International Relations What are International Relations? Though there are many definitions to what International Relations means, the following could come close in the present context. International relations, is the study of the relations in diplomacy and diplomatic history, international law, organizations, finance, economics, commerce, and communication among others. There are two schools of thought, one looks to strengthened international law and international organizations to preserve peace; the other emphasizes that nations will always use their power to achieve goals and sees the key to peace in a balance of power among competing states. (R. Aron, H. J. Morgenthau, F. S. Northedge, and M. J. Grieve, www.answers.com/topic/international-relations) In other words, International Relations are the relationship between people of different races and divide. The world order is changing. Technology has brought people much closer. There is a general consensus that mankind is one and that this world is for all to share it equally. So what was it that attracted the majority of communist nations turn to the Liberals and Realists? Critical Analysis In the context, it is worthwhile to take a look at the above definitions and examine whether International Relations truly reflect the emotions and desires of the people of the erstwhile Soviet-bloc. It could help to understand the principles of Realism, Marxism, Liberalism, and Constructivism, the major international relations theories to substantiate this study. Realism is commonly defined as a concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism#Realism_in_international_relations) Realists believe that hard power, a concept used in realism, refers to national power through military and economic means. This holds true with the foreign policy advocated by the United States. Realism focused on States and national interest. In a speech before his nation launched an offensive against Afghanistan, President Bush said, “We are supported by the collective will of the world." (What Is the International Community? Foreign Policy, www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2002/09/). In the context of his speech, President Bush felt that by fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan, America was protecting itself and its allies from aggressors. This statement is seen by many as being ambiguous for the simple reason that, America, in the interest of fighting terrorism was fighting a war thousands of miles away from home. Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories on the other hand are positivist paradigms which reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects Elevation of class is their primary focus. Ending the exploitation of the weak is utmost on their agenda.Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_international_relations_theory) In the context of the above theory, it is quite puzzling that the people of the former Soviet-bloc to chose to turn towards the west. Marxism and Neo-Marxism were pro-people and taught to bring about equality among its people. Liberalism perhaps come closest to the thoughts of the young couple. Liberalism holds that state, non-state actors, and individual preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. They see preferences varying from one state to another in the field of culture, economic system or government setup. Liberalism stood for basic human needs and wants. Conclusion In the context of the above theories Marxism stood for the advancement of its working class. Equality was what it preached. No doubt, the business class had to share its spoils with the working class, but on the whole Marxism sought to suppress the feudal system of class discrimination. Realism was more State oriented. It chose to look at national interests more than others. Security and power is their aim. Despite the fall of the cold war, America is seen as the global policeman. Despite rising poverty and unemployment at home, America is more preoccupied with interests elsewhere. Liberalism is what the younger generation craves for. Independence and basic needs and wants are their vision. In the light of the revelation, it has become clear that the critical theory of International Relations is a jig-saw puzzle indeed. In the words of the Mahatma: “Interdependence is and ought to be as much the ideal of man as self-sufficiency. Man is a social being. Without interrelation with society he cannot realize his oneness with the universe or suppress his egotism. His social interdependence enables him to test his faith and to prove himself on the touchstone of reality” Mahatma Gandhi, 1929, sums up the real thoughts of our young couple at Trafalgar Square. (Functional Concepts of International Relations, Interdependence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism#Realism_in_international_relations) Appendix R. Aron, Peace and War (tr. 1967); H. J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations (5th ed. rev. 1978); F. S. Northedge and M. J. Grieve, A Hundred Years of International Relations (1971); R. W. Mansbach and J. A. Vasquez, In Search of Theory (1981); F. S. Pearson and J. M. Rochester, International Relations (2d ed. 1988). http://www.answers.com/topic/international-relations What Is the International Community? Foreign Policy http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2002/09/01/194415/?extID=10047&data=international_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism#Realism_in_international_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_international_relations_theory Functional Concepts of International Relations, Interdependence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism#Realism_in_international_relations Read More