International Relations - Essay Example

International relations International relations are the study of relations between countries from a theoretical perspective where it attempts to find a framework from which relations between two or more countries can be looked at. The most important theories that are in use in the study of global relations are the neorealism and neoliberalism approaches. The realism or neo realism approaches were first advance by Kenneth Waltz who argued that in order to understand state behaviour, one must take into consideration the effect of structures. Liberalistic approach to international relations argues that individual countries should make their national philosophies the platform for their international relations, for instance, a country that advocates for democracy within itself should also advocate for the same in the international arena. This school of thought allows international institutions to help several individual countries to act as one. Neo liberalism is an advancement of his theory by introduction of international institutions to link states. This paper will compare and contrast neo realism and neo liberalism in understanding international relations by trying to find whether their similarities are more important than their differences. In comparing neorealism and neo liberalism, it is important to look at the assumptions for both of them and their convergent point. A common assumption between the two theories is that they both recognize the state as the main actor in international relations (Ong, 2006, p. 1-20). They therefore attempt to describe the behaviour of countries in relation to the structure of the international system. While neo realists argues that states are engaged in international relations for security and survival, neoliberalists argues that it is for economic gain, however, both theories agree that states base their decisions on the most rational choice. The theories also agree that the international system is usually in a state of anarchy due to the absence of an interstate. A diverging point is that neoliberals hold the premise that the international system is usually in a state of war, while in neorealism, this is not usually the case, in addition, neorealists overemphasize the role that anarchy plays in the international system at the expense of interdependence. The important point to note here is that the two theories agree that anarchy is crucial in shaping global politics. The rationalistic approach to neoliberalism and neorealism in international relations provides for cooperation among countries, however it is silent on a situation where the autonomy of a state is violated based on the assumptions that states are autonomous and act to their own self-interest. In addition, the examples used include economic haggling between global powers where state autonomy is rarely an issue. Kenneth waltz, who is among the founding father of neorealism, was keen to separate the internal factors from external factors that guide state behaviour in the international system. In neo realism, the focus was on the structure of the system, variations, and how those variations affect the interaction of states in the international arena. Waltz also focused on the anarchy in the international system, and how it affected interaction of states; he theorised that the state of anarchy in the international system forced states to worry about their security and therefore take the necessary steps to ensure it is addressed. With neo realists focussing more on security, neoliberalism or institutionalism focuses more on economic issues; this is true especially in the modern global arena where economic issues have taken a centre stage in the international system (Harvey, 2005, p.11-37; May Rosecrance & Steiner, 2010, p. 79). The theory further argues that states are the key players in international politics and force can be used effectively to shape policy due to the virtual hierarchy that exists in global politics. The current trend of globalization represents a form of interconnectedness between nations of the world and the more it advances the greater the changes in international politics. In one way, neo realism is pessimistic in nature since it is inherent in a man to desire power and put his self-interest before that of others. This makes cooperation hard to achieve since the struggle for power is likely to disrupt efforts for equal cooperation and enjoyment of benefits. In view of this, the two most important factors that hinder cooperation are considerations on relative gains and cheating. This means that when states enter into cooperation agreements, they are not only concerned with how they will benefit but also how their partners will benefit from the cooperation, in addition they are also apprehensive about cheating and how they can improve their position in comparison to their partners. In neo realism, states are concerned with how they will survive in the international system, which is anarchic in nature. Since the intentions of state in the international arena are not explicitly known, countries usually take great caution when cooperating since some partners may use the gains from cooperation to threaten others. This makes the states keen on how the benefits from cooperation will be divided out rather than whether all the partners will benefit, therefore with the concerns on how benefits will be shared cooperation proves to be extremely difficult. Neoliberalism on the other hand considers the overall benefits that a state will gain from cooperation, which contrasts from neorealism approach, which is concerned with how a state will benefit in comparison to others (Burchill et al., 2012, p.199). Neoliberals argue that countries should consider absolute benefits and long-term gains they will gain since economic interdependence ensures that no partner country can exploit another politically, in addition, the neorealist perspective encourages the vices of protectionism and nationalism which destroy international cooperation. Although neoliberals agree that states act for their own self-benefit, they leave a room for cooperation among states amidst tensions that are likely to be there (Saad-Filho & Johnston, 2005, p.7-70). Although neoliberals are also concerned about dishonesty among member states just like neorealists, they place great faith in institutions to regulate the way that the states interact. The institutions provide a platform where the states can interact to reap potential benefits from the cooperation while at the same time providing all involved states with information that prevents some states from cheating therefore improving outcomes of all partners. Due to the differences on how neoliberals and neorealists approach gains from cooperation, a unified theory can emerge if neoliberals accept the fact that states act in self interest in the anarchic international system where the military power of a state determines its hierarchical ranking. This in essence means that they must accept the idea of relative gains and therefore look for a way to deal with it since economic power and military might go hand in hand. As research is conducted on the field of international relations, scholars have come to agree that neoliberalism and neo realism share the same approaches to the social and political world. In the recent past, the two theoretical approaches of international relations have been merged together under the umbrella of rationalism, which has a conception for science, similar views on anarchy and the assessment of cooperation and the role of institution in international relations. Some of the most notable difference on how the two theoretical perspectives are the methods that they use to view the world that is to mean that the methodology, epistemology and ontology are similar. Positivist theory differentiates between empirical and normative theory and attempts to remain impartial between the two theories. It argues that although observation in real world may be subjective, it is still possible to have objective knowledge, therefore positivists focus more on the way things are rather than the way they ought to be. Differences between the two theories come on the effects of the assumptions that they adopt. For instance, while both agree that the world is in a continuous state of anarchy, neo liberals believe that such situations will not constraint states to surviving in international arena, on the other hand, neorealists believe this state puts the states on constant survival mode since man is driven by a constant desire for power. Neo realists believe that as states struggle for power, they will oppress others therefore making it impossible for cooperation. Neoliberals are however more optimistic about international cooperation since it is to the benefit of all the actors. To illustrate this, neoliberals use prisoners’ dilemma in the game theory where two prisoners are being interrogated about a crime, if they both cooperate and admit to the crime, their jail terms will be reduced, however, if they both fail to confess, their jail terms will even be shorter. On the other hand, if one of the confesses and the other fails to confess, the one who confesses will be set free while the one who did not confess gets a long jail term. Based on self-interest and if they do not cooperate with each other, they are both likely to confess therefore get a reduced jail term. The best alternative would have been if they both cooperated with each other by failing to confess therefore get the shortest jail terms possible. The next point of departure for the two theories is the importance of relative and absolute gains; neo realists are more keen on the importance of relative gains as states are more concerned with who will gain more from cooperation, this means that countries in international cooperation are interested in comparative advantage. For instance, developed countries may be willing to help developing countries only in situations where they will benefit more than the other countries. On the other hand, neo liberals are concerned with absolute gains where leaders of a state will cooperate with other states as long as the states gains something from the cooperation regardless of what the other actors gain. Neoliberals and neorealists also differ on the emphasis that they put on the capabilities and interests of nations. Neo realists emphasize on power and its influence on the behaviour of a state, this means that we can be sure of the capabilities of a state but not its intentions and interests, a case to illustrate this point is when France declared its intention to veto a second resolution, a declaration that shocked Britain which is a close ally of France. Neo liberals on the other hand argue that capabilities only count as long as they affect the preferences and intentions of a state and it is not always certain that states are aware of their capabilities, for instance Britain only supported the Iraq war after the UN approved it. From the literature on neorealism and neoliberalism, there are several differences that exist on how they view some aspects of international relations; however, on a wider scale the two theories have more similarities than difference therefore complement each other in international relations. References Burchill et al. 2012. Liberalism. Theories of international relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford. May, E. R., Rosecrance, R. & Steiner Z. 2010. History and neorealism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ong, A. 2006, Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty, Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press. Saad-Filho, A., & Johnston, D. 2005. Neoliberalism a critical reader, Pluto Press, London. Read More