Analysis of Differences Seminar Briefings - Literature review Example

Seminar Briefings College Seminar Briefings The Historical Development of International Relations Theory International relations theory refers to the various schools of thought that strive to explain the nature of the relationship between states and the way it affects peace and their cooperation. The history of international relations theory is long, but is more importantly considered an issue of the twentieth century. Brown and Ainley (2009) point out that the twentieth century was the birth period of the international relations theory. There seems to be a close relationship between the evolution of International relations theory and historical experiences. To be precise, the development of these schools of thought was a response to the specific historical crisis including war and conflict between states. Different theories such as realism, liberalism and social constructivism were born shortly after the Second World War as different scholars attempted to explain the cause of war and identify a solution to the problem. Carr (2001) provides a detailed account of the First World War and provides an explanation on the cause of the war. In his book, he cites that power and its application is the main source of conflict and that balancing such power would be the solution to this persistent problem. Critics to these theories led to the development of other schools of thought such as Liberalism explained war as a result of the liberal choices that each state makes. On this note, the birth of international relations theory was a result of responses to the inter-war period evident in the twentieth century. The “great debates” form a useful way of organizing the history of international relations theory. The “great debates” refers to a series of disagreements among the number of scholars in the history of international relations theory. A good example is the first debate of 1930s that featured the disagreements between realists and idealists. This is an important time of IR since it marked a distinction between the two schools of thought (Brown and Ainley, 2009). The second debate and third debate focussed on scientific versus traditionalisms while the third debate featured an argument between positivists and post-positivist theories. While these debates are important part for the evolution of international relations theory, I feel that these disagreements did not have a consequential impact on IR and hence may are not paramount for this history. From a critical point of view, the international relations theories are still debatable issues within the scholarly discipline. While there is a concession among many scholars that these theories provide a way of approaching international politics, there lacks a concession on which theory provides the best explanation of how states relate. While realists support the idea that states are selfish and pursue personal interests, idealists feel that states are dependent bodies that should live in harmony. On the other hand, liberalists feel that states are independent and that they cannot be generalized (Holsti, 1998). Therefore, each state has freedom to do what it wishes irrespective of the consequences of its action. From this end, it is clear that international relations theory are still evolving and academicians still have a role to criticize or support these theories to come up to end the debates that still exists within the international relations theory. Bibliography Brown, C. and Ainley K. 2009, “The Development of International Relations Theory During the Twentieth Century,” in Understanding International Relations, 4th ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 19–39. Carr, E. H. (2001), The Twenty Years’ Crisis1919--‐1939 An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, London: Palgrave. Holsti, K. 1998, “Scholarship I an Era of Anxiety the Study of International Politics During The Cold War, “Review of International Studies 24 (5), 17–46. Realism Realism is one of the most dominant theories of international relations that have become influential in the realm of international politics. Realism is a school of thought that derives the concept of things as they are, regardless on the way people may want them to be, with a tendency to be practical and more pragmatic. The ability to remain practical and applicable with the international relations theory has made it dominant. The concept of classical political realism evolved in the early 431 BC during war between Sparta and Athens. When Thucydides witnessed this war, he made a historical analysis of the war defying the popular belief of Gods during this period (Bain, 2000). He argued that war can be analysed by considering the facts of the war, hence defying the idealistic approach that the people used at this time. Thucydides pointed out that history should be analysed from an objective perspective bearing in mind that nations are monarchs that are always seeking for economic and political power. He stated that it was only practical that the strong nations should always rule the weaker nations. Realism identifies anarchy as a major problem in international relations due to its wrongful application of power. Anarchy systems provide superiority for powerful nations and puts weak nations at the receiving end. Hence, it provides that strong nations dominate over weak nations and that such power is used for personal benefits. In inter-war conflicts, it is evident that weak nations are victimised by strong nations since they are incapable of defending themselves (Waltz, 1979). A good example is the Iraq Kuwait war of 1991 when Iraq intended to use its power to oppress a weak Kuwait and reap economic benefit from this war. Therefore, the ultimate solution for anarchy is the development balanced power, where strong nations protect weak nations. Realism proposes that decentralization of power is important as it allows oversight bodies such as UN control power abuse. Realists use the “domestic analogy” to compare the state behaviour within international politics as a “state of individuals”. The argument is that states relate the same way as human beings within a society behave (Brown, 2009). Each person pursues their own selfish interest and that they use the power they have to benefit themselves as much as possible. From my own view, this idea best describes states and the way they compete with one another. Evidently, just like human beings compete uncontrollably, nations compete for power to acquire sovereignty. From this angle, it is possible to support realism as an important contribution in explaining the nature of conflict in international relations. Modern realists seem to have new ideas on the way nations behave much more than Thucydides possessed (Brown, 2009). While many modern realists agree with Thucydides idea that nations are always using power to benefit themselves, it is clear that have advanced this theory by appealing to a wide range of ideas. For instance, neo-realists argue that it is possible that nations stop at some point in their anarchic approach as they fear that further expansionism would trigger a rebellion from other states. A neo-realism seems to be a more optimistic approach in solving international conflicts by controlling power struggle. Unlike classical realism that provides no solution to the greed for power among states, neorealism provides hope for health relations among nations. Therefore, neorealism is significantly useful as it provides a realistic approach to understanding the relationship between states and provides a practical solution to the conflict among them Bibliography Bain, W. 2000, “Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered,” Review of International Studies 26 (3), 445--‐464. Brown, C. 2009, “Structural Realism, Classical Realism, and Human Nature,” International Relations 23 (2), 257–70. Waltz, K., 1979, Theory of International Politics,New York: McGraw—Hill Publishing Co. Liberalism Liberalism is a school of thought that gained a lot of popularity shortly after the First World War. Liberalism theories point out that the way to maintain peace among states is to provide space for every person to exercise their rights and to set laws that set nations free to define the way the relate with one another. Notably, the events of the First World War overturned the ideas developed by liberalists came to a standstill during the interwar period (Russett, 2013). For instance, the solutions provided for war promoted communism and denied the states the rights to trade in a liberal economic platform. As a result, many revisited the issue of liberalism shortly after the war period seeking to heal the trauma that the world war had created. Liberalists perceive anarchy as the hoarding of power and manifestation of its abuse while constructing inter-state relationships. Anarchic systems provide power to superior nations and give them the power to oppress the weak. Liberalists propose that the optimal solution for anarchic power is to build harmony within international economic systems and promote mutual benefits (Baldwin, 1993). For instance, this school of thought suggests that it is crucial to maintain free trade among nations to allow nations to develop strong economic relationships. However, this solution is debatable since there is evidence of exploitation within liberal markets. For instance, there is evidence that the western countries exploit third world countries by using their economic power. Thus economic liberalisms do not necessarily solve the problem of anarchy. Evidently, Kant was among the oldest champions of liberal democracy who argued that nations that execute liberal-democracy do not have conflicts. He attributed this to the idea that somehow each country benefits from its relationship with another state. Therefore, states are mutually dependent and that such a relationship reduces conflict in the international arena. However, since Kant’s time, there seems to be an extensive development of this theory of Kant. For instance, Neo-liberalism theories paves way for the development of international laws and believes that such laws are important in maintaining peace among nations (Smith, 1992). This seems to be against the idea of Keynesian economies that classical liberalists had developed. Notably, neo-liberalism and neo-realism have narrowed down to a remarkable concession as they agree that states can remain harmony with the intervention of international monitors. Therefore, the two theories narrow the IR theories making them the most dominant in modern International politics. Bibliography Baldwin, D.A. 1993, Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The ContemporaryDebate, New York: Columbia University Press. Russett, B, ‘Liberalism’, in Dunne, T. Kurki, M., and Smith,S. 2013, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition, Oxford: University Press. Smith, M. J. 1992, “Liberalism and International Reform,” in T. Nardin and D. Mapel (eds), Traditions of International Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–224. Social Constructivism Social constructivism is an international relations theory that argues that the relationship between nations depends on the knowledge that these states create and the culture that they create (Fierke, 2013). Unlike other theories that concede there states follow specific laws while relating, this theory proposes that states themselves create either healthy or conflicting relationships. The idea of Wendt that “anarchy is what states make of it” is a debatable idea in modern IR theories. To begin with, the post war period shows more healthy interaction between states and the reduction of anarchic systems. While it is clear that the anarchy systems still thrive, there is considerable reduction of such systems. Social Constructivists have a lot in common with the post-positivist ideas that positive knowledge is truthful if only it contains facts. In addition, they all agree that positive knowledge is objective since it is created without allusion to normatively oriented ideas. The implication of this is that the knowledge that nations develop while establishing their relations determine the nature of their relationship (Wendt, 1992). However, the notion that the international system is constituted of ideas is no longer compelling in modern politics. Evidently, states are opportunistic and are more concerned on their material benefits rather than ideological construction. Social constructivism focuses on regimes. Regimes are social institutions that consist of agreed upon programs, rules, principles, decision-making procedures and norms that govern interactions of actors in a specific area (Wendt, 1999). Constructivists believe that norms and principles are embedded in the system and they define the actors in it. On the other hand, social constructivism focuses on world polity which transforms the nature of a system fundamentally. It focuses on the world political identity which arises out of international relations across the globe. This idea of constructivism implies that internal principles within a state play a critical role in shaping the relationships between states. However, this raises question on whether nations develop principles with the international relationships in mind or with their own interests as their priority. On this ground, social constructivism seems to defy the idea that nations are competitive and believes ideas influence the way nations relate. While it seems reasonable that coherence in ideas may play an important role in international politics, it is clear that nations are pursuing material benefits such as economic development and increase in Gross domestic product. Bibliography Fierke,K, ‘Constructivism’, in Dunne, T. Kurki, M., and Smith, S. (2013), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wendt, A., 1992, Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organizations, 46, 391-425. Wendt, A., 1999. ‘Social Theory of International Politics,’ Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, The English School The English school of thought is a theory of international relations that suggests that states have an ideological relationship, and that material concerns are not the only issue of interest in international politics (Dunne, 2013). There appears to a thin line between the English school of thought and the social constructivism theory. However, this school of thought explains that state culture and norms influence the way that nations interacts and suggests that states have common goals that somehow bind them together. This implies that nations cannot live independently but have to rely on one another if they have to succeed in maintaining peace amongst themselves. This theory appeals to the history of different states to explain the way nations can profit by forming international societies rather than international systems. The English school of thought pays attention to the distinction between “international systems” and “international societies” to explain how nations establish international cohesiveness. The proponents define international systems as formation of a group of nations that have considerably interacted with one another to a reasonable depth. On the other hand, an “international society” is an international entity that comprises of states that share common interests. Therefore, within such a society, negotiation and regulations are important in guiding how nations inter-relate (Butterfield and Wight, 1966). The idea of these scholars seems to hold the opinion that national behaviour plays a significant role in influencing state-to-state cooperation and provides a basis for states to pursue common goals. In my view, this theory plays an important role in creating harmony between realism, liberalism and social constructivism. However, it has attracted a wide range of criticism from realists who feels that it omission of the idea of state aggression introduces weaknesses to its claims. The idea that an international society is an extension of the domestic society is a compelling argument. The supporters of the English school use this concept to advance the idea that countries manifest the same values they upheld within themselves within the international system. From a different perspective, the international society is a reflection of the way nations establish social relations within their countries (Finnemore, 2001). To a great extent, this point is agreeable and there is evidence countries that have internal conflicts are likely to engage in international wars. For instance, a country such as Iraq has exhibited war within its country as well as in the international arena. In a nutshell, the international society is an extrapolation of the domestic society. Bibliography Butterfield, H and M. Wight 1966, Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics.London: George Allen & Unwin. Dunne, T, ‘The English School’, in Dunne, T. Kurki, M., and Smith, S. (2013), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finnemore, M. 2001, “Exporting the English School?” Review of International Studies27 (3), 509–513. Marxism and Critical Theory The Critical theory developed by Marxist links international relations with the capitalistic attitudes of different countries while they engage in inter-state relations. Marxist developed the capitalistic theory and stipulated that states are in an era of developing their economic investment by using their economic power to exploit other states. One supposition of the critical theory is that those who have economic power are developed countries that use weak nations are their primary prey (Rupert, 2013: Harvey, 2003). When domestic markets become saturated, powerful nations move to developing nations in an effort to create more wealth. This theory seems to diverge from the notion that there exist mutual benefits in the international economy and establishes the concept of one way relationship. From a critical point of view, it is clear developed nations have often fallen prey of developed nations. A good example is when developing nations surrender their ores to developed nations for the reason that they lack the necessary technology to exploit their own natural resources. However, the critical theory, just like any other does not fall short of scholarly criticism. It omits the role of economic regulations that help to control capitalistic market structures. The world system theory seems to agree to the critical theory as it supports the idea that nations hold as a priority to accumulate capital for personal benefit. The world systems theory suggests that social conflict, competitive class struggles and transition result to the formation of world systems (Harvey, 2003). Evidently, there exists core countries, semi-periphery countries and periphery countries within the world systems and countries are always breaking out one realm and getting into another. The idea of the world system theory is that social relations influence the depth to which nations interact. To some extent the Marxists theory has had some of its main ideologies become obsolete. For instance, its claim about the existence of capitalistic structures has become irrelevant. In the new world order, social communism has collapsed and nations interact in a friendlier manner (Roach, 2013). The development of international law has reduced the issues of imperialism and resulted to better economic systems. However, it is clear that Marxists theories are still relevant especially on its claim about the existence of transitory nature of social forms within the contemporary international market. Evidently, nations are struggling to outdo each other leading to development of social conflict in the search for hegemony. Bibliography Harvey, D, 2003, The New Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roach, S, ‘Critical Theory’, in Dunne, T Kurki, M., and Smith, S. 2013, International Relation Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rupert, M, ‘Marxism’, in Dunne, T. Kurki, M., and Smith, S. 2013, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Post Colonialism Post-Colonialism refers to the invasion of weak nations by self-ascribe superior nations as a strategy for strong nations to remain on top of weak nations. While there prevails the notion that the colonial period is long over, there is evidence that it still affects developing countries in its mild form. In the beginning of the 21st centuries, a number of western countries launched their expansion strategies by exploiting and controlling weak nations. The main aim was to obtain cheap labor, cheap raw materials and other economic benefits at the expense of developing nations such as those in Africa and Middle East. From a critical point of view, colonialism is still evident and its features are manifested in international politics (Grovogui, 2013). For instance, the US’s persistence interest in controlling Middle East oils is a manifestation of imperialistic expansion. In 2003, the US engaged Iraq in an unnecessary war, which many critics pointed out as imperialistic abuse of military power and a clear manifestation of post-colonialism. The concept of third world countries and global south are key terms in the modern international relations. Third world countries are visualized as easy prey for western countries due to their lack of potential for development. Since such countries are highly dependent on western countries, it is clear that they have to play by the rules of superpower countries if they have to remain in business. Besides, such nations need to play royal to powerful countries if they have to enjoy benefits such as aids and grants (Abrahamsen, 2003). This is a clear manifestation of the prevalence of social constraints within the international arena. In my opinion, international interaction is marred by conditional relationships that are oppressive for weak nations. For instance, western countries have threatened to pull out their aid to countries that fail to adhere to their rules. Therefore, post-colonialism extends into international politics and its main aim is to protect strong countries. The dependency theory states that resources flow from a periphery of poor states towards the wealthy states. This theory places poor countries at the periphery and wealthy states at the core of an economic circle. The main argument of this theory is that wealthy states benefit more from global economic interactions leading to an increase in the wealth gap between developed and developing states (Amitav and Buzan, 2007). I seek to agree to this theory by observing the state of economy in the modern world. While it is possible to agree that developing countries are growing economically, it is clear that their growth rate is much below that western nations are experiencing. In conclusion, colonialism still persists in the modern world despite the prevalence of the notion that it is an issue of the past. Bibliography Abrahamsen, R. 2003, “African Studies and the Postcolonial Challenge,” African Affairs 102(407), 189–210. Amitav A. and Buzan, B. 2007, “Why is there no non--‐Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction,” International Relations of the Asia--‐ Pacific 7 (3),287–312. Grovogui, S. ‘Postcolonialism’,” in Dunne, T. Kurki, M., and Smith, S. 2013, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Post-Structuralism Post-structuralism is a school of thought that arose soon after the development of structuralism and hence its name. The structuralism theories proposed that the development it is possible to explain social relations by taking into account the culture that defines these relations (Campbell, 1998). The post-structuralism provides criticism of this theory by explaining that it is impossible for to study an object only if one can study its characteristics and the systems of knowledge that produced this object (Ashley, 1995). The meaning of this theory is that it is complex to define cultures through a scientific process since objects are influenced by the cultures that they come from. From this perspective, unlike the positivist theories that provide hope for understanding international relations, post-structuralism theories are pessimistic about this issue. Nihilism, on the other hand, is a pessimistic approach on ideologies that provides the notion that there is no existence of any forms. Nihilism is embedded in the belief that all values are baseless and there is nothing that can be known or even communicated. Therefore, those who subscribe to this school of thought believe in nothing, have no loyalty and believe in destruction (Campbell, 2013). The question of whether post-structuralism can be isolated from nihilism is a matter of argument. From a close observation, nihilists are extreme pessimists but post-structuralism provides a condition for understanding objects (Ashley, 1995). From this perspective, the latter provides hope that people can understand objects if it is possible for them to understand the systems from which the object arises. However, in comparison with the positivist theory, this theory may be seen as a pessimistic way to look at the world. From my own opinion, both the structuralism theory and its critic theory are in a way insufficient as they lack the necessary strength that is important in describing the world’s behaviour. Bibliography Ashley, R. K. (1995), “The Achievements Of Post--‐structuralism,” In Booth, K. Smith, S. And Zalewski, M. International Theory: Positivism And Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Campbell, D.‘Poststructuralism’, in Dunne, T. Kurki, M., and Smith, S. (2013), International Relations Theories: Discipline andDiversity,3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, D. (1998), “Why Fight: Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post‐structuralism,” Millennium:Journal of International Studies 27 (3), 497–523. Green Theory The green theory of international relations seeks to explain how environmental factors play a central role in defining international relations (Hughes, 2005). This theory appeals to environmental concerns that were formally mere national issues but are becoming a concern in the international sphere. One key issue in the green theory is the ability of nations to stand the same ground and have a consensus on mutual understanding of environment issue. The suggestion is that strong nations empower weak nations to achieve an eco-balance. Secondly, this theory stands for communication as the best approach to international relations citing cooperation and interdepended within ecosystems as crucial in ensuring harmony in the world (Eckersley, 2013). The proponents of this theory seem to agree that there is international relationship bound by interdependence in creation of Eco balance. Security is a major concern of the green theory as it elaborates that lack of international understanding of the environment leads to the development of conflict. The theory advocates for securitization of the environment by using environment friendly approaches in economic interactions (Le Billon, 2001). As the world crystallizes into a global village, environmental effects are likely to spread to the world in a much faster rate. Therefore, this theory aims at reducing the level of environmental accidents as one way of assuring the global citizens safety (Eckersley, 2013). In the world today, it is clear that the environment is under serious threat as industrialization continually leads to environmental degradation. From this point of view, international relations should put the environment at heart and to prevent any adverse effects on the environment. From this perspective, the green theory isolates an important factor that is currently a major concern for international relations. As companies interact, they have a new factor to consider if they have to form lasting relations and expect benefits in the long term. Bibliography Eckersley, R. ‘Green Theory’, in Dunne, T. Kurki, M., and Smith, S. 2013, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity,3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hughes, J. D. 2005, “Global Environmental History: The Long View,” Globalizations 2 (3), 293–308. Le Billon, P. 2001, “The Political Ecology of War: Natural Resources and Armed Conflicts,” Political Geography 20, 561–584. Read More