International Relations - Coursework Example

Critically assess the core ideas underling the various traditional and contemporary theories of international relations. Which of these ideas do you find most persuasive? Justify your answer. 1. Introduction Through the decades, the justification of the social and political actions has been one of the most important missions of the sociological theory; in the context of the relationship among states in the international community, the sociological theory had to be appropriately transformed in order to respond to the needs of the particular field. The international relations theory has been introduced aiming to explain the criteria on which the relations among states are based. Gradually, the international relations theory has been transformed in order to respond to the current social and political needs worldwide; this transformation has led to the development of an independent theoretical field – independent towards the pre-existing international relation theory, as was initially established. The contemporary international relations theory has been resulted because of the need to offer adequate explanations for the current social and political conditions worldwide – as these conditions are influenced by the cooperation modes developed among states with different social and political characteristics. The examination of the core ideas of the traditional and the contemporary theories of international relations led to the assumption that both these theories address specific needs; however, the traditional international relations theory can be characterized as rather outdated, having to be aligned with current social and political trends and practices. Still the core ideas of the traditional international relations theories are important in order to understand the development of the international relations theory in the context of the international community. Moreover, it has been revealed that certain of the core ideas of the traditional and the contemporary international relations theories are more persuasive than others, a fact leading to the assumption that both these frameworks have strengths and weaknesses and that their combination could led to the development of an effective theoretical framework in order to explain the political and social beliefs and practices as developed in the context of international relations. 2. International Relations – overview and definition The theorists who studied international relations have used different approaches in order to explain the role of international relations in the context of the international community. Often, the international relations theory is correlated with the international politics framework; however, the two frameworks are different, even if they have certain similarities, mainly the issue of cooperation at an inter-state level for promoting issues related to the public interest (Garnett 1984, p.155). Two major schools of thoughts have been developed: the traditional and the non-traditional (or contemporaries) theories of international relations. The borders between the above two theoretical concepts are not clear – maybe because these concepts tend to interact when current political and social phenomena have to be interpreted. In accordance with Weber (2009) the traditional international relations theory refers to concepts like ‘realism, idealism, historical materialism and constructivism’ (Weber 2009, p.11); on the other hand, the non-traditional international relations theories refer to the reasons for which the traditional international relation theories can be applied in practice, i.e. in situations and events of the daily life (Weber 2009, p.11). The core ideas of the traditional and contemporary theories of international relations are presented analytically below – as they have been described in the relevant literature. At the next level, those ideas which seem to be more persuasive will be presented and evaluated – taking into consideration the continuous changing global political and social environment. 3. Traditional theories of International Relations The traditional international relations theory, as explained above, refer to specific theoretical and ideological concepts; these concepts have been long used in order to explain various political and social phenomena; however, today, the use of these concepts can be characterized as problematic. This outcome is related to the following fact: current political and social conditions are totally different compared to those to which these concepts refer; from this point of view, theories like idealism and historical materialism (concepts on which the traditional international relations theories are based) do not have any particular value in modern social and political environment, being incapable of addressing issues like ‘global ecological problems’ (Garnett 1984, p.142). At the same time, these concepts could not be used for explaining the current social trends – which are extremely complex, as noted by Garnett (1984). Furthermore, current international relations framework needs to be able to explain the development and the needs of societies with different social and cultural characteristics; in the context of globalisation, the needs of these societies may present similarities but the differences in their cultural and ethical background makes their interaction too difficult. For this reason, the international relations theory should be able to resolve these conflicts, as possible, provided the framework through which the social needs of populations worldwide will be interpreted. The above fact cannot lead to the assumption that traditional international relations theory is obsolete; on the contrary, the above theoretical framework is extremely valuable; however, it would be appropriately transformed being aligned with the current political and social trends – as explained above. In the above context, the core ideas of the traditional international relations theory might need to be updated or aligned with current sociological thoughts and conditions; still, they should keep their main mission, i.e. the explanation of the reasons for the development of communication and cooperation among states in the international community. In accordance with Neufeld (1995), the main idea behind the traditional international relations theory is the rationalism; in this theoretical framework, rationalism is expressed through a series of ‘realist and neorealist theories’ (Neufeld 1995, p.92); these theories emphasize on the potentials of the human behaviour ‘to be optimally adapted to the situation’ (Neufeld 1995, p.92). Another important element of the traditional international relations theory is the positivism; the specific concept states that social events are independent from human will and from this point of view they cannot be influenced by the changes in the personal views and perceptions; rather, these events and trends are likely to be standardized and not open to modifications using the will of individuals or the social trends as being changed periodically. The above fact, leads to the following phenomenon: the dependency from perceptions and will is established but the relevance with the social needs of each particular period is set in question. At this point, the traditional international relations theory should be strongly criticized, as not being appropriate for current social and political conditions, which are characterized by continuous changes. Thus, a more flexible theoretical framework for interpreting international relations is required. This framework would allow for the promotion of social interests without violating the existing social or legal orders, as the fighters of the contemporary international relations theory could possibly claim. Clark et al. (1999) use a similar approach in order to explain the main elements of the traditional international relations theory. In accordance with the above researchers, there are three key concepts, or trends, i.e. the Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism, which have most affected the traditional international relations theory. The above concepts have been incorporated within the above theoretical framework in ‘sociological, teleological and prescriptive terms’ (Clark et al. 1999, p.10). It is further explained that the above three concepts can be effectively used in order to explain the theoretical aspects of international relations theory, a key aim of the traditional international relations theory. On the other hand, Jahn (2006) note that the roots of traditional international relations theory are quite old. It is stated that historians and theorists like Thucydides, Herodotus, Grotius, Hobbes, Kant and Hegel (Jahn 2006, p.233) have played a key role in the appearance and the development of international relations theory. It is made clear though that the traditional form of international relations theory has been periodically changed, under the influence of the political and social trends of each era. However, the main elements of the international relations theory seem to remain the same: the explanation of human behaviour in the context of the international community using concepts and rules that are applied on various social and political phenomena. At the same time, emphasis is given on the role of Grotius in the development of the traditional international relations theory, as current used by theorists and researchers worldwide. However, at the same time, it is made clear that the views of Grotius on the international relations theory (as these views today are considered as a form of traditional international relations theory) have been strongly affected by the ‘international politics and international law’ (Jahn 2006, p.236), a fact which should be taken into consideration when having to evaluate the traditional international relations theory, as developed by Grotius. It was because of Grotius that natural law, as part of the international law, has been involved in the international relations theory (Jahn 2006, p.237). Among the concepts described above, two are the core ideas of the traditional international relations theory that seem more persuasive: realism and natural law. The former reflects the actual social, political and economic conditions and for this reason its involvement in the international relations theory seems to be quite justified. On the other hand, the natural law has been part, either directly or indirectly, of all legal and ethical orders. For this reason, its use as a theoretical basis for explaining international relations seems to be unavoidable. Another traditional international relations theory is the Systems theory – supported by Kaplan and Easton – which is based on the view that there is an international system in the context of which all human activities are developed. The above theory could not be characterized as persuasive promoting the idea that international politics would not be developed mostly because ‘the relevant variables are too many’ (Malhotra 2006, p.123). The above theory should be criticized using the following arguments: international relations are depended on a series of international systems, which are not standardized; therefore, the view that there is no common international system in the international community should be accepted (Sullivan 2002, p.105). More specifically, international relations also cannot have a specific form but they are rather expected to change periodically under the influence of global social and economic trends. This view can be characterized as being aligned with current political and social conditions; indeed, the relations among states seem to be differentiated, even with short periods of time, under the influence of various political and economic interests. The existence of groups of states, for example the G8, which decide on crucial issues related to international politics and international economics, verifies the view of Sullivan (2002) on international relations. Of course, the potential power of other states to intervene in the development of international relations cannot be rejected, because, in this case, the United Nations would have no role. After the Cold War, a new international relations theory has been introduced – aiming to explain the new hierarchy in regard to the global governance. This theory is known as the Post-Cold War international system and it includes seven models: for example, ‘a) the Three Block geo-economic model, b) the Revitalised Balance of Power model, c) the Clash of Civilisations model and d) the Unipolar model (which is based on the idea that after the end of Cold War the USA has become the sole power in the planet)’ (Malhotra 2006, p.125). The above models cannot be persuasive mostly because of the following fact: they refer to power in the same context as during the Cold War. In other words, for these models, the term power still reflects the military power in the context of the international community, a view that cannot be accepted since there are states which are significant economic powers (China, India) without being necessarily military powers; however, through their economy they can also control, at a significant level, the international politics. Through a similar view, the decision-making theory of ‘Snyder, Bruck and Sapin (in 1954)’ (Malhotra 2006, p.127) should be characterized as not sufficiently persuasive being based on the view that the behavior of states are influenced solely by international politics, a view which cannot be accepted. As it is explained above, international relations are affected by many different variables and their evaluation can be quite complex process. The use of just one or two criteria for evaluating the international relations, as, for example, the decision-making theory, would lead to non-credible assumptions. 4. International Relations as defined through contemporary theories The contemporary theories of international relations are differentiated from the traditional international relations theories mostly at the point that they do not focus on the test of social behaviour using specific sociological concepts but rather on the identification of the causes of social behaviour, as expressed ‘in the relationships among national units’ (Hoffmann in Malhotra 2006, p.110). In other words, the contemporary international relations theories do not focus on the explanation of social behaviour using a series of theoretical concepts but rather on the use of events in order to indicate the responses of humans to various social and political phenomena, i.e. emphasis is given on the practical forms and implications of social behaviour and not so much on its theoretical justification, as in the case of the traditional international relations theory, an issue explained above. One of the most important cases of contemporary international relations theory is the game theory on international relations. This theory is based on the view that conflicts in the context of the international community should be treated as games. Solutions should be proposed using a series of appropriate strategies and assumptions (Malhotra 2006, p.137). The above theory could be effective in the context of international relations since it includes all phases of a strategic game – rules, players, information and so on (Malhotra 2006, p.137). Indeed, decisions and initiatives in the context of the international community are always based on strategic plans, being processed, in certain cases, for quite long. Therefore, the game theory of international relations should be characterized as quite persuasive as a theory for explaining international relations. The bargaining theory of international relations (Malhotra 2006, p. 145) would be also considered as equally important for explaining the international relations. In fact, this theory is advantageous compared to the game theory, being based on negotiations as a tool for resolving conflicts in the context of international relations, a practice quite common today. 5. Conclusion Through the examination of the elements and the implications of the traditional international relations theory and the contemporary international relations theory, a series of important assumptions have been developed: a) both these theories have common aims and characteristics. However, the methods they use for explaining the causes of human behaviour in the context of international relations are differentiated. The traditional international relations theory focuses on the identification of the theoretical aspects of human behaviour while the contemporary international relations theory emphasizes on the practical implications of human behaviour, as these implications can be also explained using existing international relations theory; b) the core ideas of contemporary international relations theory are more persuasive compared to those of the traditional international relations theory, as explained above. However, the latter also includes a series of well-justified theoretical concepts regarding the explanation of human behaviour. These concepts cannot be rejected when having to evaluate the human behaviour in the context of the international relations. Under these terms, it could be supported that both these theories should be equally taken into consideration when evaluating the role of international relations. The level at which each of these theories could be involved in such tasks would be depended on the social and political conditions in which each human activity, as part of international relations, has been developed. References Clark, I., Neumann, I. (1999) Classical Theories of International Relations. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Garnett, J. (1984) Commonsense and the theory of international politics. Albany: SUNY Press Jahn, B. (2006) Classical theory in international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Malhotra, V. (2006) International Relations. New Delhi: Anmol Publications PVT Malhotra, V. (1998) Theories and approaches to international relations. New Delhi: Anmol Publications PVT Neufeld, M. (1995) The restructuring of international relations theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Rothstein, R., Fox, W. (1992) The Evolution of Theory in International Relations. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press Sullivan, M. (2002) Theories of international relations: transition vs. persistence. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Walker, R. (1993) Inside/outside: international relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Weber, C. (2009) International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Taylor & Francis Read More