INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Introduction

International relations theory is the theory seeking to explain the past state behaviours, in the effort to predict the future state behaviours. The traditional international relations theory can generally be categorized by their focus on state human, or the variable state systems (Amstutz 2013). Furthermore, the study of international relations takes a wider range of theoretical approaches. Some of the disciplines emerge from other disciplines such as economy and sociology. However, few of the social scientific theories have not between applied in the study of relations amongst nations. Furthermore, many of these theories are internally or externally contested, with few scholars believing in one or either the other of the existing many theories. However, despite the differences, many schools of thought are discernible with major differentiations in the variables and the other aspects they emphasize such as power, ideological believes as well as the different materials of interest.

There are three major branches of international relations theory. These are liberalism, realism and constructivism. The field of international relations is increasingly becoming relevant in the current global society. The relationship between the international powers is increasingly becoming more relevant to the UK as the issues associated with the international relations become more entangled with the personal interests of the outside powers (Jordan et al. 2009). For example, the involvement between United States governments in Syria is a contentious issue among the international powers that do not have any interests in the United States relations. This article aims at discussing the significance and applications of different international relations theories, using examples and the different instances where the international relations theories are applicable in the UK and internationally.

Realism theory

For realist theory, the international system is defined by anarchy, with the absence of a central authority. According to this theory, the states are sovereign and are thus autonomous of each other with no inherent structure, emergence of society in the order of relations between the independent states (Dunne et al. 2013). In this case, forces of coercion (consent) bind the nations in the anarchy system, the powers of the state is the only variable of interest. This is because through power the states can defend themselves with the hope of survival. The realism theory understands power in a variety of ways economically and diplomatically, with the ultimate goal of distributing coercive material capacities as the determinants of the international relations. The realists claim that survival is the major goal of each state. Therefore, foreign invasion and military threat are the most pressing threats that any nation can receive. In addition, the realists assumes that all the states possesses the military capacity to defend itself as no state is aware precisely of the intentions of the neighbouring states (Wheeler 2013). In this case, the world is dangerous and full of uncertainties. Therefore, through this approach, the international relation is a necessary story of Great Power politics.

On the contrary, some of the realists are divergent in some issues. For example, they state that in order for them to survive they need maximization of their powers relative to each other (Hill & Smith 2011). If one of the states possess powers to threaten another state, the states will never be safe. Therefore, there is need for balancing of power systems, with roughly equal distribution of powers amongst the great nations. The realists against the anarchy of power have a dim view of the international law and institutions. In this situation, the states can create international laws as well as international institutions as they enforce the rules they codify. However, it is not the rules that give the overall determination of how the states act in particular ways, but the underlying interests in things such as material and power relations.

For example, the realists tend to treat religions hypocritical, marginal or irrelevant to the political perspectives of different kinds. Irrespective of their religious affiliation, they act in different ways if they are to play a more effective role in the international politics. Such a dismissive view is unwarranted, and therefore, different religions may play a role in the determination of the ordering principles of different systems. The realism theories significantly influence the behavioural units of the systems of governance once they are constituted.

Liberalism theory

Liberalism makes for a more complex and cohesive body of theories than the realism and Institutionalism. The underlying driving force behind the theory lies in the national characteristic of an individual state for their international relations (Bennett 2013). This is the complete opposite of realism theory account where all the states have similar goals and self-interest for survival. The believers of this theory have constantly emphasized on the unique behaviours of the liberal states. However, most recent work has sought to extend this theory to a domestic characteristic based on international relations explanation. One of the most significant developments in this theory is the phenomenon of democratic peace. For example, Emanuel Kant initially imagined a democratic peace, which is evident on the lack of war within the liberal states.

In addition, Andrew Moravcsik developed a liberal theory based on three assumptions. First, the individuals or private groups are the chief actors in the world of politics. Secondly, the state represents a dominant sub division in the political world, on whose the interests the serve. Third, the configurations between the states have different preferences cutting across all the international systems, which determine the states behaviours. An example of the application of the liberalization theory is in the arrangement of the relations amongst the Western powers, evident in the design in which the western powers fit a model of complex interdependence. The UK could have major disagreements with Asia and European allies over trade and policy, but it is difficult to imagine a situation where the United Kingdom could use its powers against any of its allies. To balance this, the United Kingdom relies on the economic pressures and the incentives to gain their policy objectives.

Another example is the negotiation of the treaty to end World War I in 1918, where Woodrow Wilson worked hard to promote the democracy and national determination amongst the fighting nations. Wilson pushed hard for the creation of the League of Nations, which an international body, formed to fight for the protection of the weak from the super powers in 1919. Therefore, the term Wilsonian is common name, used to describe a person or a group of individuals advocating to promote democracy amongst other international countries.

Constructivism theory

This is barely a theory but more of an ontology, with a set of assumptions about the world and human motivation. This theory challenges the rationalist framework, which undergirds most of the international relations theories, through creating of alternatives in each of the family’s theories (Friedrichs 2013). In this theory, military power, trade relations, the international institutions and other domestic preferences exemplify the variables of interest. These domestic preferences are not very significant as they are the worldly facts, but rather because they have certain social meanings. The meaning is generated from complex and complex historical mix of ideas, norms and beliefs, through which scholars have to understand. For example, some of the constructivism argues that the nuclear arsenals of the UK, China though are comparatively destructive; they have varied meanings in a country like United States, translating to very different patterns of different meanings (Viotti & Kauppi 2010). Another example is on the claims that China has acted according to traditional acting to Realist assumptions in the international relations. However, it is based on the objective structure of the international relation systems, rather on a historical strategy of culture. Focusing on the social contexts, the international relations lead constructivists to stress on the issues of identity and beliefs. The perception of friends and enemies as well as issues of fairness and justice became the determinants of the states behaviours.

Conclusion

Although the theories of international relations have been contested fiercely, it is inappropriate to see them fall rivals over universal truth about the world of politics. Each of the assumptions in each theory, and the epistemologies are constrained with specific conditions as they pursue their own analytical goals. The various theories can lead to more compelling conclusions about the international relations; none of the theories clearly defines what is right and wrong. These theories can be useful for different nations, in developing their international relations policies. The liberalism theory emphasizes on the unique behaviours of the liberal nations. However, most recent work has sought to extend this theory to a domestic characteristic based on international relations explanation. In the constructivism theory, military power, trade relations, the international institutions and other domestic preferences exemplify the variables of interest. Therefore, this theory is applicable in providing guidance for the nations bound by the social cohesive powers and trade relations.

Reference List

Amstutz, MR 2013, International ethics: concepts, theories, and cases in global politics, Rowman & Littlefield.

Bennett, A 2013, The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in International Relations theory, European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 459-481.

Dunne, T Kurki, M & Smith, S (Eds.), 2013, International relations theories, Oxford Uni. Press.

Friedrichs, J 2013, European approaches to international relations theory: a house with numerous mansions, Routledge.

Hill, C & Smith, M (Eds.), 2011, International relations in the European Union nations, Oxford Uni. Press.

Jordan, R. Maliniak, D. Oakes, A. Peterson, S & Tierney, MJ 2009, One Discipline: Trip Survey of International Relations Faculties in Ten Countries, The College of William and Mary, February.

Viotti, PR & Kauppi, MV 2010, International relations theories, Longman.

Wheeler, NJ 2013, International Relations theory.