Stephen M. Walt, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories,” Foreign Policy, No. 110 (1998): 29-46.

In Brief:

3 main theories of International Relations have been presented here: Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism, with each of their respective sub-theories distinguished. These theories help us to make sense of the world; points to possible causes to and consequences of state actions, and help policy-makers make international affairs intelligible  and formulate efficacious policies. 

Summary:

Where are we coming from?

1. Realism
   • Classical Realism
     1. Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr: Human nature to desire to dominate others results in wars.
     2. Morgenthau: bipolar rivalry dangerous, and multipolar, balance-of-power system more security
   • Neo-Realism
     1. Kenneth Waltz: war as an effects of international system
        • Only concerned about great powers (big states)
     2. Assumption:
        • States seek survival over other interests
        • Anarchy causes weaker states to balance against strong states to prevent them from becoming a hegemony, as opposed to bandwagoning with the strong. Hence, bipolar system was, to Waltz, a more stable condition.
   • Offense-defense theory
     1. Robert Jervis, George Quester, and Stephan Van Evera: defensive capabilities prevent war
     2. Assumption:
        • offensive-defensive weapon dichotomy exist
        • Defensive capacity prevents states from invading (higher disincentive) and want to cooperate.
        • Great powers adopt defensive postures to build alliance, and security is achieved through balance-of-system.
2. Liberalism
   • Economic Dependence would create incentive to cooperate and reduce conflict and cheating, because conflicts would reduce each side’s prosperity.
   • Democratic states more peaceful than authoritarian states
   • Rise in international organisations can make states overcome their selfish interests
   • States as central players in the international affairs, despite transnational actors like MNCs.
3. Radical Approaches
   • View of Orthodox Marxist
     1. International conflicts between capitalist states are struggles for profits, and
     2. against socialist states because they were an ideological threat.
   • View of Neo-Marxism
     1. Neo-marxist “Dependency” theory: advance capitalist powers and less developed states
     2. Unholy alliance between ruling classes of the developing world, that had grown rich by exploiting the less developed states.
     3. Conflicts come from revolutionary struggles between the classes
     4. Criticisms:
        • Extensive history of economic and military cooperation among advanced industrial powers without conflicts
        • Conflicts within the communist bloc cannot be explained
        • Poorer development in the communist states.
        • Not all developing states were exploited by multinational corporations and some were able to be prosperous.
4. Domestic Politics (theories outside the 3 main school of thoughts that explain deviations and abnormality)
   • Democratic liberal theories
   • Organisation theory and bureaucratic politics (Graham Allison and John Steinbruner)
   • Social and cognitive psychology (Jervis Irving Janis)

New Wrinkles in Old Paradigms

1. Realism Redux
   • Against claims that international organisations create long term interests for cooperation and disincentive for conflict:
     1. Besides absolute gains from cooperation, distribution of gains between each party also affects the incentive for cooperation since the inequality will result in one side becoming stronger.
   • Genocide
     1. Realist view it as a struggle for power, than an ethnic driven conflict.
   • Nato expansion will jeopardise relations with Russia
   • Split between “Defensive” and “Offensive” realist
     1. Defensive realist: (Waltz, Van Evera and jack Snyder)
        • little intrinsic benefit of external conquest – cost of expansion outweighs the benefits (has its empirical critiques by Peter Liberman)
     2. Offensive realist: (Mearsheimer, and Fareed Zakaria)
        • Anarchy encourages all states to maximise strength (never enough power – try to achieve hegemony)
2. New Life for Liberalism
   • End of History and Democratic Peace Theory
   • Democratic states do not go into conflict with one another
     1. Norms of compromise
     2. Critique:
        • states undergoing a democratic transition are more prone to war, showing that exporting democracy creates conflict
        • no causation between ideology and aggression
   • Liberal Institutionalist
   • State interests dominate
   • Institutions can facilitate cooperation when it is in the state’s interest to do so
   • Economic Liberal theory
     1. Economic forces superseding traditional great power politics
3. Constructivist Theories
   • Immaterial factors
   • Interests and identities of states are highly malleable products of specific historical processes
4. Norm governed international system
5. Domestic Politics Reconsidered
   • Interest groups
   • irrationality
   • Culture realism (Chinese, and Samuel Huntington)

 

---

Bibliography:

Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge. (Spring, 1998), pp. 29-32+34-46.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1149275?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=International&searchText=relations:&searchText=one&searchText=world,&searchText=many&searchText=theories&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DInternational%2Brelations%253A%2Bone%2Bworld%252C%2Bmany%2Btheories%26amp%3Bprq%3Dsn%253A0015-7228%2BAND%2Byear%253A1998%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bso%3Drel%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bwc%3Doff%26amp%3Bhp%3D25&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents