Editing International relations (section)

===Critical theory (post-structuralism)===
Post-structuralism theories of international relations (also called ''critical theories'' due to being inherently critical of traditional IR frameworks) developed in the 1980s from [[Postmodernism (international relations)|postmodernist studies in political science]]. Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of concepts traditionally not problematic in IR (such as "power" and "agency") and examines how the construction of these concepts shapes international relations. The examination of "narratives" plays an important part in poststructuralist analysis; for example, [[Post-structural feminism|feminist poststructuralist]] work has examined the role that "women" play in global society and how they are constructed in war as "innocent" and "civilians". Rosenberg's article "Why is there no International Historical Sociology"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rosenberg|first=Justin|date=2006|title=Why is There No International Historical Sociology?|journal=European Journal of International Relations|language=en|volume=12|issue=3|pages=307–340|doi=10.1177/1354066106067345|issn=1354-0661|s2cid=145406417}}</ref> was a key text in the evolution of this strand of international relations theory. Post-structuralism has garnered both significant praise and criticism, with its critics arguing that post-structuralist research often fails to address the real-world problems that international relations studies is supposed to contribute to solving. Constructivist theory (see above) is the most prominent strand of post-structuralism. Other prominent post-structuralist theories are Marxism, dependency theory, feminism, and the theories of the English school. See also ''[[Critical international relations theory]].''

====Marxism====
{{Main|Marxist international relations theory}}

[[Marxism|Marxist]] theories of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the economy trumps other concerns, making [[Social class|economic class]] the fundamental level of analysis. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of [[capital accumulation]]. Thus, [[colonialism]] brought in sources for raw materials and [[captive market]]s for exports, while [[decolonialization]] brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.

A prominent derivative of Marxian thought is [[critical international relations theory]] which is the application of "[[critical theory]]" to international relations. Early critical theorists were associated with the [[Frankfurt School]], which followed Marx's concern with the conditions that allow for social change and the establishment of rational institutions. Their emphasis on the "critical" component of theory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of positivism. Modern-day proponents such as [[Andrew Linklater]], [[Robert W. Cox]], and [[Ken Booth (academic)|Ken Booth]] focus on the need for human [[freedom (political)|emancipation]] from the nation-state. Hence, it is "critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend to be both positivist and state-centric.

=====Dependency theory=====
Further linked in with Marxist theories is [[dependency theory]] and the [[Core-periphery|core–periphery model]], which argue that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, appropriate developing states through international banking, security and trade agreements and unions on a formal level, and do so through the interaction of political and financial advisors, missionaries, relief aid workers, and MNCs on the informal level, in order to integrate them into the capitalist system, strategically appropriating undervalued natural resources and labor hours and fostering economic and political dependence.

====Feminism====
{{Main|Feminism in international relations}}

Feminist IR considers the ways that international politics affects and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves gendered. Feminist IR has not only concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security, but feminist IR scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global political economy. In this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists working in IR and those working in the area of International Political Economy (IPE). From its inception, feminist IR has also theorized extensively about men and, in particular, masculinities. Many IR feminists argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" Signs (1988), Carol Cohn claimed that a highly masculinized culture within the defense establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion.

Feminist IR emerged largely from the late 1980s onward. The end of the Cold War and the re-evaluation of traditional IR theory during the 1990s opened up a space for gendering International Relations. Because feminist IR is linked broadly to the critical project in IR, by and large most feminist scholarship have sought to problematize the politics of knowledge construction within the discipline—often by adopting methodologies of deconstructivism associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism. However, the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy communities (for example at the World Bank and the United Nations) is more reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women.

Prominent scholars include [[Carol Cohn]], [[Cynthia Enloe]], [[Sara Ruddick]], and [[J. Ann Tickner]].

====International society theory (the English school)====
{{Main|English school of international relations theory}}

International society theory, also called the English school, focuses on the shared norms and values of states and how they regulate international relations. Examples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and [[public international law|international law]]. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention, and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value in order and sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler is a prominent solidarist, while [[Hedley Bull]] and [[Robert H. Jackson]] are perhaps the best known pluralists. Some English school theoreticians have used historical cases in order to show the influence that normative frameworks have on the evolution of the international political order at various critical junctures.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Lewkowicz|first=Nicolas|title=The German Question and the International Order, 1943–48|publisher=Palgrave MacMillan|year=2010|isbn=978-0-230-24812-0|location=Basingstoke and New York|pages=169–170}}</ref>