Editing International relations (section)

==Theory==
{{Main|International relations theory}}
{{See also|International legal theories}}

Within the study of international relations, there exists multiple theories seeking to explain how states and other actors operate within the international system. These can generally be divided into three main strands: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.<ref>Snyder, Jack(2004). "One World, Rival Theories", ''Foreign Policy'', 145 (November/December): p.52</ref>

===Realism===
{{Main|Realism (international relations)}}

The realist framework of international relations rests on the fundamental assumption that the international state system is an [[anarchy]], with no overarching power restricting the behaviour of sovereign states. As a consequence, states are engaged in a continuous power struggle, where they seek to augment their own military capabilities, economic power, and diplomacy relative to other states; this in order to ensure the protection of their political system, citizens, and vital interests.<ref>{{Citation|last=Korab-Karpowicz|first=W. Julian|title=Political Realism in International Relations|date= May 24, 2017 |orig-date= Jul 26, 2010 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/realism-intl-relations/|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Summer 2018|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2021-04-12}}</ref> The realist framework further assumes that states act as unitary, rational actors, where central decision makers in the state apparatus ultimately stand for most of the state's foreign policy decisions.<ref>{{cite web|last=Morganthau|first=Hans|url=https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm |title= Six principles of political realism |publisher=Mount Holyoke College |work=Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace|year=1978|location=New York|pages=4–15|access-date=2016-02-24|archive-date=2019-12-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191222202705/https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> International organizations are in consequence merely seen as tools for individual states used to further their own interests, and are thought to have little power in shaping states' foreign policies on their own.<ref name=":1" />

The realist framework is traditionally associated with the analysis of power politics, and has been used to analyze the conflicts between states in the early European state system; the causes of the [[World War I|First]] and [[World War II|Second World Wars]], as well as the behavior of the [[United States]] and the [[Soviet Union]] during the [[Cold War]]. In settings such as these, the realist framework carries great interpretative insights in explaining how the military and economic power struggles of states lead to larger armed conflicts.

====History of realism====
''[[History of the Peloponnesian War]]'', written by [[Thucydides]], is considered a foundational text of the realist school of political philosophy.<ref>{{cite book|last=Norris|first=Cochrane, Charles|title=Thucydides and the Science of History|date=1929|publisher=Oxford University Press|page=179}}</ref> There is debate over whether Thucydides himself was a realist; Richard Ned Lebow has argued that seeing Thucydides as a realist is a misinterpretation of a more complex political message within his work.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lebow|first=Richard Ned|date=2001|title=Thucydides the Constructivist|journal=The American Political Science Review|volume=95|issue=3|pages=547–560|jstor=3118232|doi=10.1017/S0003055401003112|s2cid=144587521}}</ref> Amongst others, philosophers like [[Machiavelli]], [[Hobbes]], and [[Rousseau]] are considered to have contributed to the realist philosophy.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Baylis|first1=John|title=The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations|date=2001|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0198782636|page= 149 |url=https://archive.org/details/globalizationofw0002unse/page/149|edition=2nd|last2=Smith |first2=Steve}}</ref> However, while their work may support realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves as realists in this sense. Political realism believes that politics, like society, is governed by objective laws with roots in [[human nature]]. To improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion—between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.

Major theorists include [[E. H. Carr]], [[Robert Gilpin]], [[Charles P. Kindleberger]], [[Stephen D. Krasner]], [[Hans Morgenthau]], [[Kenneth Waltz]], [[Robert Jervis]], [[Stephen Walt]], and [[John Mearsheimer]].

===Liberalism===
{{Main|Liberalism (international relations)}}
{{See also|Liberal internationalism}}

In contrast to realism, the liberal framework emphasises that states, although they are sovereign, do not exist in a purely anarchical system. Rather, liberal theory assumes that states are institutionally constrained by the power of international organisations, and mutually dependent on one another through economic and diplomatic ties. Institutions such as the [[United Nations]], the [[World Trade Organization|World Trade Organisation]] (WTO), and the [[International Court of Justice]] are taken to, over time, have developed power and influence to shape the foreign policies of individual states. Furthermore, the existence of the globalised [[world economy]] makes continuous military power struggle irrational, as states are dependent on participation in the global trade system to ensure their own survival. As such, the liberal framework stresses cooperation between states as a fundamental part of the international system. States are not seen as unitary actors, but pluralistic arenas where interest groups, non-governmental organisations, and economic actors also shape the creation of foreign policy.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Grieco|first=Joseph|title=Introduction to International Relations|publisher=Macmillan International Higher Education|year=2018|isbn=9781352004236|pages=32–57}}</ref><ref name="Mingst, Karen A. 2011">Mingst, Karen A., & Arreguín-Toft, Ivan M. (2011). Essentials of International Relations (5th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.</ref>

The liberal framework is associated with analysis of the globalised world as it emerged in the aftermath of [[World War II]]. Increased political cooperation through organisations such as the [[United Nations|UN]], as well as economic cooperation through institutions such as the WTO, the World Bank and the [[International Monetary Fund]], was thought to have made the realist analysis of power and conflict inadequate in explaining the workings of the international system.<ref>{{cite news|title=Liberalism and World Politics|work=American Political Science Review|doi=10.2307/1960861|url=http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003055400000228|date=December 1986|first=Michael W.|last=Doyle|series=04|language=en|volume=80|pages=1151–1169|jstor=1960861|issn=0003-0554|access-date=2021-03-12|archive-date=2020-07-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200711194652/http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003055400000228|url-status=dead}}</ref>

====History of liberalism====
The intellectual basis of liberal theory is often cited as [[Immanuel Kant]]'s essay [[Perpetual peace|''Perpetual Peace'']] from 1795. In it, he postulates that states, over time, through increased political and economic cooperation, will come to resemble an international federation—a [[world government]]; which will be characterised by continual peace and cooperation.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last1= Cristol |first1=Jonathan |date=November 2019 |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0060.xml|title=Liberalism|access-date=2021-03-12|language=en|encyclopedia=Oxford Bibliographies}}</ref> In modern times, [[liberal international relations theory]] arose after [[World War I]] in response to the ability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Norman Angell]], who argued that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be essentially futile.<ref>{{citation|last1=Trueman|first1=CN|title=Woodrow Wilson|work=The History Learning Site|date=22 May 2015|url=http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/woodrow_wilson.htm|access-date=5 March 2014}}</ref> Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and derisively termed idealism by [[E. H. Carr]]. A new version of "idealism" that focused on [[human rights]] as the basis of the legitimacy of [[international law]] was advanced by [[Hans Köchler]].

Major theorists include [[Montesquieu]], [[Immanuel Kant]], [[Michael W. Doyle]], [[Francis Fukuyama]], and [[Helen Milner]].<ref>Mingst, Karen A., & Snyder, Jack L. (2011). Essential Readings in World Politics (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.</ref>

====Liberal institutionalism====
{{Main|Liberal institutionalism}}
{{Further|Complex interdependence}}

[[Liberal institutionalism]] (some times referred to as neoliberalism) shows how cooperation can be achieved in international relations even if neorealist assumptions apply (states are the key actors in world politics, the international system is anarchic, and states pursue their self interest). Liberal institutionalists highlight the role of [[International organization|international institutions]] and [[Regime theory|regimes]] in facilitating cooperation between states.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Axelrod |first1=Robert |last2=Keohane |first2=Robert O. |date=1985 |title=Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/achieving-cooperation-under-anarchy-strategies-and-institutions/706B24B2FB4525D661BEB5E954D6DC49 |journal=World Politics |language=en |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=226–254 |doi=10.2307/2010357 |issn=1086-3338 |jstor=2010357|s2cid=37411035 }}</ref>

Prominent neoliberal institutionalists are [[John Ikenberry]], [[Robert Keohane]], and [[Joseph Nye]]. Robert Keohane's 1984 book ''[[After Hegemony]]'' used insights from the [[new institutional economics]] to argue that the international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon, thus rebutting hegemonic stability theory.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal |last=Keohane |first=Robert O. |date=2020 |title=Understanding Multilateral Institutions in Easy and Hard Times |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-050918-042625 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=====Regime theory=====
{{Main|Regime theory}}

[[Regime theory]] is derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behaviour of states (or other international actors). It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, indeed, regimes are by definition, instances of international cooperation.

While [[Realism (international relations)|realism]] predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they cite cooperation in trade, human rights and [[collective security]] among other issues. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition of regimes comes from [[Stephen Krasner]], who defines regimes as "principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area".<ref>Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. "Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables." In ''International Regimes'', Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 1.</ref>

Not all approaches to regime theory, however, are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like [[Joseph Grieco]] have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say cooperation ''never'' happens, just that it is not the norm; it is a difference of degree).

===Constructivism===
{{Main|Constructivism (international relations)}}

The constructivist framework rests on the fundamental assumption that the international system is built on social constructs; such as [[idea]]s, [[Social norm|norms]], and [[Identity (social science)|identities]]. Various political actors, such as [[Head of state|state leaders]], [[Policy|policy makers]], and the leaders of international organisations, are socialised into different roles and systems of norms, which define how the international system operates. The constructivist scholar [[Alexander Wendt]], in a 1992 article in ''[[International Organization]],'' noted in response to realism that "anarchy is what states make of it". By this he means that the anarchic structure that realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by states.

Constructivism is part of critical theory, and as such seeks to criticise the assumptions underlying traditional IR theory. Constructivist theory would for example claim that the state leaders of the United States and Soviet Union were socialised into different roles and norms, which can provide theoretical insights to how the conflict between the nations was conducted during the Cold War. E.g., prominent US policy makers frequently spoke of the USSR as an 'evil empire', and thus socialised the US population and state apparatus into an anti-communist sentiment, which defined the norms conducted in US foreign policy. Other constructivist analyses include the discourses on European integration; senior policy-making circles were socialised into ideas of Europe as an historical and cultural community, and therefore sought to construct institutions to integrate European nations into a single political body. Constructivism is also present in the analysis of [[international law]], where norms of conduct such as the prohibition of [[chemical weapon]]s, [[torture]], and the [[Human rights|protection of civilians in war]], are socialised into international organisations, and stipulated into rules.

Prominent constructivist IR scholars include [[Michael N. Barnett|Michael Barnett]], [[Martha Finnemore]], [[Ted Hopf]], [[Peter J. Katzenstein|Peter Katzenstein]], [[Kathryn Sikkink]], and [[Alexander Wendt]].

===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>