Editing International relations theory (section)

===Complex interdependence===
[[Robert Keohane|Robert O. Keohane]] and [[Joseph Nye|Joseph S. Nye]], in response to neorealism, developed an opposing theory they dubbed "[[complex interdependence]]." They explain that "... complex interdependence sometimes comes closer to reality than does realism."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Keohane|first1=Robert O.|last2=Nye|first2=Joseph S.|editor-last1=Crane|editor-first1=George T.|editor-last2=Amawi|editor-first2=Abla|title=The Theoretical Evolution of International Political Economy: A Reader|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RkVTy-YL1ZcC&pg=PA133|year=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-509443-5|page=133|chapter=Realism and Complex Interdependence}}</ref> In explaining this, they cover the three baseline assumptions in realist thought: first, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international relations; second, force is a usable and effective instrument of policy; and third, there is a hierarchy in international politics.

The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is that, in international politics, there are, in fact, multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional [[Westphalian system]] of states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. Here they define their terminology: interstate relations are those channels assumed by realists; transgovernmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist assumption that states act coherently as units; transnational applies when one removes the assumption that states are the only units. It is through these channels that political exchange occurs, not through the limited interstate channels that are the focus of realist theory.

Moreover, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a hierarchy among issues, meaning that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a state's agenda, but that there are a multitude of different agendas that come to the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations.

Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails. In other words, for countries among which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact important with respect to an "alliance's political and military relations with a rival bloc."{{sfn|Keohane|Nye|1997|p=134}}