Comparison of International Relations Theory

Though I cannot predict the course this project might take in graduate school, I expect that it will address the following themes and issues. First is the overarching issue of distinguishing the phenomena I observe from the IR theories and neo-liberal approaches to sustain with the blood of others and to defuse them for making future strategic

Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state’s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

“ realism is an approaches to international relations that has emerged gradually through the work of a series of analysts who have situated themselves within, and thus delimited, a distinctive but still diverse style or tradition of analysis”. (Donnelly, 2000 : 6)

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Specifically aiming to predict and prescribe foreign policies, each theory offers useful elements to creating a multifaceted, effective foreign policy. In “One World, Rival Theories”, we see that the argument that “Policymakers and public commentators invoke elements of all the theories when articulating solutions to global security dilemmas” (Snyder 54). For Snyder, each decision does not often fit into a single theory, but rather draws upon the most useful pieces of a theory to use in combination with the other theories. Looking firstly to realism, we see the theory that arguably offers the most obvious example of power as an end goal of foreign policy. Realism centrally finds that international affairs involve self-interested states attempting to gain power, advocating for what many term “ruthless pragmatism” in hopes of creating a more peaceful global community (Snyder 55). Realism, by its dependence on strength through military power, proves itself most useful in its aid to the shortcomings of international organizations and laws to keeping peace. However, as Snyder argues, its own tendencies to depend on an unstable and unpredictable balance of military and political power that simply does not consistently exist greatly limit the theories application for real

Realists and Liberals have their differences. One can already foresee that Realism has much more a conservative and pessimistic vision of the world. This comes from the realist’s skepticism about the capacity of human reason and the delivery of moral progress, all due to self-interest. As growth is not possible for Realism, survival of the state is the solitary thing that matters, which therefore reflects on its conservatism. From a realist perspective, the most important objective is relative power, whether a state is more or less powerful than one’s traditional rival. This concept influences how states act. States that have relatively more power; have very few constraints to states that have less power. Overall, this influences the stability

The pioneering seminars for this course identified and introduced the groupings of the multiplicity of theories, which exist in the world of International Relations today. The study of International Relations like any other academic field of study makes use of theories and frameworks through which the field is conceptualized; therefore, one must be careful when grouping these theories even further, by paying attention to the individual similarities and differences which are found within these theories and how they complement or contrast each other. According to International Relations by Joshua Goldstein, Jon Pevehouse and Sandra Whitworth (hereof known as Goldstein et al.), “one way to look at the variety of theories is to distinguish

International relation theories can be used to explain the meanings of the songs and articles. Through music, the international relation theories can relate to the hidden messages about the song through the language. The two theories that best explain the songs, Imagine by John Lennon and Only Prettier by Miranda Lambert are neoliberalism and constructivism.

International Security Studies developed from debates after World War II about how to protect states from external and international threats (Buzan & Hansen, 2009, p. 8). It looked to focus on the rivalry between states, analysing strategic strategies, rely of science and rationality, and maintaining the status quo - four approaches of security studies in support of political realism (Booth, 1991, p. 318; Williams, 2013, p. 3). Security studies is structured on four questions: who should security protect, should security include internal and external threats, does security expand beyond the use of military or force and is the only form of security tied to threats, danger and urgency (Buzan & Hansen, 2009, p. 10-12). International Security Studies view security as for the state, focusing on the immediate threats from

A broad historical perspective to look at the world comparatively should be a key component in the study of international relations. Something taken for granted

The international relations theory that best explains Operation Provide Comfort would be the constructivist theory. However, Turkey’s involvement in the operation may also be explained through subaltern realism. The fact that the nations that comprised the coalition, save for Turkey, conducting Operation Provide Comfort went through the official channel of the UN shows that the intention was to act within the norms of the international community for conducting humanitarian interventions. Had the US decided to act unilaterally, without permission from the other states involved or the UN, it strongly indicate that the US self-interests superseded those of the global community. Furthermore, the coalition of western powers respected Turkey’s sovereignty by keeping the refugees at the border and providing aid in refugee camps there. Respecting a nations sovereignty, or giving reasonable cause for violating it, is an essential portion of constructivism as it indicates that states respect the artificially implemented restraints on themselves that they have set up.

In international relations. Realist can be defined as states that will only work on to increase their own power and security. To gain such power is through military, a strong military to outdo other weaker competitors. In realist theory, the international system itself drives states to use military force and to war. We have seen this type of ways before. In WWII when Adolf Hitler rose to power he dramatically increased the Germans military. In no time he has invaded other weaker competitors in his surrounding borders. Other nations in Europe, of course responded back and then we have a major war between big Nations. In liberalist view, peace is what we should be achieving. One way is through international trades. When two or more states are working together then the states would no longer rely on simple political power to decide

International relations theory is a set of ideas that explains how the international system works. Unlike an ideology, a theory of international relations is backed up with concrete evidence. Some of the characters in Dr. Strangelove represents two of major theories of international relations: realism and liberalism,. Realism is defined as states struggle for power and to maximize their national interest. Realism also stresses seeing the world as it really is rather than how they would like it to be. According to realism, states work only to increase their own power in relations to that of other states. Realism characteristic includes and are not limited to:

International politics is simply defined as the academic principle which deals with the practical realities of a state’s interaction with another state or several other states. This essay will outline how the classic text of Power and interdependence has shaped and continues to shape how we think about international politics.  Power and interdependence, published and authored by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in 1977, was widely regarded as an influential book within the study of international politics. The authors wanted to challenge the fundamental assumptions of traditional and structural realism which at the time, focused on military and economic capabilities to identify state behaviour.