International Relations : Definition, Liberalism, Constructivism And Marxism

Marxism was founded on the principle of there being two sides to everything in life. From a socioeconomic standpoint, the masses were categorized into two main categories, the bourgeoisie, the wealthy business owners, and the proletariat, the poor workers. Moreover, to those whom were in positions of power, there were those to whom were weak. To truly understand this concept, one must look back to the early nineteen hundreds, the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent formation of the Soviet Union.

Post-Modernsism is a very important and essential theory that has been brought about to the study of international relations. It falls under the category of post-positivism, which is a rejection of positivism in the sense that it dismisses the notion that international relations can be observed in an objective manner. Other theories encompassed in the post-positivism umbrella include constructivism, neo-marxism, critical theory, feminism, and post-colonialism (Burchill 2013). Post-Modernism also brought about new perspectives to international relations, these include: arbitrary nature of modernity, choice posing as truth, reality as a social construction, the rejection of positivism, the crisis of modernity, loss of confidence in the authority of the grand narratives, its relation to language, and the process of identity construction. Also, notably, Post-Modernism may receive criticism from constructivism and realism, but ultimately arguments for Post-Modernism will make more logical sense within the international relations arena. Lastly, Post-Modernism is essential because of it’s unique views in ideas such as language, abstract views, etc., to better understand political activity within the international relations community.

Therefore, according to institutionalists, the core objective is to promote cooperation in anarchic and competitive international system. While realists assume that the core objective is how to survive in this system. However, institutionalists focus on the role that institutions play in international collective actions. In order to define international cooperation, institutionalists looked at the state-centric perspective, which is similar with neorealism, which regards state as rational, unitary, and utility maximizing actor to survive in global arena. Therefore, states are considered as the most relevant actors with specific goals. As pursuing specific goals, states are assumed to make decision-making based on rational strategy in order to prioritize themselves and maximizing benefits from all possible choices, reactions and

The first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Realism is the preeminent theory of International Relations, as it provides the best explanation for what is going on today

Marxism, by Karl Marx and associate Friedrich Engles, is a theory written in the second half of the 1800s. The theory highlights the capitalistic impact it has on society in whole, including how it exploits the different classes and their differing struggles. With capitalism making way into the picture of humanity, Karl Marx views the system as a step closer to a more socialistic society that will one day conquer the inequality between people. Marxism reflects the American capitalist system by highlighting the divide in experiences between the classes and how a range of hierarchies’ influence those who are categorized in these classes.

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.

Realism focuses on the balance of power and how it impacts of actions of state actors within the international political system. Morgenthau said that, “The aspirations for power on the part of several nations, each trying to either maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it” (Morgenthau 1967,131). He goes on by explain that not only is the balance of power and the policies that protect it inevitable but also that they are essential for

In “Structural Realism...” Waltz defends his theory of Structural Realism against criticism that its tenets are no longer valid in a post-Cold War world. The international system, he writes, is still anarchic, even though that system is unipolar instead of bipolar as it was during the Cold War, and that states still seek hegemony and power. A nation 's ideals and internal factors may count for something (he posits that the US intervention after the collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of such pressures),3 but they certainly shouldn 't. States should make decisions based on the idea of maintaining their own security and maintaining a balance of power in the international system.

Almost all International Relations theories seek to describe the structure of the world and politics. Be it communisms focus on classist economic relationships or realisms focus balancing power, the fact remains the same that world order remains an essential part of International Relations. Constructivism as a theory became popular towards the end of the Cold War as it provided a convincing explanation for the decline of Soviet power. Constructivism is built on the assumption that the world is socially constructive. They believe that both individual people (agents) and the world that they live in are socially constructed and influenced. This is based off the idea about shared social norms, a set of key assumptions that we make about the world. Additionally constructivism suggests that identity, image and language play a large role in the way people and states are perceived. This essay will use constructivism to suggest that the world order is socially constructed as well as the case study of the end of the Cold War.

Theory, in general has various meanings in Social Sciences, most in particular in, International Relations. That is the term “Theory” can be defined in various ways and means. Simply put, theory can be defined as a concept of explaining something. Furthermore, theory can be defined as a series of propositions about political behaviour inductively derived either from empirical studies or the comparative examination of case materials from the past (Akinboye & Ottoh, 2005). It can also be defined as a set of proposals of action for the statesman. The essence of the definition of the term “Theory” is to understand weather or not, the English School qualifies as a theory of International Relations. The origin of English School started in LSE, London School of Economics, in the department of International Relations by C.A.W Manning, Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, Alan James and John Vincent. It should be mentioned that one critique of the English School theorist is on how not so English they were, with their developer; Manning being South Africa., which is proof of the loose geographic link between the theory and its name (Wilson, 2013). In addition, the English School was designed to incorporate the two major theories that were trying to explain International Outcomes namely, Realism and Liberalism; in order to come to a better, more complete understanding of International Relations, English School theorists sought to answer an essential: How is one to incorporate the

International relations theories are the study of international relations from a ‎theoretical perspective. Such as, realism, liberalism, maximise, socialism ‎