Introduction
The international relation theories attempt to provide a conceptual model upon which these relations can be analyzed and each theory is reductive and essentialist to different degrees relying on different sets of assumptions. These theories act as a pair of colored sunglasses which allows the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory. An adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial and important to be agreed upon by the theorist.
Description of the international relation theories
The number and the character of the assumptions made by international relation theories determine its usefulness for example; the realism theory is useful in accounting for historical actions but limited in both explaining systematic change and predicting future events. Liberalism examines a very wide number of conditions and is less useful in making predictions, but can be very insightful in analyzing past events. (Cynthia, 2004)
The traditional theories may have little to say about the behavior of the former colonies, but the post-colonial theory may have greater insight into that specific area, but fails in other situations. The international relation theories can be divided into the positivist theory which focuses on principally state-level analysis, and the post-positivist which incorporates expanded meanings of insecurity, ranging from class, gender, and post-colonial security. There are different theories which include:
The democratic peace theory argues that the democracies have never made war on one another and have few lesser conflicts between each other and this is contradicting to the realist theories and the empirical claim is now one of the great disputes in political science. Democracy conducts diplomacy very differently from nondemocracies.
Institutionalism holds that the international system is not in practice anarchic, but that it has an implicit or explicit structure that determines how states will act within the system. The institutions are rules that determine the decision-making process and in the international arena, the institution has been used interchangeably with the regime, which has been defined as a set of explicit or implicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which the actors’ expectations converge in a given issue (Cynthia, 2004).
The English school of the international relations theory maintains that there is a society of states at the international level, despite the condition of anarchy and it concerns the examination of traditions of the past international theory and it has a support on the rationalist theory. The Marxist theory has a rejection of the realist/ liberal views of state conflict or cooperation but instead focuses on the economic and material aspects. It assumes that the economic concerns transcend others allowing for the elevation of the class as the focus of study. Constructivism is concerned with the role of ideas in shaping the international system. By ideas, it refers to the goals, threats, fears, identities, and other elements of the perceived reality that influence states and the non-state actors within the international system.
The realism theory makes several assumptions that: assume that nation-states are unitary, geographically- based actors in an anarchic international system with no authority above the capable of regulating interactions between the states as no true authoritative world government exists. It also assumes that sovereign states are primary actors in international affairs and thus the state as the highest order is in competition with each other. A state acts as a rational autonomous actor in the pursuit of its self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its security and therefore its sovereignty and survival. It also holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass resources and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power and is in turn determined by the state’s military and economic capabilities. Some realists (offensive realists) believe that states are inherently aggressive and territorial expansion is constrained only by opposing powers while others (defensive realists) believe that the states are obsessed with the security and the continuation of the state’s existence. The offensive view can lead to a security dilemma where increasing one’s security can bring along greater instability as the opponents build up their arms, making security a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made (Scott, 2005).
Its main argument is the power struggle and it advocates the use of power to fulfill the interest of the nation. The national power is composed of the geography, economy and the natural resources, population, military strength and the preparedness, national character and the moral, and competency of the national government. The influence of geography can be broken into the separation of nations and the size of nations and a nation can be separated by deserts, mountains, rivers, and oceans and the size of a nation work much like natural barriers. The realism theory has got weaknesses as compared to the liberalism theory. This realism theory does not provide adequate information for modern politics because of the rise of non-state actors, the decline in the importance of the military force, and the blurred boundary between domestic and foreign politics and each weakness is argued with specific historical evidence and how they can be overcome by the strength of the complex interdependency theory. The traditional agenda of international affairs claims the balance among major powers, the security of nations no longer defines the perils or possibilities and the world has become interdependent in economics, communications, and human aspirations. Realism focusing mainly on the roles of states and the power in international politics, and provides an effective frame for understanding international politics of the post-world war era. Understanding the concepts of power, national interests, and rationality is particularly weak at accounting for the changes in international politics such as the rise of the non-state actors, the decline in the importance of the military force, and the blurred boundary between the domestic and the foreign politics and this weakness can be overcome by the interdependency theory which provides a better account for these areas in which this theory is weak (Steven, 2007).
The liberal theory focuses on ways to avoid interstate conflict by regulating state behavior and therefore it focuses on the institutions and systems. This theory is comparable to the social contract whereby the states value their freedom to act in their self-interest, but they realize that they lose some of their freedom to act in constant conflict with other states and therefore they give up some of that freedom and create institutions. These institutions create contacts for interstate co-operation and the rules to resolve their conflict.
The liberalism theory holds that states preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of the state behavior unlike realism where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions and thus the preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as the culture, economic system or the government type. It also holds that interaction between states is not limited to security, but also economic whether through commercial firms, organizations, or individuals. Therefore instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and the broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of films leading to the popularity of the county’s culture and creating a market for its exports worldwide) and the absolute gains made through co-operation and the interdependence and therefore peace is achieved.
Liberalism can be seen as an intellectual leadership whereby there exists only one class, the middle class, and no reference to a rich upper class because there is a cover behind a more politically defensible middle class; and there is equally no reference to a lower class that would change. The government intervention is aimed at addressing the social needs which are seen to be the biggest causes of inflation. But in response, the upper class would claim that the joint phenomena of corporate downsizing, restructuring, slow growth, and declining productivity has meant that as the standard of living is being increasingly threatened and that there has been a massive redistribution of income and wealth from the lower to the higher brackets. The first premise of the liberal political theory is that only individuals count and liberal individualism is the substance and the strength of the liberal tradition and as only individuals need to think only about themselves, their shares, and about whether their rights have been respected or violated, and whether they have received or failed to receive their fair share (Steven, 2007).
A good society would enable its members to develop the skills required to be agents and to have a sense of justice, they share an equal interest in having the resources necessary to pursue the projects they formulate and to try to realize the values they conceive and also ensure resources are equally distributed. The pillars of liberalism are the rights-based perfectionist and the political. Utilitarian reasoning has a legitimate role in deliberations about public affairs, but it is valid up to a certain point where it meets a right and thought of in assessing the policies, institutions, and practices which provide the means for the people to pursue their values and goals. The mental and physical powers, liberties and opportunities, and resources such as income and wealth and status and recognition are the rightful items for individual values needed for them to participate fully as equals in their lives. Society can allow a certain level of unemployment as an assurance of price stability, and stagnation and unemployment are better alternatives than inflation. People can best secure the means to be effective agents by carving out for themselves the most extensive set of their rights, and the largest bundle of the commodities, they can obtain. The humanist liberalism which is still based on the traditional emphasis on rights involves a different way of thinking about it, based on the claim that human beings have a generalized interest in having the means necessary to pursue the project formulation and ton try to realize their values ( Steven, 2007).
Liberalism has been criticized for putting too much faith in individual rights and distributive justice. Humanist liberalism is the claim that the purpose of political and social arrangements should empower individuals to be effective agents and it responds constructively to feminist, neo- Marxist, and other criticisms while remaining faithful to the core values of the liberal tradition. There is the recasting of the normative bases of criticism and address of the forms of subordination that liberal theory has tended to render invisible. The liberalism theory has much of its emphasis on the individuals’ freedom and does have a look at the conflict between the states meaning that in case of a conflict in the state then it can be addressed but not limited to security as in the case of realism theory.
Conclusion
This theory gives much of its attention to the individual part of it and conflict and cooperation on the government. The theory allows the people to exercise their freedom in everything they are to undertake unlike the realism theory that talks of the struggle for power between the states. The realism theory focuses on the power of the government thought not discussed in this liberalism theory but it has a view on the interstate conflict.
This theory has a wider coverage on how a society can keep its people and has good relations one with another using the available resources provided by the society, therefore the poor also a free part of the entire society as they can get access to these resources. This means that in a good society there is no division of classes as it applies to others where we have a lower class that is for the poor, the middle class which is for the average that is neither poor nor rich, and the upper class which is for the rich.
References
- Cynthia Weber, Taylor and Francis (2004). International relations theory, a critical introduction, 2nd edition.
- Scot Burchill and others (2005). Theories of international relations, 3rd edition.
- Steven C. Roach, Routledge, (2007). Critical theory and international relations.432p
- Vivienne Jabri, Eleanor O’Gorman, Lynne Rienner Publishers, (1999). Women, culture, and international relations (critical perspective on world politics).