THEORIES INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Frameworks to allow decision maker to deal with a problem

LIBERALISM
KANTIANS / CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
Enlightenment liberals believed that a latent cosmopolitan morality could be achieved through the
exercise of reason and through the creation of constitutional states. In addition, the unfettered
movement of people and goods could further facilitate more peaceful international relations.
Kantians is sometimes labeled a liberal-institutionalist perspective. Kant believed that natural
processes of self-interest could impel rational individuals to bring about peace. He proposed that
republican constitutions, commercial exchange and international law could provide basis for
peace. Kants vision accommodated sovereign states, argued that democratic government, economic
interdependence and international law could provide means of overcoming the security dilemma
in the international system.
Four key changes have taken place in the world. Kantian logics on democracy, economic
interdependence and international institutions are behind the reduction in conflict.
1. reduction in conflict.
2. decline in autocracies.
3. rise in economic interdependence
4. rise in membership of intergovernmental organizations.
They insist that there are further constraints (besides realist concerns such as :power ratio, allies,
size and distance) on war: notably, that democracies will refrain from using force against other
democracies; that economically important trade creates incentives for maintaining peaceful
relations; and that international organizations can constrain decisions to fight.
Democracy: 1) force of norms shared by actors; 2) democratic institutions constraining leaders.
International trade: greater mutual understanding and depend on expectation of peace with
trading partner.
International organizations: may mediate conflict, reduce uncertainty, expand members
material interests to more long-term, shape norms and generate narratives of mutual
identification.
OJO: realist constraints also play some role (especially unequal power ratio).
But are democracies more peaceful in general? Evidence shows that great powers are less
constrained by trade and IGOs. Democratic systems also vary greatly in how effectively they can
restrain their leaders. But democratic peace is only one part of Kantian perspective.
Liberalism is a theory of both government within states and good governance between states and
peoples worldwide. Liberalism seeks to project values of order, liberty, justice, and toleration into
international relations.
INTER-WAR PERIOD: LIBERAL IDEALISM
The work of idealists, who believed that warfare was an unnecessary and outmoded way of
settling disputes between states. Domestic and international institutions are required to protect and
nurture these values. Liberals disagree on fundamental issues such as the causes of war and what
kind of institutions are required to deliver liberal values in a decentralized, multicultural

international system. Liberal idealism was more programmatic than enlightment liberalism. For
them, persuasion was more important than abstract moral reasoning. Cooperation among rational
egoists was possible to achieve if properly coordinated by regimes and institutions.
An important cleavage within liberalism, is between those operating with an activist conception of
liberalism, who advocate interventionist foreign policies and stronger international institutions,
and those who incline towards a pragmatic conception, which places a priority on toleration and
non-intervention.
POST-1945 PERIOD: LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM 2.0
Liberal internationalism 2.0, is in crisis. The ability of the USA to steer world order is diminishing,
rising powers are wanting a greater share of the spoils, and new security challenges are opening
up significant divisions among the major powers .
Ikenberry: If 2.0 collapses then the world is back to the inter-war period when the LoN
could not live up to its promise (internationalism 1.0). If it is reinvigorated, then global
institutions will adapt to the challenge of new emerging powers without losing their
distinctively liberal character (internationalism 3.0).
Liberal international orders remain conveniently favourable to the most powerful states in the
system and therefore vulnerable to critic
NEOLIBERALISM
Neoliberalism accept that co-operation may be difficult to achieve (difficulties involved in
overcoming anarchic environment in international politics ) but argue that it has been
facilitated by growth of international institutions and international regimes. It adopts a statecentric perspective, which, like structural realism, considers states to be unitary, rational,
utility-maximising actors (study of rationality and utility-maximization in economics). Key
neoliberal texts challenge realist pessimism, but adopted the realists assumption of selfinterested egocentric actors.
Neo-liberal institutionalists focus on political economy,
environmental issues, and human rights issues.
Influence on neoliberalism was pluralism-literature, which argued that a variety of non-state actors
were breaking down the barriers between domestic and international affairs. Contemporary neoliberalism has been shaped by the assumptions of commercial, republican, sociological, and
institutional liberalism.
Neoliberals highlight two chracteristics of XXe that refute realism.
1) increasing interdependence between actors
2) hegemonic stability provided by the US.
They recognize that there are barriers to co-operation, such as free-riding. Neo-liberals believe
that states cooperate to achieve absolute gains, and the greatest obstacle to cooperation is
cheating or non-compliance by other states. Game theory, the game of Prisoners Dilemma for
example, are used to clarify the rational decision-making processes involved in co-operation. Neoliberal institutionalists recognize that cooperation may be harder to achieve in areas where leaders
perceive they have no mutual interests.
Free market neo-liberals believe globalization is a positive force. Eventually, all states will benefit
from the economic growth promoted by the forces of globalization. Some believe that states should
intervene to promote capitalism with a human face or a market that is more sensitive to the needs
and interests of all the people. New institutions can be created and older ones reformed to prevent
2

the uneven flow of capital, promote environmental sustainability, and protect the rights of citizens.
Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve
cooperation in the international system. Regimes and institutions help govern a competitive and
anarchic international system, and they encourage, and at times require, multilateralism and
cooperation as a means of securing national interests. Neoliberals have an interest in developing the
rational design of institutions. The major challenges to the design of institutions that neoliberals
recognize:
1) bargaining (how it is facilitated),
2) defection (how it is mitigated)
3) autonomy (do institutions have autonomy from states).
REALISM
The unifying theme around which all realist thinking converges is that states find themselves in
the shadow of anarchy such that their security cannot be taken for granted (every country is a
potential enemy to every other). Realists approach the understanding of restraints on war by focus
on four factors: power ratio (deterrence is brought about by great power differences), allies (will
not fight each other), distance (neighbors only tend to fight), size (great powers only tend to fight
distant wars).
Statism is a central assumption of realism.
o The state is the pre-eminent actor in world politics.
o State sovereignty signifies the existence of an independent political community,
one that has juridical authority over its territory.
Survival: the primary objective of all states is survival; this is the supreme national interest
to which all political leaders must adhere.
Self-help: no other state or institution can be relied on to guarantee your survival.
In international politics, the struggle for power can escalate into threat because there is no
authority capable of wielding overwhelming power. Thus security dilemma. There is only one way
of avoiding war, by pursuing a security policy based on balance of power.
CLASSICAL REALISM:
Classical realists, such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Von Clausewitz and Hans Morgenthau,
have been interested in questions of order, justice and change at domestic, regional and
international levels across 2500 years. They recognize the close relationship of the domestic and
the international. Thucydides and Hans Morgenthau, their writings have many similarities,
especially in their appreciation of the importance of community, change and the role of theory,
that arise from their shared tragic vision of world politics.
Classical realists do not make a strong distinction between the domestic world and the anarchical
realm of world politics (as Waltz, for example, does). They see all politics as an expression of the
same human drives. Domestic and international communities are characterized by similar
processes.
Thucydides sees the cohesiveness of community as central in maintenance of order and
restraint in international relations as in domestic politics. Morgenthau too recognized the
role of common standards of culture and politeness in shaping the variation of order both in
international and domestic relations.
On balance of power, Classical realists appreciate the importance of alliances but, against

neorealists, do not see them as effective deterrents of war but rather as potential provokers
conflict. Morgenthau recognized that balance of power has contradictory implications
international relations depending on the historical context. Order ultimately rests on strength
community for classical realists. They emphasize the role of justice as the foundation
community. Justice is important for two reasons:
1. It is the key to influence how others understand and respond to you
2. It provides a conceptual framework on which actors construct their interests.

of
in
of
of

Change is associated with modernization, which brings about shifts in identities and discourses,
and hence conceptions of security.
Thucydides narrated how wealth brings about increasing tendencies towards unilateral
acquisition and use of force.
In relations between states, Thucydides advocated the turn to more proportional and restrained
forms of hegemonia and defence of internal order through means such as religion.
NEOREALISM
Neo-realism does not assume that is human nature that induces stats to strive for power in
international system but the anarchical structure of the international system instead. Anarchical
structure of SI characterized by absence of overarching monopoly of force, offers no guarantee of
survival for states. Therefore, stats have to ensure their survival themselves self-help.
Contemporary realists emphasize interests not justice as the priority of state actors
Theory of hegemonic stability: since in long run willingness to shoulder costs of cooperation
weakens hegemonic states overproportionately in relation to other states, however powerful they
may be, eventually they may lose their hegemonic position. (UK XVIII and XIX, USA XX and
XXI century!)
Joseph Grieco represents a group of neo-realists, or modern realists, who are critical of neoliberal institutionalists (who claim that states are mainly interested in absolute gains). Grieco
claims that all states are interested in both absolute and relative gains. How gains are
distributed is an important issue.
o Thus there are two barriers to international cooperation:
1. fear of those who might not follow the rules,
2. the relative gains of others.
Neo-realists think that states are still the principal actors in international politics.
Globalization challenges some areas of state authority and control. Globalization provides
opportunities and resources for transnational social movements that challenge the authority of
states in various policy areas. Neo realists are not supportive of any movement that seeks to open
critical security issues to public debate.

STRUCTURAL REALISM (Branche of Neo-Realist)

Structural realists accept many of the assumptions of traditional realism. They believe that force
remains an important and effective tool of statecraft, and balance of power is still the central
mechanism for order in the system. Power is the currency of international politics. It is based on the
material capabilities that a state controls. States compete for power and do all they can to shift
the balance of power in their favour. Whereas classical realists believed conflict was hardwired
into human nature, contemporary structural realists believe it is the architecture of the
international system that forces states to pursue power politics.
4

Structural realism is based on five assumptions about the international system:

1. Great powers are the main actors and they operate in an anarchic international system. By
anarchy realists do not mean chaos but simply the absence of a centralized authority
which can command state actors to follow rules and principles.
2. All states possess offensive military capability this varies over time.
3. States can never be certain about other states intentions. A defensive military doctrine
espoused by one state can look like offensive threat to another. This zero sum predicament
is often referred to as the security dilemma.
4. The main goal of states is survival.
5. States are rational actors operating with imperfect information: they sometimes
make serious mistakes.
There is an important debate within structural realism between defensive and offensive camps.
Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more
power, with the ultimate prize being hegemony. Offensive realists emphasize the importance
of relative power. States are power maximizers.
Defensive realists argue that unrelenting expansion is imprudent conquest is often costly
and troublesome. Waltz, argue that states should seek an 'appropriate amount of power'.
States are security maximizers.
o Defensive realists are often confused with neo-liberal institutionalists. They recognize
the costs of war and assume that it usually results from irrational forces in a society.
Cooperation is possible, but it is more likely to succeed in relations with friendly
states.
Structural realists recognize that there are many possible causes of war. Of these, the question
whether a multipolar system (3 or more great powers) or a bipolar system (2 great powers) is more
stable is hotly debated. Change, for neorealists, takes place when the number of poles changes in
the international system.
Bipolarity arguments:
1. There is more opportunity for great powers to fight each other in a multipolar world
2. Equality between great powers tends to be more even, and balancing behaviour is easier
3. There is greater potential for miscalculation in multipolarity
Multipolarity arguments:
1. More great powers are better in part because deterrence is easier. In multipolarity, more
states can join together to confront an aggressive state
2. There is less hostility among the great powers as their attention is more diffused.
Unipolarity? With the end of the Cold War, many realists argue that unipolarity has arrived. Such
a world is likely to be more stable than either bipolarity or multipolarity. Logically, there can be no
war or security competition among great powers; minor powers will not cause any trouble for
fear of offending the unipolar power.
Dangers of Unipolarity:
That the absence of security competition encourages the great power to withdraw from
outer regions thus increasing the likelihood of war breaking out.
Hegemon might use its overwhelming power to engage in ideological engineering, causing
insecurity and triggering ideologically driven counter- balancing behaviour.
Other realists argue that it is not polarity that is the key variable explaining war, rather it is the
amount of power each great power controls. Does preponderance generate relative peace or does it
incentivize the preponderant power to use force to establish hegemony?

Structural realists minimize the importance of national attributes as determinants of a states

foreign policy behaviour. To these neo-realists, all states are functionally similar units,
experiencing the same constraints presented by anarchy.
NEO-NEO DEBATE
More than just theories, neo-realism and neo-liberalism represent paradigms or conceptual
frameworks that shape individuals images of the world and influence research priorities and
policy debates and choices. The debate is not between two polar opposite worldviews. They share
an epistemology, focus on similar questions, and agree on a number of assumptions about
international politics. This is an intra-paradigm debate. Neo-neo debate took place in the 1980s and
1990s. Critics of the analytical convergence of structural realism and neoliberalism.
These perspectives have been criticized on account of their state-centrism, their unitary actor
assumptions, the rational actor assumption, and their ontology and epistemology. Rationalchoice approaches and game theory have been integrated into neo-realist and neo-liberal theory to
explain policy choices and the behaviour of states in conflict and cooperative situations.
Differences between realist and neoliberal approaches:
Their understanding of the meaning of anarchy.
Neo-realists and neo-liberals study different worlds. Neo-realists study security and military
issues and are concerned with issues of power and survival (view of power and capabilities). Neoliberals study political economy and focus on cooperation and institutions.
Gains : Neo-realists explain that all states must be concerned with relative gains that
result from international agreements and cooperative efforts. Neo-liberal
institutionalists are less concerned about relative gains and consider that all will
benefit from absolute gains.
Cooperation : Neo-realists are more cautious about cooperation and remind us that the
world is still a competitive place where self-interest rules. Neo-liberal institutionalists
believe that states and other actors can be persuaded to cooperate if :
they are convinced that all states will comply with rules
that cooperation will result in absolute gains.
ENGLISH SCHOOL
The English School (ES) reaches back to the 1950s. Since the late 1990s, there has been a
resurgence of interest in the ES such that it is increasingly regarded as a distinctive position in the
field of IR. Those who identify with it today see it as occupying the middle ground alongside
constructivism. A key reason why the ES is thought to be an important voice in IR today is the
scepticism its advocates have shown towards the rigid application of scientific methods.
Their interpretive approach rested on the following key points:
The subject matter of IR ought not to be restricted to inter-state relations, but to the
global political system as a whole.
Particular emphasis needs to be placed on theory because our understanding of the
world is mediated by concepts and values.
A great deal of knowledge about IR will not be gained from framing testable hypotheses,
as positivists insist upon.
IR must be understood in historical depth. Knowing the USA has strategic superiority
over its rivals is less significant than whether it is a status quo power or a revisionist power.
6

There is no escape from values. They inform the selection of topics to be researched and
taught, and therefore they need to be upfront and subjected to critical scrutiny.
IR is a normative enterprise. Values are not simply a matter for individual researchers;
they are at the heart of the discipline. This does not mean entering a world of ideal theory
with fictional assumptions and make-believe states. What matters are the ideas that
practitioners believed in and how they sought to implement them.

The distinguishing power of the school rests on the significance it attaches to the idea that states,
through their actions, have generated a society with its own unique institutions and rules.
States inhabit an anarchical society.
International society comes into being when a group of states, conscious of certain common
interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound
by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common
institutions Unique character of the membership (primarily sovereign states), the importance of
common interests, and the fact that the identity of being a member confers upon states an
expectation that they will follow the rules and uphold the values. International society as being a
dynamic arrangement which is compatible with different ensembles of rules, values and
institutions.
At the more minimal end of the spectrum of international societies, we find an institutional
arrangement that is restricted solely to the maintenance of order.
In a pluralist international society, the institutional framework is geared towards the
liberty of states and the maintenance of order among them. The rules of the game are
complied with because, like the rules of the road, fidelity to them is relatively cost free but
the collective benefits are enormous.
At the more maximal end of the spectrum of international societies we find an institutional
arrangement that desires a form of order that is also just (and not just tolerable or efficient).
Solidarist principles in terms of the collective enforcement of the rules and the
guardianship of human rights. In a solidarist international society, individuals are entitled
to basic rights. This in turn demands that sovereignty norms are modified such that there
is a duty on the members of international society to intervene forcibly to protect those
rights.
ES theory continues to view the element of society as being in continuing tension with the elements
of the states system and with world society.
The systemic element has hitherto been the least satisfactory part of the ESs triad. It would seem
to be a propitious moment to bring back the system-society distinction if it is able to shed light on
actors who have considerable agency but are not members of the society (major firms for
example) and actors who are members but do not want to adhere to the rules (revisionist states for
example). How do such systemic agents and structures impinge upon international society?
The third element in the ES triad is world society. This concept runs in parallel to international
society albeit with one key difference it refers to the shared interests and values among all
parts of the human community. With human rights at the centre of the meaning of world
society, it is apparent that the membership is universal and the institutions are not the agents of state
authority.
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Constructivism in IR emerged from a critique of the more traditional IR theories during the Cold

War period. They shared a rejection of the static material assumptions that dominated and
instead emphasized the social dimensions of IR and the possibility for change. Various scholars
critical of neo-realism and neo-liberalism drew from critical and sociological theory to demonstrate
the effects of ideas and norms on world politics. The end of the cold war created an intellectual
space for scholars to challenge existing theories of international politics.
Constructivists are concerned with human consciousness and knowledge, treat ideas as structural
factors that influence how actors interpret the world, consider the dynamic relationship
between ideas and material forces as a consequence of how actors interpret their material
reality, and are interested in how agents produce structures and how structures produce
agents. Regulative norms shape what actors do, but only constitutive norms shape the identity
and actors of states and what counts as legitimate behaviour.
Although the meanings that actors bring to their activities are shaped by the underlying culture,
meanings are not always fixed and the fixing of meaning is a central feature of politics.
Constructivism is based on the general notion that international relations are socially
constructed. To construct something is an act which brings into being a subject or object that
otherwise would not exist. Social phenomenon (are constructed )such as states, alliances or
international institutions, are not thought to exist independent of human meaning and action.
The central themes of change, sociality, and processes of interaction point to the added value of
constructivism. State and society actors follow not only rationalist logic of expected consequences
but also logic of appropriateness. Norms and rules are part of institutional structures that
constrain action of actors; they also constitute ideational structure, which in turn constitutes
actors interests and even identities.
The term constructivism was introduced to IR by Nicholas Onuf (1989) to refer broadly to a range
of postpositivist perspectives, which shared a critique of the static assumptions of mainstream IR
theory. However, scholars have since made a distinction between conventional constructivism and
more critical variations, including poststructuralism.
Constructivism adds a social dimension that is missing from rationalist approaches. What is
rational is seen as a function of legitimacy, defined by shared values and norms within
institutions or other social structures rather than purely individual interests. Constructivists have
questioned the individualist ontology of rationalism and instead emphasize a social ontology. As
fundamentally social beings, individuals or states cannot be separated from a context of
normative meaning which shapes who they are and the possibilities available to them.
Structures not only constrain actors they also constitute identities. The individual or state can
also influence their environment as well as being influenced by it, through a process of
interaction and mutual constitution. Constructivists emphasize social cognition where
intersubjective meanings have some independent status as collective knowledge not merely the
aggregation of individual beliefs.
Conventional constructivism is said to occupy the middle ground between rationalism and
poststructuralism. By adopting a positivist epistemology, constructivists have gained considerable
legitimacy, such that their debate with rationalists has come to occupy an important place in the
discipline. There is a tension between conventional constructivism and that with its roots in the
linguistic turn, particularly regarding consistency. These inconsistencies arise from the
combination of a social ontology with an epistemology that rests on a separation between an
external world and the internal thought processes of individuals.
Consistent constructivism rests on a longer lineage, outside of IR, with a genealogy that intersects
8

with, but is distinct from, poststructuralism. Constructivism is, from this perspective, first and
foremost an epistemological position, heavily indebted to the linguistic turn.
The linguistic turn builds on the notion that we cannot get behind our language to compare it with
that which it describes. Language is bound up in the world rather than a mirror of it.
Positivist epistemology however rests on a correspondence theory of language, that is, objects are
assumed to exist independent of meaning and words act as labels for objects in this reality.
Hypothesis testing is then a method of comparing scientific statements about the world with the
world to see whether they correspond.
Consistent constructivism is based on an understanding of language and action as rule-based.
This approach to language requires that we look and see how language is put to use by social
actors as they construct their world. As such it is less concerned with the intentions of
individuals than the intention expressed in social action. The competition to identify the true
cause or intention usually devolves into a battle of interpretations. Reasons, however, can be
given in public language and make actions possible, such as the presence of WMD in Iraq,
whether they were believed or not.
Constructivism moves away from this emphasis on states or threats. It explores how identities,
actions and human suffer are constructed through a process of interaction. Constructivists
have raised a question about how some threats come to be elevated above others to become the
focus of security efforts. It is not only threats and violence that are constructed, but human
suffering or trauma as well. Reality is constituted out of meanings that the main actors have
brought to their interactions. The reality is therefore far more multidimensional and social than
posited by epistemological approaches that assume an objective reality out there. Constructivist
analysis opens a space for greater reflexivity by actors, making it possible for actors to step
back and ask questions about how their own actions may contribute to the construction of the
very problem they seek to address.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
Emphasizes that social actors do not only act rationally according to their selfish interests, as in
realism and intuitionism, but also in response to shared values and norms. OIs are creation
depends on whether there is a consensus over values and norms. Importance of cognitive
agreement (=mental process of understanding, learning, reasoning) when it comes to the
creating of OIs (cognitive condition). Creation of effective OIs is therefore only likely when the
participating societies share a basic perception of the problem. Focuses on role of social groups
(as well as individuals) that function as norm entrepreneurs seeking to persuade states to agree on
and adhere to specific norms. Epistemic communities are important in the formation of cognitive
agreement since they are composed of recognized, issue-specific transnational expert networks.
Whereas members of epistemic communities share causal beliefs, those of TANs hold common
principled beliefs.
Like normative idealism, social constructivism underlines dual role of OIs, of both reflecting
values and norms on which they are founded, while at the same time influencing values and norms
of participating societies. OIs may shape the action of states depending on configuration of their
interests, but they can also, via values and norms embedded in them, influence interest and
identities of states and thus, the structure of the SI.
How to influence values and norms of members society?
1. OIs offer organization platforms and sites for civil-society actors (NGOs) that, as
norm entrepreneurs, seek to persuade states to adhere to global norms such as human rights.


9

State is then compelled by internal forces to behave in a manner commensurate with

values and norms embedded in OI
2. OI can be seen as sites where persuasion and discourse within states negotiations may
lead to shifts in actors interests. Thus, OIs provide conditions under which, sometimes via
inclusion of NGOs, states can be convinced by power of better argument even if it is
advanced by weaker actors
3. OIs also act as teacher of norms
Social construction denaturalizes what is taken for granted, asks questions about the origins of
what is now accepted as a fact of life, and considers the alternative pathways that might have
produced, and can produce, alternative worlds.
Power is not only the ability of one actor to get another actor to do what they would not do
otherwise, but also the production of identities, interests, and meanings that limit the ability of
actors to control their fate.
The recognition that the world is socially constructed means that constructivists can investigate
global change and transformation. A key issue in any study of global change is diffusion,
captured by the concern with institutional isomorphism and the life cycle of norms. Although
diffusion sometimes occurs because of the view that the model is superior, frequently actors adopt
a model either because of external pressures or because of its symbolic legitimacy. Institutional
isomorphism and the internationalization of norms raise issues of growing homogeneity in world
politics, a deepening international community, and socialization processes.
MARXISM
Marxism rejects the liberal world view of self- interested individuals and the realist world view
of sovereign states and anarchy. It views both perspectives as limited and limiting and as
characterized by conservative politics. Marxist tradition is a varied tradition building upon the
dialectical social philosophy of Karl Marx. Marx himself provided little in terms of a theoretical
analysis of international relations. His ideas have been interpreted and appropriated in a
number of different and contradictory ways, resulting in a number of competing schools of
Marxism. Its central focus is on providing a critical interpretation of capitalism as a historically
produced form of social life to be challenged.
Marxism advocates a relational and process-oriented understanding of human life. It sees humans
as productive agents that in their interactions continuously remake their world and themselves.
Human beings are seen as the producers and the products of historical processes. According to
a dialectical perspective human agents sit within relatively enduring social structures that
define the possibility of certain types of actions, although do not determine them. The agents
through their actions reproduce or alter the social structures around them. The dialectical view
of society challenges the empiricist approaches that study laws of social life.
Marxism defines politics in a more extensive way than is usual. Politics is seen as struggle over
the shaping the kind of world we live in and the kind of people we are.
For Marx capitalism is not to be equated with markets or exchange, it is a form of social life in
which human labour itself is bought and sold on the market. It is based on historically specific
class relations between capital and wage labour. In capitalist systems workers sell their labour to
members of the capital owning class.
Marx believed that while capitalism is productive, it is also disabling, exploitative and
undemocratic.
It is disabling in distorting the possibilities for social self-determination by the exploited.
Society under capitalism takes on the appearance of objective and natural social form.
It is exploitative in that the owners of the means of production control the production
process and expropriate its product, that is, the surplus value created by labour.
10

It is undemocratic in that capitalism creates private social powers in the economic sphere,
which are off the limits of democratic political accountability.

Capitalism is not just an economic system, wider political and cultural forms of organization are
implicated in the reproduction of capitalist way of life. Marxist theorists have consistently
developed an analysis of the global aspects of international capitalisman aspect
acknowledged by Marx, but not developed in Capital
One of the important contributions of Marxism is the study of imperialism. Theorists of
imperialism argue that capitalist accumulation drove major capitalist countries into colonial
expansionism, creating the potential for inter-imperialist rivalry on a global scale. Classical
theories of imperialism were economically deterministic, that is argued that processes intrinsic to
the economy determine the shape of social and political life.
Western Marxism highlights the importance of consciousness, subjectivity, ideology and
culture. It formed as a counterpoint to Soviet Marxism, economic determinism within Marxism
and positivism as a school of thought.
Gramsci also criticized economic determinism and positivism. Furthermore, he developed theory
of hegemony. Gramsci shifted the focus of Marxist analysis more towards superstructural
phenomena. In particular, he explored the processes by which consent for a particular social and
political system was produced and reproduced through the operation of hegemony. Hegemony
allows the ideas and ideologies of the ruling stratum to become widely dispersed, and widely
accepted, throughout society. Thinkers such as Robert W. Cox have attempted to
internationalize Gramscis thought by transposing several of his key concepts, most notably
hegemony, to the global context.
World-systems theory can be seen as a direct development of Lenins work on imperialism and the
Latin American Dependency School.
New Marxism is characterized by a direct (re)appropriation of the concepts and categories
developed by Marx. Rosenberg uses Marxs ideas to criticize realist theories of international
relations, and globalization theory. He seeks to develop an alternative approach that understands
historical change in world politics as a reflection of transformations in the prevailing relations
of production.
CRITICAL THEORY
Critical theory has its roots in the work of the Frankfurt School. Frankfurt School thinking was
inspired by thought arising from Marxist and Western Marxist origins, but sought to revise
and reformulate many key understandings of these strands of thought. Key interest of Frankfurt
school through interest in formation of political consciousness. This came through in different
ways in the work of early critical theorists of the Frankfurt School.
Horkeimer was a significant figure in having first formulated a key theoretical move on the
differences between traditional and critical theory.
Adorno initiated important reflections on the role of the culture industry in construction of
consciousness in modern society.
Habermas: formulated a key theory of dialogical ethics, which has come to play a
significant role in the development of critical theory. Habermas has argued that
emancipatory potential lies in the realm of communication, and that radical democracy
is the way in which that potential can be unlocked.
Critical IR theory challenges narrowness of positivist perspectives and offers theoretical horizons
for critical theory of IR. Habermass role is crucial in motivating such research. It could be said to

11

arise in two phases.

First phase placed emphasis on critique of science and objectivity in IR theories and
critiques of state-centrism. Early theorists emphasized need for pluralism of perspectives
and postpositivism in the study of international politics
o Key thinkers in the early stages of critical thinking in IR theory included Robert
Cox, Richard Ashley, and Mark Hoffman.
Later phases in IR theory entailed focus on questions of dialogue and dialogical ethics,
questions of political community and recognition, and an interest in political economy.
o Andrew Linklaters thought on political community has been a very important later
critical theoretical intervention. Linklater has developed critical theory themes to
argue in favour of the expansion of the moral boundaries of the political
community, and has pointed to the European Union as an example of a postWestphalian institution of governance.
In moving towards development of a systematic critical theory of international relations
Habermass thought has been very important. It has provided the cornerstone for development of
theoretical interpretations of dialogue and ethics in international politics
Thomas Risses intervention on communicative action was an important catalyst in development
of Habermass ideas in IR. Many critics have challenged and nuanced how precisely to
understand communicative action and dialogue in international politics today.
Role of globalisation important as context for critical theory as it initiates questions of global civil
society and empowerment that the critical theorists in IR can delve into and explore. Critical
theorists in IR emphasize the open-ended and imaginative dimensions of emancipatory project
in world politics.
Critical Security Studies: an important school of thought raising questions, specifically on how
questions of security are constructed in international politics. Richard Wyn Jones for example
argues that traditional security studies remains an applied research tool rooted in instrumental
reason. Columba Peoples argues that missile defense reflects a long-standing effort to staticize or
naturalize the symbols, means, and representations of security.
Feminist theorists: gender must be introduced as a category of analyses into study of OIs. Feminist
writers have contributed to the analysis of international capitalism by focusing on the specific role
of women.
Green theory: Analyze role of OI in promoting global environmental justic
ANNEXES

12

Elites!use!OIs!as!vehicles!for!reproduction!and!stabilization!of!neo2liberal!world!order!!
!
Feminist'theorists:!gender!must!be!introduced!as!a!category!of!analyses!into!study!of!OIs.!
(Environment!example!)!
!
Green'theory:!Analyze!role!of!OI!in!promoting!global!environmental!justice!!
!
!
Neo2realism!
Neo2institutionalism!
Social!constructivism!
Structure!
Material:!anarchy!
Material:!anarchy!and! Immaterial:!
interdependence!
distribution!of!ideas,!
values!and!norms!
Actors!
States!
States,!IGOs!
States,!IGO,!INGOs,!
individuals!
Causes!of!OIs!
Hegemonic!condition:! Problem!condition:!
Cognitive!condition:!
hegemon!willing!and!
problematic!
cognitive!agreement,!
able!to!bear!
constellation!of!
shared!perception!of!
disproportionate!
interest,!mixed2
problems!
cooperation!costs!
motive2games!
Effects!of!OIs!
No!independent!
Facilitating!
Change!of!political!
impact!
international!
actors!identities,!
cooperation!to!reap!
interest!and!policies,!
joint!gains!
reproduction!of!
dominant!norms!and!
ideas!
Design!of!OIs!
Procedures!biased!in!
Rational!design!of!
Shaped!by!global!
favor!of!most!
OIs!depends!on!
norms!and!
powerful,!no!
cooperation!problems,! bureaucratic!cultures,!
substantial!delegation! states!delegate!
high!degree!of!
of!political!authority!
authority,!but!ultimate! independence!from!
control!over!OI!
states!and!genuinely!
remains!with!sates!
bureaucratic!authority,!
pat2dependency!

!
!

13