Theories of International Relations

Main theories: Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism + Marxism, Feminism

Realism is one of the most prominent and widespread perspectives in the field of international relations, due in
part to the fact that it shares a long history with idealism, both of which have their beginnings in Greek thought
and philosophy. Realist ideas can be found in the writings of Thucydides (460411 B.C.E.) and is further
demonstrated in both the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (14691527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).
The History of Realism: Machiavellis innovative challenge to dominant moral systems of government led to
the conclusion that there are no enforceable moral systems in international relations to which states are held
accountable. Thomas Hobbes departed from Machiavelli through his emphasis on security and protecting
national interests.
Throughout history, various doctrines and viewpoints regarding international relations have spread. While
few contemporary scholars adhere strictly to one school or another, all may be identified as realist, idealist, or
other schools of thought based on certain emphasized characteristics. These qualities range from concerns
regarding the purpose of the state and the role of military power to ideological beliefs that pertain to human
nature, anarchy, the role of international law, hegemony versus balance of power, and ethics.
Generally, realists begin by assuming that human nature is egoistic and self-protective, and the state
serves to keep human proclivities [tendencies] in check, as well as to protect and safeguard national interests.
The realist world view presupposes that the world is intensely dangerous and states can only interact in terms
of power relationships, not ethical norms, in order to best protect their own interests . In the international
realm, there are no overarching [encompassing] governments, which means that nations exist in a system
characterized by anarchy. Since no government exists to enforce international law, the basic relationship
between nations is therefore one of competition, conflict, and uncertainty. Given this, the primary vehicle for
ensuring the security and longevity of each nation state is to build a strong military, as well as to foster a
vigorous economy. For many, the objectives enhance each other.
Realist Distinctions: Realists often disagree on the best tactics to ensure the longevity of the state and protect its
interests, while remaining in agreement over the premise that the relationship between nations is one defined by
power, rather than morality. Those who adhere to a hegemonic or offensive realist perspective emphasize
proactive action in building up a strong military presence that can deflate the power and influence of potential
enemies. Other realists would suggest that a defensive posture is more appropriate in which a balance of power
is distributed between states, which keeps each state separate from the others. The term polarity is used to
discuss ways in which power can be balanced between nations to minimize conflict and war, while maximizing
the security of each nations own sovereignty.
Another distinction that should be made is between classical realism and contemporary realist views, which
are also often referred to as neorealist and typically foster a more complex view of international development.
The Cold War serves as an example of the realist perspective, particularly in the balance of power contained by
the two major superpowers of the time, the Soviet Union and the United States. Many realists at the time
believed this polarity was a permanent feature of international relations. One might argue that President
Reagans pursuit of defensive technology that relied upon a strategic defense system that would prevent nuclear
missiles from entering U.S. airspace was reflective of a realist policy that was in part responsible for the end of
the Cold War. The Soviet Unions involvement in Afghanistan, which the United States encouraged through
various routes, as well as uniform opposition to communist nations in Central America and elsewhere all
contributed to breakdown of the Soviet government. Yet, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union in
the late 1980s, other agencies revealed a more complex interplay of power and international development, which
led to the prominence of neorealist doctrine. Maximizing state security and supporting national interests above
and beyond ethical considerations in international relations remain strong national tendencies worldwide, despite
the ascendancy of critical theory that seeks to deconstruct and reframe the consideration of the state and its role,
both in domestic and international relations.
For individuals interested in international relations, understanding realism, neorealism, idealism, and
liberalism are all critical in the pursuit of careers that are impacted by international relationships, including
economics, politics, law, and numerous other fields.

Liberalism is a theory focused on how countries work together more effectively through cooperation rather
than with military force. Thankfully, it is not just a hypothesis. This theory is based in scientific evidence that
brute force isnt always the most effective way to control things.
The Beginnings of International Liberalism: International Relations Liberalism began with an essay penned in
1795 and the creation of a key document studied in most international relations masters degree programs.
Perpetual Peace by Immanuel Kant covered three definitive articles or essentials to any peaceful,
collaborative world community that are reflected in liberal ideals throughout history. These elements work
toward creating an interdependent international community against which acts of war is the ultimate enemy.
These essential liberal elements include:
International institutions Liberalism recognizes that social power, economic power, and other
methods of controlling the interaction between nations is often more significant than the threat of
waging war.
Economic interdependence Allowing for free trade between nations encourages the spread of wealth
and better resources for every location in the world. In theory, healthier conditions for all create a
state of satisfaction and prevent war based on the resentments of rich versus poor.
Leaders who are accountable to their constituents Realizing that absolute power has the potential to
corrupt, countries safeguard themselves and their neighbors against atrocities by ensuring their
leaders are limited by what they can and cannot do.
Liberal International Relations: One of the most obvious developments of a liberal take on international
relations has been developing in Europe since WWII. The European Union, first dedicated to helping countries
rebuild after the Second World War tore their communities asunder, has developed into a mature and complex
institution. Some would say it regulates too much and does not have enough accountability as a unit, though its
leaders surely do.
The EU has helped increase trade, job opportunities, and quality of life for all its members. Unfortunately
for some Eastern European nations, the EU enforces strict guidelines for what is needed to take advantage of
these benefits. A sustainable economy isnt the only issue at play. Countries with largely Muslim populations
often struggle with human rights requirements in terms of sexual equality, for example.
Much of the world, as well as the United States for most of its time after WWII, had operated under a liberal
international relations agenda. We recognize that war is often more harmful than it is helpful and that humans
have the ability to rise above their obstacles and become more effective at handling their problems. That said,
cooperation is not always friendly and plenty of power plays are waged with different kinds of tools.
Constructivism is a discipline that theorizes that the politics of various countries has been formed by social
and historical events, rather than as a natural progression based on politics and the natural consequences of
human behavior. This social method of construction is vastly different than the well-known ideas of idealism
and realism.
The Basic Ideas of Constructivism: International relations constructivism can be defined simply in this way:
the status of the world and its individual nations is what we, as individuals, make them to be. While the realists
felt that relations between nations was simply what it was for no particular reason, constructivists feel the world
is of our own making. This theory recognizes that international relations is a constantly changing field. Countries
that are unhappy with their status in relation to other countries need only exact modifications within their social
behaviors to make changes in their relations with other countries. This puts control into the hands of the people
and individual governments, rather than random events or other stimuli, which are the tenets of other theories.
The History of Constructivism: International relations constructivism is a relatively new theory, developed in
the late 1980s to early 1990s. In fact, some scholars claim it isnt a theory at all, but rather an explanation of a
method by which international relations exists. After the Cold War, the theory of constructivism has grown
widely, creating opportunities to expand upon the theory and make changes to better illustrate how it works.
Most constructivists operate under the premise that relationships between countries are based upon the actions of
the people, instead of material exchanges or natural consequences, as many of the other international relations
theories state. This particular theory regarding international relations is seen as the middle of the road between
rationalist and interpretive theories.
How Is Constructivism Used: Because of the youth of constructivism theory, there are few historical examples
of how it operates. However, examples of constructivist ideas can be seen in many schools. Today, classrooms

are focusing more on student-led education, tailoring the curriculum to the needs and pace of the students within
a class, rather than creating a standard curriculum that is used for all children across an entire city, state, or even
country. This method of education has become widely popular in recent years.
International relations constructivism may still be a developing theory, but it is one that should not be
ignored. The idea that humans are in control of their own destiny, especially in terms of how countries relate and
interact with each other, encourages individual responsibility in monitoring actions. While this theory is still
challenged by other belief systems of international relations, it is one that is growing and changing the way
people look at the world today.
Marxism discusses the separation of the classes. Through this worldview, emphasis is placed on the
economics of a particular country, placing economic status over any other aspect of civilizatio n. Those who
follow the Marxist line of thinking feel that the more popular theories of realism and idealism are self-serving
theories that are used by the economic elite to justify the inequalities of the world.
The Basic Principle of Marxism: The most basic premise of international relations Marxism is the division of
the world based on economic status, rather than political motivations. Marxists theorize that it was the wealthy
capitalists who created the state system as a way to ensure their wealth would continue to grow. From this
basic premise, two separate international relations theories were established: world-systems theory and
dependency theory.
World-Systems Theory: Through the world-systems theory, the world is divided into core countries and
periphery and semi-periphery countries. The core countries are those that are responsible for higher-skill work
and production of the most capital. The periphery and semi-periphery country are the poor areas of the world,
providing manual labor, as well as raw resources, to support the wealthier core countries. The status of
individual countries is not static, though. Countries are able to change between core and periphery countries and
vice versa. Immanuel Wallerstein expanded on this theory with his world-systems analysis. His system
essentially states the world is built on a premise where surplus materials are distributed from the periphery
countries to the core countries.
Dependency Theory: The dependency theory of international relations Marxism is similar, but there are
differences as well. Like Wallersteins theory, dependency theory focuses on the redistribution of raw materials
from poor countries to the wealthier countries of the world. This creates benefits for the wealthier,
industrialized countries and takes away from the resources of the underdeveloped countries. While some
theories indicate that underdeveloped countries are simply in a position of the earlier stages of developed
countries, dependency theory believes differently. According to this theory, the poor, underdeveloped countries
simply have their own structure. These countries are dependent upon the wealthier countries for their
sustainability. The industrialized countries control this dependency with military force and economic
regulations.
Marxism in History: One of the greatest real-world examples of Marxism was the introduction of this theory in
the USSR. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin led the October Revolution in the USSR, creating a workers state with the
introduction of Marxism. He attempted to spread these ideas throughout the world, stating that Marxism could
not exist within one country alone. These attempts failed, however. Lenin died before he saw Marxist ideas take
hold, which widely took place after World War II.
With the end of the Cold War, Marxism lost much of its hold throughout the world. The ideas that were
introduced through this theory have been widely deemed obsolete, turning to other international relations
theories to establish balance in the world. Although this theory is no longer widely used, it still contributes a
great number of questions relating to international relations.
Feminism touches upon the imbalance in power and influence in international affairs. Here is a look at the
basics of feminist international relations.
The Basis of Feminism in International Relations: If you look at the political arena, you will notice that a vast
majority of politicians are male. This shapes the way politics and international relations works as many
international affairs are dealt between males.
Feminism, however, addresses international relations from a female perspective, encouraging gender equality.
In essence, feminists in the international relations field look at who is shaping politics in the world today,
whether women are involved in the decision-making process, and how females can change foreign policy and

other aspects of international relations. They critique the present social norms and question the patriarchal
hierarchy in the military and economy, among other fields.
Feminists in international relations also raise their concern that women are a disadvantaged group that
own one percent of the worlds property and resources and perform 60 percent of the [worlds] labor, as
reported by gender and international relations specialist Jacqui True.
Early signs of feminism in international relations were present in the 1960s when feminists joined together
to address conflict and peace issues using the feminist perspective. In 1975, feminists presented gender as a
factor in structural violence at the International Peace Research Association conference. Now, in international
relations, feminists, particularly standpoint feminists, consider how gender plays a role in how international
relations are structured and formed.
The Role of Gender Studies: Gender studies impacts international relations in more ways than one. For
example, Mark Tessler and Ina Warriner conducted a study of four very different Middle Eastern countries
Kuwait, Palestine, Egypt, and Israeland found that women and men often shared similar attitudes toward
conflict between nations and that a person of either gender who included womens issues among their concerns
and advocated for gender equality, was more likely to encourage diplomacy in resolving conflicts.
The theory of feminism in international relations is important to take note of in a world where gender
equality is seeing rapid growth. Bringing women to the forefront of political and international issues and
relations instead of continuing with the socially accepted norm of a male-dominated political hierarchy, can
encourage creative thinking, leading to improved solutions for future conflicts.