THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

It is a way of developing models of behavior that help to explain why actors behave the way they do overtime. The dissatisfaction with the First World War led to the emergency of the first theory of the school of international relation which dominated the disciplines early history. It is in the light of this that we now turn to discuss briefly some of the leading theories of international relation.

1. HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY

The central idea of this theory is that the stability of the international system requires a single dominant state to articulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the most important members of the system. For a state to be hegemony, it must three attributes, the capability to enforce the rules of the system, the will to do so, and a commitment to a system which is perceived as mutually beneficial to the major states. Hegemony`s capability rests upon the likes of a large, growing economy dominance in a leading technological or economic sector and political power back up by projective military power. An unstable system will result if economic; ethnological and other changes erode the international hierarchy and undermine the position of the dominant state. Pretenders to hegemonic control system are viewed as unacceptably unfair.

2. DEPENDENCY THEORY:
It asserts that so-called ``third-worlds countries were not always ``poor``, but became impoverished through colonial domination and forced incorporation into the world economy by expansionist ``first-world powers. Thus third-world` economics became geared more towards the needs of their `first-world` colonial master than the domestic needs of their own societies. Proponents of dependency theory contend that relationships of dependency have continued long after formal colonization ended. Thus, the primary obstacles to autonomous development are seen as external rather than internal and so `third-world` It is because `first-world` countries never had to contend with whonichsm or a world full of richer, more powerful competitors dependency theorists argue that it is unfair to compare contemporary third-world`s societies with those of the first-world in the early stage of development.

3. DECISION MAKING THEORY:

The theory was developed by Richard C. Snyder in 1954. The theory seeks to find out who makes political decisions; whether such decision are rational and irrational decisions or political decision making. The impact of rational and irrational decision on political decision making. The theory accepts that only a few an elite groups are involved in decision making. It assures that the decisions of this group are products of conscious efforts based or adequate 2

knowledge and guided by skill and training. It also assumes that decision makers are aware of the responsibilities which they possess, and the obligation which they have to operate in a relatively closed or controlled society. If these assumptions materialized, decisions become rational and responsible. The nature of the society influences the use of this framework. A society may be open or close. If it is open, it tolerates exchange of views, allows the free flow of information and sanctions the existence of free channels of communication. If it is closed, it is controlled; information is confined to a few, and these are restrictions on open discussion, debates, and disagreements. National decisions are more likely In open societies, provided that decisionmakers guard against irrelevances; while irrational decision characterized closed system. An open society provides for calculation to ends; for the objective evaluation of means; for the determination of options and the making of decisions after these processes. It avoids emotionalism and presents the objective as good as the yard stick of measurement. It also serves as an ideal in reminding rulers of the need to avoid illogical and emotional influences in decision making. 4. THE CENTRE-PERIPHERY THEORY: This theory divided the world into centre nations (C) and periphery nations (P). Each centre nation has a centre. Invariably there is harmony between the centre of the centre nations and centre of the periphery nations (CC and CP). There is disharmony of interest between the periphery of the centre and the periphery of periphery nations (CP and PP). There is in addition, more disharmony of interest within the periphery nations than within the centre nations. Conclusively, following this theory to international relations, their relationships of harmony and disharmony are investigated with special attention i. The native of linkage and hold which the centre of the centre nations have over the centre of the centre of the periphery nations over the time and in the faces of social change; transportation and other transformation in the environment. The nature and role of interaction among periphery nations as well as centre nations.

ii.

iii.

Multilateral interactions among the centre of centre nations, the centre of periphery nations and peripheries of both centre and periphery nations. Whatever analytical approaches a scholar emphasizes the general pattern of relationships and interaction which are to be substantively examined in all international competition and international conflict among actors.

iv.

5. SYSTEM THEORY: A system is an autonomous unit capable of adaptive behavior. It is set of complexes of elements standing in interaction. Each set of environment in interaction (system) is living and dynamic and has an environment. Its interaction among its elements, and the interactions between each of the elements or parts and the environment constitute. Its dynamic and promotes both its adaptive behavior and its goal-seeking functions. A system is therefore our organized whole in dynamic interaction. We can further illustrate the meaning of system by drawing the example of the human body. Every human being companies interrelated parts or elements is which are in dynamic relationships. These elements are the central nervous subsystem; and the blood; horometrical, digestive, respiratory, urinary and reproductive subsystems, some stimulus in the stomach, for example, register in the brain. The central nervous subsystem immediately translates this pang as hunger and causes man to look for food. As soon as man gets food and eats it, he sets the digestive subsystem pours out hormones which facilitates the breaking up of food into small nutrients that are absorbed by the blood subsystem into the body part of the wastes go out as urine; and throughout the process set in motion by the hunger sensation, this human being breathes in and out in order to keep every cell of the body alive. The healthy that results from these interrelated activities of the elements reproduces and perpetuates him. If any element of the human bodily system is upset, some regulatory mechanism operates to help restore equilibrium. The individual is kept alive and, in addition, he grows, attains effective body maintenance generates adequate energy, for its activities and eliminates wastes. He is thus able to convert input into output. 6. THE IDEALIST THEORY: The idealist argued that war was not a product of human nature, but the result of misunderstanding by politicians who have lost control of events leading up to hostilities in 1914. They argued that if secret diplomacy could 4

be replaced by collective security and autocratic rule by democracy, war would be seen as a senseless and destructive tool of international state craft. Some of the assumptions of the idealist about international relation s are: (a.) Human nature is essentially good or altruistic and people are therefore capable of mutual aid and collaboration (b.) The fundamental human concern for the welfare of others makes progress possible. (c.) Bad human behavior is the product not evil people but of evil institutions and structure arrangement that motivate people to act selfishly and to harm others including making war (d.) War is an international problem that requires collective or multi-lateral rather than national efforts to eliminate it. (e.) War is not inevitable and its frequency can be reduced by eradicating the institution arrangement that encourage it (f.) International society must recognize itself to eliminate the institutions that make war likely. 7. THE REALIST THEORY: The theory of realism is regarded as the most influential tradition in the study of international relation-especially by bourgeois scholars. This is a result of its ancient philosophical root, its powerful critique of bourgeois internationalism and its wide influence in the actual conduct of international diplomacy. The theory, above all others gave form and structure to the study of international politics, especially security studies and politics of international economic relations. The theory seek to describe and explain the world of international politics as it is , rather than how we might like it to be. The world is therefore, perceived by realists as dangerous and insecure environments: where violence is regrettable but endemic. According to the relist, the confliction nature of international politics makes it mandatory that high priority must be given to the centrality of the nation-state in all considerations. The acknowledge the nation-state the supreme political authority in the world, that what accounts for the violent behavior of nation-state can only be ascertained by focusing on role of power and the importance of the most powerful ,that is the Great P This theory has its intellectual roots in the ancient Greek historian Thucydides and Sparta (431-404 BC). The theory is also linked to the political philosophy of the sixteenth century. Italian theorist Nicole 5

Machiavelli whose theory in his book The Prince, a political calculus based on interest, prudence, and expediency above all else, notably morality. As a result, political realism is equated with real politics, as normal crusades are anathema to realists message. Be that as it may, realists are unified in their pessimism about how the international system can be made more peaceful and just based on the following assumptions: a. A reading of history teaches that people are by nature sinful and wicked. b. Of all of peoples evil ways, no sins are more prevalent, in exorable, or dangerous than thither instinctive lust for power and their desire to dominate others. c. The possibility of eradicating the instinct for power is a utopian aspiration. d. Under such conditions international politics is, as the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes put it, a struggle for power, a war of all against all. e. The primary obligation of every state in this environment the goal, to which all other national objectives should be subordinated, is to promote the national interest, defined as the acquisition of power. f. The nature of the international system necessitates the acquisition of military capabilities sufficient to deter attack by political enemies. g. Allies might increase the ability of a state to defend itself, but their loyalty and reliability should not be assumed. h. Never trust the task of self protection to international organizations to international law. i. If all states seek to maximize power, stability will result in maintaining a balance of power lubricated by fluid alliance system.

Theory Of Coalition And Alliance

The theory of coalition and alliance is a sub-theory of the realists paradigm. Coalitions are an essential instrument for exercising influence and power in international politics no less than in domestic politics. The reason for coalition in international politics is that no single person is strong enough to prevail alone in a major decision; most often each can prevail only with the help of a coalition or not prevail at all.

With coalition, a state can make its promises and threats more credible and its arsenal of possible actual rewards and penalties larger. Politics, elections, legislative voting and warfare are all decision situations which produce at least two alternatives outcome that are of different value to each participant. As should be expected all politically rational participant prefer the outcome that is the most valuable to themselves, that is they want to win, where there are winners, and there must be losers, and therefore the best approach to politics and war becomes the Zero-sum game option; since rational people will always choose the option or outcome, with the biggest pay off for themselves and who greatly want to win. Therefore, coalition will be formed whenever a political or military situation pays them more than staying in isolation will offer. Political actors therefore, will join or try to organize a coalition that promises or guarantees them the biggest pay offs; and this must be a winning coalition. The reason according to Karl W. Deutsh in his book The Analysis of International Relation (1989: 177-180), is because without victory, there are no spoils. Coalition is therefore, preferable because it will bring about the distribution of the largest amount of partners. With the advantages of coalition in mind, alliance formulates results. Alliances are therefore, formal associations of states for the use (or non-use), of military force intended for either the security or the aggrandizement of their members, against specific other states (see Synden 1991). With this kind of definitions, alliances are therefore seen as coalitions that adhere to realisms rule of state craft: to increase military capabilities. Alliances are therefore seen as being more economical since they permit the defense burden to be shared. Other definitions of alliances are: The state being allied confederated. An organization of people (or countries) involved in a pact or treaty. A formal agreement establishing an association or alliance between nations or other groups to achieve a particular aim. A treaty between nations, or between individuals for their mutual advantage. There competing theories weigh the benefits of alliances this way: i. The first maintains that alliances are basically dangerous.

ii.

The second maintains that cost of alliances usually outweigh the benefit, and that because alliances are generally disadvantageous, should eschew them except when absolutely necessary. The third theory holds alliances in contempt, by arguing that they have proved so dangerous that wise and prudent policy makers must avoid them altogether (Kegley Jnr. Et al 1993:46-9).

iii.

The postulations of above theories not withstanding allies provide a means of counter balance threats posed by potential aggressors in the seemingly anarchical international system. States when they feel they have common danger before them do ally to confront this danger security becomes therefore the primary benefits in a mutual defense alliance. Alliances do not last long as they dissolve when the common threat is eliminated. The merit associated with alliances notwithstanding, the risk inherent in alliances remains that they do bind ones state to a commitment that may later become disadvantageous. The usefulness of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance, has become a subject of intense debate in the recent time among member nations and students of strategic studies. This is because the reason for forming the alliance, to checkmate the Warsaw pact of the Eastern bloc and communist penetration of Western Europe does not exist any longer. So, why continue maintaining such expensive military alliance, that eat deep into the budget of member states which ought to have been spent in welfare and social security services. Further, states entrusting their security to the pledges of others reduces their future freedom of action; as alliances may limit states capacity to make further realignment when conditions that brought the initial alliance fizzles out; as it do happen. Owing to this state of affairs, some extreme realist counsel avoiding alliances altogether because altogether because of the following reasons: Alliances simply do not deter war; they promote it because expansionist states can act more aggressively than they otherwise would when they count on their allies assistance. This was played out boldly by Adolf Hitler, when he remarked that any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless. Alliances threaten enemies and provoke them to form counter alliances, with the result that the security of both coalitions is reduced. Alliances formation may otherwise draw neutral parties into opposed coalitions. 8

 Once states join forces, they must control the behavior of their own allies. That is because in realists parlance all states are natural enemies that are no permanent friends adversaries.

Balance Theory
Balance of power is also a sub-theory within the realists school. Balance of power commonly referred to as BOP has its purpose to help uncover periods of systematic accumulation (buying) and systematic distribution (selling). In the main Balance Of Power BOP is defined in the following ways: A state of affairs in international politics where no party holds a majority, another person, or group may have enough votes to decide the issue and thus hold the balance of power. The distribution of power in a system such that no one state may overwhelm others. Evenly matched military forces that avoid conflict for fear of losing. Equilibrium of power between nations. The theory of balance of power stems from the realists belief that in the game of international politics, the key point to remember is that each state in the system is the guardian of its own security and independence. Each regards other states as potential enemies who might threaten fundamental interest. Consequently, states feel insecure and regard one another with good deal of apprehension and distrust. The aftermath is that all in system become very concerned of their strength of power. To prevent an attack, a state feels it must be as powerful as the potential aggressor. Balance of power (BOP) or equilibrium will make victory in war impossible. The essence of equilibrium becomes to deter attack. Equilibrium is balanced power and balanced power is neutralized power. Any attempt to any nation to expand its power or attain dominance or hegemony which would allow it imposes its will upon other states, will be resisted. Assumption Of Balance Of Power Theory: Peace will result when military power is distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate the other

 Balance of power theory is also based on the assumption that weakness invites attack and that countervailing power must used to deter potential aggressors.

Scientific Theory Of International Relations Behaviourialism

The focus of the behavioral movement is on individual human being it tries to explain the external behavior of states in term of motivations or feelings and personality characteristics of individual decision makers. The behavioral scientific method of analysis insists on methodological rigor. That is that investigation of social phenomenon must be carried out systematically. Meaning that you must begin with testable evidence and to substitute data and reproducible information for appeals to the allegedly expert opinion of authorities in order to acquire knowledge and build on it cumulatively. As a result therefore, they aspired to conduct objective or value free research. As a result of the above ambition of the behavior lists the perspective insist on differentiating between independent and dependent variables, specifying the relationship between them in terms of forms of variations in precise hypothesis that can be verified empirically and application of strict criterion of proof of evidence accumulated to validate the hypothesis. The other aspect of this theory is its insistence on specific empiricism, that is, the need to study or analyze only those social phenomenon that constitute the observable behavior of men, like interviewing decision makers. This also implies the need to formulate general propositions only after repeated experiments. A further requirement of this perspective is its preference for quantification and measurement whenever, this is possible in international relations and domestic policies, this method is facilitated by the use of survey method. The behavioral method above all, emphasizes the relevance to adopt and adapt relevant insight into human behavior made by other social sciences especially by psychologists and sociologist this requirement favors the interdisphriary approach, which believes that there is no autonomy of politics in international relations. This paradigm led to the training of an entire generation of scholars with powerful new methodological tools. Be all these as they may, the conceptual theoretical contributions of behavioralism to the study of international relations notwithstanding the 10

perspective is associated with a lot of difficulties in the study of international relations as a result of the following obvious facts: i. It does not lend itself to manageable theoretical frame work. Part of the reason is because of its focus on individual characteristics as the basic unit of analysis. Devotees to this perspective become preoccupied with method to the exclusion of the real world problems, which made some of their findings historically accurate but irrelevant to the contemporary world. The other problem associated with behavioralism is that it neglected many of the ethical questions raised in world of poverty, hunger, disease, ethnic wars and genocide in preference to accumulation of data. The paradigm does not represent a significant departure from the traditional approach as it does not provide amiable alternative to the state as an actor in the international system. As a result of its insistence on quantification and measurement, the perspective tends to move the analyst away from the substance of politics to marginal or peripheral issues.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

Political Economy paradigm Marxist Theory of International Relations

The focus of political economy paradigm is in the material processes by which human beings reproduce themselves. More especially, attention is centered on the mode of production. That is the organic unity between the productive forces and the social relations of production. Emphasis is equally placed on the inherent contradictions among social classes, with an eye on how these factors of production shape the political, legal, cultural and ideological aspects of social life in the international society. For Marx himself, human history has been a laborious struggle to satisfy basic material needs, to understand and tame the natural world, to resist class domination and exploitation and to overcome fear and distrust of the human race. The main achievements of human history include the gradual conquest of hostile natural forces which were once beyond human control and understanding, the steady elimination of ignorance and superstition. Marx pointed out in one of the writings that philosophers had only interpreted the world, whereas the real point was to change it. An end to exploitation, alienation and estrangement was Marxs main political aspiration and the point of his efforts to understand the law of capitalism and the general development of human history. 11

In pursuit of this humanitarian objective, Marx and Engel wrote in the mid 1940s that capitalist globalization had seriously eroded the foundation of the international system of states. Conflict and competition between nation states had not yet come to an end in their view, but the main fault lies in future looked certain to revolve around the two principal social classes: the national bourgeoisie which controlled the various systems of government and the increasingly cosmopolitan proletariat. They contended that through revolutionary action, the international proletariat would embed the enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in an entirely new kind of world order which would free all human beings from exploitation and domination. For the details of Marxism as an approach to the study of international relations (see Scott Bur chill et, 2000: chapter 5).

Political Economys Method Of Analysis

The political economy paradigm uses the dialectical materialism method of analysis. This method encourages the analyst to make a deliberate attempt to identify the contradictory development, especially at the economic level in the international system. This insistence in considering the contradictions between different elements arises from the assumption that social reality complex, and that this complexity derives from the inter-relatedness of the different elements of the society. Dynamics: this is the paradigms preoccupation with change. The paradigm conditions the analyst to focus on the laws of nations. That is on the conditions for progressive change, because its orientation is predicated.

12