This is an excerpt from McGlinchey, Stephen. 2022. Foundations of International Relations (London: Bloomsbury).

International Relations theory allows us to ask questions of our history, our present, and even gain insights into our future. It gives us a toolkit that forms an essential part of International Relations as an academic discipline. This extract from Foundations of International Relations (McGlinchey 2022) is designed with three objectives. First, to show when and why each successive theory emerged. Second, to outline the central features of each theory so that you can understand the basics of how they work and get an appreciation of the insights they offer. Finally, to unpack certain elements of the theories to reveal some of their complexity. Due to its complexity and diversity, newcomers often have difficulty in grasping International Relations theory. So, in order to consider the field as a whole for beginners it is necessary to simplify International Relations theory. Here, we do so by splitting theory into three categories – ‘traditional’, ‘middle ground’ and ‘critical’. In order to simplify further, the various named theories will be presented as theory families. Much like real families, theory families have members who disagree on many things – but they still share core commonalities.

Theories allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world around us through different perspectives – each of which are ways to simplify a complicated world. Theories are like maps. Each map is made for a certain purpose and what is included in the map is based on what is necessary to direct the map’s user in a clear, and useful, manner. Embarking on the study of International Relations without an understanding of theory is like setting off on a journey without a map. You might arrive at your destination, or somewhere else very interesting, but you will have no idea where you are or how you got there. And you will have no response to someone who insists that their route would have been better or more direct. Each different theory puts different things on its map, based on what its theorists believe to be important. Variables to plot on an International Relations map would be such things as states, organisations, individuals, economics, history, class, power, gender and so on. Theorists then use their chosen variables, and omit the others, to construct a simplified view of the world that can be used to analyse events – and in some cases to have a degree of predictive ability.

The ‘traditional’ theories: liberalism and realism

As International Relations itself was born out of the need to address the causes of war in the early twentieth century, the two traditional theories of the discipline – liberalism and realism – offered their own unique contrasting responses. Both theory families have been robustly challenged in the modern era, essentially because of their focus on issues at the system and state levels – like war and peace, for example – at the expense of other issues at the group and individual levels. Yet, despite these challenges, both liberalism and realism remain central to the discipline because of the distinctive insights that they offer.

Liberalism grew out of a set of principles based in idealism, which asserted that a better world was possible. Liberals view human beings as innately good and believe peace and harmony between nations is not only achievable, but desirable. Immanuel Kant developed the idea in the late eighteenth century that states that shared liberal values should have no reason for going to war against one another. In Kant’s eyes, the more liberal states there were, the more peaceful the world would become, since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and citizens are rarely disposed to desire war. This is in contrast to the rule of kings and other non-elected rulers (who today we may call dictators or autocrats), who frequently have selfish desires out of step with citizens and are typically quicker of mind to make decisions that would send ordinary people into danger. Kant’s ideas have resonated and continue to be developed by liberals, most notably in the democratic peace theory which posits that democracies do not go to war with each other – for the very reasons Kant outlined. To take this idea further, the theory argues that the more democracies there are, the more peace there will be in the international system. A common misunderstanding is often found here: democratic peace theory does not mean that war will end, but that its occurrences will shrink in number over time as more liberal democracies emerge. It also does not exclude the fact that liberal democracies will sometimes go to war with illiberal/non-democratic states for perceived security reasons – an example of which can be seen in the two US-led invasions of Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

Liberals do not just base their arguments on the spread of democracy. They also focus on two key elements of interaction between nation-states: trade and international organisations. For liberals trade is how states, and their peoples, interact during times of peace. They do this by exchanging products and services back and forth, often things that other states do not possess. This is a positive-sum interaction for both parties and inevitably also leads to the sharing of culture, ideas and the movement of people due to the literal and figurative pathways that are opened between nations. Positive-sum interactions are also important to liberals in a general sense as they prove that interactions between peoples and states can benefit both sides, rather than just one. As long as each party benefits to some degree (in the case of trade those states participating) then the result is a net positive for all. Everyone gains something. This may be that one side benefits financially from selling tea, and the other side benefits in a non-financial way by adding tea to their culture as tea leaves do not grow well in their climate or geography. In this sense, trade enriches all that come into contact with it, either directly, or indirectly. This positive-sum interaction does not have to be equal for both sides so long as something is gained by each party. For liberals, trade, being positive-sum, opens up communication links and shows the benefits of peaceful interactions across cultures that offer yet one more way to avoid war, as should a war occur then trade ceases between the warring parties and the benefits are lost.

The second element of interaction between states, international organisations, is a much newer phenomenon. Different cultures have been shown to have been trading since historical records began thousands of years ago. Yet we have only witnessed international organisations becoming a permanent structural component of the global system in the twentieth century, principally with the establishment of the United Nations in October 1945, although there were notable, and largely unsuccessful, earlier attempts at using organisations to establish order on a more limited scale. For liberals, international organisations provide a second element that underlines their theory. Simply by having a permanent ‘big table’ around which to interact and conduct diplomacy – and in the modern era there are many tables of this kind at regional and global levels – states can find ways to solve disputes. This lessens the need for war and provides a forum for diplomacy which, although rooted in compromise, can offer solutions that are acceptable to those who are in arbitration. International organisations are, therefore, central to the modern liberal account of International Relations.

It is no surprise that the liberal account is one that points towards a world of peace and harmony, and this has always been the case for liberals, who see that as their desired end goal for the global system. Yet, for liberals this is not philosophical idealism, but a conclusion that comes by virtue of manifestly real phenomena such as trade, international organisations and the spread of democracy. Each of these provides proof for their central idea that alternatives to war exist. Of course, having read the prior chapters of this book, you will know that our world has seen a lot of war and that warfare has become more deadly. So it is clear that despite the evidence for their claims, liberals have opposition. To help explain this, we can track back to US President Woodrow Wilson who addressed his famous ‘Fourteen Points’ to the US Congress in January 1918 during the final year of the First World War. As he presented his ideas for a rebuilt world beyond the war, the last of his points was to create a general association of nations, which became the League of Nations – essentially a prototype for today’s United Nations. Dating back to 1920, the League of Nations was created largely for the purpose of overseeing affairs between states and implementing, as well as maintaining, international peace. However, when the League was unable to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, its failure became difficult for liberals to comprehend, as events seemed to contradict their theories. Indeed it was analysing this timeline that the phrase ‘idealist’ came to be used widely as a pejorative to mock liberals for their apparently misplaced optimism, most notably by Carr (1939).

Despite the efforts of prominent liberal scholars and politicians, liberalism failed to retain a strong hold and another theory emerged to explain the continuing presence of war. That theory became known as realism. Realism gained momentum during the Second World War when it appeared to offer a convincing account for how and why the worst conflict in known history commenced after a period of supposed peace and optimism between 1918 and 1938. Although it originated in named form in the twentieth century, many realists have traced its origins to earlier writings. Indeed, realists have looked as far back as to the ancient world to the writings of the Greek historian Thucydides (460–400 BCE) where they detected similar patterns of human behaviour as those evident in our modern world.

As its name suggests, advocates of realism purport it reflects the ‘reality’ of the world and more effectively accounts for change in international politics. Thomas Hobbes is another historical figure often mentioned in discussions of realism due to his description of the brutality of life during the English Civil War of 1642–51. Hobbes described human beings as living in an orderless ‘state of nature’ that he perceived as a war of all against all. To remedy this, he proposed that a ‘social contract’ was required between a ruler and the people of a state to maintain relative order. Today, we take such ideas for granted as it is usually clear who rules our states. Each leader, or ‘sovereign’ (a monarch or a parliament, for example) sets the rules and establishes a system of punishments for those who break them. We accept this in our respective states so that our lives can function with a sense of security and order. It may not be ideal, but it is better than a state of nature where chaos and anarchy (the lack of a higher authority) prevail. As no such contract exists internationally and there is no sovereign in charge of the world, disorder and fear rules international relations. That is why war seems more common than peace to realists, indeed they see war as inevitable. When they examine history they see a world that may change in shape, but is always characterised by a system of what they call ‘international anarchy’ as the global system lacks the kind of hierarchical order that we experience within our domestic societies.

The best way to understand realism and how it views the global system is to break it into elements, as we have already done with liberalism. Dunne and Schmidt (2020) have helpfully described these as the three Ss of realism: statism, survival and self-help. Statism helps us understand what realists mean by ‘international anarchy’ as it focuses us on the idea that the central actors in the global system are nation-states who compete on a technically level playing field. There is no higher power beyond a nation-state, and for any group of people to become a ‘player’ in international relations they need to secure their sovereignty and form their own state. Once statehood is achieved, the next order of business is survival. As there is no higher power regulating the global system, states will frequently clash and seek to dominate each other. For this reason, for realists, whatever needs to be done to ensure the security of the state against the threats (actual or potential) is warranted. Finally, realists argue that as a state pursues its survival over time, it can only ensure the best chances of surviving by understanding the necessity of self-help. Trusting in an international organisation like the United Nations, or relying on the promises of another state, is potentially perilous because it puts your fate in the hands of an external actor, which is unwise. So, each state must take the required steps to help itself. This may be in the form of growing its military, forming fair-weather (temporary) alliances, or by developing other attributes that may deter an attack by another state.

The best way to understand realism and how it views the global system is to break it into elements, as we have already done with liberalism. Dunne and Schmidt (2020) have helpfully described these as the three Ss of realism: statism, survival and self-help, as outlined in Box 6.3. These core elements are at odds with liberalism, as when a realist looks at the world, they see a world of danger. To go back to the liberal idea of positive-sum outcomes, realists invert this concept and see most interactions through zero-sum logic, where they are more concerned with the idea of relative gains. For example, a liberal would see trade as an interaction where all parties gain something, and in that sense a scenario of absolute gains when measured for its overall effect. Trade, then, gives all parties mutual........

© E-International