The Theories Of International Relations

INTRODUCTION

The theories of international relations are the end results of good international relations and system in the world today, most of this theories are not well implemented in most countries which has resulted on conflicts among nations, political instabilities, secessions and all other political unrest.

This essay will shed more light on the phases of international relations from the individual stage to the international stage.

Firstly, this essay will explain what the theories of international relations are and then proceeds to give you the overview of what theoretical perspective provides the best account in international relations

Liberalism idealism

Liberalism is a society which is characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, people who can improve their moral and material conditions limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. It is founded on the natural goodness of humans and the independence of the individual, as Mingst said "Human nature is basically good" (2004:3).

They also believe that war, injustice and aggression are not predictable but can be moderated or even erased through the reform of the institution or collective action, but on the individual level it is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them because individuals are rational human beings . They are able to understand the laws that are universally applicable to govern both nature and the society. Understanding those laws means that they are capable to improve their condition by creating a just society (mingst, 2004:62).

This level of analysis suggests that when a society is not just then the fault rests upon the inadequate institutions (result of a corrupt environment).

The individual is the most important unit of analysis, they do agree on the primacy of the individuals in political life. They saw man as capable of satisfying his natural needs and wants in rational ways which could be achieved most powerfully by each individual's pursuing his own freedom and independence that can be best realized in a democratic state created by excessive governmental restrictions.

As Weber quoted Kegley "bad human behaviour is the product not of evil people but of evil institutions and structural arrangements that motivate people to act selfishly and to harm others-including making war" (Weber, 2001:39), in other words, human nature is good and therefore people are capable of mutual aid and collaboration and also the fundamental human concern for the welfare of others makes progress possible.

The liberals believe that interventions by governments domestically and internationally can lead to war and the nature of war tends to accept it as a normal expression of human character but a detestable one (Wight, 1996:207).

They also believe that the state is one of many actors pursuing its own course independently of the public and that undemocratic nature of international politics, especially foreign policy and the balance of power can cause war. To protect the economy, Liberal theory promotes international free trade and free markets because Liberalism as a commercial means argued that the expansion of the international economy made it more costly for states to go to war (Viotti & Kauppi, 1999:202) in other words free markets must be allowed in the economy and governments must permit the free flow of trade to create interdependencies btw states which raises the cost of war.

The failure of the balance of power system i.e. natural order had been contaminated by undemocratic state leaders and out of date policies such as the imbalance of power.

On the international system level of analysis, Liberalism trust that war has been caused from non-democratic political system. They agreed that the start of anarchy contributed to doubt and distrust among states and to create this agreement of interests among states was through democracy, human rights, interdependence etc. They concluded that democracies go to war but they rarely go to war with each other.

"Ð'...the security of one is the concern of allÐ'..." and this is where collective responsibility comes in, in which aggression by one state would be countered by collective action by the other state, embodied in a league of nations.

The League of Nations illustrated the importance the theory have placed on international institutions to deal with war and the chance for collective problem solving in a many-sided forum (Mingst,2004:63).

Where we could see the weakness of this theory was when the Liberals is seen to have failed to make the world safe for democracy' as President Woodrow Wilson, who authored the covenant of the League of Nations, claimed it could during WW1, even when its doctrine were institutionalized into international organizations like the League of Nations and later the United Nations. Mingst also added that the League of Nations proved incompetent of maintaining collective security and many questions of the basic goodness of humanity came up, leaving liberalism under intense scrutiny. These questions made liberalism as a theoretical perspective fall out of favour.

Realism

This theory believes people to be sinful and wicked by nature and man's aggressive power seeking and lustful nature has implications on the state. Individual in states are organised to act in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national interest in terms of power (Mingst, 2004:65). Mingst also wrote that the realists rely primarily on the balance of power to maintain order in the system and deterrence such as arms build up, to keep the international system intact and as non-threatening as possible.

States are unitary actors and most important actors in international relations. The state speaks and acts with one voice which means that there would be no sub national actors trying to overturn the decisions or undermine the interest of the state. They are independent political units in the anarchic international system; they are instrumentally rational and think strategically on how to survive by relying on its own resources.

Realist is to organise power and security domestically for the state because only after power has been organised, can a community or civil society begin (Baylis & Smith, 2005:172). In anarchy, realist claims that states compete with other states for security, markets, influence etc because they can never be sure of the intentions of other states.

The international system