INTERNATIONAL RELATION (IR) THEORIES

INTERNATIONAL RELATION (IR) THEORIES By Mischal Ranchod 1. Liberalism: ............................................................2 2. Realism: ................................................................3 3. Institutionalism: ....................................................4 4. Constructivism: .....................................................7 5. Marxism:...............................................................8 6. Feminism: .............................................................9 MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY 1. Liberalism: The Liberalist perspective is recognized as a diverse body of thoughts. It overlooks the anarchic realist state in support for a decentralized-state system by shifting focus from ‘high politics’ to ‘low politics’. In other words, this is where the procurement of international state security and power in the former progressively shifts to the domestic framework of freedom, socio-economic and welfare components in the latter. The liberalist perspective incorporates states with non-state entities of institutions, organizations, representatives and individuals as the prime actors over a nation. This incorporation is crucial, as it allows states to diversify and achieve similar interests in respect to their domestic and international systems. Liberals trust that non-state entities have the natural ability to avoid conflicting interests through co-operation and interdependence. This is supplemented with the use of democratic rights to pursue free, rational decisions that maximize socio-economic and political interests with the absence of state restraints. ‘Interdependency theory’, ‘democratic peace theory’ and ‘liberal institutionalism’ are the three core thoughts in International Relations that immerse with liberalism. In the interdependency theory, states (including non-state actors) perceive liberalism as an ‘neo’ economic-centric thought that focuses on a ‘positive-sum game’ (PSG) trade policy at the global level. This allows all entities of the state to co-operate internationally and trade freely at the expense of no other. The PSG policy is facilitated by the ‘Comparative advantage’ model. It allows states to specialize in the production of goods to attain an absolute advantage over another. In turn, these other states may also wield a comparative advantage, but in different lines of production. This creates a spectrum not only for entities to trade specialized goods under fair policies and competition, but also to enable the state as a guiding and preserving component of peace over these policies. The combination of democracy and liberalism gave rise to the second thought, democratic peace theory. With democratic states being partially controlled by non-state entities, they are reluctant to wage war against other democratic states. This is due to the vulnerabilities related to war which could cause unfavourable conditions for entities of a nation, fragmenting the concept of democratic peace throughout. Democratic states are thus determined to avoid war MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY for the welfare of its non-state entities, and maximization of diplomatic interdependence and economic structure at all levels of analysis. The third thought, liberal institutionalism, emphasizes that the domestic sources of cooperation and conflict should be best balanced given the introduction of external, regulating intergovernmental organizations (WTO, UN). These organizations support liberalized states by: enhancing economic (trade) activities; reduce fear of states amongst each other; provide free flow of information and opportunity to smoothen negotiation procedures; and to enhance the ability of non-state entities to monitor compliance and implementation of states’ commitments to a non-discriminatory liberalized perspective. 2. Realism: Realism is a body of thoughts that reveal the world of politics as a “struggle for power”. ‘Classical Realists’ explain power as an egotistic nature of human or state behaviour in an aggressive tone; ‘Neo-realists’ understand realism as a structure embedded in anarchic state systems; and ‘Neoclassical Realists’ illustrates realism as a combination of the former-two, provided with variables to accommodate rationalized state interests. These thoughts, for the Realist, are main categories for states to centralize around the “management, possession, and application of power”. States that adopt principles of realism have a natural distrust in behaviours and intentions of other states. This is given that each state found in the global arena pursue egotistic agendas and policies in respect to their own advantage, with disadvantages rebounding to other states. The thought thus clinches to a win-lose scheme between contacting global states. States that experience difficulties (socio-economic or political) imposed by other states will react. This creates conflictual situations (war) between states searching for maximum power as a mean to outwit other competing states, subsequently before they are outwitted themselves. With this conflict, realists claim an anarchic international system to be ideal. The system assumes that states, as independent “rational-making” entities, hold power as primary actors over its nation’s international systems, resisting dependency of other states or international institutions thereof. Realism thus requires strong nationalized states that are autonomous and have a strong presence of tangible and intangible resources in economic (GDP), diplomatic (negotiations) and security (military) capacities to control, protect and preserve its international systems. This control is necessary for states, as it provides a framework to MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY “determine their relative levels of power” for prospects of national reign or survival in the arena. Some realists, the ‘Offensive’ and ‘Defensive’ perspectives, contribute as embodied variables to realism. The former encourage states to structure its power as an international hegemon and not anarchic systems because it inclines to state insecurity. By the later system, states will secure itself with the necessary offensive intention and hegemonic influence to intimidate other states. However, the Defensive perspective speaks in contrary. It argues that conflict can be avoided if a “balance of power” scheme is realized amongst states. This may be engaged bipolarity (bilateral), multi-polarity (multilateral) or regional arrangements in order to ease the process of distributing and regulating power among member states. It assumes states to be volatile in the latter two schemes, where asymmetrical benefits exist (as conflict stimulants) given the scale of states involved. States are less susceptible to fight when involved in bipolarity arrangements provided its balancing effect of power becomes more specific, effective and predictable between two states. 3. Institutionalism: MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY 4. Constructivism: Constructivism- not as a theoretical perspective but as an ontological study aims to understand the ‘structures’ of International Relations (IR) through the sociological constructions (history, beliefs, culture, perspectives and norms) made by ‘agents’. The ontology opens for an interactive gap, where the constructs of society were unaccounted for by the Realist and Liberal-institutionalist perspectives. Similar to the realists and liberal-institutionalists, constructivists claim that the international system is controlled by the cooperation of anarchic states. However, constructivism departs from these perspectives in vein that actors have the capacity to determine the structure of states according to their agent’s constructions. In other words, constructivists view anarchism not from the ‘given material’ structures of states as “deadly competitive games” for conflict or peace (outside-in approach), but rather from the sociological natures of agents: actors and societies that determine the structures of states (inside-out approach). Constructivists thus argue that interaction cannot be explained through the realists given “rational actions within material (military) constraints”, and liberal-institutionalists within the framework of “institutional material (resource) constraints”. The ontology claims that these ‘given materials’ are in fact ‘not given’, and are instead created by social practices of people in societies and actors in states- which may be “reconstructed and deconstructed” vis-à-vis national interests. For instance: if only matters of attaining power relations are introduced, then the national interests of states will comprise only of considerations that aim to maximize power relations. Although some constructivists perceive states to be self-driven by its national interests, they are also viewed in terms of social “identities and beliefs” which instead follows the ‘rule of norms’ (“the collectively shared ideals of appropriate behaviour”) to create changes within the structure of states, and thus its behaviour. “The perceptions of friends and enemies, in-groups and out-groups, fairness and justice” are therefore considered as core determinants for the behaviour of states through sociological change. This is where concepts of morality or ‘humanitarianism’ used by actors and societies began expanding the constructivists view. This particularly concerns the relationship between societal practice and the changes of states behaviour through the settings of ‘good or bad’, and ‘actions of consequence’ or ‘actions of appropriateness’. Further on humanitarianism, constructivists understand that state behaviours in the field of IR is influenced not only by sociological structures and agents, but also the ‘mediating’ MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY influence of non-state entities like: institutional IGOs and NGOs. The norms and ideals of non-state entities aim to spread influence throughout the international structures of states, implying increasing pressures on states to shift away from the natural tendencies of selfinterests to commonly shared norms as the principle agents of IR and constructivism. Whether the constructivists view in IR is understood through anarchism, societal norms or external entities, a function of convergence or divergence exists in influencing states identities and behaviours. 5. Marxism: The theory propounds on Marxism and Economic Structuralism. They contest the ideologies and reactions of the realists and liberalists perspectives within capitalist systems. Both theories are assumed critical given their nature to investigate the systemic constructs of beliefs, assumptions and tendencies of the world found today. Marxism views the economic society to be divided into two respective classes. It does this by utilizing a “surplus-value extraction” tactic. The ‘rich’ (aristocrats) become richer by exploiting resources from the ‘poor’ through modes of production for maximized capital gains (Ravenhill, 2017). In order to achieve maximizations, aristocrats concentrate on the accumulation of productive labour forces at lowered wages. This raises socio-ethical concerns toward the benefits and treatment of labourers, particularly given the ‘input-towage’ (capital) imbalances. In detail, the imbalance assumes aristocrats the advantages of high-profit margin gains provided the low-costs of production. By this, aristocrats exploit labourers by means of economic constructs, which in turn determine the social welfare conditions of these labourers- often being disoriented by aristocrat capitalist interests. Marxism therefore sees the capitalist system and aristocrat’s dependent on the labour force to obtain their lucrative interests and growth. Economic Structuralism links the global organisation of states to Marxism. States are seen unevenly dependent upon each other and are thus divided by class, or as socio-economic hierarchies. This dissection, as conceptualized by the Structural-Marxists, emerges between the ‘centre’ rich-states and the ‘periphery’ poor-states. With a model of such applied to trade, Structural-Marxists argue the latter to be highly susceptible to the confinements imposed by the capital-based constructs of the former. In other words, the ‘periphery’ will trade a variety of commodities for low capital, in which, the ‘centre’ will purchase for the manufacturing of goods using technological innovations and lesser labour forces for advanced global trading. MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY Manufactured goods are traded for a higher capital than what the commodities were bought for, solely enriching ‘centre’ states, just like the aristocrats. RSA as a trade ‘centre’ have agreements with neighbouring ‘peripherals’ countries (Southern African Customs Union , 2017). These agreements serve assistance to ‘peripherals’ with open access into RSA markets for integration. Similarly, RSA also gains, but more. It has access to diverse commodities that ‘peripherals’ offer at duty free, cost-effective prices. RSA purchase these commodities to produce high-quality manufactured products, which in turn, is sold back to peripherals, or to more profitable and commercialized ‘centre’ states like the US or EU. 6. Feminism: As a perspective of Marxism, Feminism focuses on the societal formed constructs of human nature. In other words, society themselves have constructed and divided people into two gender classes under several labels- ‘male’ and ‘female’; ‘masculine and feminine; and ‘man’ and ‘woman’. The dissection draws a firm line between the two. The former (male) is assumed to be an asymmetrically dominant construct within society as opposed to the latter (female), outlining a ‘struggle for gender power’ framework. In other words, Feminists challenge male dominance in a manner that counteracts the impediments imposed on their democratic rights and provisions for equal and fair socio-economic treatment. This counteraction often leads to conflictual environments and fragmented societies, where women receive the ‘bitter-end’, which are in turn retaliated through socio-political movements in support for justice. Further, Feminism, as an intellectual political movement, understands society to be more complex than just constructs of gender roles. The movement emphasizes an embedded dual construct in society, where social constructs of gender class are intertwined with the economic constructs of labour class. In detail, Feminist movements focus on deconstructing the notion of divided experiences exposed to men and women labourers in the capitalist ‘work-place’ system. Although being a strenuous task, Feminism advanced these thoughts through the enactment of an ‘elite-women’ class, which challenged the world of women to abolish socio-economic constructions and factors of class differentiation that impedes them. The ‘elite-women’ draws on society as being bound by common sets of women interests synonymous to the societal dominance of men. This enables the Feminist, in their MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY movements, to normalize cooperation amongst themselves as a source of gender power, one that is equivalent to the masculine. An example may refer back to 2010 in the UK, where the government introduced an austerity programme to counteract its economic decline. The programme salvaged the economy by cutting into governmental expenditure of society. The working women were amongst first to be exploited, having experienced encroachment in wages, service benefits and employment availability. Currently, UK feminist are in pole position in the struggle, aiming to abolish the demoralizing constructs through equality and therefore deconstruct traditional perceptions of women in the modern world. MISCHAL RANCHOD 3372952 PROF. BHEKI MNGOMEZULU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY