International politics is closely related to international relations, which is defined as the political relationship between foreign countries,study of the roles of sovereign states, inter-governmental organizations (IGO), international non-governmental organizations (INGO), non-governmental organizations (NGO), and multinational corporations (MNCs). IR explores how global, regional, and domestic factors influence relations between actors on the world stage.The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches.Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernible, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize — eg. military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs.
International Relations - Theories :
Realism
Realism is an international relations theory which states that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest.It emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns.States are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival . Cooperation between states is a way to maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons). Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory.
Realism is a tradition of international theory centered upon four propositions:
1.The international system is anarchic.
- There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
- The international system exists in a state of constant antagonism .
2.States are the most important actors.
3.All states within the system are unitary, rational actors.
- States tend to pursue self-interest.
- Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible .
4.The primary concern of all states is survival.
- States build up military to survive, which may lead to a security dilemma.
In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. Most scholars and politicians during the Cold War viewed international relations through a realist lens. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union trusted the other, and each sought allies to protect itself and increase its political and military influence abroad.
Realpolitik
Realpolitik is related to the philosophy of political realism, and both suggest working from the hypothesis that it is chiefly based on the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is a prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making (like foreign policy), while realism is a descriptive paradigm, a wider theoretical and methodological framework, aimed at describing, explaining and, eventually, predicting events in the international relations domain.
Realpolitik -- "realistic", "practical", or "actual" politics -- is politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. It is a system of politics based on a country's situation and its needs rather than on ideas about what is morally right and wrong.
In international politics it strives to be non-ideological, as in doing what is best for the national interest without getting hung up on unjustified diplomatic habits or popular sentiment.An example of Realpolitik would be the United States reaching out to China in the 1970s, despite protest that America should not associate with communists.
To its detractors, Realpolitik is sometimes seen as Machiavellian, based on "the ends justify the means," coercive, and amoral. To its proponents, Realpolitik is simply acknowledging reality and doing the best one can in international politics in light of obvious realities.
To its detractors, Realpolitik is sometimes seen as Machiavellian, based on "the ends justify the means," coercive, and amoral. To its proponents, Realpolitik is simply acknowledging reality and doing the best one can in international politics in light of obvious realities.
Liberalism
Liberalism is the theoretical perspective based on the assumption of the innate goodness of the individual and the value of political institutions in promoting social progress.According to liberalism individuals are basically good and capable of meaningful cooperation to promote positive change. Liberalism views states, nongovernmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations as key actors in the international system. States have many interests and are not necessarily unitary and autonomous, although they remain sovereign.
Liberalism claims the following:
- The world is a harsh and dangerous place, but the consequences of using military power often outweigh the benefits. International cooperation is therefore in the interest of every state.
- Military power is not the only form of power. Economic and social power matter a great deal too.
- Exercising economic power has proven more effective than exercising military power.
- Different states often have different primary interests.
- International rules and organizations can help foster cooperation, trust, and prosperity.
Example: Relations among the major Western powers fit a model of complex interdependence very well. The United States has significant disagreements with its European and Asian allies over trade and policy, but it is hard to imagine a circumstance in which the United States would use military power against any of these allies. Instead, the United States relies on economic pressure and incentives to achieve its policy aims.
More Info...
Liberalism resembles a family portrait of principles and institutions, recognizable by certain characteristics~such as individual freedom, political participation, private property, and equality of opportunity-that all liberal democratic societies,by definition, share to some degree. Political theorists identify liberalism with an essential principle: the importance of the freedom of the individual.Above all, this is a belief in the importance of moral freedom, of the right to be treated and a duty to treat others as ethical subjects and not as objects or means only.
The ideal version of liberalism is marked by a shared commitment to four essential institutions.First, citizens possess juridical equality and other fundamental civic rights such as freedom of religion and the press. Second, the effective sovereigns of the state are representative legislatures deriving their authority from the consent of the electorate and exercising their representative authority free from all restraint apart from the requirement that basic civic rights be preserved. Most pertinent, for the impact of liberalism on foreign affairs, the state is subject to neither the external authority of other states nor the internal authority of special prerogatives held, for example, by monarchs or military bureaucracies over foreign policy.Third, the economy rests on a recognition of the rights of private property, including the ownership of means of production. Property is justified by individual acquisition (e.g., by labor) or by social agreement or social utility. This excludes state socialism or state capitalism, but it need not exclude market socialism or various forms of the mixed economy.Fourth, economic decisions are predominantly shaped by the forces of supply and demand,domestically and internationally, and are free from strict control by bureaucracies.
Liberal internationalism consists, at its most fundamental level, in the attempt to promote the aforementioned principles and institutions across national borders and apply variations thereof to international relations.
Contemporary scholarship on liberalism and international relations looks back at three distinct traditions of liberalism, attributable to three groups of theorists: John Locke-the great founder of modern liberal individualism, who claimed that states have themselves rights derived from individual rights to life and liberty (political independence) and property (territorial integrity), thereby providing the liberal foundations of international law; Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, and Joseph Schum peter-brilliant explicators of commercial liberalism and what they saw as its natural result, liberal pacifism; and finally, Immanuel Kant and Giuseppe Mazzini-liberal republicans who theorized an internationalism that institutes peace among fellow liberal republics.
The ideal version of liberalism is marked by a shared commitment to four essential institutions.First, citizens possess juridical equality and other fundamental civic rights such as freedom of religion and the press. Second, the effective sovereigns of the state are representative legislatures deriving their authority from the consent of the electorate and exercising their representative authority free from all restraint apart from the requirement that basic civic rights be preserved. Most pertinent, for the impact of liberalism on foreign affairs, the state is subject to neither the external authority of other states nor the internal authority of special prerogatives held, for example, by monarchs or military bureaucracies over foreign policy.Third, the economy rests on a recognition of the rights of private property, including the ownership of means of production. Property is justified by individual acquisition (e.g., by labor) or by social agreement or social utility. This excludes state socialism or state capitalism, but it need not exclude market socialism or various forms of the mixed economy.Fourth, economic decisions are predominantly shaped by the forces of supply and demand,domestically and internationally, and are free from strict control by bureaucracies.
Liberal internationalism consists, at its most fundamental level, in the attempt to promote the aforementioned principles and institutions across national borders and apply variations thereof to international relations.
Contemporary scholarship on liberalism and international relations looks back at three distinct traditions of liberalism, attributable to three groups of theorists: John Locke-the great founder of modern liberal individualism, who claimed that states have themselves rights derived from individual rights to life and liberty (political independence) and property (territorial integrity), thereby providing the liberal foundations of international law; Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, and Joseph Schum peter-brilliant explicators of commercial liberalism and what they saw as its natural result, liberal pacifism; and finally, Immanuel Kant and Giuseppe Mazzini-liberal republicans who theorized an internationalism that institutes peace among fellow liberal republics.
Idealism
Idealism is a specific school of liberalism that stresses the need for states to pursue moral goals and to act ethically in the international arena. Idealists believe that behavior considered immoral on an interpersonal level is also immoral in foreign policy. Therefore, idealists argue that dishonesty, trickery, and violence should be shunned.
Idealism is a specific school of liberalism that stresses the need for states to pursue moral goals and to act ethically in the international arena. Idealists believe that behavior considered immoral on an interpersonal level is also immoral in foreign policy. Therefore, idealists argue that dishonesty, trickery, and violence should be shunned.
Neoliberal institutionalism (also called “neoliberalism” or “institutional liberalism”) emphasizes the importance of international institutions (Kant’s “federation of free states”) in maintaining peace.
