Decoding International Relations Theory: Theories and Their Impact

"The real world begins here…. What we think about these events and possibilities [e.g., in places like Bosnia and Rwanda, world wars, and the prospects for world politics in the twenty-first century], and what we think we can do about them, depends in a fundamental sense on how we think about them. In short, our thinking about the ‘real’ world, and hence our practices, is directly related to our theories, so as people interested in and concerned about the real world, we must be interested in and concerned about theory: What are the legacies of past theories? Whose facts have been most important in shaping our ideas? Whose voices are overlooked? Can we know and how can we know it? Where is theory going? Who are we? The real world is constituted by the dominant answers to these and other theoretical questions". So writes Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski in the introduction to "International theory: positivism & beyond." This assertion intricately ties the study of international relations theory to the very fabric of our global reality. It claims that our understanding and interactions with the world are not independent of theoretical frameworks; rather, they are deeply intertwined. It is through the prism of these theories that we interpret events like the conflicts in Bosnia and Rwanda or contemplate the shape of twenty-first-century world politics.

The authors stress that our thoughts on these events and the possible actions we take are shaped by our theoretical standpoint. They argue that theory is not abstract but rather a practical tool that informs and influences our understanding and actions. They compel us to acknowledge the importance of theory in the real world and recognize that theories are not just academic constructs but are essential for shaping our perception of global events and our responses to them. The authors also challenge us to consider the historical legacy of IR theories. By examining the past, we can understand how previous ideas have influenced current international norms and policies. They urge us to take a critical look at whose facts have historically shaped dominant ideas and to question whose voices have been marginalized in this process. This call for inclusivity and critical inquiry is paramount in their argument, advocating for a more comprehensive approach that incorporates diverse voices and perspectives, especially those that have been historically overlooked.

Delving further into the nature of theory itself, Smith, Booth, and Zalewski ask us to confront the foundations of knowledge and being in international relations. They present a challenge to the standard epistemological and ontological assumptions, forcing us to grapple with questions of truth, reality, and the construction of knowledge in the field of international relations. Looking to the future, they question the direction of IR theory and reflect on the identity and purpose of those involved in the field. They encourage a forward-looking and reflective stance on the role of theorists and practitioners in shaping international discourse. Finally, they propose that the 'real world' is constituted by the answers to theoretical questions. This suggests that theory is not merely descriptive or explanatory but constitutive—it is involved in the creation of the world it describes. In this sense, theory and practice are not separate; they are interwoven, with theory actively participating in the construction of international reality.

In essence, this quotation from Smith, Booth, and Zalewski is not only a profound opening statement for a course on IR theory but also a comprehensive declaration of the imperative role that theory plays in our understanding and practice of international relations. It is an invitation to embark on a journey that explores the intricate relationship between theory and practice, and it sets the stage for an exhaustive exploration of the complex world of international politics.

What IR Theory is (not)

International Relations (upper case) and international relations (lower case)

In the context of the quote from Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski's introduction to "International theory: positivism & beyond," the differentiation between 'International Relations' with uppercase letters and 'international relations' with lowercase letters is significant. 'International Relations' (uppercase) refers to the academic discipline that studies the relationships between countries, including the roles of states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations. It is a field of study within political science or a related discipline that encompasses a variety of theoretical frameworks used to analyze and understand the behaviors and interactions on a global scale. On the other hand, 'international relations' (lowercase) refers to the actual political, economic, social, and cultural interactions that occur between sovereign states and other actors on the international stage. These are the real-world events and practices that the field of International Relations seeks to understand and explain.

The distinction is made to differentiate between the theoretical study and analysis of global interactions (International Relations) and the practical occurrences and actions that take place between actors on the world stage (international relations). This is an important separation because it allows for clarity when discussing the impact of theory on the interpretation and understanding of real-world events and vice versa. Understanding both the abstract and concrete aspects of these terms is crucial for a deep engagement with the subject matter, especially in the context of a course aimed at decoding International Relations theory and its impact.

Current affairs’ and ‘contemporary history

Understanding the nuances between 'current affairs' and 'contemporary history' is crucial for grasping the complexities of our world. Current affairs are the immediate events and issues that capture our attention on a daily basis. They are what we see on news channels, read about in newspapers, and discuss with colleagues. These are the happenings that political analysts like Fareed Zakaria comment on, providing insight into their immediate implications and potential outcomes. For instance, the ongoing discussions about climate change negotiations, the latest decisions of the United Nations Security Council, or the immediate economic impacts of a decision by OPEC are all examples of current affairs. They demand constant vigilance and adaptation as they shape the policy decisions and public opinions of the moment. In contrast, contemporary history looks at these same events with the advantage of some temporal distance. As historian Eric Hobsbawm might have articulated, it's about placing recent events within a broader narrative to understand their historical significance and long-term effects. An event such as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is a prime example. During its occurrence, it was a current affair; now, it's a subject of contemporary history, offering insights into the end of the Cold War and the reconfiguration of global politics. Contemporary history seeks to analyze and interpret the causes and effects of such events, drawing on the benefit of hindsight and a wider array of sources that become available over time. This is where academic discourse plays a vital role, as scholars like Timothy Garton Ash have provided comprehensive accounts of the era, enriching our understanding of the period's historical context.

While current affairs often rely on real-time reporting and immediate analyses, contemporary history utilizes methodologies to critically assess and contextualize recent events. For example, the ongoing analysis of the Arab Spring by academics like POMEPS director Marc Lynch has turned a series of current events into a rich field of historical inquiry, demonstrating the impact of these events on the political landscape of the Middle East. Both fields are dynamic; as time progresses, the line between them blurs. Today's current affairs become tomorrow's contemporary history. The analysis of current affairs, informed by the context provided by contemporary history, allows policymakers, scholars, and the general public to make sense of a rapidly changing world. As we witness events unfold, such as the development of the COVID-19 pandemic, we engage with them as current affairs. Yet, future historians will study these same events as part of contemporary history, examining their causes, the effectiveness of the global response, and their long-term impact on society. The interplay between current affairs and contemporary history is essential in shaping our collective understanding of where we stand in the flow of time and how we might influence the course of future events. They are two sides of the same coin, offering different lenses through which we can view and interpret the world around us.

IR as a ‘field of inquiry,’ but inquiry into what, exactly?

International Relations (IR) as a field of inquiry casts a wide and ever-expanding net over the myriad ways in which the world's political, economic, social, and cultural entities interact with one another. At its core, IR is concerned with the exercise of power, whether through the coercive might of military force, as examined by political scientists like Joseph Nye, or through the soft power of cultural influence and diplomacy. The field seeks to understand the intricacies of international law, the inner workings of diplomacy, and the role of international organizations in fostering cooperation or contention among states.

The economic dimension of IR can't be overstated. The field scrutinizes the flow of trade, the intricacies of international finance, and the globalization processes that weave economies together in complex interdependence—a concept explored by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Consider the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its successor, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as real-life canvases where the theories of economic cooperation and conflict play out. When it comes to society and culture, IR explores how ideas and values cross borders, shaping and reshaping nations. The cultural exchange that accompanies global trade, immigration, and communication technologies falls within this purview. Scholars like Alexander Wendt have argued that the very identities and interests of states are constructed through these social and cultural interactions, which in turn influence their foreign policies and international engagements.

In the realm of security, IR addresses traditional concerns of warfare and peace, yet it also ventures into new domains such as cybersecurity, reflecting on how nations can protect themselves in the digital age. The proliferation of nuclear weapons, the strategic theories addressing deterrence, and the complex politics of disarmament negotiations are subjects here, drawing insights from the likes of security expert Barry Buzan. The environment is another critical area of inquiry within IR, especially as issues like climate change and resource scarcity press upon the global consciousness. International agreements like the Paris Climate Accord represent practical attempts to translate environmental concerns into international policy, an area where scholars like Jessica Green have provided analytical insights.

Ethical considerations also feature prominently in IR. The field grapples with questions of humanitarian intervention, human rights, and global justice. The debates that raged over the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 provide a concrete example of the ethical dilemmas faced by states in the international system, dilemmas that theorists like John Vincent have sought to unpack. Finally, technology's role in reshaping international relations is an area of burgeoning interest. From the internet's influence on the Arab Spring to the use of drones in warfare, technology continuously redraws the map of international interactions and strategies.

In sum, IR is an expansive field that seeks to understand and explain the complex tapestry of global interactions. It examines historical events, current affairs, and predictive scenarios for the future, all while seeking to apply scholarly insights to real-world problems. From the halls of academia, where scholars theorize about the nature of international politics, to the corridors of power, where these theories are tested and applied, IR remains an essential area of inquiry for anyone looking to understand or influence the global order.

Why Does IR Theory exist? Why do we need IR theory?

Obama and missiles in Europe

IR theory serves as the intellectual scaffolding for understanding the complicated and interconnected world of international affairs. It exists because the realm of global interactions is vast and nuanced, and without a structured approach, the behavior of states and non-state actors can seem unpredictable and chaotic. Theories in International Relations distill these complexities into more comprehensible models and paradigms, allowing us to navigate a world filled with diverse political, economic, social, and cultural currents. The necessity of IR theory becomes evident when we consider its various applications. It equips scholars and practitioners with analytical frameworks to interpret the actions of countries and international organizations, shedding light on the underlying motives and probable outcomes of these actions. For instance, when Kenneth Waltz, a prominent figure in neorealist theory, discussed the balance of power, he provided a lens through which to view state behavior in terms of power dynamics and security concerns. Such a perspective is invaluable for policymakers who must often make decisions with significant international repercussions. Moreover, IR theory is indispensable in guiding policymaking. By predicting how states are likely to behave, theories can suggest the most effective policy responses. They can also offer insights into future trends, such as the rise of emerging powers or the impact of global economic shifts, allowing nations to prepare and adjust their strategies accordingly. The theoretical underpinnings of international relations are not just academic musings but have real-world implications, informing and sometimes cautioning against certain courses of action.

To illustrate the practical utility of IR theory, one can look at the case of missile deployment in Europe during Obama's presidency. Facing the decision of whether to continue with the planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe, the administration’s deliberations were influenced by a confluence of theoretical insights. A realist might argue for the deployment as a necessary measure for maintaining power equilibrium and deterring potential adversaries. A liberal might look at the situation differently, suggesting that strengthening international institutions and agreements could provide a more effective and less confrontational approach to security. Constructivist considerations would focus on the power of perceptions and narratives, examining how the deployment might affect the United States' identity as a global leader and its relationships with other countries, particularly Russia. Obama’s decision to revise the missile defense strategy exemplifies the influence of IR theory on real-life international policy. His administration's policy was a nuanced response that reflected an understanding of the multifaceted nature of international relations, informed by theoretical frameworks. It demonstrated a balancing act between the imperatives of national security and the desire to foster better relations with Russia and other international players.

Events in international relations often present a multitude of challenges, one of the most significant being the difficulty in discerning the true motivations and intentions behind the actions of politicians and other political actors. This challenge stems from the complex nature of political communication and the strategic interests that nations and individuals must navigate.

Political actors frequently operate within a realm where their public statements and the reasons they offer for their actions may not fully align with their actual intentions or underlying motivations. This discrepancy can be due to a variety of factors, including the need to maintain a certain public image, the desire to appeal to different domestic or international audiences, or the pursuit of strategic objectives that may not be palatable if expressed openly. For example, consider the diplomatic rhetoric that often surrounds military interventions. A state might publicly justify its actions on humanitarian grounds, citing the responsibility to protect civilians from an oppressive regime. However, deeper analysis might reveal strategic interests, such as gaining influence in a geopolitically significant region or securing access to resources. Scholars like Mearsheimer, who advocate for the realist theory of international relations, suggest that the true driving forces behind state actions are often power and security interests, even when cloaked in the language of humanitarianism or international law.

The problems with events in international relations

Another aspect contributing to the difficulty in believing politicians and understanding the 'real' reasons for social action is the practice of secrecy and confidentiality in international affairs. States often classify information about their foreign policy decisions, negotiations, and intelligence assessments, citing national security concerns. This practice can lead to a significant gap between what is known to the public and the actual factors influencing decision-making. The challenge of getting at the 'real' reasons for social action in international relations is further complicated by the multiplicity of actors and interests involved. In addition to states, there are multinational corporations, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and other non-state actors, each with their own agendas and perspectives. This creates a dense web of interactions where true motives can be obscured by layers of complexity. This complexity necessitates a critical approach to the study of international relations, where scholars and analysts strive to look beyond surface explanations. They must consider a range of potential factors, from economic interests to political ideologies, from cultural biases to historical enmities, in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of international events. The field of IR theory, therefore, not only serves to interpret and explain but also to question and scrutinize the narratives presented by political actors on the global stage.

In the realm of international relations, it’s a profound challenge to understand the motivations and reasons behind the actions of others, and this difficulty is compounded when we consider the complexity of our own motivations. When political actors make decisions or take actions on the international stage, they are often navigating a maze of competing interests, both personal and national, overt and covert. The intricate process of decision-making in international relations involves weighing various factors: national interest, political ideology, economic gains, personal beliefs, and ethical considerations. These factors can align or conflict with each other, creating a tapestry of motivations that are difficult to unravel. Furthermore, political actors must contend with public opinion, the influence of advisors and experts, the pressures of allies and adversaries, and the legacy of historical relationships.

The challenge of understanding these motivations is not exclusive to observers; even the actors themselves may struggle to articulate the full range of their reasons due to the subconscious influences or the confidential nature of certain information. Moreover, the reasons and motivations presented to the public are often simplified narratives that serve a particular political agenda or diplomatic strategy, masking the true complexity of the decision-making process. For example, a state leader might justify a military intervention on the grounds of protecting national security, but the decision could also be influenced by economic interests in the region, the leader’s personal desire to appear strong and decisive, or the strategic benefits of shifting regional power dynamics. The interplay between these factors makes it challenging to pinpoint a singular motivation.

The observation that it’s difficult to understand our own motivations, let alone those of others, is particularly pertinent in international relations. This is where IR theory becomes invaluable, offering models and frameworks to analyze actions and behaviors systematically. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and other IR theories each provide different methodologies for unpacking the intricate web of motivations that drive international politics. Understanding motivations in international relations, therefore, requires a multifaceted approach that considers the possible range of influences on political actors. It is a task that necessitates not only keen analytical skills but also an appreciation for the depth and complexity of human behavior and the opaque nature of political decision-making.

International relations encompass both a social and a material world, intertwining tangible resources and power dynamics with intangible beliefs, ideas, and social constructs. The material world of international relations is rooted in the physical reality that states and actors operate within. This includes geographic territories, natural resources, military assets, and economic systems—elements that are often central to realist and liberal theories of IR. For realists, the material world is the stage on which power is exercised and security is sought. States, in their quest for power and survival, measure their capabilities in material terms, such as economic wealth and military strength. The distribution of these material capabilities informs the balance of power, which is a central concern of international politics.

The social world of international relations, on the other hand, is composed of the ideas, identities, norms, and values that define and shape the interactions between actors. Constructivist theorists, such as Alexander Wendt, argue that the social world is every bit as real as the material one, asserting that the meanings and understandings that actors ascribe to material resources actually constitute their power and influence. For example, the value of currency, the legitimacy of political borders, and the authority of international organizations are all socially constructed and maintained through collective belief and practice. In the social world, non-material forms of power, such as culture, ideology, and legitimacy, play crucial roles. The spread of democracy, the influence of international law, and the norms of human rights are all part of the social fabric of international relations. They shape expectations, behaviors, and outcomes in the international arena. An example of the interplay between the material and social worlds can be seen in the global response to climate change.

Materially, climate change is a challenge involving physical changes to the environment, requiring tangible responses such as the reduction of emissions and the transition to renewable energy sources. Socially, however, the issue is embedded in a complex network of beliefs, interests, and norms that shape policies and negotiations, such as the Paris Climate Agreement. The success of international environmental policies hinges not just on material capabilities, but also on the social willingness of states and non-state actors to cooperate and honor commitments. International relations can thus be viewed through the lens of both the material and the social. The material aspects provide the concrete foundation upon which states and actors build their power and interact, while the social aspects provide the context, meaning, and norms that guide and give significance to those interactions. Both dimensions are integral to a comprehensive understanding of how international relations function and evolve.

The link between empirical and normative theories in the context of international relations is indeed inevitable and intrinsic. Empirical theories aim to describe, explain, and predict the world as it is, based on observable and measurable phenomena. They are concerned with facts, patterns, and causal relationships. Normative theories, on the other hand, deal with the world as it ought to be. They are focused on ethical judgments, values, and the principles that should guide behavior and policy. This link is inevitable because our understanding of the world (empirical) invariably influences and shapes our judgments about how the world should be (normative), and vice versa. Empirical theories can inform normative theories by providing a reality check on what is practically achievable, ensuring that ethical principles are grounded in the realm of the possible. Conversely, normative theories can challenge and inspire empirical research by questioning existing conditions and proposing new visions for the future that empirical research can then investigate and assess. For instance, the empirical observation of the balance of power among states can lead to a normative theory about the importance of maintaining such a balance to prevent war. Similarly, the normative principle of human rights can lead to empirical research into the conditions under which human rights are most likely to be respected or violated.

The empirical study of how international institutions work and their effects on state behavior can inform normative theories about global governance and the design of better institutions. Conversely, normative ideas about justice can inform empirical studies on the distribution of wealth and power in the international system. A concrete example of this interplay can be seen in debates over humanitarian intervention. Empirical theories might analyze past interventions to determine patterns of success and failure, which states are most likely to intervene, and under what circumstances. Normative theories would then take these findings and apply ethical reasoning to argue for or against future interventions, considering the empirical evidence of what is likely to lead to positive outcomes. Empirical research can set the parameters for normative debate by clarifying what is possible, while normative theory can broaden the scope of empirical research by questioning existing paradigms and suggesting new areas of study. The two are entwined in a continuous dialogue, each pushing the other forward. In the study and practice of international relations, recognizing and embracing the link between empirical and normative theories is essential for a holistic understanding of the field.