International Relations Theory

The study of international relations

Introduction to International Relations Theory

Over time, scholars have developed a number of approaches to the study of international relations. These approaches include realism, neorealism, idealism and liberalism, neoliberalism, and Marxism.” (…)

In the 1980s and 1990s, a number of new approaches to international relations emerged. Feminist theories of international relations emphasize the importance of gender roles among the politically powerful in understanding how foreign policy is developed and why nations behave the way they do. Postmodern approaches call into question the basic categories and methods by which international relations has traditionally been studied, arguing that international relations scholarship is an arbitrary discipline invented by powerful special interests to advance their own agendas. Peace studies is an interdisciplinary approach to questions of war and peace, openly promoting peace over war. Peace studies teach that scholars can learn more about certain aspects of international relations, such as diplomacy, by becoming involved in them. ” (1)

International relations: interdisciplinary and heterogeneous area of study

“This term is used to identify all interactions between state-based actors across stateboundaries. The term can immediately be compared with, though is broader than,international politics. Indeed, the latter is subsumed as one, and certainly one of the mostimportant, sub-fields of international relations. Thus international law is part of internationalrelations but not international politics. Law is, after all, certainly in its customary form,created by interactions between state-based actors. Similarly international economic relationsare part of international relations but not international politics. This is not to say that political calculations will not intrude into these areas, but only that they can be separated for thepurposes of analysis. International relations (IR) is thus an interdisciplinary and heterogeneous area of study. It hasno unifying methodology because, taken with three examples mentioned above, internationaleconomics is an empirical science, international law is far more normative than most socialsciences international politics is eclectic, borrowing from a number of traditions and dividedin many minds into a rather unruly flock of activities.

It should also be noted that the abovelisting is illustrative rather than exhaustative, diplomatic history, which again has its ownmethodology, being an obvious omission.Despite its multidisciplinary and fragmented nature, most students of international relationsview it as a sub-discipline of political science, broadly con-ceived. Although the mainprofessional societies in the Anglo-American world have specifically and deliberately avoidedusing the term International relations in order to indicate its multidisciplinary character (The International Studies Association and the British International Studies Association) the majority of members are infact drawn from the study of politics. Indeed the domain of International relations is often still referred to as’international polities’ despite the differences noted above. This terminological imprecisioncan also be noted in related labels such as ‘world polities’, ‘foreign affairs’, ‘internationalaffairs’ and more recently ‘international studies’ and ‘global polities’. Foreign policy analysis,security studies, International Political Economy and normative theory are the most vibrantsub-fields and these also are dominated by political scientists.

History and approaches

As a separate field of academic inquiry distinct from International Law, Political Theory andDiplomatic History. IR effectively began with the establishment of its first chair at theUniversity of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1919. The first general theoretical perspective waspopularly labelled idealism and was characterized by a belief in progress; that theinternational system could be transformed into a fundamentally more peaceful and just worldorder.From the start therefore International relations was policy-orientated. Thereafter the subject underwent asuccession of waves of theoretical activity which inspired a number of ‘great debates’ withinthe discipline. In rough chronological order (mindful that these ‘schools’ are not exclusive anddo overlap) these are: realism, behaviouralism, neorealism, neoliberalism, world systemstheory, critical theory and postmodernism. These perspective shifts often involved bitterdisputes about methodology, epistemology and ontology.” (2)

International Relations and International Law

Sellers M.N.S. (2006; International Relations and International Law. In: Republican Principles in International Law. Palgrave Macmillan, London) wrote:

“The most obvious difference between students of international relations and students of international law arises from the subjects of their inquiry. International relations scholars consider the relations between states. International law considers the norms that govern these relationships (and many other important transactions). Some have characterized this distinction as the difference between “realism” and “idealism,” the difference between what actually is done and what ought to be done by states. (…) Few states always respect their treaties. Nor should they, under international law. Just as written contracts bind individuals in some situations, but not others, so states have obligations that may override treaties. The Statute of the International Court of Justice mentions “international custom,” “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,” “judicial decisions,” and “the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations,” as the basis for judicial decisions in accordance with international law, in addition to “international conventions” and “rules expressly recognized the contesting states.” Treaties are evidence of the law of nations, inasmuch as they reflect a consensus about international norms, but they are not the sole source of law, which rests instead upon fundamental truths about basic questions of right and wrong.”

Interdisciplinarity in international relations

Puchala, D. J., in “Visions of international relations: Assessing an academic field” (pp. xvi–xvii) wrote:

“While there seems to be little problem in designating international relations as a “field,” the symposium left unclear whether this field is most properly a subfield of political science, a subfield of several disciplines, an amalgam of the subfields of multiple disciplines or an academic discipline in its own right.”

Resources

Notes and References

1. Information about International Relations Theory in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia
2. Penguin Dictionary of International Relations

Further Reading

• Robert Keohane, “International Relations and International Law: Two Optics,” 3 International Legal Theory 38 (1997).
• N.J. Smelser and P.B. Battes (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. Amsterdam, 2001.
• Puchala, D. J. (2002). Visions of international relations: Assessing an academic field. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.