International Relations Theory
REALISM
The Basics of Realism
• Core Assumptions of Realism
o The nation-state is the primary actor in international relations.
o Other entities (individuals, organizations) have limited power.
o The state acts as a unitary actor, especially in times of war.
o Decision-makers are rational and prioritize national interest.
o States exist in anarchy—there is no overarching authority in international politics.
o In crises, states cannot rely on external intervention and must act independently.
• Human Nature and Realism
o Realists believe human beings are selfish, power-hungry, and distrustful.
o These traits lead to repetitive patterns of conflict and war in history.
o Since individuals form states, human nature influences state behavior.
• Machiavelli’s Contribution
o Leaders must prioritize national security above all.
o Effective rulers must be both a Lion (power) and a Fox (deception).
o Leaders follow the "ethics of responsibility" rather than traditional morality.
o They should be good when possible but use violence when necessary for the
state's survival.
• Hans Morgenthau and Classical Realism
o Politics is governed by laws rooted in human nature.
o Emphasized power over morality in international politics.
o Every political action aims at keeping, increasing, or demonstrating power.
o Morality in policymaking is a weakness that could lead to a state's downfall.
o Pursuing the national interest is "amoral", meaning it is independent of moral
considerations.
• Kenneth Waltz and Neorealism (Structural Realism)
o Shifted focus from human nature to international structure.
o States act based on anarchic international systems rather than inherent human traits.
o Decision-making is determined by a state's relative power compared to others.
o Introduced social scientific methods to study international relations empirically.
• Realism in Policymaking & Criticism
o Realism reflects the practical mindset of world leaders.
o Critics argue it perpetuates conflict by assuming states must act with suspicion
and force.
o Some see it as too pessimistic, portraying global politics as inherently confrontational.
o Realists counter that power politics is an unavoidable reality, and idealism is naive.
o Change in international politics is limited, and relying on peace is unwise.
• Limitations of Realism
o Failed to predict or explain the end of the Cold War (1991).
o Overlooks internal forces (e.g., citizen uprisings) and non-state actors (e.g.,
international organizations).
o Sees states as solid units ("pool balls"), ignoring internal dynamics.
o Critics argue realism is too state-centric and dismisses non-traditional threats.
• The Balance of Power
o States constantly seek to increase their power while limiting that of rivals.
, o Prevents any single state from dominating the world.
o Can trigger war when one state grows too strong, leading others to form
alliances to counterbalance it.
o Example: WWII (US and USSR allied against Nazi Germany) → Cold War
(former allies became rivals).
o Critics argue it legitimizes war and aggression rather than preventing conflict.
• Realism’s Continued Relevance
o Despite criticisms, realism remains a foundational IR theory.
o Many IR theories are shaped in response to realism.
o Still widely used in policymaking due to its practical insights into statecraft and
power politics.
Realism and the Islamic State Group (IS)
• IS as a Threat to State Sovereignty
o Declared itself a state (caliphate) in 2014 under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
o Conducted terrorist attacks worldwide to deter foreign intervention.
o Not officially recognized as a state, classified as a terrorist organization by
most countries and international bodies.
• Realist Response to IS
o States rely on self-help for security, following realist principles.
o Balance of power: Formed flexible alliances (e.g., US, Russia, France with
regional powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran).
o Deterrence: Used overwhelming military force (airstrikes, local allies) to counter IS.
o Avoided relying on international organizations (e.g., UN) due to political disagreements.
• Realist Assumptions in the IS Conflict
o States view military force as the most effective solution.
o The rational actor model assumes IS would weigh risks vs. benefits.
o However, terrorist groups may not follow conventional rationality, challenging
realist assumptions.
• IS as a Rational Actor in a Realist Lens
o Terrorism as a strategic tool: IS uses terror to counterbalance Western
influence in Iraq and Syria.
o Collateral damage fuels its goals:
▪ Increases anti-Western sentiment, making foreign intervention unpopular.
▪ Encourages recruitment by portraying attacks as injustices.
• Realist Caution on Military Action
o Realism does not blindly endorse war; it advocates strategic pragmatism.
o War is a necessary tool of statecraft, but must serve the national interest.
o Leaders must carefully assess risks and consequences before using force.
• Case Study: US Invasion of Iraq (2003)
o Opposed by realists who predicted it would destabilize the region and cause blowback.
o The rise of IS after the invasion validated realist concerns about the misuse of power.
o Highlights realism’s strength as a predictive tool in international relations.
Conclusion
• Realism as a Dominant IR Theory
o Claims to explain the reality of international politics.
o Highlights constraints from human nature and lack of global authority.
o State survival is the highest priority, guiding actions based on responsibility over morality.
, • Criticism and Relevance
o Realism faces strong criticism, but remains influential.
o Despite its flaws, it offers valuable insights into global politics.
o Continues to be a key analytical tool for studying International Relations.
LIBERALISM
The Basics of Liberalism
• Core Principles of Liberalism
o Emphasizes individual rights: life, liberty, and property are the highest goals of government.
o Focus on the wellbeing of the individual as the foundation of a just political system.
• Concerns About Political Power
o Unchecked power (e.g., monarchy, dictatorship) cannot protect citizens’ rights.
o Liberalism seeks to construct institutions that protect individual freedoms by
limiting political power.
• Influence of Foreign Policy on Domestic Liberty
o Militaristic foreign policies are troubling, as military power can oppress citizens at home.
o Expansionist wars (imperialism) are especially concerning for liberals, leading
to increased state power and potential oppression.
• Checks on Political Power
o Free and fair elections allow citizens to remove rulers, serving as a primary
check on government behavior.
o Separation of powers: Dividing political power among branches and levels of
government ensures checks and balances.
• Democratic Peace Theory
o Suggests that democratic states are unlikely to go to war with one another.
o Two main reasons:
1. Internal restraints (beperkingen) on power within democracies.
2. Democracies perceive each other as legitimate and non-threatening,
facilitating cooperation.
o Critiques of Democratic Peace Theory:
▪ Limited historical instances of democracies fighting each other.
▪ Uncertainty whether democracy itself or other correlated factors (power,
alliances, economics) promote peace.
▪ Democracies may still be aggressive towards non-democracies (e.g., US
invasion of Iraq in 2003).
• Enduring Legacy of Liberalism
o The idea of a democratic peace potentially replacing constant conflict is a
significant contribution of liberalism to International Relations theory.
• The Liberal World Order
o The current international system is shaped by the liberal world order
established after World War II (1939–1945).
o This order is built on principles similar to domestic liberal institutions, aimed at
restraining state violence.
o Power in the international system is more diluted and dispersed compared to
domestic settings.
, • International Law and Aggression
o Wars of aggression are prohibited under international law; however, there is no
international police force to enforce this.
o Aggressors face significant risks, such as international backlash, economic
sanctions, or military intervention by states or organizations like the United Nations.
o Aggressive actions can also lead to missed opportunities, including the benefits
of international trade, foreign aid, and diplomatic recognition.
• Three Interlocking Factors of the Liberal World Order
o International Law and Organizations:
▪ These create a system beyond just state interactions, with the United
Nations serving as a key example.
▪ The UN facilitates diplomacy and enables collective resource pooling to
tackle global issues like climate change.
o Free Trade and Capitalism:
▪ Promoted by powerful liberal states and organizations (e.g., World Trade
Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank).
▪ A market-based international economic system fosters high trade levels,
decreasing the likelihood of conflict.
▪ States with strong trade ties are incentivized to maintain peaceful
relations, as war disrupts the benefits of trade.
o International Norms:
▪ Norms promoting cooperation, human rights, democracy, and the rule of
law are integral to the liberal order.
▪ Violating these norms incurs various costs, both direct and indirect.
▪ For instance, the European Union imposed an arms embargo on China
following its violent suppression of pro-democracy protests in 1989.
▪ Indirect costs, like decreased favorable views of the U.S. after the 2003
invasion of Iraq, illustrate the reputational damage from acting contrary
to established norms.
• Conclusion
o The liberal world order relies on a combination of international law, economic
interdependence, and shared norms to promote peace and cooperation among states.
o While these elements face challenges due to differing global values, the
framework continues to influence international relations significantly.
• Neoliberal Institutionalism
o Most contemporary liberal scholarship emphasizes how international organizations
facilitate cooperation by helping states adhere to international agreements.
o This approach is commonly known as neoliberal institutionalism, or simply
neoliberalism.
o The term "neoliberalism" can cause confusion, as it is also used outside of
international relations to describe an economic ideology focused on
deregulation, privatization, low taxes, austerity, and free trade.
• Essence of Neoliberalism in International Relations
o Within the context of international relations, the essence of neoliberalism lies in
the belief that states can achieve significant benefits through cooperation,
provided they trust one another to uphold their agreements.
o If a state can gain from cheating on an agreement without facing consequences,
the likelihood of defection increases.
REALISM
The Basics of Realism
• Core Assumptions of Realism
o The nation-state is the primary actor in international relations.
o Other entities (individuals, organizations) have limited power.
o The state acts as a unitary actor, especially in times of war.
o Decision-makers are rational and prioritize national interest.
o States exist in anarchy—there is no overarching authority in international politics.
o In crises, states cannot rely on external intervention and must act independently.
• Human Nature and Realism
o Realists believe human beings are selfish, power-hungry, and distrustful.
o These traits lead to repetitive patterns of conflict and war in history.
o Since individuals form states, human nature influences state behavior.
• Machiavelli’s Contribution
o Leaders must prioritize national security above all.
o Effective rulers must be both a Lion (power) and a Fox (deception).
o Leaders follow the "ethics of responsibility" rather than traditional morality.
o They should be good when possible but use violence when necessary for the
state's survival.
• Hans Morgenthau and Classical Realism
o Politics is governed by laws rooted in human nature.
o Emphasized power over morality in international politics.
o Every political action aims at keeping, increasing, or demonstrating power.
o Morality in policymaking is a weakness that could lead to a state's downfall.
o Pursuing the national interest is "amoral", meaning it is independent of moral
considerations.
• Kenneth Waltz and Neorealism (Structural Realism)
o Shifted focus from human nature to international structure.
o States act based on anarchic international systems rather than inherent human traits.
o Decision-making is determined by a state's relative power compared to others.
o Introduced social scientific methods to study international relations empirically.
• Realism in Policymaking & Criticism
o Realism reflects the practical mindset of world leaders.
o Critics argue it perpetuates conflict by assuming states must act with suspicion
and force.
o Some see it as too pessimistic, portraying global politics as inherently confrontational.
o Realists counter that power politics is an unavoidable reality, and idealism is naive.
o Change in international politics is limited, and relying on peace is unwise.
• Limitations of Realism
o Failed to predict or explain the end of the Cold War (1991).
o Overlooks internal forces (e.g., citizen uprisings) and non-state actors (e.g.,
international organizations).
o Sees states as solid units ("pool balls"), ignoring internal dynamics.
o Critics argue realism is too state-centric and dismisses non-traditional threats.
• The Balance of Power
o States constantly seek to increase their power while limiting that of rivals.
, o Prevents any single state from dominating the world.
o Can trigger war when one state grows too strong, leading others to form
alliances to counterbalance it.
o Example: WWII (US and USSR allied against Nazi Germany) → Cold War
(former allies became rivals).
o Critics argue it legitimizes war and aggression rather than preventing conflict.
• Realism’s Continued Relevance
o Despite criticisms, realism remains a foundational IR theory.
o Many IR theories are shaped in response to realism.
o Still widely used in policymaking due to its practical insights into statecraft and
power politics.
Realism and the Islamic State Group (IS)
• IS as a Threat to State Sovereignty
o Declared itself a state (caliphate) in 2014 under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
o Conducted terrorist attacks worldwide to deter foreign intervention.
o Not officially recognized as a state, classified as a terrorist organization by
most countries and international bodies.
• Realist Response to IS
o States rely on self-help for security, following realist principles.
o Balance of power: Formed flexible alliances (e.g., US, Russia, France with
regional powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran).
o Deterrence: Used overwhelming military force (airstrikes, local allies) to counter IS.
o Avoided relying on international organizations (e.g., UN) due to political disagreements.
• Realist Assumptions in the IS Conflict
o States view military force as the most effective solution.
o The rational actor model assumes IS would weigh risks vs. benefits.
o However, terrorist groups may not follow conventional rationality, challenging
realist assumptions.
• IS as a Rational Actor in a Realist Lens
o Terrorism as a strategic tool: IS uses terror to counterbalance Western
influence in Iraq and Syria.
o Collateral damage fuels its goals:
▪ Increases anti-Western sentiment, making foreign intervention unpopular.
▪ Encourages recruitment by portraying attacks as injustices.
• Realist Caution on Military Action
o Realism does not blindly endorse war; it advocates strategic pragmatism.
o War is a necessary tool of statecraft, but must serve the national interest.
o Leaders must carefully assess risks and consequences before using force.
• Case Study: US Invasion of Iraq (2003)
o Opposed by realists who predicted it would destabilize the region and cause blowback.
o The rise of IS after the invasion validated realist concerns about the misuse of power.
o Highlights realism’s strength as a predictive tool in international relations.
Conclusion
• Realism as a Dominant IR Theory
o Claims to explain the reality of international politics.
o Highlights constraints from human nature and lack of global authority.
o State survival is the highest priority, guiding actions based on responsibility over morality.
, • Criticism and Relevance
o Realism faces strong criticism, but remains influential.
o Despite its flaws, it offers valuable insights into global politics.
o Continues to be a key analytical tool for studying International Relations.
LIBERALISM
The Basics of Liberalism
• Core Principles of Liberalism
o Emphasizes individual rights: life, liberty, and property are the highest goals of government.
o Focus on the wellbeing of the individual as the foundation of a just political system.
• Concerns About Political Power
o Unchecked power (e.g., monarchy, dictatorship) cannot protect citizens’ rights.
o Liberalism seeks to construct institutions that protect individual freedoms by
limiting political power.
• Influence of Foreign Policy on Domestic Liberty
o Militaristic foreign policies are troubling, as military power can oppress citizens at home.
o Expansionist wars (imperialism) are especially concerning for liberals, leading
to increased state power and potential oppression.
• Checks on Political Power
o Free and fair elections allow citizens to remove rulers, serving as a primary
check on government behavior.
o Separation of powers: Dividing political power among branches and levels of
government ensures checks and balances.
• Democratic Peace Theory
o Suggests that democratic states are unlikely to go to war with one another.
o Two main reasons:
1. Internal restraints (beperkingen) on power within democracies.
2. Democracies perceive each other as legitimate and non-threatening,
facilitating cooperation.
o Critiques of Democratic Peace Theory:
▪ Limited historical instances of democracies fighting each other.
▪ Uncertainty whether democracy itself or other correlated factors (power,
alliances, economics) promote peace.
▪ Democracies may still be aggressive towards non-democracies (e.g., US
invasion of Iraq in 2003).
• Enduring Legacy of Liberalism
o The idea of a democratic peace potentially replacing constant conflict is a
significant contribution of liberalism to International Relations theory.
• The Liberal World Order
o The current international system is shaped by the liberal world order
established after World War II (1939–1945).
o This order is built on principles similar to domestic liberal institutions, aimed at
restraining state violence.
o Power in the international system is more diluted and dispersed compared to
domestic settings.
, • International Law and Aggression
o Wars of aggression are prohibited under international law; however, there is no
international police force to enforce this.
o Aggressors face significant risks, such as international backlash, economic
sanctions, or military intervention by states or organizations like the United Nations.
o Aggressive actions can also lead to missed opportunities, including the benefits
of international trade, foreign aid, and diplomatic recognition.
• Three Interlocking Factors of the Liberal World Order
o International Law and Organizations:
▪ These create a system beyond just state interactions, with the United
Nations serving as a key example.
▪ The UN facilitates diplomacy and enables collective resource pooling to
tackle global issues like climate change.
o Free Trade and Capitalism:
▪ Promoted by powerful liberal states and organizations (e.g., World Trade
Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank).
▪ A market-based international economic system fosters high trade levels,
decreasing the likelihood of conflict.
▪ States with strong trade ties are incentivized to maintain peaceful
relations, as war disrupts the benefits of trade.
o International Norms:
▪ Norms promoting cooperation, human rights, democracy, and the rule of
law are integral to the liberal order.
▪ Violating these norms incurs various costs, both direct and indirect.
▪ For instance, the European Union imposed an arms embargo on China
following its violent suppression of pro-democracy protests in 1989.
▪ Indirect costs, like decreased favorable views of the U.S. after the 2003
invasion of Iraq, illustrate the reputational damage from acting contrary
to established norms.
• Conclusion
o The liberal world order relies on a combination of international law, economic
interdependence, and shared norms to promote peace and cooperation among states.
o While these elements face challenges due to differing global values, the
framework continues to influence international relations significantly.
• Neoliberal Institutionalism
o Most contemporary liberal scholarship emphasizes how international organizations
facilitate cooperation by helping states adhere to international agreements.
o This approach is commonly known as neoliberal institutionalism, or simply
neoliberalism.
o The term "neoliberalism" can cause confusion, as it is also used outside of
international relations to describe an economic ideology focused on
deregulation, privatization, low taxes, austerity, and free trade.
• Essence of Neoliberalism in International Relations
o Within the context of international relations, the essence of neoliberalism lies in
the belief that states can achieve significant benefits through cooperation,
provided they trust one another to uphold their agreements.
o If a state can gain from cheating on an agreement without facing consequences,
the likelihood of defection increases.
