University of South Florida Communism Political and Economic Ideas of Plato Essay

User Generated

zrzb5671

Writing

University of South Florida

Description

Students are required to write a research paper.

The research paper should be structurally organized, critical and well-written along the following layout:

  • Cover page that includes research paper title, student’s name, ID, Department, course code and title, and semester year.
  • Font size: 12.
  • Line spacing: 1.5.
  • Margin justification.
  • Page numbering at the bottom.
  • Theme font: Times new Roman.
  • Consistency in writing style.

The research paper should include the following scholastic items:

  • Abstract and Keywords (5%).
  • Introduction (including research basic questions, objectives, literature review or critical presentation of previous works on the same topic (5%).
  • Critical content analysis throughout the paper (5%).
  • Inclusion of empirical cases or examples into the research paper (5%).
  • Well- argued conclusion (5%).
  • Adoption of the American Psychological Association (APA Referencing Style for both in-text and out-of-text citations and bibliography or references (5%).

2000 words as a length (excluding references or cited works or bibliography).

check the attached file for more information

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Sultan Qaboos University College of Economics and Political Science Department of Political Science POLS3908 International Relations Theory, Spring Semester 2021 Rubrics for Evaluating Course Assignments Dr. Gubara Said Hassan The students’ performance in the course POLS3908 International Relations, Spring 2021, will be evaluated or assessed according to the following assignments and relevant weights and rubrics: 1-Chapter Review (10) %: Students are required to freely choose a chapter from the required Textbook (Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater (ed.), 2013. Theories of International Relations. Fifth Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan), for a critical review. The students’ choice of the specific chapter should be based on consultation with the course instructor (Dr. Gubara Said Hassan, Email: gubara@squ.edu.om). The students’ review of the chosen chapter should answer the following questions: 1- As an introduction, what are the most interesting new insights in the chapter/topic chosen for review? (2%). 2- Is the chapter relevant to contemporary world politics, political life or realities? (2%). 3- What are your critical perspectives about the chosen chapter for review? (2%). 4- How does the chosen chapter supplement the course materials and readings presented in lectures/classes and posted on Moodle? 2%. 5- As a conclusion, do you have any practical recommendations to improve the chosen chapter for review? 2%. 1 Take-home Exam 1 (30%) and Take-home Exam 2 (30%): The grades or marks of the Take-home Exams 1 &2 questions are divided as follows: - Question 1 (10%). This is a compulsory question. Students are obligated to answer it. - Question 2. (10%). This question includes a number of questions. Students are required to choose and answer only 1 question. - Question 3. (10%). This question includes a number of statements. Students are required to elaborate, discuss or explain only 1 statement. The students’ answers to the Take-home Exams 1 &2 questions should be in the form of an essay. The answers to the other chosen questions should reflect the following scholastic features: A- Well structural organization, logical arguments, and coherence or consistency (2%). B- Critical analysis and argumentation (2%). C- Empirical examples or cases of real world political events or issues (2%). D- Sound conclusion (2%). E- Adoption of the American Psychological Association (APA) Referencing Style for both in-text and out-of-text citations and bibliography or references (2%). Research Paper (30%): Students are required to write a research paper of 1500 words as a length (excluding references or cited works or bibliography). The research paper should be structurally organized, critical and well-written along the following layout: • Cover page that includes research paper title, student’s name, ID, Department, course code and title, and semester year. • Font size: 12. • Line spacing: 1.5. • Margin justification. • Page numbering at the bottom. 2 • Theme font: Times new Roman. • Consistency in writing style. The research paper should include the following scholastic items: 1- Abstract and Keywords (5%). 2- Introduction (including research basic questions, objectives, literature review or critical presentation of previous works on the same topic (5%). 3- Critical content analysis throughout the paper (5%). 4- Inclusion of empirical cases or examples into the research paper (5%). 5- Well- argued conclusion (5%). 6- Adoption of the American Psychological Association (APA Referencing Style for both in-text and out-of-text citations and bibliography or references (5%). The students are warmly encouraged to consult the guidelines for writing a chapter review and research paper that have been posted on Moodle. Best wishes for success Dr. Gubara Said Hassan POLS, CEPS, SQU 3 Scott Burchill Andrew Linklater (eds) Richard Devetak Jack Donnelly Terry Nardin Matthew Paterson Christian Reus-Smit Jacqui True FIFTH EDITION THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Theories of International Relations Fifth Edition Scott Burchill Andrew Linklater Richard Devetak Jack Donnelly Terry Nardin Matthew Paterson Christian Reus-Snnit Jacqui True palgravG macmillan © Material from 1st edition Dealcin University 1995,1996 © Chapter 1 Scott Burchill 2001, Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater 2005,2009, 2013 © Chapter 2 Jack Donnelly 2005,2009,2013 © Chapter 3 Scott Burchill; Chapters 4 and 5 Andrew Linklater; Chapters 7 and 8 Richard Devetak; Chapter 9 Christian Reus-Smit; Chapter 10 Jacqui True; Chapter 11 Matthew Paterson 2001,2005,2009,2013 © Chapter 6 Andrew Linklater 2009,2013 © Chapter 12 Terry Nardin 2009,2013 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First edition 1996 Second edition 2001 Third edition 2005 Fourth edition 2009 Fifth edition 2013 Published by PALCRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin's Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries ISBN 978-0-230-36222-2 hardback ISBN 978-0-230-36223-9 paperback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress 1 0 22 9 21 8 20 7 19 6 18 Printed and bound in China 5 17 4 16 3 15 2 14 1 13 Contents Preface to the Fifth Edition List of Abbreviations 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater viii ix 1 Frameworks of analysis Diversity of theory Contested nature The foundation of the discipline of International Relations Theories and disciplines Explanatory and constitutive theory Interdiscplinary theory What do theories differ about? Evaluating theories 1 2 5 6 9 16 19 20 26 Realism Jack Donnelly 32 Defining realism Hobbes and classical realism Waltz and structured realism Motives matter System and structure Morality and foreign policy How to think about realism (and its critics) 32 34 37 42 45 49 54 Liberalism Scott Burchill 57 After the Cold War The liberal view: 'inside looking out' War, democracy and free trade Globalization, the financial system and terrorism Conclusion 57 59 60 73 85 The English School Andrew Linklater 88 From power to order: international society Order and justice in international relations 93 97 vi Contents The revoh against the West and the expansion of international society Progress in international relations Conclusion 5. Marx and Marxism Andrew Linklater Class, production and international relations in Marx's writings Theories of nationalism and imperialism The changing fortunes of Marxism in International Relations Beyond the paradigm of production: implications for the emancipatory project Conclusion 6. 7. 8. 103 108 112 113 116 123 128 133 136 Historical Sociology Andrew Linklater 138 Origins of historical sociology Power and production in historical sociology Power and interdependence in international relations System and society Morality, culture and the emotions A higher synthesis ? On grand narratives Conclusion 141 143 148 150 153 156 158 160 Critical Theory Richard Devetak 162 Origins of critical theory The politics of knowledge in international relations theory Rethinking political community Conclusion 163 166 172 185 Post-structuralism Richard Devetak 187 Power and knowledge in international relations Textual strategies of post-structuralism Problematizing sovereign states Beyond the paradigm of sovereignty: rethinking the political Conclusion 187 194 199 209 216 Contents 9. 10. 11. 12. vii Constructivism Christian Reus-Smit 217 Rationalist theory The challenge of critical theory Constructivism Constructivism and its discontents The contribution of constructivism Recent developments in constructivism Conclusion 217 221 222 229 233 235 239 Feminism Jacqui True 241 Empirical feminism Analytical feminism Normative feminism Conclusion 244 251 259 264 Green Politics Matthew Paterson 266 Theorizing environment within international relations Beyond IR: Green politics and the challenge to world order Bioenvironmentalism - authority, scale, and eco-centrism Social greens - limits to growth and political economy Greening global politics Conclusions 268 272 273 280 284 287 International Political Theory Terry Nardin 291 Theorizing international politics Justice in war International justice Global justice The history of international thought 291 296 302 307 314 Bibliography 319 Index 358 Preface to the Fifth Edition Theories of International Relations was first published in 1996. It was designed as a guide for Masters students and upper-level undergraduate students who were encountering theoretical perspectives for the first time. That it has survived into its fifth edition is testimony to the hard work and commitment of our authors who have continued to revise and update their chapters in the face of tight deadlines. Those who have used the book and who have commented on it - some have been teachers, others have been students - have provided advice and encouragement that is greatly appreciated. We are again grateful to the team at Palgrave Macmillan, and particularly to Steven Kennedy, Stephen Wenham and Helen Caunce as well as our copy-editor, Keith Povey - not only for their continuing faith in the volume but for their guidance and patience. SCOTT BURCHILL ANDREW LINKLATER List of Abbreviations APEC CND FDI GAD ICC ICJ ILO IMF IR MAI MNC NAFTA NATO NGO NTB OECD SAP TNC UN UNDP UNHCR UNICEF Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Foreign direct investment Gender and development International Criminal Court International Court of Justice International Criminal Court International Monetary Fund International Relations Multilateral Agreement on Investments Multi-national corporation North American Free Trade Agreement North Atlantic Treaty Organization Non-governmental organization Non-tariff barriers Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Structural adjustment policy Transnational corporation United Nations United Nations Development Programme United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Children's Fund (formerly: United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund) UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women World Commission on Environment and Development WCED WID Women in international development WMD Weapons of mass destruction WTO World Trade Organization ' ' I Introduction SCOTT BURCHILL AND ANDREW LINKLATER Frameworks of analysis From its inception as a separate field of study, International Relations has been the site of major theoretical debates. (We follow the academic convention of using 'International Relations' to refer to the discipline, and 'international relations' to refer to the structures, processes, episodes and events that the discipline investigates.) Two of the foundational texts in the field, E. H. Carr's The Twenty Years' Crisis (first published in 1939) and Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations (first published in 1948) were works of theory in three central respects. Each developed a broad framework of analysis which distilled the essence of interna­ tional politics from disparate events; each sought to provide future analysts with the theoretical tools for understanding general patterns underlying seemingly unique episodes; and each reflected on the forms of political action which are most appropriate in a realm where the struggle for power was pre-eminent. Both thinkers were motivated by the desire to correct what they saw as deep misunderstandings about the nature of international politics lying at the heart of the liberal project - especially the belief that the struggle for power could be tamed by international law and the idea that the pursuit of self-interest could be replaced by the shared objective of promoting security for all. Not that Morgenthau and Carr thought the international political system was condemned for all time to revolve around the relentless struggle for power and security. Their main claim was that all efforts to reform the international system, which ignored the struggle for power, would quickly end in failure. More worrying in their view was the danger that attempts to bring about fundamental change would compound the problem of international rela­ tions. They believed the liberal internationalist world-view had been largely responsible for the crisis of the inter-war years. Many scholars, particularly in the United States during the 1960s, believed that Morgenthau's theoretical framework was too impressionis­ tic in nature. Historical illustrations had been used to support rather than 2 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater demonstrate ingenious conjectures about general patterns of mternational relations. Consequently, the discipline lagged significantly behind the study of economics which used a sophisticated methodology drawn from the natural sciences to test specific hypotheses, develop general laws and predict human behaviour. Proponents of the scientific approach attempted to build a new theory of international politics, some for the sake of better explanation and higher levels of predictive accuracy, others in the belief that science held the key to understanding how to transform international politics for the better. The scientific turn led to a major disciplinary debate in the 1960s in which scholars such as Hedley Bull (1966b) argued that international politics were not susceptible to scientific enquiry. This is a view widely shared by analysts committed to diverse intellectual projects. The radical scholar Noam Chomsky has claimed that in international relations 'historical conditions are too varied and complex for anything that might plausibly be called "a theory" to apply uniformly' (1994: 120). What is generally known as 'post-positivism' in International Relations rejects the possibility of a science of international relations which uses standards of proof associated with the physical sciences to develop equivalent levels of explanatory precision and predictive certainty (Smith, Booth and Zalewski 1996). In the 1990s, a major debate occurred around the claims of positivism. The question of whether there is a world of differ­ ence between the 'physical' and the 'social' sciences was a crucial issue, but no less important were disputes about the nature and purpose of theory. The debate centred on whether theories - even those that aim for objectivity - are ultimately 'political' because they generate views of the world which favour some political interests and disadvantage others. That dispute has produced very difficult questions about what theory is and what its purposes are. These questions are now central to the disci­ pline - more central than at any other time in its history. What does it mean it to speak of a theory of international politics? Diversity of theory One purpose of this volume is to analyse the diversity of conceptions of theory in the study of international relations. Positivist or 'scientific' approaches remain crucial, and are indeed dominant in the United States, as the success of rational choice analysis demonstrates. But that is not the only type of theory available in the field. An increasingly large number of theorists are concerned with a second category of theory in which the way that observers construct their images of international relations, the methods they use to try to understand this realm, and the social and polit­ Introduction 3 ical implications of their 'knowledge claims', are leading preoccupations. They believe it is, just as important to focus on how we approach the study of world politics as it is to try to explain global phenomena. In other words the very process of understanding and explaining world politics itself becomes a vital object of inquiry. Steve Smith (1995: 26-7) has argued that there is a fundamental divi­ sion within the discipline 'between theories which seek to offer explana­ tory [our emphasis] accounts of international relations', and perspectives that regard 'theory as constitutive [our emphasis] of that reality'. Analysing these two conceptions of theory informs much of the discus­ sion in this introductory chapter. In addition, theory now also embraces cognate fields such as historical sociology and international political theory, which have made their own distinctive marks on the study of international relations. The first point to make in this context is that constitutive theories have an increasingly prominent role in the study of international relations, but the importance of the themes they address has long been recognized. As early as the 1970s, Hedley Bull (1973: 183-4) argued that: the reason we must be concerned with the theory as well as the history of the subject is that ail discussions of international politics ... proceed upon theoretical assumptions which we should acknowledge and investigate rather than ignore or leave unchallenged. The enterprise of theoretical investigation is at its minimum one directed towards criti­ cism: towards identifying, formulating, refining, and questioning the general assumptions on which the everyday discussion of interna­ tional politics proceeds. At its maximum, the enterprise is concerned with theoretical construction: with establishing that certain assump­ tions are true while others are false, certain arguments valid while others are invalid, and so proceeding to erect a firm structure of knowledge. This quotation reveals that Bull thought that explanatory and constitu­ tive theory are both necessary in the study of international relations:" intellectual enquiry would be incomplete without the effort to increase understanding on both fronts. Although his comments were made in the early 1970s, it was not until later in the decade that constitutive theory began to enjoy a more central place in the discipline, in large part because of the influence of developments in the cognate fields of social and polit­ ical theory. In the years since, with the growth of interest in international theory, a flourishing literature has been devoted to addressing theoretical concerns, much of it concerned with constitutive theory. This focus on the process of theorizing has not been uncontroversial. Some have argued 4 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater that the excessive preoccupation with theory represents a withdrawal from an analysis of 'real-world' issues and a sense of responsibility for policy relevance ("Wallace 1996). There is a parallel here with a point that Keohane (1988) made against post-modernism, which is that the fixation with problems in the philosophy of social science leads to a neglect of important fields of empirical research. Critics of that argument maintain that it rests on unspoken or unde­ fended theoretical assumptions about the purposes of studying interna­ tional relations, and specifically on the belief that the discipline should be concerned with issues which are more vital to states than, for example, to civil society actors aiming to change the international political system (Booth 1997; Smith 1997). Here it is important to recall that Carr and Morgenthau were interested not only in explaining the world 'out there' but in making a powerful argument about what states could reasonably hope to achieve by way of ending the competitive world of international politics. Smith (1996: 113) argues that all theories do this whether inten­ tionally or unintentionally: they 'do not simply explain or predict, they tell us what possibilities exist for human action and intervention; they define not merely our explanatory possibilities, but also our ethical and practical horizons'. Smith questions what he sees as the false assumption that 'theory' stands in opposition to 'reality' - conversely that 'theory' can be tested against a 'reality' which is already 'out there' and knowable without any theoretical assumptions (see-also George 1994). The issue is whether what is 'out there' is always theory-dependent and invariably condi­ tioned to some degree by the language and culture of the observer and by general beliefs about society that are tied to a particular place and time. And as noted earlier, those who wonder about the purpose of theory cannot avoid the fact that analysis is always theoretically informed and likely to have political implications and consequences (Brown 2002). The growing feminist literature in the field discussed in Chapter 10 has stressed that argument in its claim that many of the dominant traditions are gendered, in that they reflect specifically male experiences of society and politics. Critical approaches to the discipline, which are areas discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 have been equally keen to stress that there is, as Nagel (1986) has argued in a rather different context, 'no view from nowhere'. To be fair, many exponents of the scientific approach recognized this very problem, but they believed that natural science made it possible for analysts to rise above the social and political world they were investigat­ ing. What the physical sciences had achieved could be emulated in socialscientific forms of enquiry. That is a matter to come back to later. But debates about the possibility of a science of international relations, and Introduction 5 disputes about whether there has been an excessive preoccupation with theory in recent years at the cost of policy-relevant analysis, demonstrate that scholars do not agree about the nature and purposes of theory or concur about its proper place in the wider field. International Relations is a discipline of theoretical disagreements - a 'divided discipline', as Holsti (1985) once called it. Contested nature Indeed it has been so ever since those who developed this comparatively new subject, in the Western academy in the aftermath of World War I, first debated the essential features of international politics. Since then, but more keenly in some periods than in others, almost every aspect of the study of international politics has been contested. What should the discipline aim to study? Relations between states? Growing transna­ tional economic ties, as recommended by early twentieth-century liber­ als? Increasing international interdependence, as advocated in the 1970s? The global system of dominance and dependence, as claimed by Marxists and neo-Marxists from the 1970s? Globalization, as scholars have argued in more recent times? What role should be the study of gender and the investigation of questions of identity and differences have in the field? These are some examples of how the discipline has been divided on the very basic question of its subject matter. How, in addition, should international political phenomena be stud­ ied? By using empirical data to identify laws and patterns of international relations? By using historical evidence to understand what is unique (Bull 1966a) or to identify some traditions of thought which have survived for centuries (Wight 1991)? By using Marxist approaches to explain the influence of production, class and material inequalities on world poli­ tics? By emulating, as Waltz (1979) does, the study of the market behav­ iour of firms to understand systemic forces that allegedly make all states behave in much the same way? By claiming, as Wendt (1999) does in his defence of constructivism, that in the study of international relations it is important to understand that 'it is ideas all the way down?' Those are some illustrations of fundamental differences about the appropriate methodology or methodologies to use in the field. Finally, is it possible for scholars to provide neutral forms of analysis, or are all approaches culture-bound and necessarily biased? Is it possible to have objective knowledge of facts but not of values, as advocates of the scientific approach have often argued? Or, as some students of global ethics have claimed, is it possible to have knowledge of the goals that states and other political actors should aim to realize such as the promotion of global 6 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater justice (Beitz 1979) or ending world poverty (Pogge 2002)? These are some of the epistemological debates in the field, debates about what human beings can and cannot know about the social and political world. Many of the 'great debates' and watersheds in the discipline have focused on such questions. In the remainder of this introductory chapter we will examine these and other issues under the following headings: • • • • • • The foundation of the discipline of International Relations Theories and disciplines Explanatory and constitutive theory Interdisciplinary theory What do theories of international relations differ about? What criteria exist for evaluating theories? One of our aims is to explain the proliferation of theories since the 1980s, to analyse their different 'styles' and methods of proceeding*, and to comment on a recurrent problem in the field which is that theorists often appear to 'talk past' each other rather than engage in productive dialogue that explores areas of convergence and leads to higher-level synthesis in the field. Another aim is to identify ways in which meaning­ ful comparisons between different perspectives of International Relations can be made. It will be useful to bear these points in mind when reading later chapters on several influential theoretical traditions in the field. We begin, however, with a brief introduction to the development of the discipline. The foundation of the discipUne of International Relations Although historians, international lawyers and political philosophers have written about international politics for centuries, the formal recog­ nition of a separate discipline of International Relations is usually thought to have occurred at the end of World War I with the establish­ ment of the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Politics at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Other Chairs followed in Britain and the United States. International relations were studied before 1919, but there was no discipline as such. Its subject matter was shared by a number of older disciplines; including law, philosophy, economics, poli­ tics and diplomatic history - but before 1919 the subject was not studied with the great sense of urgency which was the product of World War I. It is impossible to separate the foundation of the discipline of International Relations from the larger public reaction to the horrors of Introduction 7 the 'Great War', as it was initially called. For many historians of the time, the intellectual question which eclipsed all others and monopolized their interest was the puzzle of how and why the war began. Gooch in England, Fay and Schmitt in the United States, Renouvin and Camille Bloch in France, Thimme, Brandenburg and von Wegerer in Germany, Pribram in Austria and Pokrovsky in Russia deserve to be mentioned in this regard (Taylor 1961: 30). They had the same moral purpose, which was to discover the causes of World War I so that future generations might be spared a similar catastrophe. The human cost of the 1914-18 war led many to argue that the old assumptions and prescriptions of power politics had been totally discred­ ited. Thinkers such as Sir Alfred Zimmern (the first holder of the Chair at Aberystwyth) and Philip Noel-Bakercame to prominence in the immedi­ ate post-war years. They believed that peace would come about only if the classical balance of power were replaced by a system of collective security (including the idea of the rule of law) in which states transferred domestic concepts and practices to the international sphere. Central here was a commitment to the nineteenth-century liberal belief that humankind could make political progress by using reasoned debate to develop common interests. That was a view shared by many liberal inter­ nationalists, later dubbed 'idealists' or 'Utopians' by critics who thought their panaceas were simphstic. Carr (1939/1945/1946) maintained that their proposed solution to the scourge of war had suffered from the major defect of reflecting, albeit unwittingly, the position of the satisfied powers - 'the haves' as opposed to the 'have-nots' in international rela­ tions. It is interesting to note that the first complaint about the ideologi­ cal and political character of such a way of thinking about international politics was first made by a 'realist' such as Carr who was influenced by Marxism and its critique of the ideological nature of the dominant liberal approaches to politics and economics that had become especially promi­ nent in the nineteenth century. Carr thought that the same criticism held with respect to the so-called 'Utopians', as he called them. The war shook the confidence of those who had invested their faith in classical diplomacy and who thought the use of force was necessary at times to maintain the balance of power. At the outbreak of World War I, few thought it would last more than a few months and fewer still antici­ pated the scale of the impending catastrophe. Concerns about the human cost of war were linked with the widespread notion that the old interna­ tional order, with its secret diplomacy and secret treaties, was immoral. The belief in the need for a 'clean break' with the old order was bound up with the view that the study of history was an unreliable guide to how states should behave in future, especially given the increasingly destruc­ tive forms of violence that were at their disposal. In the aftermath of the 8 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater war, a new academic discipline was thought essential to understand and prevent international conflict. The first scholars in the field, working within universities in the victorious countries, and particularly in Britain and the United States, were generally agreed that the following three questions should guide their new field of inquiry: 1. 2. 3. What were the main causes of World War I, and what was it about the old order that led national governments into a war which resulted in misery for millions? What were the'main lessons that could be learned from World War I? How could the recurrence of a war of this kind be prevented? On what basis could a new international order be created, and how could international mstitutions, and particularly the League of Nations, ensure that states complied with its defining principles? In response to these questions, many members of the first 'school' or 'theory' of international relations maintained that war was partly the result of 'international anarchy' and partly the result of misunderstand­ ings, miscalculations and recklessness on the part of politicians who had so clearly lost control of events in 1914. The 'idealists' argued that a more peaceful world order could be created by making foreign policy elites accountable to public opinion and by democratizing international relations (Long and Wilson 1995; Chapter 2). According to Bull (quoted in Holhs and Smith 1990: 20): the distinctive characteristic of these writers was their belief in progress: the belief, in particular, that the system of international rela­ tions that had given rise to the First World War was capable of being transformed into a fundamentally more peaceful and just world order; that under the impact of the awakening of democracy, the growth of the 'international mind', the development of the League of Nations, the good works of men of peace or the enlightenment spread by their own teachings, it was in fact being transformed; and that their respon­ sibility as students of international relations was to assist this march of progress to overcome the ignorance, the prejudices, and the sinister interests that stood in its way. Bull brings out the extent to which normative visions animated the disci­ pline in its first phase of development when many thought World War I was the 'war to end all wars'. Only the rigorous study of the phenome­ non of war could explain how states could create a world order in which the recurrence of such conflicts would be impossible. Crucially, then, the discipline was born in an era when many believed that the reform of Introduction 9 international politics was not only essential but clearly achievable. Whether or not the global order can be radically improved has been a central question in the study of international relations ever since. The critics' reaction to this liberal internationalism dominated the discipline's early years. Carr (1939; 1945; 1946: Chapter 1), who was one of the more scathing of them, maintained that 'utopians' were guilty of 'naivety' and 'exuberance'. Visionary zeal stood in the way of dispas­ sionate analysis. The realist critique of liberal internationalism launched by Carr immediately before World War II, and continued by various scholars including Morgenthau in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, led to the so-called first 'great debate'. Whether that debate actu­ ally occurred has been contested by recent scholars (Wilson 1998); however the myth of a great debate between the realists and the idealists gave the discipline its identity in the years following World War 11. Interestingly Carr (1939; 1945; 1946), who criticized the Utopians for their 'naivety' also turned his guns on the realists, accusing them of 'sterility' and 'complacency'. Theories acquire dominance in any disci­ pline for different reasons, such as the extent to which they prevail in debates with their adversaries (sometimes more imagined than real). They can also be the beneficiary of widespread beliefs that they are right for the times or more relevant to the dominant events of the day than are other perspectives. The '20 years' crisis' culminating in World War II and followed by the Cold War era led in any case to the dominance of realism. The purpose of theory in the early years of the discipline was to change the world for the better by removing the blight of war. A close connection existed between theory and practice: theory was not disconnected from the actual world of international politics. This was true of the liberal internationalists who believed 'the world to be profoundly other than it should be' and who had 'faith in the power of human reason and human action' to change it so 'that the inner potential of all human beings [could] be more fully realized' (Howard 1978: 11). It was no less true of the realists who thought that theory had a stake in poHtical practice, most obviously by trying to understand as dispassionately as possible the constraints on realizing the vision which the 'utopians' had been too anxious to embrace. It was the realist position in the dispute about what could and could not be achieved in a world of competing states that gave the discipline its identity in the 1950s and 1960s. Theories and discipUnes Over 40 years ago, Wight (1966a) posed the question, 'Why is there no International Theory?' His explanation for the absence of traditions of 10 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater international theory ('speculation about the society of states, or the family of nations, or the international community') which even begin to match the achievements of political theory ('speculation about the state') was as follows. Domestic political systems had witnessed extraordinary developments over recent centuries including the establishment of public education and welfare systems. But in terms of its basic properties, the international political system had barely changed at all. Wight called it 'the realm of recurrence and repetition' which was 'incompatible with progressivist theory'. Whereas political theory was rich in its characteri­ zations of 'the good life', international theory was confined to questions of 'survival'. The vocabulary of political theory and law - which was a language 'appropriate to man's control of his social life' - had no obvious use for the analysis of international affairs (Wight 1966a: 15, 25-6, 32). At first glance, Wight sided with the realists in their debate with those with a Utopian temperament. But in an influential set of lectures given at the London School of Economics in the 1950s and 1960s, Wight (1991) protested against the reduction of thinking about international relations to two traditions of thought. What was lost in the division of the field into 'realism' and 'idealism' was a long tradition of inquiry (the 'ratio­ nalist' or 'Grotian' tradition) which regarded the society of states as its starting point. This perspective, which has come to be known as the English School (Chapter 4), has been especially influential in Britain, Australia and Canada. Its distinguishing quality is that international relations are neither as bleak as realists suggest nor as amenable to change as Utopians ('revolutionists', in Wight's language) believe. There is, members of the English School argue, a high level of order and coop­ eration in the relations between states, even though they live in a condi­ tion of anarchy - a condition marked by the absence of a power standing above and able to command sovereign states. More than four decades on, we can no longer refer, as Wight did, to the 'paucity' of international theory (Chapter 12). As this volume will show, there are now several rich strands of international theory, many of which are not constrained by the problems of state survival or by the apparent absence of a vocabulary with which to theorize global politics. How did this change come about, and where does it leave earlier discus­ sions about the possibility of progress in international relations? We can begin to answer these questions by noting that the 1960s and 1970s saw the rapid development of the study of International Relations, as new academic departments and centres appeared not only in the United States and Britain but in several other places. This period also saw the rapid proliferation of approaches to the field. The preoccupation with war and conflict remained, the nuclear age leading to the rise of a new sub-field of strategic studies in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the Introduction 11 boundaries of the discipline expanded, in the period now under discus­ sion, to include foreign policy analysis, itself divided into several differ­ ent approaches, one aiming for a predictive science of foreign policy behaviour which might lead to better 'crisis management' (Hill 2003). The 1970s witnessed the emergence of studies of international interde­ pendence - or rather its re-emergence, because hberal internationalists such as Zimmern had identified the expansion of international trade as a crucial level of analysis. Liberal theories of interdependence and the later 'neo-liberal institutionalist' analysis of international regimes argued that the economic and technological unification of the human race required new forms of global international cooperation. To those influenced by the socialist tradition, however, the term inter­ national interdependence was a misnomer. The reality was a system of global dominance and dependence in which the world was divided between 'core' and 'periphery'. The phrase, 'the inter-paradigm debate' was used in the 1970s and 1980s to show that an early consensus about the nature of the discipline (which was always incomplete) had been replaced by a broad spectrum of contending approaches, a condition that survives to this day (Banks 1985; Hoffman 1987). Only some of these approaches (neo-realism being by far the most important - see Chapter 2) continue to regard the international system as a unique 'anarchic' domain which can be analysed in isolation from social and economic developments within and across societies. The influence of other disci­ plines and cognate fields is now pronounced in the subject, and many strands of International Relations theory deny that the subject has a distinctive subject matter or can proceed without borrowing heavily from languages of inquiry in cognate fields of investigation. The import of various ideas from social and political theory is one development which has become increasingly prominent since the 1980s and 1990s. In the course of this volume we will examine a number of the more influential theories, including liberal internationalism, realism, neo-real­ ism and the English School, as well as less influential approaches such as Marxism and newer perspectives such as constructivism, feminism and green political thought. We will also consider the established field of international political theory, and the emerging interest in linkages between historical sociology and International Relations which advo­ cates (in ways that will be of special interest to students of Marxism, constructivism and the English School) focusing inquiry on long-term processes of change in international or world politics. In this way, we hope to provide a snapshot of contemporary debates about the nature and purposes of International Relations theory. We have chosen to call them 'theories', but in the literature over the years they have also been referred to as 'paradigms', 'perspectives'. 12 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater 'discourses', 'schools of thought', 'images' and 'traditions'. What they are called is less important than what they set out to do, and how they differ from one another. The following descriptions of theory capture some of their diverse purposes: • • • • • • • • • Theories explain the laws of international politics or recurrent patterns of national behaviour (Waltz 1979). Theories draw on history and historical sociology, not least in order to argue that claims about the recurrent nature of international poli­ tics should be treated with suspicion and to show that the nature of contemporary events will remain elusive unless they are analysed in conjunction with long-term processes of development (Linklater 2011a; Rosenberg 1994; Teschke 2003). Theories attempt either to explain and predict behaviour or to understand the world 'inside the heads' of actors (Hollis and Smith 1990). Theories are traditions of speculation about relations between states which focus on the struggle for power, or on the nature of interna­ tional society, or on the possibility of a world community (Wight 1991). Theories use empirical data to test hypotheses about the world such as the absence of war between Hberal-democratic states (Doyle 1983). Theories analyse and try to clarify the use of concepts such as the balance of power or the idea of causality (Butterfield and Wight 1966; Suganami 1996; Kurki 2008). Theories criticize forms of domination and question perspectives which make the socially constructed and changeable seem natural and unalterable (critical theory). Theories reflect on how the world ought to be organized and analyse ways in which various conceptions of human rights or global social justice are constructed and defended (international political theory or global ethics). Theories reflect on the process of theorizing itself; they analyse epis­ temological claims about how human beings know the world and ontological claims about what the world ultimately consists of - for example, whether it basically consists of sovereign states or individ­ uals with rights against, and obligations to, the rest of humanity (constitutive theory). That list shows that practitioners in the field do not agree about what is involved in theorizing international relations. When we compare theories we are comparing different and seemingly incommensurable phenom­ ena. There is no agreement about what counts as the best line of argu­ Introduction 13 ment in any theory, and no agreement about whether the principal achievements of different standpoints can be combined in a unified grand theory. Post-structuralist theory - or theories, since its advocates would deny there is a single approach to which all faithfully adhere (Chapter 9) - rejects the notion possibility of one total theory of international rela­ tions. More basically, and as already noted, there is a good deal of over­ lap between different theories but no consensus about what the term, 'international relations', actually signifies. Its most obvious meaning is the analysis of relations between nations - more accurately, states, but that is the approach taken by realists and neo-realists and rejected or substantially qualified by exponents of competing perspectives, some of whom think the term 'global politics' or 'world politics' is a better term for describing what the subject should study in the contemporary age (Baylis, Smith and Owens 2011). Though far from exhaustive, the following list summarizes some disci­ plinary preoccupations in recent times: • • • • Dominant actors - traditionally this was the sovereign state but the Ust now includes transnational corporations (TNCs), transnational classes and 'casino capitalists', international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), international non-govern­ mental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International, new social movements including women's and ecological movements, and international terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Dominant relationships — strategic relations between the great powers traditionally but, also in recent years, trade relations between the advanced industrial societies, the 'liberal peace', relations of dominance and dependence between the core and periphery in the capitalist world economy, forms of solidarity within 'global civil soci­ ety', the gendered nature of global economic and political relations, and distinctions between 'advanced' and 'backward' peoples that have their origins in the age of Western imperialism. Empirical issues - the distribution of military power, arms control and crisis management but also economic globalization, global inequality, identity politics and national fragmentation, the universal human rights culture, the plight of refugees, gender issues, environ­ mental conservation, transnational crime and the global drugs trade, and HIV/AIDS. Ethical issues - the just war, the rights and wrongs of humanitarian intervention and human rights, the case for and against the global redistribution of power and wealth, duties to nature, to future gener­ ations and to non-human species, respect for cultural differences and the rights of women and children. 14 • • Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater Issues in the philosophy of the social sciences — methodological disputes about the possibility of a science of international politics, competing epistemological and ontological standpoints, the nature of causation and the idea of historical narrative. The prospects for multidisciphnarity - recasting the discipline by using liberal and radical approaches to develop international politi­ cal economy vi^as the most significant shift towards interdisciplinarity in the 1980s and 1990s. Buildmg links with social theory, historical sociology, international political theory and 'world history', and dismantling barriers between International Relations, Political Theory and Ethics that have been leading developments since the 1990s. Quite how to deal with such a rich diversity of themes is one of the central questions every theory of international relations must address. Theories have to rely on some principles of selection to narrow their scope of inquiry; they discriminate between actors, relationships, empirical issues and so forth, which they judge most important or regard as trivial. Waltz s neo-realist theory is one of the most-debated illustrations of that process of selectivity. Waltz (1979) maintained that theory must abstract from the myriad forces at work in international politics while recognizing that in reality 'everything is connected with everything else'. But theory must distort reality — and Waltz offers a complex argument about the philosophy of social sciences and the achievements of economics to defend this - if it is to explain what he regards as the central puzzle of world politics: the 'dismaying persistence' of the international statessystem and the recurrence of the struggle for power and security over several millennia despite the rise and fall of different kinds of political system, ideologies and so forth. Waltz argued that international economic relations, international law, and so on, are undoubtedly interesting phenomena but they must be ignored by a theory with the purposes he sets for it, namely explaining recurring patterns of behaviour. It is useful to compare this argument with Cox's (1981; 1983) claim influenced by Marxism that a theory of international relations has to deal with social forces (including class relations), states and world order if it is to understand the nature of global hegemony and identify 'counterhegemonic movements which are working to promote realizable visions of a better form of world order. In that approach, the question of what is most important in world politics is not answered by providing a list of the most powerful actors and relationships but by inquiring into the causes of inequalities of power and opportunities between human beings and by identifying the political movements which are spearheading the struggle against these asymmetries — movements which are not as power­ Introduction 15 ful as states but, in Cox's analysis, are more important than them because of the values they are trying to promote (for further discussion, see Chapters 6 and 8). In Cox's argument - and this is a position common to the various strands of radical scholarship in the field - the question of what is impor­ tant in international relations is not an empirical problem which can be solved by looking at what is 'out there' in the 'real world'; it is funda­ mentally a political question, one that begins with the issue of whose interests are protected and whose are disadvantaged or ignored by the dominant political and economic structures. Such matters are not resolved by empirical inquiry - first and foremost they are ethical matters which have crept to the centre of the field over the last twenty or so years (see Chapter 12). This raises important issues about how theories acquire disciplinary dominance or hegemony. The post-positivist turn made such matters prominent in the field, but they have a more ancient lineage. Since the 1960s, for example, scholars in the United States such as Yergin (1990) and Chomsky (1969) have analysed the close connections which have often existed between the academic study of International Relations and the world of government, especially in the United States (for an appraisal of Chomsky's work, see Herring and Robinson 'Forum on Chomsky', 2003). They have stressed how the dominant political needs of the time, as defined by governments, have favoured some theories over others so that one perspective acquires hegemony while others make dissenting claims on the margins of the field. Strategic Studies is a case in point, as many radical scholars such as C. Wright Mills stressed its close connections with the 'military-industrial complex' in the 1960s. Realism was the dominant ideology of the US political establishment in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the Nixon Administration broke with the Cold War ideology which had impeded the development of amicable relations with the Soviet Union and China (Henry Kissinger, Nixon's National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State, had been a leading realist academic prior to 1968). Since the 1980s, the dominant ideology has been neoliberal economics, which has had enormous influence through the 'Washington Consensus' in promoting the deregulation of world markets or in advancing a global 'market civilization' (see Chapter 3). A fascinating illustration of the changing political fortunes of academic theories is that realism came to have a dissenting role with respect to post-9/11 US foreign policy while remaining one of the dominant traditions in the American academy. The phenomenon of 'realists against the war' (many leading realist scholars published their opposition to the prospect of war against Iraq in The New York Times in 2002) is an example of how domi­ nance in one domain may not be converted into dominance in the other. 16 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater It is necessary to stress the poUticized nature of the disciphne because the pohtics of International Relations can determine how broad the spec­ trum of 'legitimate theoretical opinion' can actually be. For example, Marxist scholars have highlighted the limits of expressible dissent in the discipline's attempt to uncover the cause of World War I. They have pointed to the conceptual and ideological parameters beyond which the investigators into war causes could not, or would not, proceed. For opin­ ion to be considered legitimate, it had to fall within the narrow spectrum of opinion that extends from 'realism' to 'idealism'. According to those Marxists, certain facts were axiomatically excluded as not belonging to the inquiry at all. Tensions within society, such as class struggles and economic competition between colonial powers - during this period a popular Marxist explanation of the origins of war - were not considered seriously within the discipline at the time. One commentator has suggested that the theory of imperialism was deliberately excluded because, by locating the causes of war within the nature of the capitalist system, it posed a direct threat to the social order of capitalist states: 'this false doctrine had to be refuted in the interest of stabilizing bourgeois society ... the [historians] acted and reflected within the social context of the bourgeois university, which structurally obstructed such revolution­ ary insights' (Krippendorf 1982: 27). Feminists have made a similar claim about the exclusion of their presence and perspectives from the concerns of international relations, arguing that the organization of the academy was designed in ways that occluded inquiry into patriarchal power. Explanatory and constitutive theory One reason for studying a wide variety of International Relations theo­ ries is to make international politics more intelligible - to make better sense of the actors, structures, institutions, processes and particular episodes mainly, but not only, in the contemporary world. At times, theo­ ries may be involved in testing hypotheses, in proposing causal explana­ tions with a view to identifying main trends and patterns in international relations - hence the claim that they are explanatory theories. But why study international relations in this way? Is it obvious that the student of international relations needs theory at all? Is it not more centrally important to investigate the facts which are already out there? Halliday's three answers to this last question are instructive: First, there needs to be some preconception of which facts are signifi­ cant and which are not. The facts are myriad and do not speak for Introduction 17 themselves. For anyone, academic or not, there need to be criteria of significance. Secondly, any one set of facts, even if accepted as true and as significant, can yield different interpretations: the debate on the 'lessons of the 1930s' is not about what happened in the 1930s, but about how these events are to be interpreted. The same applies to the end of the Cold War in the 1980s. Thirdly, no human agent, again whether academic or not, can rest content with facts alone: all social activity involves moral questions, of right and wrong, and these can, by definition, not be decided by facts. In the international domain such ethical issues are pervasive: the question of legitimacy and loyalty should one obey the nation, a broader community (even the world, the cosmopolis), or some smaller sub-national group; the issues of inter­ vention - whether sovereignty is a supreme value or whether states or agents can intervene in the internal affairs of states; the question of human rights and their definition and universality. (Halliday 1994: 25) In this view, theories are not 'optional extras' or interesting 'fashion accessories'. They are a necessary means of bringing order to the subject matter of International Relations. Theories are needed to conceptualize contemporary events. As Doyle (1983) argues in his writings on the liberal peace, an explanation of the absence of war between liberal states for almost two centuries has to begin by discussing what it means to describe a state as 'liberal' and what it means to claim there has been 'no war'. As Suganami (1996) has argued, any explanation of what causes war or what makes peace possible between societies, will be unsatisfac­ tory unless it deals with the question of what it means to say that 'x' causes 'y' (see also Kurki 2008). Conceptual analysis - an inherently philosophical activity - is a necessary part of any attempt to explain or understand world politics. International relations comprise a multiplicity of events, issues and relationships which are often enormous in scale and.bewildering in their complexity. Theories can help the observer to think critically, logically and coherently by sorting these phenomena into manageable categories so that the appropriate units and level of analysis can be chosen and so that, where possible, significant connections and patterns of behaviour are identified. To the scholar of the 'international', theories are unavoidable. After all, the interpretation of 'reality' is always contingent on theoretical assumptions of one kind or another. To reiterate the point, the events and issues which comprise international relations can be interpreted and understood only by reference to a conceptual framework. The theory of international relations provides us with a choice of such frameworks, all of which have significant limitations (Kolko 2006). 18 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater The process we undertake when theorizing is also in dispute and, as Bull insisted, critical, reflective examination is imperative and always required. Gellner (1974:175) asks whether it is possible or meaningful to distinguish 'between a world of fact "out there" and a cognitive realm of theory that retrospectively [our emphasis] orders and gives meaning to factual data'. If, as some post-structuralists maintain, there is no Archimedean standpoint which makes objective knowledge about an external reality possible, then the very process of separating 'theory' from 'practice', or the 'subject' from the 'object' it seeks to comprehend, is deeply problematical. Indeed, the very process of using positivist social science to acquire 'objective knowledge' may be deeply ideological. Far, then, from rising above the 'particular' to produce 'universal' truths about the social world, analysis may simply reflect specific cultural loca­ tions and sectional interests, and reproduce existing forms of power and domination (George and Campbell 1990). Those questions lead to a second category of theory, constitutive inter­ national theory. Everyone comes to the study of international relations with a specific language, cultural beliefs and preconceptions, as well as specific Hfe-experiences that affect their understanding of the subject. Language, culture, religion, ethnicity, class and gender are a few of the factors which shape world-views. Indeed it is possible to understand and interpret the world only within particular cultural and linguistic frame­ works: they are the lenses through which we perceive the world. One of the main purposes of studying theory is to enable us to examine these lenses to discover just how distorted and distorting any particular worldvievy may be. It is important to ask why, for example, realists focus on specific images which highlight states, geopolitics and war while remain­ ing blind to other phenomena such as class divisions or gender and mate­ rial inequalities or cultural assumptions about the most 'advanced' peoples and those who are deemed to lag behind. As noted earlier, in the theory of international relations it is important to be as concerned with how we approach the study of world politics as we are with events, issues and actors in the global system. It is necessary to examine background assumptions because all forms of social analysis raise important questions about the moral and cultural constitution of the observer. It is important to reflect upon the cognitive interests and normative assumptions which underpin research. The point here is to become acutely aware of hidden assumptions, prejudices and biases about how the social and political world is and what it can be. According to various 'critical' perspectives, it is futile or unrealistic to attempt to dispense with those assumptions. Indeed, post-structuralist approaches have called for the celebration of diverse experiences of the world of international relations while maintaining that all standpoints should be Introduction 19 subjected to forms of critical analysis that highlights their closures and exclusions (George and Campbell 1990). We can best do this by devel­ oping an awareness of the diversity of images of international relations. The task of constitutive international theory is to analyse the different forms of reflection about the nature and character of world politics and to stress that these forms of knowledge do not simply mirror the world, but also help to shape it. Interdisciplinary theory Although at the outset conceived as a separate discipline, International Relations has always been influenced by cognate fields of study. In recent times it has been shaped by interdisciplinary studies which are not easily categorized as either explanatory or constitutive theoretical approaches. Nor are they obviously either normative or empirical. Two of these fields, international political theory and historical sociology, are germane to so many theoretical discussions about global politics today, that they have been given separate chapters in this volume. Sometimes regarded as empirical theory, international political theory extends a range of ethical, philosophical and historical questions about politics, that were once more or less confined to analyses of relations within domestic settings, into the domain of international politics. Though not necessarily prescriptive, international political theory seeks to understand the grounds on which a range of ethical choices and normative preferences in international politics are 'made. Issues such as just-war theory, global justice and humanitarian intervention now occupy a central place in the theory of international relations. When is it legitimate to use force? What is the basis of a good international society? Are there any human rights that should be absolutely central to any decent international order? What obligations do affluent peoples have to assist the victims of famine and poverty in other societies? When do our obligations to people in other political communities - and to humanity generally - supersede our duties to fellow nationals? International polit­ ical theory analyses the arguments that are advanced in attempts to answer such questions, and reflects on the presuppositions and politics which reside in the foundations of these discussions. It also reminds us that international thought has a history which deserves serious consider­ ation by all scholars who deploy theoretical arguments without always being fully aware of how their conceptual tools were first forged. As its title suggests, historical sociology is concerned with identifying and understanding long-term patterns and processes of change in inter­ national relations. They include the changing configurations of power in 20 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater global politics, the shifting shape and functions of political communities, and rising levels of economic and social interconnectedness between peoples. Historical sociology is also concerned with how normative commitments including attitudes to violence, cruelty and suffering, have influenced the ethical and cultural contours of international politics over time. A central question is whether it is possible to identify specific longterm trends (as opposed to general laws) in world politics; a related issue is how far the contemporary society of states is very similar to earlier eras (as neo-realists have argued) or is radically different from preceding eras (as, for example, Marxist analyses of the relationship between industrial capitalism and the modern states-system have contended). Like international political theory, historical sociology has many different strands and traditions. Some embrace grand historical narra­ tives with an eye to uncovering distinctive patterns and themes, while others can be considered an antidote to 'presentism' - providing histori­ cal context to ensure that the analysis of supposedly unique contempo­ rary events takes account of their relationship with processes that may stretch back for decades or centuries, and in some cases for millennia. Such phenomena as the globalization of capitahsm and its implications, democratization after the Cold War, the history of states-systems, and the role of morality and the emotions in the international relations are just a few of the subjects upon which historical sociologists have reflected and significantly contributed to our knowledge of global politics. What do theories differ about? Although this volume identifies major perspectives, the authors do not want to give the impression that schools of thought are monolithic and homogeneous theoretical traditions. Although they may share-some basic assumptions, the exponents of each perspective can have widely differing, and even conflicting, positions on the issues raised earlier. Feminism and Marxism are examples of very broad 'churches' which display great diversity - and can on occasion seem as different from each other as the main perspectives in the field. Realism has its internal varia­ tions; so has the English School, the many branches of critical theory and so on. To someone who is new to the field, this diversity can be frustrat­ ing but there is nothing abnormal about differences of perspective within the same broad theoretical tradition. Heterogeneity is a strength and an obstacle to ossification. It is possible to compare and contrast sub-schools of International Relations because they do have much in common. It is possible to focus on what they generally agree are the issues worth disagreeing about, on Introduction 21 what they regard as the principal stakes involved in understanding the world and in striving for more sophisticated modes of analysis. Here it is necessary to proceed with great caution because no account of the main stakes in the debates between theories can do justice to the many debates and controversies in the field. There is bound to be some arbitrariness in any attempt to make sense of the discipline as a whole. However, with that caveat, we believe it is useful to consider what the main perspectives have concluded about the following four issues: certainly a brief summary of where different theories stand on these issues may make it easier to chart a path through the thicket of major controversies in the field. Object of analysis and scope of the enquiry The first is the object of analysis and the scope of the enquiry. Debates about the object of analysis have been especially important in the disci­ pline since the 'level of analysis' debate that began in the 1960s (Singer 1961; Hollis and Smith 1990: 92-118). One of the best illustrations of what is at stake here is Waltz's discussion of the causes of wars. In Man, the State and War, Waltz (1959) argued that three different levels of analysis (or three 'images') had been explored in the literature on this subject: (a) human nature; (b) the structure of political systems; and (c) the nature of the international system. Waltz showed how many psychol­ ogists have tried to explain war by looking at the innate aggressiveness of the species; many liberals and Marxists maintained that war is the prod­ uct of the way in which some political systems are organized. Liberals maintained that war was the result of autocratic government; Marxists saw it as the by-product of capitalism. From each standpoint, war was regarded as a phenomenon which could be abolished - by creating liberal regimes in the first case, and by establishing socialist forms of govern­ ment in the second. According to students of the 'third level' of analysis, war is a product of the anarchic nature of international politics and the unending competition for power and security. Waltz argued for the primacy of this 'third image of international polities', which stressed that war is inevitable in the context of anarchy (while recognizing that the other two levels of analysis also contribute to the study of war origins). Thinking back to an earlier part of the discussion, we can see that the dominance of realism was in large part a consequence of its persuasive argument about the most important level of analysis for students of the field. We can also see that some of the main changes in the discipline have been the result of discontent with the realists' concentration on the prob­ lem of anarchy to the virtual exclusion of all other domains of world politics. When feminists argue for bringing women within the parameters 22 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater of discussion, or the Enghsh School argues for focusing on international society, when constructivists urge the importance of understanding the social construction of norms, when post-colonial thinkers stress the need to understand imperial ideologies, and so on, they are involved in funda­ mental disciplinary debates about the appropriate correct object (or level) of analysis. Purpose of social and political enquiry They are also involved in crucial debates about the purpose of social and political enquiry. Returning to Waltz, in his account of the causes of war (and later in his classic work. Theory of International Politics, 1979), he maintained that the purpose of analysis is to understand the limits on political change, more specifically to show that states are best advised to work with the existing international order rather than to try to change it radically. Above all else, they should aim to as far as they can the preser­ vation of a balance of power which deters states from going to war although it cannot always prevent it. Ambitious projects of global reform are, on that analysis, destined to fail. Members of the English School do not deny the importance of the balance of power, but they stress the need to attend to all the phenomena that make international order possible including the belief that the society of states is legitimate and, in the after­ math of Western cblonialism, willing to be responsive to claims for justice advanced by 'Third World' states. Other perspectives include the liberal argument that the purpose of analysis is to promote economic and social interdependence between individuals across the world and, in the case of many radical approaches to the field, to create new forms of polit­ ical community, or to challenge various notions of cultural superiority, or to promote new forms of human solidarity. For the neo-realist, the purpose of the analysis is defined by the belief that international anarchy makes many of those visions Utopian and dangerous. For many opponents of neo-realism, its purpose of inquiry is too quick to resign to what it regards as unchangeable processes; one of the main purposes of international political inquiry is to resist the perceived fatalism, determinism and conservatism of this position. In this context, the emergence of critical approaches to international relations (whether derived from Marxism and the Frankfurt School or located within developments in French social theory or representing post-colo­ nial standpoints) has been especially important. Their purpose is to crit­ icize neo-realist claims about the 'knowable reality' of international politics. Post-structuralists, for example, maintain that 'reality' is discur­ sively produced (that is, constructed by discourse): it is 'never a complete, entirely coherent "thing", accessible to universaHzed, essentialist or Introduction 23 totalized understandings... [it] is always characterized by ambiguity, disunity, discrepancy, contradiction and difference' (George 1994: 11). Reality can never be contained, in other words, within one grand theory or reduced to one set of forces which are judged to be more important than all others. Critiques of the neo-realist purpose of inquiry have had huge implica­ tions for the scope of inquiry mentioned earlier. One consequence has been to make questions of ontology more central to the field. As Cox (1992b: 132) argued, 'ontology lies at the beginning of any enquiry. We cannot define a problem in global politics without presupposing a certain basic structure consisting of the significant kinds of entities involved and the form of significant relationships among them.' He added that 'onto­ logical presuppositions [are] inherent in ... terms such as "International Relations", which seems to equate nation with state and to define the field as limited to the interactions among states' (Cox 1992b: 132). Cox displayed a preference for focusing on how domestic and transnational class forces, states and powerful international institutions have been combined to form a global hegemonic order. As noted earlier, debates about the 'basic structure of international politics' are not just about what is 'out there' and how we come to know 'reality'; they are also inex­ tricably tied up with different views about the purposes of political inquiry. Cox (1981: 128) emphasized this point in the striking claim that 'theory is always for someone and for some purpose'. In one of the most influential distinctions in the field. Cox claimed that neo-realism has a 'problem-solving' purpose, its main task being to ensure that existing political arrangements 'function more smoothly' by minimizing the potential for conflict and war. Of course. Cox did not underestimate the importance of that endeavour, but he challenged its sufficiency. The main problem, as he saw it, is that neo-realism assumes that the world is frozen in particular ways and ultimately unchangeable. But the consequence of taking 'the world as it finds it ... as the given framework for action' is that neo-realism confers legitimacy on that order and the forms of dominance and inequality which are inherent in it. (There is a direct parallel here with one of the central themes in poststructuralist thought - ultimately derived from Foucault's writings - on how forms of knowledge are connected with forms of power (Chapter 9).) On the other hand, critical theory. Cox (1981, 1992b) maintained, had a broader purpose which is to reflect on how a particular order came into being, how it has evolved over time and may change again because of 'counter-hegemonic' struggles in ways that improve the life-chances of the vulnerable people. A broadly similar critical purpose runs through all the main radical approaches to the field, including feminism, green polit­ ical theory and 'critical constructivism'. All are actively reformist and 24 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater libertarian in that they are broadly committed to the normative task of exposing constraints upon human autonomy that can in principle be removed. Appropriate methodology Debates about the purpose of international political enquiry lead to a third point of difference between approaches which revolves around the appropriate methodology for the advancement of discipline. Key ques­ tions are best approached by recalling that politically motivated scholar­ ship is deeply controversial and often anathema to many scholars. The main issue is the status of normative claims. Is it possible to provide an objective account of why human beings should value autonomy and rally around a project of promoting universal human emancipation? Exponents of scientific approaches have argued that objective knowledge about the ends of the social and political is unobtainable; post-struc­ turalists have argued that the danger is that any doctrine of ideal ends will become the basis for new forms of power and domination. In the 1990s, debates about what constitutes the 'knowable reality' of interna­ tional relations (ontological questions) were accompanied by increas­ ingly complex discussions about how knowledge is generated or about how analysts know that they know about the world (epistemological questions). Of course, the 'great debate' in the 1960s was very much concerned with epistemological issues, with the advocates of science such as Kaplan and Singer supporting quantificationist techniques and hypothesis-testing while 'traditionalists' such as Bull believed that the methodologies of history, law, philosophy and other classical forms of academic inquiry were the best way to approach international politics. As noted earlier, that was a debate (with its origins in the late eighteenth century) about the extent to which the methods of the natural sciences can be applied to the study of society and politics. It was also a debate about the possibility of a neutral or 'value-free' study of international relations. Such debates are far from being resolved - or, at least, there is no consensus in the field as to how to resolve them. Various forms of critical theory joined the critique of scientific approaches, claiming (as Horkheimer and Adorno had done in the 1940s) that they are insepara­ ble from efforts to create new forms of social and political power. However, scientific approaches continue to have the upper hand in the American study of International Relations. They have been central to studies of the liberal peace (see Doyle 1983), and one analyst has claimed that the observation that there has been no war between liberal states for nearly two centuries is the nearest thing to a law in world politics (Levy Introduction 25 1989). It is also important to note the increasing prominence in the United States of 'rational choice' or 'game-theoretical' approaches as applied to studies of cooperation between 'rational egoists' (see the discussion of liberal mstitutionalism in Keohane 1984). But those methodologies have not been influential in the development of 'tradi­ tionalist' perspectives such as the English School, or in constructivist analysis, or in the different branches of critical scholarship that include feminism and post-colonialism. Distinct area of intellectual endeavour A fourth point of difference between perspectives revolves around the issue of whether the discipline should be conceived as a relatively distinct area of intellectual endeavour or considered as a field which can develop only by drawing heavily on other areas of investigation, such as histori­ cal sociology or and the study of world history (see Buzan and Little 2001 and Linklater 2011a, who call for closer ties with the study of world history). The more the analyst sees international politics as a realm of competition and conflict that is inherent in the condition of anarchy, the stronger the tendency to regard it as radically different from other academic fields. Here, its anarchic character is often seen as separating the study of International Relations from other social sciences, and the relevance of concepts and ideas drawn from outside the discipline is assumed to be limited. We have already encountered this theme in Wight's (1966a) paper, 'Why Is There No International Theory?' Neo-realism is also associated with the view that, like most of the states it studies, International Relations has sharply defined boundaries. Waltz (1979) is explicit on this point, claiming that the international political system should be regarded as a 'domain apart' - although he looks beyond the field to economics and to developments in the philosophy of science to develop his thesis about international anarchy. The more dominant tendency in recent international theory has been to embrace inter- or multidisciphnarity as a way of escaping the perceived insularity of the field. Many theorists have looked to developments in European social theory, post-colonial thinking and sociology, more generally, in order to develop appropriate conceptual frameworks to explore new areas of investigation; some have looked to studies of ethics and political theory for insight. Many of the questions which have fasci­ nated feminist scholars - about patriarchy, gender identity, etc. - can only be answered by going outside classical disciplinary boundaries. That is also manifestly true of thinking about green politics which necessarily looks beyond the conventional discipline (Chapter 11). The most recent phase in the history of globalization has led many to deepen the move 26 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater towards multidisciplinarity (Scholte 2000). The upshot of those develop­ ments is that the boundaries of International Relations have been keenly contested, and in many sub-fields substantially redrawn. That does not mean the end of International Relations as an academic discipline, although the extent to which it borrows from other fields without having much influence on the wider humanities and social sciences in return is, for some, a real cause for concern (see Buzan and Little 2001). On the other hand, cross-pollination from cognate fields can also enrich the study of international relations. All theories of international relations have to deal with the state and nationalism, with the struggle for power and security, and with the use of force, but they do not deal with these phenomena in the same way. Different conceptions of the scope of the inquiry, its purpose and methodology mean that the issues of war and peace which formed the classical core of the subject have been conceptu­ alized and analysed in increasingly diverse ways. Evaluating theories We probably should not expect too much from any empirical theory. No single theory identifies, explains or understands all the key structures and dynamics of international politics. International historians such as Gaddis (1992-3) stressed that none of the major traditions of interna­ tional theory predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union and its immedi­ ate consequences for Europe and the rest of the world. But many theorists do not believe that their purpose is prediction or concede that theories should be assessed by how well they can predict events. An assessment of different theories cannot begin, then, by comparing their achievements in explaining international political reality 'out there' in the sense of predicting the future course of events. What we have tried to show in this introduction, and what the other chapters demonstrate, is that some of the most interesting debates revolve around the question of what it means to provide a good account of any dimension of international politics. We do not claim that this volume provides an exhaustive survey of the field at the current time, and we do not deny the claims of other perspectives which lack representa­ tion here. But we do believe that a comparison of the nine main theories considered in this volume, and an examination of interdisciplinary stud­ ies such as historical sociology, feminism, green theory and international political theory, will show why the nature of a good account of interna­ tional political phenomena is keenly contested and why debates about this matter are important. That is why the great proliferation of theoret­ ical approaches should be applauded rather than lamented as evidence Introduction 27 that the discipline has lost its way or has collapsed into competing 'tribes'. One can begin to decide if one has a good account of any inter­ national political phenomenon only by engaging with different theories. In that way, analysts of international relations become more selfconscious about the different ways of practising their craft and more aware of omissions and exclusions which may reflect personal or cultural biases. This theme is crucially important if those of a critical persuasion are broadly right that all forms of inquiry have political implications and consequences, most obviously by creating narratives which privilege certain standpoints and experiences to some degree. That theme is also significant because of the criticism that International Relations has been a Western-dominated discipline rather than a global discipline that inte­ grates Western and non-Western perspectives in a more comprehensive understanding of the world. There is one final point to make before commenting briefly on the chapters that follow. Here, it is necessary to return to a comment made at the start of this introduction, namely that the realists and the liberal internationalists have been involved in a major controversy about the forms of political action that are most appropriate in a realm in which the struggle for power and security is pre-eminent. It is also worth recalling Steve Smith's claim that theories 'do not simply explain or predict, they tell us what possibilities exist for human action and intervention; they define not merely our explanatory possibilities, but also our ethical and practical horizons' (1996: 113). Now the analyst of any dimension of international politics may not be concerned with the possibilities for 'human action and intervention'; and many theorists of international relations would deny that this is what theory is essentially about. There is no reason to suggest an agenda that all good theories should follow. But to look at the main perspectives and at the debates between them is to see that the issue of whether or not the international political system can be reformed is one recurrent question which concerns them all. For those who think global reform is possible, other questions immediately follow. How are different visions of international political life to be assessed, and what are the prospects for realizing them? We suggest that those questions provide one measure of a comprehensive analysis account of world politics. Others will disagree. To decide the merits of different positions on the possibilities for 'human action and interven­ tion' - whether large or small - it is important to be familiar with at least the perspectives which are considered in this volume. In Chapter 2, Jack Donnelly analyses classical realism which domi­ nated the field for at least the first 50 years of its existence and which remains highly influential in the discipline today. The writings of early realists such as Carr and Morgenthau remain key reference points in 28 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater contemporary debates many decades after their first publication. Interestingly, as explained in Chapter 2, neo-realism which emerged in the late-1970s and which was at the heart of most debates during the following two decades, was one of the main challenges to classical real­ ism. However, neo-realism was also concerned with the critique of liberal approaches (as well as Marxist and other radical approaches to the field) which it considers guilty of exaggerating the ability of economic and social processes to change the basic structure of international politics. In Chapter 3, Scott Burchill discusses the development of the liberal tradition, noting in particular how many contemporary neo-liberal accounts of the world market and the defence of free trade, resonate with ideas promoted by economic liberals in the nineteenth century. However, contemporary liberalism contains much more than a particular concep­ tion of how freeing trade and global markets from the hands of the state can promote material prosperity and establish the conditions for lasting peace. Other features of the perspective which have been influential in recent years include the defence of the universal human rights culture and the development of international criminal law, the study of 'cooperation under anarchy' associated with neo-hberal institutionahsm, and the immensely important discussion of the hberal peace. These features of recent liberal thinking about international relations will also be discussed in Chapter 3. In Chapters 4 and 5, Andrew Linklater analyses the English School and Marxism. Neither has enjoyed the global influence of realism/neorealism and liberalism/neo-liberahsm, although the Enghsh School has been particularly influential in British International Relations. Over the last fifteen years, there has been considerable interest in the English School theory of international society and in its position as a 'third way' between the pessimism of realism and the more idealistic forms of liber­ alism and various radical perspectives including Marxism. Chapter 4 pays particular attention to the contribution of Wight, Vincent and Bull to the discipline, and notes their special relevance for contemporary discussions about human rights, humanitarian intervention and the use of force in international affairs. Chapter 5 turns to Marxism, which has often been criticized by neo-realists and members of the English School on the grounds that its economic reductionism casts little if any light on the dominant forces in world politics. Whether the rejection of Marxism overlooked its ability to make a significant contribution to the field is a question that Chapter 5 considers in detail. Particular attention will be paid to Marx's writings on globalization, to Marxist analysis of nation­ alism and internationalism, and to reflections on the importance of forms of production - and specifically the development of modern capitalist forms of production - for global politics. The 'critical' dimensions of Introduction 29 Marxism - its interest not only in explaining the world, but in changing it - are also noted in this chapter. In Chapter 6 Andrew Linklater explains how important trends within historical sociology have started to influence theoretical debates within International Relations. Historical sociology identifies patterns and processes of change in the broader sweep of history - over the long term. The evolution of the states-system, the spread of capitalism and the changing nature of political communities are just three key themes exam­ ined by historical sociologists which are central to contemporary debates within International Relations. The provision of historical context to the contemporary discussion of global politics makes historical sociology an indispensable tool in the hands of theorists in the field. Marxism provided the mtellectual-background for the development of critical theory as developed by members of the Frankfurt School such as Horkheimer and Adorno in the 1930s, and by Habermas, Honneth and others in more recent times. In Chapter 7, Richard Devetak explains the central aims of critical theory and their impact on various theorists such as Ashley in the early 1980s, and on Ken Booth (1991a/b, 2008) and Robert Cox who have defended a version of international politics committed to the idea of human security or emancipation (see also the discussion in Brincat, Lima and Nunes 2012). Although the term 'critical theory' was initially associated with the Frankfurt School, which derived many of its ideas from a dialogue with orthodox Marxism, it is also strongly associated with post-structuralism, a perspective which is deeply suspicious of the emancipatory claims of classical Marxism. In Chapter 8, Richard Devetak explains the post-structural turn in the social sciences by considering the writings of Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard, and their influence on International Relations since the 1980s. Its critique of the 'Enlightenment project' of universal human emancipation is an impor­ tant element of this chapter, as is the stress on the critique of 'totalizing' perspectives which are judged to be a threat to the flourishing of human differences. Constructivism, which Christian Reus-Smit discusses in Chapter 9, has emerged as a powerful challenge to orthodox perspectives in the field in the past decade and, most crucially, to theories which assume that states derive certain interests from their location in an anarchic condi­ tion. In a famous challenge to those approaches, Alexander Wendt (1992) argued that 'anarchy is what states make of it'. The claim was that anarchy is socially constructed, that it is shaped by the beliefs and atti­ tudes of states; it is not an unchanging structure which imposes certain constraints on states and compels all to participate in an endless struggle for power and security. Constructivism which has focused particularly on the relationship between interests and identities encompasses several 30 Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater competing approaches. Some are influenced by post-structuralism, others by critical theory in the Frankfurt School tradition; some share the neo-reahst focus on analysing relations between states in isolation from other processes (systemic constructivism) whereas others see the statessystem in connection with a range of national and global cultural and political phenomena (holistic constructivism). In Chapter 10, Jacqui True sheds light on a subject which first came onto the International Relations agenda in the mid-1980s, namely femi­ nism. This perspective is not reducible to a study of the position of women in the global order, although many feminists such as Cynthia Enloe did set out to explain how women are affected by war and by developments in the global economy, including structural adjustment policies (SAPs) in the 1980s and 1990s. The invisibility of women in mainstream approaches and in many critical alternatives was one reason for the development of the feminist literature. Flowever, feminist perspec­ tives have been no more homogeneous than other theoretical stand­ points. Some feminists, such as Christine Sylvester (1994a, 2002), have used post-structuralist approaches to question 'essentialist' accounts of women, their interests and rights. One concern has been to challenge claims that the dominant Western conceptions of 'woman' are valid for women everywhere. Other feminists, such as Steans (1995/2006), have been influenced by the Marxist tradition. It is important to repeat that feminism is not simply interested in the place of women in the global political and economic order. It is also preoccupied with constructions of gender including constructions of masculinity, and with how they affect forms of power and inequality and, at the epistemological level, knowl­ edge claims about the world. Matthew Paterson discusses developments within green political thinking in Chapter 11. Environmental degradation, transnational pollu­ tion and climate change have had a significant impact on the study of global politics. Those issues have featured in studies of 'international regimes' with responsibility for environmental issues. Questions of global justice have been at the heart of discussions about the fair distrib­ ution of obligations between rich and poor and about moral responsibil­ ity for reversing environmental harm. Obligations to non-human species and to future generations have been important themes in environmental ethics. Green political thought has criticized the dominant assumptions, until the 1960s, about infinite economic growth and the faith in the virtues of unbridled capitalism. Questions about the prospects for 'ecologically responsible' states and global environmental citizenship which have been discussed in green political thought have special rele­ vance for students of international relations (Dobson 2003; Eckersley 2004). These are some of the ways in which green political thought and Introduction 31 practice have tried to reconfigure the study of international relations so that more attention is devoted to the long-term fate of the planet and the different life forms that inhabit it. Finally in Chapter 12, Terry Nardin considers the recent impact of international political theory on contemporary theoretical debates in International Relations. Drawing on debates within 'domestic' political theory, international political theory examines the political, philosophi­ cal and ethical basis of key concerns within international relations, including assumptions which underwrite the discussion of global justice and the use of force and, as noted earlier, debates over what constitutes a just war, as well as disputes about the merits of humanitarian interven­ tion. International political theory also reminds us of the long history of international thought and the broader intellectual connections between political philosophy and international politics that have not always been properly acknowledged (Walker 1993; Brown, Nardin and Rengger 2002). Most of the authors in this volume identify with one or other of the perspectives analysed in this book, but none argues that any one theory can solve the many problems which arise for theorists of international relations. We see merit in all the approaches surveyed, and we certainly believe it is essential to engage with all theoretical perspectives from the 'inside', to see the world from different theoretical vantage-points, to learn from them, to test one's own ideas against them, and to think care­ fully about what others would regard as the vulnerabilities of one's perspective, whatever it may be. Those who teach the theory of interna­ tional relations are sometimes asked 'what is the correct theory?' We hope our readers will conclude there is no obviously correct theory which solves all the problems listed in this introduction and considered in more detail in the pages below. Some may concur with Martin Wight (1991) that the truth about international relations will not be found in any one of the traditions but in the continuing dialogue and debate between them. This is almost certainly the right attitude to ad...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.

Student Name:
Institution Affiliation:
Course, Department:
Professor Name:
Date

1

Abstract
There have been several ideologies developed since Plato's times from the Marxists
ideologies, communism political and economic ideas, realism and liberalism ideologies. All
these ideologies have impacted developing human history and theories from the economic
perspectives, political perceptions and cultural beliefs. Though in this study, we will majorly
focus on the liberalism as an ideology, importance and impacts on several sectors.
Keywords: liberalism, modern liberalism, globalization

Introduction
This study's main objective is to help understand the terms liberalism and realism and
their influences on the modern world politics, economy, and culture.
John Locke believes that the traditional authoritarian rule should be replaced by
ideologies like free to own property, right to life and liberty. Liberalism brought a lot of ideas
depending on the individual belief of the liberal principles like free trade, democracy in
elections, implementation of the rule of law constitutionalism and capitalism.
The liberal ideology developed a more substantial base by rejecting several other
ideologies and theories like absolute monarchy and established religion and nobility during
the enlightenment era. However, these ideologies changed with time due to the rise of social
liberalism in the regions like North America and Europe, where the Americans adopted the
idea of individualism and classical liberalism as the significant liberal thoughts among the
American philosophers.
The modern world revolutionaries have used liberal ideologies primarily to criticize and
justify their complaints against the authority, majorly in France and America. In the 19th
century, many governments became liberal or adopted liberal politics in Northern America,
Latin America, and Europe.
Comparison between liberalism and realism
Realists and liberalists think almost the same in some issues, political, economic and
culture, though institutionalism combines them to almost a single theory. Realism ideology is
based majorly on human history's pessimistic culture, while liberalism based its argument on
the increased capital associated with liberty.

2

The liberals believe in the following;
i. that state should cooperate resources,
ii. that human beings can be more creative and productive if they corporate locally
and globally (free trade and globalization),
iii. that institution are obliged to uphold and defend the rule of law and disseminate
justice fairly.

Liberalism
According to Burchill, Liberalism is the most enduring and influential philosophical
tradition the originated from the European Enlightenment (1996). It a political view geared
towards promoting scientific inevitabili...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags