Approaches to study International Relations - 2 | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Liberalism

Liberalism in International Relations
Liberalism is a significant school of thought in international relations, with deep roots in Christian traditions, which later evolved to emphasize the importance of individual freedom, rationality, and morality in international politics. It has gone through various stages and has given rise to different approaches and theories, such as liberal internationalism, liberal idealism, and liberal institutionalism.

• Christian Roots and Early Liberalism: Christianity introduced new ideals and morals into human society, emphasizing the values of peace and humanity. Early liberals believed in creating a Kingdom of God on earth and improving international relations. The role of the individual became central in liberalism after the Renaissance, with the belief that granting more freedom to individuals would lead to more peaceful cooperation among states. This faith in human rationality later extended to the state itself, with liberals arguing that states can behave rationally and that international politics can be improved by spreading freedom to all states.
• Immanuel Kant and Perpetual Peace: Immanuel Kant, a key figure in liberal thought, argued that perpetual peace could be achieved among nations by establishing a Peace Federation between states based on rational individuals and a Republican political order. Kant believed in the inherent goodness of humans and that liberating individuals would lead to a more peaceful society. He argued that rational humans would understand the benefits of cooperation over conflict and the importance of personal safety and property, leading to a republican state where people would vote against war.

Three Stages of Liberal Theory in International Relations

1. Liberal Internationalism: This approach, which began with the Enlightenment and lasted until World War I, focused on the individual as the center of international relations. It argued that the less states intervened in the lives of their citizens, the fewer reasons there would be for war.
2. Liberal Idealism: Emerging after 1914, this approach posited that individual freedom was not enough, and that states needed to be addressed as well. It argued that the main cause of war was the unjust nature of the balance of power, and that peace could be achieved through national self-determination and treating states as equals.
3. Liberal Institutionalism: The contemporary stage of liberal theory emphasizes the importance of international institutions in maintaining world order and stability. Institutions provide a platform for states to communicate, negotiate, and reduce the chances of war.

Just War and Liberal Institutionalism

• The concept of Just War, as discussed by Hugo Grotius, outlines three preconditions for a war to be considered just: self-defense, protection of property, and revenge or compensation. Beyond these reasons, he argued that humans have no justification for engaging in war.
• Liberal institutionalism, as proposed by Woodrow Wilson in his famous 14 points speech, suggested that international institutions could help create a rule-based order and contain anarchy in international politics. These institutions would provide a platform for interaction and communication, promoting trust between states and facilitating peaceful dispute resolution.

Progress and Critiques of Liberal Institutionalism

• While the process of institution-building has been slow, there has been a significant increase in the number of international institutions, global regimes, and international laws since the end of the Cold War. However, the effectiveness of these institutions is a matter of debate. Realists argue that institutions merely extend the power of states, which are primarily driven by national interests.
• Moreover, international institutions often suffer from issues of representativeness, transparency, and accountability, leading to a crisis of credibility. Despite the existence of various institutions, arms races among major powers continue.

The English School: Anarchical Society

• Hedley Bull, a prominent English school scholar, acknowledged the transformation in international politics due to the growth of institutions, international law, and regimes.
• In his book "The Anarchical Society," he argued that these developments have converted anarchy into an "anarchical society," which is neither a complete society nor complete anarchy but a mix of both.

Sociological Liberalism

Sociological liberalism is an approach in international relations that focuses on society-to-society interactions, rather than solely on interactions between political entities. This approach highlights the importance of Track 2 diplomacy, which involves informal dialogues and interactions between individuals and organizations from different societies, in building trust and fostering cooperation between nations. Sociological liberalism supports policies such as open borders and visa liberalization to facilitate these interactions.

• Relevance of Sociological Liberalism in Contemporary Times: In the era of globalization, the significance of a society-centric approach has grown considerably. Scholars like James Rosenau argue that we now live in a society-centric world, where the capacities of states to control their borders and regulate interactions between people have diminished. The rise of global civil society and the increasing interconnectedness of individuals across national boundaries further support this notion.
  John Burton's cob-web model also highlights the shift towards a society-centric world, emphasizing the growing role of non-state actors and civil society organizations in shaping international relations.
• Karl Deutsch's Communication Theory: Karl Deutsch, a prominent scholar in the field of sociological liberalism, developed the communication theory, which measures the amount of interaction between states. According to Deutsch, interactions can be quantified by examining factors such as international travel, visas issued, letters exchanged, and phone calls made between countries.
  Deutsch observed that countries with a high level of interaction tend to have more peaceful and beneficial relations. For example, Western European countries and North American countries have strong ties due to their high levels of interaction. These interactions often result in the formation of 'security communities,' where countries collaborate to maintain peace and security.
• Security Community as an Ideal for Neighboring Countries: Based on his observations, Deutsch proposed that neighboring countries should strive to achieve the ideal of security communities. By fostering a high level of interaction between their societies, countries can build trust, reduce tensions, and promote cooperation on various issues.

Security community

A security community is a concept in international relations that refers to a group of nations or people who do not perceive each other as potential threats, and believe that any threats they may face come from outside their community. This idea is inspired by the domestic political sphere, where nation-states can be considered security communities. The concept can be expanded to include regional and even broader levels of cooperation and trust among countries.

Building a Security Community

• Communication and Interaction: The most effective way to build a security community is by enhancing communication and interaction among the countries involved. By fostering dialogue and understanding, nations can establish trust and reduce the likelihood of conflicts. This approach is often referred to as the communications approach.

Examples of Security Communities

• European Union (EU): The EU is a prime example of a security community as its member states work together to ensure the safety and stability of the region. The EU has successfully reduced the risk of conflict and war among its members by fostering economic, political, and social integration.
• Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): ASEAN is another example of a security community in the making. The organization aims to promote regional peace, stability, and prosperity through increased cooperation and partnership among its member states.
• Trans-Atlantic Security Community: The close partnership between Western Europe and North America, particularly through the NATO alliance, has created a security community that seeks to address common threats and challenges collectively.

Challenges in Building Security Communities in the Third World
Many states in the developing world have struggled to establish security communities, even at the domestic level. There are several reasons for this:

• Historical Conflicts and Rivalries: Long-standing disputes and animosities between neighboring countries can make it difficult to build trust and cooperation in a security community.
• Political Instability: Frequent changes in government, military coups, and civil unrest can hinder the establishment of a stable and secure environment necessary for a security community.
• Economic Disparity: Significant differences in wealth and development among countries can create tensions and competition, rather than fostering a sense of shared security.
• External Interference: The involvement of external powers in the domestic affairs of developing countries can exacerbate existing conflicts and complicate efforts to build a security community.

Functionalism

Functionalism has emerged as one of the most successful and practical alternatives to realism in international relations. The European Union (EU) is a prime example of a functionalist approach, serving as the foundation for the development of functionalism theory. Over time, the theory has evolved from functionalism to neo-functionalism, based on the experiences of the EU.

1. Understanding Functionalism: "Peace by Pieces"
Functionalism, often referred to as "peace by pieces," is an approach that seeks to promote cooperation and interdependence among nations. The fundamental steps involved in the functionalist approach are:

• Compartmentalization of Issues: This involves separating issues into different categories, making it easier to address specific concerns.
• Segregation of Low Politics and High Politics: The functionalist approach distinguishes between low politics, which involve non-controversial issues such as economic cooperation, and high politics, which involve more sensitive issues like military and security matters.
• Involvement of Non-Political Actors: Encouraging participation from non-political individuals such as technicians, scientists, artists, and athletes can help foster cooperation on low-political issues.
• Spillover Effect: Cooperation in one area can lead to increased cooperation in other areas, creating functional interlinkages and fostering interdependence among nations.
• Avoiding War: As interdependence increases, the prospect of war becomes increasingly unfeasible, promoting peace among nations.

2. Origins of Functionalism
The ideas of functionalism can be traced back to the works of several scholars and thinkers, such as:

• Richard Cobden, who advocated for keeping politicians out of the integration process.
• GDH Cole, who introduced the concept of functional sovereignty, which emphasizes the importance of specialized agencies and organizations in promoting cooperation.
• David Mitrany, who also supported the functionalist approach in international relations.

3. Neo-Functionalism: Addressing the Challenges of Functionalism
A key challenge to functionalism is the potential stagnation of the integration process. In such situations, neo-functionalist Ernst Haas argues that it is crucial to involve the political class. He believes that the integration process cannot proceed without the strong will and determination of political actors.

4. Functionalism in Practice: Successes and Failures
The European Union serves as a successful example of functionalism in action, demonstrating how cooperation and integration can be achieved through a functionalist approach. However, the "composite dialogue" process in South Asia, initiated under the "two plus six framework" with Pakistan, has been an unsuccessful attempt at implementing functionalism.

Interdependence School: An Economic Perspective

The Interdependence School is an economic concept that revolves around the idea of market integration and interdependence between countries. This neo-liberal approach suggests that when countries are economically intertwined, they are less likely to engage in conflict. An example of this can be seen in India's decision to grant Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan, which aimed to strengthen economic ties between the two nations.

Key Theorists of Interdependence School

• Thomas Friedman: The 'Golden Arches' Theory: Thomas Friedman, a renowned economist and journalist, proposed the 'Golden Arches' theory. According to this theory, two countries with a McDonald's chain are less likely to go to war with each other. The reasoning behind this is that people in these countries would prefer to stand in line for a burger rather than engaging in armed conflict at their borders. This theory highlights the importance of economic interdependence and suggests that when countries have significant stakes in each other's economies, going to war would be counterproductive.
• Richard Rosecrance: Trading States vs. Militaristic States: Richard Rosecrance, a prominent political scientist, introduced the concept of trading states as an alternative to militaristic states. Trading states, such as Germany and Japan after World War II, focus on economic growth and trade rather than military expansion. For a long time, China also limited itself to being a trading state but has recently started shifting towards a more militaristic approach.
• Rosecrance argues that countries should strive to become trading states rather than militaristic states, as even without a strong military presence, trading states can hold significant influence in global affairs. He cites the example of the former Soviet Union, which pursued a militaristic strategy, ultimately overextending itself and leading to its collapse. The United States is another example of a country that has overextended itself militarily, contributing to the decline of its hegemony.

Democratic Peace Theory

Democratic Peace Theory is a widely debated concept in international relations, which posits that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. Michael Doyle, a prominent scholar of this theory, draws on the ideas of Immanuel Kant to argue that democracies form a 'zone of peace'. However, this theory has also faced various criticisms.

• Zone of Peace: According to Democratic Peace Theory, democracies form an informal region known as the 'zone of peace'. This is not a formal arrangement, but rather a byproduct of the pacifist culture and toleration that democracies promote. In such a setting, people develop the habit of resolving disputes through dialogue rather than force, reducing the likelihood of war between democratic nations.
• Role of Public Opinion: In democracies, there is significant pressure from public opinion on the government's actions, making it difficult for states to disregard the will of the people. This means that in democratic nations, the decision to go to war is not made lightly, as leaders must consider the potential backlash from their constituents.

Freedom of Speech and Critical Examination
Democratic Peace Theory also highlights the importance of freedom of speech and expression in democracies. This allows for critical examination of foreign policy decisions, providing opportunities to correct any potential missteps and avoid conflicts. This level of scrutiny and debate does not typically exist in non-democratic systems, making democracies less prone to war.

Controversies and Criticisms

1. Coincidence or Causation: Critics of Democratic Peace Theory argue that the lack of war between major democracies could simply be a coincidence, rather than a result of their political systems. This suggests that there may be other factors at play, and that democracy alone cannot be credited for the absence of conflict.
2. Democracy Promotion at Gunpoint: One of the most significant criticisms of the theory is that it has been used to legitimize the actions of countries like the United States in promoting democracy forcibly. The Bush Doctrine, for example, has been criticized for attempting to introduce democracy at gunpoint, which undermines the core principles of democratic peace theory.
3. Regime Change and Puppet Governments: Countries like Russia and China view democracy promotion as an attempt at regime change and installing puppet governments. They argue that this undermines the very concept of democratic peace, as it involves the use of force and coercion to spread democratic ideals.

Complex Interdependence. [Cob-Web Model]

In the post-Cold War era, the nature of international relations has changed significantly. This has led to the emergence of the concept of complex interdependence, which was introduced by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Unlike other liberal theories, complex interdependence is descriptive and aims to explain the state of relations among nations in the present world order. This concept is characterized by the intricate and multifaceted connections between nations, which has resulted in a shift from the traditional Westphalian world order.

• Forces of Globalization and Complex Interdependence: The complex interdependence among nations has arisen due to various forces of globalization, such as the integration of markets and the rise of global threats like terrorism, climate change, and ozone depletion. These challenges are beyond the capacity of a single state to tackle, necessitating cooperation among countries. Complex interdependence can be described as a situation where nations are compelled to cooperate with those they may otherwise prefer to avoid.
• Examples of Complex Interdependence: The relationships between various countries, such as the United States and Russia, Russia and China, and India and the United States, can be characterized as complex interdependence.

Features of Complex Interdependence Model

• No hierarchy of issues: In a world of complex interdependence, there is no hierarchy of issues among countries. This means that nations must address multiple concerns simultaneously, rather than focusing on a single dominant issue.
• Multidimensional security: Security concerns have become multidimensional, encompassing not just military and political dimensions but also economic, environmental, and social aspects. This requires nations to develop comprehensive security strategies to address these diverse challenges.
• Decline in the use of hard power: The complex interdependence model suggests that there has been a significant decline in the use of hard power, such as military force, in international relations. Instead, nations are increasingly relying on soft power, diplomacy, and negotiation to achieve their goals.
• Questioning structural realism: The concept of complex interdependence challenges the way structural realists explain the state of international politics. Structural realism, which emphasizes the anarchic nature of international politics and the competition for power among states, is less relevant in a world characterized by complex interdependence.

Marxist School

• The term 'Marxist school of international political economy' is more appropriate than 'Marxist school of international politics' as Karl Marx considered politics as part of the superstructure. Although Marx did not contribute directly to the theory of international politics, his ideas on the expansionist nature of capitalism and proletarian internationalism are relevant in this context.
• The Marxist school of international political economy is influenced by Lenin's analysis of imperialism and includes concepts such as unequal exchange, uneven development, development of underdevelopment, and core and periphery states.

(A) Criticism of World System School
Critics argue that Wallerstein's model is monocausal and overemphasizes economic factors. Postcolonial scholars also consider this approach Eurocentric.

(B) Gramscian School
Developed by Robert Cox, the Gramscian school emphasizes the importance of cultural and ideological factors in international politics. Cox's famous statement "Theory is always for someone and for some purpose" highlights the need to analyze realist and liberal theories from a class perspective.

(C) Critical School
The critical school, represented by Andrew Linklater, is concerned with the emancipation of masses and suggests that the world can be emancipated from wars by making territorial boundaries irrelevant, strengthening grassroot democracy, and fostering moral boundaries across nations.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism is a relatively recent school of thought in international politics. Scholars such as Alexander Wendt, Nicolas Onuf, and Nina Tannenwald assert that reality only exists as intersubjective awareness among people, and changing attitudes and perceptions can alter the interpretation of international relations.

• Postmodernism: Postmodernism is also relatively new in international relations and is influenced by the views of Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida. Applying the approach of deconstruction to international relations, postmodernist scholars such as Der Derian, Rob Walker, and Richard Ashley criticize the realist assertion that realism is the scientific explanation of international politics.
• Postcolonialism: Postcolonial scholars in international politics aim to decolonize the discipline of international relations by critiquing Eurocentric mainstream theories. They question the relevance of these theories for third-world countries and challenge the arrogance of Western scholars.

Positivist Approaches to International Politics

The behavioral movement in political science has significantly impacted the field of international politics, leading to the second great debate between traditionalists and positivists. One of the most prominent positivist approaches to international politics is the Systems Approach, developed by Morton Kaplan.

1. Systems Approach in International Politics

• The Systems Approach in international politics is based on David Easton's systems approach and is influenced by the general systems theory. This theory suggests the utilization of concepts from different disciplines. However, the Systems Approach in international relations has been criticized for not including even the fundamental features of the systems approach. Stanley Hoffman famously said that the Systems Approach is a "huge misstep in the right direction."
• Morton Kaplan's primary objective was to develop a 'grand theory' of international relations, a theory as universal as Newton's law of gravity. He aimed to create a theory capable of explaining the past, present, and future of international politics. To achieve this, Kaplan developed ten different models to explain the evolution of international politics.

2. Models by Morton Kaplan

• Balance of Power Model: According to Kaplan, international politics from the 17th century till the end of World War I can be understood through the balance of power model, characterized by security dilemmas, a multipolar world order, and the absence of international orders.
• Tight Bipolar Model: In this model, there are two superpowers, and the status of other states is similar to satellites, with the entire concentration of power in two poles.
• Loose Bipolar Model: A third actor emerges, weakening the magnetic force of the superpowers.
• Very Loose Bipolar Model: The superpowers' power of attraction further weakens, and satellites start jumping out of their orbits.
• Universal Actor Model: Poles vanish, a world government comes into existence, and all states come under the universal actor. This is a hypothetical model.
• Hierarchical Systems: When all states come under a single state (e.g., the USA), resulting in a unipolar world. This is the opposite of the universal actor model.
• Unit Veto Model: All states possess an equal capacity to destroy each other.
• Incomplete Nuclear Diffusion Model: Around 14 to 15 states possess nuclear weapons.
• Detente System: Relaxation of tensions among superpowers.
• Unstable Block Model: The opposite of the Detente model, characterized by high levels of suspicion and rivalry among superpowers and the return of the Cold War. This model symbolizes a dangerous situation.

3. Critical Evaluation

• Stanley Hoffman has criticized Kaplan's approach for not capturing the basic essence of international politics. The models do not have analytical or explanatory importance, and some are either hypothetical or outdated. Furthermore, the current state of international politics does not resemble any of the models.
• The purpose of international politics is to find ways to establish peace, and Kaplan's models lack relevance in this regard. His approach does not fulfill even the basic requirements of systems theory, as it does not explain the environment, structures, functions, input-output processes, or the role of domestic variables in international politics.

4. Game Theory
Another scientific theory in international politics is the Game Theory, which involves the application of methods from operations research, mathematics, and economics. The assumptions in Game Theory have similarities with the realist school, and the prominent game theorist is the strategic realist Thomas Schelling.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the various theories and approaches in international relations, including realism, liberalism, and functionalism, offer distinct perspectives on the nature of international politics, the role of states, and the importance of non-state actors. While realism emphasizes power and security, liberalism focuses on cooperation and morality, and functionalism highlights the role of institutions and integration in promoting peace and stability. The differences between Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz's views on power acquisition, security guarantees, and offensive vs. defensive approaches further illustrate the nuances within these theories. The emergence of neo-classical realism, post-colonial realism, and third-world realism highlights the need for a more inclusive understanding of global political dynamics, taking into account the unique challenges faced by non-western countries. The concepts of sociological liberalism and security communities emphasize the importance of communication and interaction between societies in fostering trust and cooperation. Overall, the study of international relations requires a comprehensive understanding of these diverse theories and approaches to better analyze the complexities of the global political landscape, and to develop more effective and nuanced policy recommendations for various actors.