# International relations theories

This is a breakdown of various theories that governments may use when engaging with other governments.

- This isn't exclusive to nations, and can also exist in [smaller scale groups](groups-large.md) as well (e.g., corporations).

This won't easily apply to create any sort of unified world order.

- An international court is absurd, since it would require conformity to a singular worldview that all cultures would be willing to sign off on.
- While this sounds nice, it is logistically impossible, partly from [religion](religion.md), partly from [language](language.md) barriers, and partly from simple [cultural differences](people-culture.md).

## Realism

The dominant viewpoint for most of written history.

- Famous works on it include Thucydides, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes
- Contrasts with interwar idealism.

Has 3 major values:

1. Statism - nation states are the main actors in international politics.
   - Unlike liberal theories, doesn't demarcate non-state actors and international institutions.
2. Survival - there is no central authority (i.e., anarchy), so it's a struggle for power among self-interested states.
3. Self-help - No other states are reliable sources for guaranteeing that state's survival.

This means a few clear approaches:

- Less international trade
- More militarization
- Opportunistic diplomacy

Neorealism (aka Structural Realism) is a modern adaptation.

- It indicates that analysis should include a nation's structure.

## Idealism/Liberalism

The view that a state should make its foreign policy goals from a political philosophy.

- Also known as Wilsonianism due to Woodrow Wilson using the approach.

The idea posits that state preferences determines state behavior.

- This contrasts with realism, which makes a fixed self-interested motivation.

It also proposes that state interaction isn't merely limited to political/security issues ("high politics") but also economic/cultural ("low politics").

- It makes many definitions of power and many opportunities for cooperation.

As a form of [liberalism](politics-leftism.md), it constantly keeps redefining itself to accommodate new ideals.

## Constructivism

The belief that international politics is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture, and social identities.

- It basically indicates that each nation has its own interests formed by the individual people together, *not* for mere survival or benefit.

It confronts both neoliberal and neo-realist thinking.

- It makes the idea that neo-realism is too narrow a predictor of a nation's behavior.
- It asserts that neoliberalism isn't accurate.

## Marxism

The view that everything is for economic benefit and class division.

## English School

aka Liberal Realism, Rationalism, British Institutionalism

Groups traditions of past international theory as 3 possible domains:

1. Realist/Hobbesian (after Thomas Hobbes) - states are independent competing units
2. Rationalist/Grotian (after Hugo Grotius) - the way states can work together and cooperate for mutual benefit
3. Revolutionist/Kantian (after Immanuel Kant) - human society transcending borders and national identity

It asserts that it's part of the rationalist category.

## Functionalism

Instead of focusing on realism, functionalism focuses on common interests between states.

- It borrows from economic theory to make an "invisible hand" of integration phenomenon called "spillover".

Phenomena aren't actors, but functions of a broader system.

## Post-Structuralism

It's less a theory (and refuses to call itself that), and more an approach or attitude.

Basically, every understanding of international politics involves abstraction, representation, and interpretation.

- In other words, it's deconstructionism.

## Postcolonialism

Applies a direct [critical theory](politics-leftism.md) to international relations.

## Isolationism

A subcomponent of realism that separates interests regarding the nation's survival.