Theories and Approaches to the Study of International Relations – Peu Ghosh

INTRODUCTION

• Theory is understood as a systematic reflection of phenomena, aimed at explaining events and showing how they are meaningfully related to one another, rather than treating them as random and incoherent occurrences in the universe.

• Theory is essential for every discipline, as it supports research, provides a basis for explanation, and enables prediction, thereby giving coherence and direction to scholarly inquiry.

• Despite sustained efforts, even the grand theories of social sciences, especially in International Relations (IR), have not produced universally accepted generalizations, principles, or hypotheses strong enough to serve as comprehensive foundations for the discipline.

• The initial serious attempt at theory-building in IR began with the first Grand Debate between Idealism and Realism, which marked the starting point for systematic theoretical reflection in the field.

• In the 1940s, theory development in IR gained momentum due to increased interest in new methodologies and research techniques, enhancing analysis and teaching within the discipline.

• The behavioural revolution of the 1960s further expanded theoretical possibilities by introducing scientific methods and incorporating insights from biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, and other behavioural sciences to explain international political behaviour.

• Contemporary IR continues to experience growth in theory-building through the emergence of post-positivist approaches, which challenge traditional assumptions and expand the interpretative scope of the discipline.

• Nevertheless, as observed by James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr., theory in IR, like in other social sciences, remains more diffused and less precise when compared to theories in the physical sciences.

• Despite these limitations, mainstream IR discourse continues to be shaped primarily by three dominant theoretical perspectives, namely Liberalism, Political Realism, and World System Theory.

• Among these major perspectives, Political Realism has enjoyed the greatest preponderance, exerting the strongest influence on the study and understanding of world politics.

THE LIBERAL APPROACH

• The liberal approach to International Relations (IR) emerged through the revival, adaptation, and transformation of liberal political thought associated with thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Adam Smith, whose ideas formed the intellectual foundations of liberalism in world politics.

• The chief proponents of post–First World War liberalism in IR were Alfred Zimmern, Norman Angell, James T. Shotwell, and Woodrow Wilson, who are commonly referred to as liberal idealists or idealists, though E. H. Carr (1939) critically labeled them as utopians.

• At the core of the liberal worldview lie key assumptions about human rationality and morality, a strong belief in reforming institutions as solutions to political problems, and, most importantly, an optimistic belief in human progress.

• As articulated by David Sidorsky, liberalism rests on three pillars: a belief in human freedom and rational choice, a view of social institutions as open to rational reconstruction, and a conception of history as progressively perfectible through the application of human reason.

• Liberals view the individual as rational and moral, capable of controlling impulses, and argue that irrational or immoral behaviour is not rooted in flawed human nature but arises from ignorance and misunderstanding, which can be overcome through education and institutional reform.

• Unlike realists, liberals are less emphatic about the inevitability of conflict, believing it is possible to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, thereby creating an international order that maximizes individual freedom, material prosperity, and economic welfare, a belief summarized in the concept of harmony of interests.

• In contrast to the realist emphasis on conflict of interests, liberals stress common interests among peoples and nations, arguing that cooperation, rather than conflict, characterizes most international interactions, and that war is an aberration rather than the norm, not sustained by balance of power politics.

• A central liberal belief is faith in human progress, grounded in the assumption that human beings are rational, capable of learning that war is irrational and undesirable, and able to use accumulated knowledge to solve international problems, an optimism contrasted by Robert Gilpin, who noted that realism is pessimistic about moral progress, whereas liberalism is optimistic.

• According to Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf, the basic assumptions of liberalism include beliefs that human nature is essentially good, progress is possible due to concern for others’ welfare, violence stems from flawed institutions rather than flawed people, war is not inevitable, war requires collective solutions, and international society must be reorganized through democratic governance and self-determination to pacify interstate relations.

• Liberal thought has never been uniform, and several contending liberalisms have existed before, during, and after the inter-war period, reflecting different strategies for achieving peace and cooperation.

• Liberal Internationalism emphasized human reason, the abolition of war, world government, free trade, peace, and the harmony of interests, with major exponents being Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, though this strand was strongly criticized by Carr in The Twenty Years’ Crisis.

• Idealism, distinct from liberal internationalism, argued that peace and prosperity are not natural conditions but must be consciously constructed through international institutions, supporting collective security, human rights, disarmament, peace, and proposals such as the New International Economic Order, and backing the establishment of the United Nations after the failure of the League of Nations.

• Liberal Institutionalism, associated initially with David Mitrany and Ernst B. Haas, emphasized integration through international and regional institutions to solve common problems, while later institutionalists such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye highlighted transnationalism and interdependence and the role of non-state actors.

• Despite differences, all strands of liberalism share a core emphasis on economic freedom, national self-determination, rule-based international order, non-intervention, opposition to authoritarianism, outlawing war, and disarmament.

• Neo-Liberal Internationalism centers on the democratic peace thesis, arguing that liberal states do not go to war with other liberal states, a view popularized by Francis Fukuyama in his 1989 article The End of History, which claimed the triumph of liberalism and the emergence of a pacific union of liberal states.

• Neo-Idealism, advocated by David Held, Norberto Bobbio, and Daniele Archibugi, calls for the democratization of global politics, proposing cosmopolitan democracy, regional parliaments, enhanced authority of bodies like the European Union, democratization of the United Nations, and enforcement of human rights through new international judicial mechanisms.

• Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, advanced by Robert Axelrod, Robert Keohane, and Joseph Nye, emerged in response to Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics, accepting anarchy and state primacy but focusing on how institutions facilitate cooperation among states under anarchy.

Criticisms:

• Idealist assumptions have been widely criticized as impracticable and utopian, with liberal principles often labeled as culture-specific and ethnocentric, since they largely reflect Western values and attempt to universalize them over non-Western societies.

• Core liberal ideas such as free trade, interdependence, and democracy are rooted in the Western liberal tradition and are viewed with suspicion and contention by the developing world, especially because international politics is dominated by powerful states that shape rules and outcomes to their advantage.

• The liberal pursuit of peace, including efforts toward effective international organizations and disarmament, has achieved limited success, reinforcing criticisms about the practical limitations of idealism.

• Realists strongly criticize idealism for ignoring the realities of human nature and power politics, arguing that self-interest is the primary driver of both individual and state behaviour, while morality plays a minimal role in political life.

• As observed by Theodore A. Couloumbis and James H. Wolfe, the realist critique holds that legalistic, moralistic, and ideological approaches in politics often run counter to natural forces, producing either pacifism and defeatism or an aggressive, exclusivist, and crusading spirit.

• Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf further argue that much of the idealist reform agenda was never fully implemented, and even less was actually achieved in practice.

• Despite these criticisms, idealism is not considered devoid of value, and scholars have explored whether realism and idealism can be synthesized to form a more comprehensive approach to International Relations.

• Reinhold Niebuhr, in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, argues for combining the wisdom of realists with the optimism of idealists, or alternatively discarding the pessimism of realism and the naivety of idealism.

• The essence of Niebuhr’s synthesis is to acknowledge the reality of power struggles among states while simultaneously directing state efforts toward international peace, security, and peaceful coexistence.

• Niebuhr distinguishes between “children of light”, who believe in subordinating self-interest to universal moral laws for the common good, and “children of darkness”, who view self-interest as the supreme guiding principle.

• While Niebuhr regards the children of darkness as morally evil and the children of light as virtuous, he paradoxically notes that the children of darkness are wise because they understand self-interest and anarchy, whereas the children of light are foolish for underestimating these forces.

• He therefore concludes that a balanced understanding of international relations requires that children of darkness learn moral restraint from children of light, and children of light learn political realism from children of darkness, making such a mutual borrowing the only viable path toward a comprehensive theory of International Relations.