"Theories of International Relations," Midterm Essay

Excerpt #1:

Two dominant theories prevail within the study of international politics: realism and liberalism. Since the founding of the two concepts, political theorists have modified, enhanced and even added further provisions to both realism and liberalism (i.e. neo-realism and neo-liberalism). This paper will explain the fundamentals of both theories, with an emphasis on positive and negative components, and apply them to the international community Post-Cold War era. The two theories equally offer useful guidelines for leaders to implement when constructing its domestic foreign policy and for that reason a cohesive theory which draws upon certain aspects of both liberalism and realism would be preferred. It might not be feasible for one theory alone to satisfactorily analyze and explain global politics in the 21st century. However for the purposes of this paper, I believe the one theory of international relations that offers the best tools for analyzing global politics in this new century is liberalism.

Excerpt #2:

The theory of liberalism serves as the most efficient and accurate for the purposes of analyzing global politics in the 21st century. The international system of the 21st century is indeed one of increasing globalization and economic interdependence. The current seven or eight great powers in the world, United States, China, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, and Japan, have all embraced the open-trade market and capitalism (with some restraints) and experienced consistent growth rates. Therefore, this notion of autarky and economic independence set forth in realism is not where the current direction of the world is heading. Most countries which cannot compete in the global market find themselves struggling and lacking significant power. States with flourishing economies now hove an incentive to communicate and cooperate to some degree internationally in order to sustain healthy trade relations. Liberalism succeeds in analyzing the current occurrence of interdependence among states economically.
Next, in a system of growing technology and international communication systems, it is quite apparent that states are not the only actors of significance. In Transnational Activist Networks, the authors explain that NGOs can bypass their state directly and search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside (Keck: 533). Non-state actors gain influence by serving as alternative sources of information; for example, in the United States, human rights groups got leverage by providing policy-makers with information that convinced them to cut off military and economic aid (Keck: 537). This concept of accountability politics wherein NGOs pressure their national governments or other international institutions to act is especially prevalent in democratic nations. The debate between realists and liberalists regarding the effectiveness of international institutions is everlasting with very distinct arguments. While many international institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, WTO, IMF have an essential purpose to be functionally dysfunctional; some issues arise in terms of effectiveness. According to The False Promise of International Institutions, institutions are defined as a set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other (Mearsheimer: 4). It might be a valid claim to argue that many international organizations would cease to exist or be funded at all if the United States did not take the initiative, therefore various international organizations seem to be an extension of U.S. power among international affairs. Some might also argue that international institutions such as the U.N. are not recognized as legitimate by other states. The U.S. very well might have helped to fuel that debate when it acted unilaterally, ignoring other states objections and invading Iraq in 2003. However, the realist argument does not hold in terms of cooperation among states in the 21st century system.
International institutions serve as third-party interventions which help to mediate conflict and promote global communication. Some of the worst disasters in history have occurred because of misinformation or simple misunderstandings. In International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?, Robert Keohane argues that institutions create the capability for states to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways by reducing the costs of making and enforcing agreements (Keohane: 121). “International institutions can reduce uncertainty by promoting negotiations in which transparency is encouraged; by dealing with a series of issues over many years and under similar rules, thus encouraging honesty in order to preserve future reputation; and by systematically monitoring the compliance of governments with their commitments” (Keohane: 121). The benefit of these institutions is that they create an international information structure which determines what is acceptable and what is legitimate among international relationships.
Lastly, liberalism offers a better approach to analyzing the current system of global politics because it promotes the old Wilsonian idea of democratic morality and peace. This idea that democracies do not go to war with each other is explained in Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, “Even though liberal states have become involved in numerous war with non-liberal states, constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another” (Doyle: 85). This might be so because democracies tend to be capitalist states with strong economic interdependence on one another or simply because democracies do not perceive one another as enemies; nonetheless historical evidence supports this facet of liberalism.