INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS
THEORIES
LE NGOC KHANH NGAN (MA)
QUESTIONS TO
CONSIDER

1. Why do we need theory in IR?

2. What is the role of theory?
3. What do you understand about ontology,
epistemology, methodology?
4. Do you think that we can combine more
than one theory to discuss an issue?
WHY DO WE NEED
THEORIES IN
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS?
WHY DO WE NEED THEORIES
IN INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS?
• The field is now much healthier because of the
proliferation of theories.
• These developments as opening up space for much
more debate, and, crucially, to legitimize a wider
variety of theories.
• The range of theories allows us to think about more
aspects of international relations than before
• Problem of how to choose between theories.
WHY DO WE NEED
THEORIES IN • To understand the complex interaction among
nations. International Relations Theory
INTERNATIONAL attempts to develop paradigms and theories
to make sense of the unpredictable nature.
RELATIONS? • Theories help us to make causes to and
consequences of state action, make sense
of the world; points to possible, and help
policy-makers make international affairs
intelligible and formulate efficacious policies.
 EXPLAINING UNDERSTANDING

Emphasises observation -> the only way Concentrates on the interpretation of

of generating valid knowledge. unobservable, and hence immeasurable,
contexts of action.
WHY DO WE NEED
THEORIES IN
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS?
Why war?
How to prevent war?
CLASSIC REALISTS

• The realist worldview was shaped by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, Niccolo
Machiavelli in the 16th century, Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century.
• They focused on national security and state survival and portrayed international
politics as power politics: an arena of rivalry, conflict and war between states
• Defending the national interest and ensuring the survival of the state repeat
themselves permanently
• He dealt with the nature of war and why it
continually recurs.
• The past was the guide for the future.
• A study of the struggle for military and
political power.
• Melian Dialogue
• Power, balance of power, formation of
alliances, causes of conflicts.
• Primary focus: national security.
• Survival of the state is crucial.
• Power (Lion) and deception (Fox)
• “A responsible ruler should not follow
Christian ethics such as be peaceful,
avoid war, share your wealth... If states
follow these values, they will disappear
in the end”
• Hobbes, Machiavelli - pessimistic view of
human nature
• Prior to creation of society we lived in state
of nature
• War of “every one against every one …
continual fear and danger of violent death;
and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short”
• Without some disciplined order, civilised life
is not possible
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT IR?
• Mythical state of nature can be applied to
relations between states
• In international realm there is no Lethiathan
or central power able to impose order
• Hence IR is under condition of anarchy,
absence of central or superordinate
authority over sovereign states
• Without a Lethiathan, world politics is
characterised by suspicion, distrust, conflict
and war
FOUR
ASSUMPTIONS
OF REALISM
FIRST ASSUMPTION
• States are the principal actors, key unit of analysis. The study of IR is the study of
relations among these units.
• Only the state, given its claim to sovereignty, possesses the monopoly of legitimate
force to resolve conflicts.
• Non-state actors are of secondary importance. States are the dominant actors.
SECOND ASSUMPTION

• State is viewed as a unitary actor. a country faces the outside world as an

integrated unit. The government speaks with one voice for the state as a whole.
• State is an integrated actor
• States have sufficient autonomy from their national societies to recognize and pursue
the interests of the nation as a whole.
THIRD ASSUMPTION
• State is a rational actor. States are goal oriented and their goals are consistent.
• States derive strategies to achieve their goals and they are cost sensitive. states can
change their strategies in the face of changes in external constraints and
opportunities.
• States are rational and define their interest in terms of their power -> all states
behave in a standard manner. Based on the rationality assumption, international
sistem is composed of states that have the same patterns of behaviour.
FOURTH ASSUMPTION
• The context of action: the anarchy
→ Refers to the absence of a centralized authority to protect states from one
another, each state has to survive on its own. Thus, states are by definition self-help
agents.
• They assume that within the hierarchy of international relations issues, national
security tops the list. For them, military and related political issues dominate world
politics.
 International system
ANARCHY
States are sovereign and autonomous bodies

Hence no authority above states

Anarchy = absence of hierarchy of authority

It is because of absence of higher authority to impose order that states rely on

power
Under anarchic self-help system, difficult to build trust and cooperation
 Absence of
ANARCHY centralised National security
government
A C
Survive
B D Intergrated
E Struggle to
F POWER
Rational Self-help Develop
G H
I
J K Unitary
Interests/benefits
...

Principal
REALISM AND NATIONAL
SECURITY
• National security – the main issue in world politics
• States act to maximise the national interest
• State survival is main objective
• “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate
aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim.” Hans Morgenthau
THE FOCUS • They focus on actual or potential conflict

ON POWER between state actors, and the use of force. They

examine how international stability is attained or
maintained, how it breaks down, the utility of
force as a means to resolve conflicts. Thus,
power is a key concept.
• The principal aim of states is to gain power
• They call military, security or strategic issues as
‘high politics’, whereas economic and social
issues are viewed as less important or ‘low
politics’. For them, high politics dominate and
set the environment for low politics
POWER
Strength

Influence

A B
Interests
BALANCE OF Hegemony
POWER • There is usually a dominant state at a given
moment.
• A state with predominant political, economic,
or military capabilities over other states.
COUNTERING
HEGEMONIC
POWER Balancing
CONCENTRATION • To join other threatened states to defy or
resist the demands of a hegemon.
• This results in diplomatic, economic, or
military coordination between two or more
states, excluding the hegemon.
• Balance of power works precisely because of
the anarchical set-up of international affairs.
COUNTERING
HEGEMONIC
POWER
Bandwagoning
CONCENTRATION
• Used by weaker states to balance power
internationally and mitigate potential threats
against their own survival.
• Bandwagoning states will align themselves
voluntarily with the hegemon to curry favor
and avoid coercion and manipulation.
BALANCE OF POWER

In World War I, World War II

and Cold War
PRISONER’S
DILEMMA
PRISONER’S DILEMMA
• If A and B each betrays the other, each of them serves 15 years in prison.
• If A betrays B but B admits his guilt, A will be set free and B will serve 30
years in prison.
• If A admits his guilt but B betrays A, A will serve 30 years in prison and B
will be set free.
• If A and B both admit their guilt, both of them will serve 3 years in prison (on
the lesser charge).
HOBBES AND
SECURITY DILEMMA
• Due to the survival concerns in anarchy,
states are expected to act in balance of
power logic.
• There is no higher authority over states to
impose order.
HANS MORGENTHAU
• World problems result from forces inherent in
human nature
• To improve world must work with such forces
rather than against them
• “Man’s aspiration for power is not an
accident of history; it is not a temporary
deviation from a normal state of freedom; it is
an all-permeating fact which is of the very
essence of human existence” (Scientific Man
vs power Politics p.312)
 2) Main signpost in IR is
MORGENTHAU’S 1) Politics like society is
“concept of interest defined in
terms of power” Politics as
governed by objective laws
SIX PRINCIPLES rooted in human nature
autonomous. National interest
is strategic and economic, not
OF REALISM moral

3) Power and interest are 4) Universal moral principles

variable in content across cannot be applied across to
space and time, but interest is actions of states, do not guide
perennial state behaviour

5) Refuses to identify moral

6) Political realism maintains
aspirations of particular nation
the autonomy of political
with the moral laws that govern
sphere
the universe
MORGENTHAU AND MORALITY
• Realism is often accused of being an amoral in international relations.
• Morgenthau considers human nature as egotistical and driven by a lust for power, but
refuses to condone the separation of standards for moral and political action.
Scientific man versus Power politics (1962)
• For Morgenthau and other classical realists, it is true that “international politics, like
all politics, is a struggle for power”, but it is also equally true that this struggle
cannot carry on unrestrained even if power is a basic feature of human existence.
• He was as much against wishful liberal utopias, but he was also against predatory
Machiavellian ones for their separation of moral and political action ((Scheuerman
2007).
MORGENTHAU AND MORALITY
• The national interest itself is thus instilled with morality in classical realism: politics
is as much as a struggle for the definition of good and evil as it is about power.
• War may be necessary, but moral constraints still apply.
• A good foreign policy, according to Morgenthau and classical realism in general, is
the result of the action of brilliant political leaders and their ability to understand the
tragedy of politics.
• Morgenthau concluded “politics is not simply defined by a struggle for power, but is
also, to some extent, a struggle for moral leadership”.
DO STATES COOPERATE?
DIFFICULTY OF COOPERATION

States are unwilling to cooperate and maintain

that cooperation due to:
•fears of cheating
•dependency
•concerns about relative gains -> short-term relative gains.
•Classical Realists: long-term cooperative absolute gains