International Relations Theories How and Why Do They Matter?
Discuss the bulleted items below:
• What is the relationship of theory to actual policy? Are theories pre-packaged conceptual tools policy-makers then apply to the interpretation of actual events in order to then formulate policy action? Expressed differently, is there a 1/1 correspondence between interpreting a particular event in ‘realist’ terms and then applying a specific policy that is ‘realist’ in nature? If so, how then do we explain two policymakers who both view themselves as realists (or liberals or constructivists, etc.), explain their policy decisions in realist terms (or liberal, constructivist, or other), yet call for completely opposite policies in the same case, one opting for military intervention for example, while the other prefers a policy of restraint? What does this say about the relationship between theory and actual policy?
• Can you identify a particular IR theory that appeals to you as the better explanation of human behavior than others, one that can explain behavior at multiple levels of analysis—individual, state, and system level? (see Figure 3.1 and Box 3.1) Or would you say that the existence of multiple theories is an indication that perhaps all of them are plausible as possible interpretations of the same or different human events? Be clear and use examples to make your case.
• Consider the structure of the US government as reflected in the Constitution (i.e. institutional checks and balances, power-sharing among federal and state authority, etc.) Does this structure reflect a realist, liberal, or some other theory of human behavior? In part, the question is asking whether the ‘more perfect union’ of American founding in 1787 was infused with a more realist or more liberal spirit, or maybe a bit of both. Explain the possibilities concisely yet clearly here with examples?
International Relations Theories:
How and Why Do They Matter?
Student Name
Institution
Class
Date
Introduction
International relations (IR) theories offer a conceptual framework for the examination of international relations. Several IR theories exist, although the main ones include realism, liberalism, and constructivism. All these theories attempt to explain human behavior in different contexts. This essay will indicate the relationship between IR theories and the formulation of actual policy. It will also show why multiple approaches exist to explain human behavior and indicate how the structure of the U.S. government demonstrates liberalism.[Goddard, Stacie E., and Daniel H. Nexon. "The dynamics of global power politics: A framework for analysis." Journal of Global Security Studies 1, no. 1 (2015): p. 9.]
The relationship between theory and actual policy
Scholars have identified a range of issues to address in international relations. With the increase in the number of academic theorists, one would think that scholarly works would be in high demand in addressing international affairs. It would be expected that theorists would be working more to come up with practical solutions to the challenges facing the world. However, this does not appear to the case for a majority of the cases.[Walt, Stephen M. "The relationship between theory and policy in international relations." Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 8 (2005), p. 27]
In the real sense, although theory and policy are inseparably linked, there is no 1/1 correspondence between theory and the actual policy formulated. Policy makers keep on dismissing academic theories by terming them as irrelevant and outdated.
Similarly, academic theorists keep on criticizing the actions taken by the government for lacking appropriate theoretical bases. Whereas some policymakers dismiss academic theories, they somehow rely on some theory to formulate policies. On a daily basis, policymakers try to figure out which activities deserve attention and those they can ignore without adverse effects. Whether or not the policy makers acknowledge academic theories, all the policy debates are based on particular competing theoretical claims.
Eventually, the formulated policies are a reflection of particular theoretical perspectives. The policy makers rely on diverse forms of knowledge. Theory assists them to determine the kind of information that is appropriate for the information available. Further, IR theories are critical in assisting policymakers to anticipate happenings. Such knowledge assists the policymakers to prepare more appropriately and prevent the occurrence of unwanted developments. In essence, although policymakers may not apply theories directly in decision making, the theories are essential in guiding the decision making policies.
The existence of multiple theories in IR
Theories are continually emerging and competing with one another in an attempt to explain the complex human behavior. While individuals find their feet in one approach, many others still exist. It is not possible to explain human behavior by using a single IR theory. Theories become irrelevant as new ones emerge. For instance, human beings once accepted that the earth was flat and held this as a fact. However, with the advancement of technology, individuals abandoned the previously held view. When a discovery occurs, there is a paradigm shift which replaces the former way of thinking with a new one. While changes in IR theory are not as dramatic as the example given, significant evolutions in the field have occurred.[Ward, Michael D. "Do We Have Too Much Theory in International Relations or Do We Need Less? Waltz Was Wrong, Tetlock Was Right." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2017: p. 5]
It is essential to appreciate that different theories in IR play a critical role in explaining the world in various periods and personal contexts. Generally, one approach may speak to individuals more than another. Hence, the existence of multiple theories demonstrates that all of them are striving to interpret different human events. For example, the proponents of liberalism believe that humans are innately good and hold that peace between nations is desirable and hence attainable. Liberals consider the war between nations as unnecessary and advocate for peaceful coexistence for the benefits of all the citizens. Liberal states are ruled by their citizens who are rarely disposed to war.[van de Haar, Edwin. "Liberalism and International Relations Theory." In Classical Liberalism and International Relations Theory, pp. 142. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009.]
On the contrary, realists do not think that humans are inherently good as the liberals claim. They indicate that individuals are selfish and do not take into account the needs of others. For realists, conflicts are unavoidable hence the war is a common phenomenon for human beings. Hence, realism considers politics to be motivated by domination as opposed to cooperation between states. Constructionism seeks a middle ground between realism and liberalism. Constructivists stress the need to consider the shared interests between the people who interact at the global platforms. Given that it is the agents of states who interact, constructivists believe that the relations between them determine how states view one a...