Analysis of Traditional and Contemporary International Relations - Coursework Example

Critically assess the core ideas underlying the various traditional and contemporary theories of international relations. Which do you find the most persuasive? Introduction A fundamental issue in international relations theory is the basis upon which mutual co-operation between states is founded (Jackson & Sorenson, 2010). Academic discourse on the topic has often been framed within the polarised international relations theory paradigms of neo-liberalism versus realism (Randin, 2006). This paper critically evaluates the fundamental elements underlying traditional and contemporary international relations and considers which theoretical model is more persuasive. To this end, it is submitted at the outset that within the current framework, the globalisation of world politics and the complex nature of international relations in the contemporary environment has meant that increasingly the dynamic of international relations is intrinsically dependent on where the balance of political power lies within the international framework beyond the confines of theoretical ideologies underlying international relations theory (Siracusa, 2010). For example, Randin argues that arguably the most comprehensive manner to understand international relations is the interrelationship between state interest and where the balance of power lies within the international framework as evidenced by the post September 11 system of international relations (Randin, 2006; Baylis et al, 2008). Indeed, a prime example is the current conflict and concern regarding the UN resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya which was sanctioned irrespective of abstentions from numerous states. As such, this paper will review international relations theory and highlight the gap between theory and reality as highlighted by the contemporary socio-political framework of international relations (Baylis & Smith, 2005). On this basis it is further argued that neither traditional nor contemporary core ideas underlying established international relations theory is absolutely persuasive and that the evolution of international relations theory continues to be dependent on context. 1. International Relations Theory: Key Core Ideas With regard to the theoretical models, a central traditional theory in international relations is realism, which developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as reflected by the United Nations Charter, which focuses on mutuality of obligations in preventing a repeat of the atrocities of the war (Siracusa, 2010). This traditional model of realism was a product of its historical context and has continued to evolve (Randin, 2006). For example, within the realism paradigm, there are two strands of thought, namely; traditional and structural realism (Burchill et al, 2001), with leading theorist Morgenthau being a leading proponent of structural realism and Waltz was a leading proponent of neo-realism (Randin, 2006). Morgenthau’s theory of realism argues the theory of international relations being rooted in “philosophical basis of realist principles of human nature” (In Randin, 2006, p.15). The central basis of this argument is rooted in Morgenthau’s perception of human nature’s innate desire for power (Morgenthau, 1954). On this basis, from a foreign policy perspective, the role of diplomats is important as a tool in the inherent power struggle at international level for ensuring priority is accorded to state interests (Milner, 1992). Whilst, this realist model of international relations has continued to evolve, it has nevertheless fuelled polarised debate between Hobbes’ realism model and Kant’s idealist model of international relations and the continued relevance of either in contemporary international relations (Borrie & Randin, 2006). For example, a core element of Kant’s theory of wills regarding freedom, public and private interest refers to the overriding Kantian notion of the “Supreme Moral Principle of Good Will” (Kant, in Nisbet & Reiss 1991). For example, Kant’s philosophy is rooted in an innate moral propensity towards democracy as a result of human intellectual independence (Erckel, 2009). However, in context of foreign policy and international relations, Hobbes’ theory postulates that there is no common power over the nation states participating, and therefore no obligation to be moral, which in turn informs a selfish approach to foreign policy. For example, Hobbes posits that humans are innately anti-social and that desire for war comprised part of the natural state of human nature (Morgan, 2001, p.523). Moreover, Hobbes’ interest theory of rights argues that social norms and rules are only complied with out of self interest and therefore human morality is limited within this context (Donelan, 1990). Hobbes further suggests that human morality is dictated by the desire to avoid sanctions imposed by the state, which in turn supports the interest theory of rights model (Morgan, 2001). The realism model of the interest theory of rights is further supported by academic discourse regarding international relations and the contemporary mechanism for human rights protection, which would appear to suggest that the wills theory propounded by Kant is intrinsically flawed and not supported by reality in relation to foreign policy initiatives and the system of international relations (Donelan, 1990). In stark contrast, Kant’s theory of international relations is the foundation of contemporary theoretical idealism, which emphatically rejects the realism paradigm (Kant in Nisbet & Reiss, 1991). It is submitted that whilst this is clearly the ideal scenario for international relations and state foreign policy, Kant’s belief in the prevalence of innate human morality is arguably flawed and not reflected by the reality of the current political approach to foreign policy in international relations, which is also evidenced by the complex roles placed by diplomats in state negotiations and the wide remit of diplomatic conduct under the contemporary framework of diplomacy (Jackson & Sorenson 2010). For example, Randin highlights the point that sometimes the level of cooperation between states can also be dependent on the degree of co-operation between individual negotiators (2006, p.18). From the realist perspective, this would suggest that ultimately states have “no spontaneous concern for others” (Donelan, 1990). Thus human nature as perceived by Hobbes’ realism, clearly impacts a state foreign policy of self interest rather than international aid (Jackson and Sorenson, 2010). On this basis, the role of diplomats within international relations would only serve to ensure state interests are protected or furthered depending on where the balance of power lies and the status and reputation of the particular individual ambassador (Hopmann, 2002). This again correlates to the game-theoretic approach to contemporary international relations and the roles of diplomats as extrapolated by Hopmann (Hopmann, 2002). Moreover, under Hobbes’ realism theory in context of foreign policy, the “state is the pre-eminent actor in world politics”, and therefore whilst other parties may have importance, this is negligible in context of the nation state in the international hierarchy (Morgan, 2001). As such, the states are “engaged in power politics and as such, the foreign policy becomes a political battle for supremacy, with the biggest states fighting for top place” (Donelan, 1990, p.29). Whilst such moves are often disguised under justifications of national security, realists argue that “the national interest is the final arbiter in judging foreign policy” (Morgan, 2001); which again reinforces the reality that the current framework of international relations will be ultimately dependent on the nature of the negotiations and where the balance of power lies particularly within the globalisation paradigm (Baylis & Smith, 2005). Whilst it is too dogmatic to dismiss the continued relevance of the realism model underlying traditional international relations theory; it is evident that some elements of the classic realism model have undoubtedly been impacted by the continuous evolution of international relations particularly within the globalisation paradigm (Berridge, 2010). For example, Waltz is a vocal critic of Morgenthau’s theory regarding innate need for power and his “Theory of International Politics” (1979) effectively redefines what he views as the deficiencies of classic realism in international politics theory. Waltz addresses pre-existing theory pertaining to the correlation between laws and international behaviour. Whilst he acknowledges that legal compliance and laws may provide a correlation to state behaviour and international politics, Waltz feels that is theory that explains them and to this end attempts to reconstruct classic realism through a somewhat scientific approach in reshaping the classic realism model. As such, Waltz’s neo-realism model seeks to go beyond the classic realist position of politics in terms of state characteristics and state interaction with each other and he argues (Waltz, 1979, p.3). Therefore Waltz’s central theory of neo-realism in international relations is underpinned by the proposition that the system of international politics is inherently dependent on a system of anarchy. This system of anarchy according to Waltz effectively creates the international order of hierarchy, which is further defined by states who are unitary rational actors on the one hand and rational actors on the other. However, just as the classic realism model and post Second World War realism paradigm was influenced by the contextual backdrop; similarly, Waltz’s discussion of the Cold War, highlights his propensity towards viewing the international political order from a systemic perspective as opposed to considering the intentions of individual states and human behaviour (Jackson & Sorenson, 2010). In turn this is arguably the inherent weakness of Waltz’s neo-realism model underlying contemporary international relations theory in context of contemporary international politics. For example, in focusing on the international politics as a whole state system as opposed to individual state level factors, Waltz avoids assumptions about human nature and morality and power in international politics, which is arguably exemplified by the contemporary role of diplomats within the globalisation paradigm (Coles, 2000). For example, Putnam’s two-level games model suggests that the status of the diplomat within the relevant community will impact the outcome of the negotiation (1988). Putnam further comments that the extent to which diplomats “act rationally” will be impacted by numerous factors such as subjective interests, national interests and the international state hierarchy (Putnam, 1988). Alternatively, this can also be a deliberate tactic to exert power and Randin suggests that within the contemporary international framework, Putnam’s studies on the complex machinations of negotiation and the role of diplomats supports the notion of diplomacy as “a black art” (Randin, 2006). For example, Randin refers to the reality that the role of diplomats is increasingly wide as a result of the globalisation of world politics and that diplomats are often fully aware that different courses of action can have different ramifications (2006). As a result, the contemporary framework of international relations goes beyond Waltz’s model of neo-realism, which was rooted in the Cold War environment and assumptions of deterrence theory (Siracusa, 2010). For example, Baylis and Smith highlight the reality of the globalization of politics and how this has impacted the contemporary mainstream approaches of neo-realism and neo-liberalism (2005). Indeed, this is highlighted by the recent wave of protests in the Middle East and the battle for exertion of power by Western states such as the UK, France and US as evidenced by the recent UN resolution in relation to Libya. 2. International Relations Theory In Context: State Relations & Contemporary Environment Directly correlated to this is the concept of “state” and “inter-state relations”, which in terms of individual human rights protections at international level has become a central issue particularly in context of rapid globalisation (Shaw, 2008; Baylis & Owen, 2008). On this basis, Benevenisti and Hirsch comment that the “result is that, nowadays, people in different states are more significantly affected by activities that take place in other states” (2004, p.167). Moreover, the globalisation of world politics not only blurs the concept of state and the individual, it is evident that the end of the Cold War and the events of 9/11 have provided a catalyst for unprecedented challenges to the international order and national security policy. In turn this has fuelled debate as to whether the attitudes and interests of the world’s different geo-political groupings of states are too diverse to allow the proper functioning of international law as highlighted by the failure of the conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen 2009. Ultimately the United Nations Conference on Climate Change was a resounding failure as no concrete agreements were made and no commitments were provided that could be enforced or ensure accountability under international law (Zadeck, 2009). It is arguable that the failure of the summit is attributable to the conflicting interests of certain members attending, which again underlines the flaws in both traditional and contemporary models underlying international relations theory (Porter, 2009). Indeed, Zadeck comments that it is inherently unrealistic to expect a one size fits all legal policy at international level (Zadeck, 2009). This in turn reinforces the central proposition in this paper that international relations is intrinsically dependent on the interrelationship between state interest and the where the balance of power lies within the international framework (Baylis et al, 2008). This is further highlighted if we consider international relations theory in context of diplomacy (Dunne & Kurki, 2007). For example, Barston comments that the essence of diplomacy is rooted in the management of inter-state relations and highlights the widening concepts of diplomacy and argues that it encompasses many activities such as political diplomacy, advisers, envoys and officials (2006). Therefore notwithstanding the traditional foundation for the role of diplomacy, the contemporary framework would reinforce the argument that the role and influence of diplomats is intrinsically dependent on state national interests and the position of the state represented by the relevant diplomat within the international state hierarchy (Barston, 2006). Accordingly, it is submitted that within the contemporary framework, neither theoretical model underlying traditional and contemporary international relations theory is completely applicable; rather the contemporary system of international relations is somewhere between the two models. Furthermore, it is submitted that in line with Barston’s arguments, the main issues impacting international relations and multilateral negotiations is the national interest and foreign policy objectives (Dunne & Kurki, 2007 ). As such, international co-operation operates within this backdrop and hierarchical position of states within the international framework (Dunne & Kurki, 2007). This in turn reinforces Watson’s arguments regarding the evolution of the international society and questions the extent to which international relations and the interests of the state intrinsically limit the role of diplomacy. This is particularly evidenced by the nuclear issue and the recent military and political standoff between South Korea and North Korea. Indeed, it is submitted that North Korea’s nuclear ambitions symbolise the increasing primacy of state interest in policy making, which is significantly reshaping the traditional order in the international framework (Son, 2006, p.139). However, the recent military attacks on the South Korean island have served to reshape South Korean policy (Gupta, 2008, p.39). 3. Conclusion Moreover, the globalisation of world politics not only blurs the concept of state and the individual, it is evident that the end of the Cold War and the events of 9/11 have provided a catalyst for unprecedented challenges to the international order and national security policy. Arguably the most important challenge has been the appropriate and most efficacious method to combat a transient and intangible enemy, which transcends borders and the conventional notion of an organised army “yet has shown a remarkable resilience against traditional military firepower” (Mahmood, 2008). To this end, it has further been posited that the post Cold War era arguably has heralded a new peace world order based on the entrenched deterrence theory, which impacts established presumptions in international relations theory. In turn, this reinforces the argument that international relations does not operate within a theoretical vacuum and continues to evolve. Moreover, the overriding influence shaping international relations will be the complex interrelationship between state hierarchy, balance of power and the priority of political and foreign policy objectives within the international order. Bibliography R. Axelrod & R. Keohane, “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions” World Politics, volume 38, no.1 John Hopkins University Press, 1985, pp226-254. R. Barston, (2006). Modern Diplomacy. 3rd Edition, Longman J. Baylis & S. Smith (2005). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International relations. 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press. J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens. (2008). The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press. E. Benvenisti, E. & M. Hirsch (2004).The Impact of International Law on International Co-operation. Cambridge University Press. G. Berridge, (2010) Diplomacy, Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition, Palgrave J. Borrie & V. M. Randin (eds). “Thinking Outside the Box in Multilateral Disarmament and Arms Control Negotiations, (2006) United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), 2006. S. Burchill, A. Linklater, R. Devetak, J. Donnelly, M. Paterson & C. Reus-Smit (2001). Theories of International Relations. Palgrave Sir John Coles (2000). Making Foreign Policy: A Certain Idea of Britain. John Murray Publishers Limited M. Donelan, (1990). Elements of International Political Theory, Oxford University Press T. Dunne & M. Kurki (2007). International Relations Theories. Oxford University Press. S. Erckel, (2009). Classical Social Contract Theory: The Classical Social Contract. GRIN Verlag. A. Gupta (2008). Strategic Stability in Asia. Ashgate Publishing B. Hocking & D. Spence, (2002) Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats. Palgrave Macmillan P. T. Hopmann, “Negotiating Data: Reflections on the Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Negotiation Processes” International Negotiation, Volume 7, no.1 Martinus Nijhoff 2002, p.74. R. Jackson & G. Sorenson (2010). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford University Press, 4th Edition. R. Johnson, “Nuclear Arms Control through Multilateral Negotiations” in Nancy Gallagher (eds) Arms Control: New Approaches to Theory and Practice, Frank Cass, 1998, p.95 N. Mahmood “Non-Offensive Defense and Nonviolence Response to Terrorism) at www.stormingmedia.us accessed March 2011 H. Milner, “International Theories of Co-operation among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses”, World Politics, volume 44, no.3 John Hopkins University Press, 1992, p467 W. Morgan, (2001). Questionable Charity: Gender, Humanitarianism and Complicity in American Literary Realism, University Press of England. H. B. Nisbet & H. Reiss, (1991) Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge University Press A. Porter (2009). China and America to blame for Copenhagen failure says Brown Available from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6859567 accessed March 2011 R. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Policies: The Logic of Two Level Games”, International Organization, volume no.42, no.3 Cambridge University Press, 1988 M. Shaw, (2008). International Law. 6th Edition, Cambridge University Press J. Siracusa, (2010). Diplomacy. Oxford University Press K. Y. Son (2006). South Korean Engagement Policies and North Korea. Columbia University Press. Kenneth Waltz(1995). More May Be Better. In The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, by Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz. W. W. Norton & Company: New York Adam Watson, (1984) Diplomacy: the Dialogue Between States. Routledge Wilkinson, P. (2010). International Relations. Sterling Publishing Company. United Nations Draft Decision -/CP.15 Copenhagen Accord available at www.unfcc.int accessed March 2011. See also United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Available at www.unfcc.int accessed March 2011. Zadeck, S. (2009) Learn from Copenhagen’s failure. Open Democracy available and retrieved at www.opendemocracy.net accessed March 2011 Read More