The Field of International Relations and Descriptions Offered by History - Coursework Example

International Relations International Relations In international relations, a great number of facts about the world are considered and studied. However, their relevance only becomes apparent when perceived from a certain framework. Drawing from the past history feeds the future without offering repetition by describing the past without generalizations. Cultures and societies are inherently linked in a manner that changes that occur in one of them will inevitably affect the others. The relationship between people, organisations, governments and countries can be viewed from perspectives based on issues such as globalization, war, economics, poverty, trade, disease, democracy and diplomacy (Vaughan-Williams 2005, p. 164). It may be practically difficult to predict the future by simply studying and analysing the influences of the past, or history, on the present, but international relations attempt to predict what international decisions will result into. This is achieved by studying relationships among the roles played by sovereign states, multinational corporations, nongovernmental organisations, international nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organisations. Through history, it is possible to give a description of events, people, organisations, governments and countries, but it requires international relations to provide the explanations (Snyder 2011, p.141). This essay will argue that the field of international relations is successful in explaining the descriptions offered by history. In most cases, history and theory are treated discretely in studying international relations. Historians separately ponder on history while international relations scholars deliberate the facts brought forward by historians. That way, the facts are taken through theoretical approaches for the purpose of developing them in order to produce and explain models that are able to foretell international events and affairs (Woods, N 1996, p. 1). As explained by Woods (1996, p.1), this view of international relations is supports the notion that the study and practice of international relations reflects an inherent and ongoing exchange between theory and history. Relevant theories of international relations, therefore, support appropriate historical scholarship. It is also evident that theory and history inform and rely on each other. On one hand, theories are an appropriate tool of bringing to light episodes and issues of international relations. On the other hand, it is impossible to assume that history will only be left to historians and merely considered as a set of data (Woods, N 1996, p. 1). Viewed individually, history and international relations appear closely related, but scholarship of international relations is predicated on a perspective that actually explains fats presented by history. On the other hand, history, then, is a predestined platform for empirical verifications and validations of abstract claims. Therefore, being only abstract claims, international relations serve the purpose of explaining them albeit by making assumptions and generalizations to make them fit logically. As a field of study, international relations have a history dating back to the interactions of the ancient Sumerian city-states as long back as 3,500 BC (Tosh 2006, p. 69). In terms of the relations between sovereign states, it can be traced back to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which is considered a significant step towards the development of the contemporary system of states. Before this contemporary system, the European medieval structure of political power was founded on vague hierarchical religious orders (Sewell 2005, p.74). Westphalia is known to have embodied layered sovereignty systems particularly within the Roman Empire. The study of international relations have accurately established that independent and sovereign states rose through the 16th to the 18th centuries characterised by armies and institutionalising diplomacy (Beaulac 2004, p. 86). Theories of international relations that explain history can broadly be categorised into one of the two epistemological schools of thought, which are either positivist or post-positivist theories (McNeill 2003, p. 86). Under positivist theories, there is realism, regime theory, liberalism and neoliberalism. Post-positivist theories include the international society theory, Marxism, social constructivism and critical theory. By aiming to replicate the ways of the natural sciences through the analysis of the effects of material forces, positivist theories place their focus typically on the attributes of international relations in an attempt to explain historical facts (Roskin & Berry 2009, p. 39). Such attributes include the coming into existence, as presented by history, of the balance of powers, size and capacity of military forces and interactions between states. Post-positivist epistemology, on the other hand, does not agree with the notion that it is possible to objectively study the social world and do so in ways that are free of values. From this perspective, it is apparent that history largely considers and incorporates values in the facts it presents, since there are no generalizations in history. For instance, the concept of rational choice theory, which is a core idea of liberalism or neo-realism, is rejected with the explanation that it is not possible to apply scientific methods to the social world (Nau 2010, p. 14). Essentially, positivist and post-positivist perspectives differ mainly because the positivist theories offer explanations considered to be casual, for example, the explanation as to how and why power is exercised as presented by neo-realism, but they both support historical facts. On the other hand, post-positivist theories have their focus on constitutive issues. An example is questions such as what power means, what it is made up of and how it can be reproduced and experienced (Mimiko 2012, p. 93). From this, it can be seen that post-positivist theories, through the consideration of ethics, typically promote normative approaches to international relations. Under conventional international relations, positivist theories did not focus or emphasise on making distinctions between values, or normative judgments, and facts (Reus-Smit & Snidal 2010, p. 84). In international relations, history attempts to describe past events by presenting facts more than generalisations (Suganami 2008, p. 367). On the other hand and in support of the historical facts, international relations theories provide conceptual frameworks used to explain both historical facts and generalisations by mainly defining concepts and terms. As seen in presentism, present-day experiences and attitudes dominate the past. In itself, this is a manifestation that current studies of international relations successfully explain historical facts. Through this mode of presentism, historical and literal analyses are conducted by the introduction of modern perspectives and ideas into the way the past is interpreted, depicted and explained (Lawson 2007a, p. 343). Unlike presentism, ahistoricism is mainly in reference to the absence of concern for tradition, historical development and history where philosophers aim to correctly explain historical facts in abstract natures. To the extent that these answers are sought by political philosophers, the questions remain abstract about politics (Frazer 2010, p. 5). This is because political scientists and philosophers are not historians since there are enduring and real methodological and epistemological distinctions between the two groups. The philosophers of ahistoricism often fail to frame their issues or arguments in historical perspectives, but instead explain historical facts using generalizations and, in some cases, assumptions. They do not exclusively use history to explain historical facts but, rather, base their arguments on modern theories of international relations. It is worth noting that although all parts of the discipline of international relations use history, there is an underlying and deeply entrenched binary regarding the approach to history. History is explained by the mainstream positions, which are positivist, by the use of hypothetical frames provided by international relations studies (Mingst & Arreguín-Toft 2011, p. 43). On their part, post-positivists mainly explain history through the collection of contingent glitches, albeit the fact that such an approach seems more of maybes and what-ifs. Political scientists look more to the past as a way of offering support or discredit to theoretical hypotheses. It is, therefore, evident that they apply theories of international relations to explain the past events that they look at. While historians will be more interested in historical international events for their own sake, political scientists will refer to them with the objective to facilitate the generation, testing and refining of theories. Historians, in contrast, are interested in the history or past itself as the objectives of building theories are secondary to them. Viewed from this perspective, international relations may be considered as the application of lessons from the past in order to explain historical descriptions (Lawson 2012b, p. 205). At the same time, inviolate rules are removed from the context of history and applied to abstract or ambiguous situations. Political scientists further explain historical events by presenting lessons of conciliation that set trends for the need to confront dictatorial administrations across place and time. Examples include the backing away from Vietnam by the US, which was called upon to stop talks of retreating from Iraq. Another example is the use of trends from President Reagan’s reign to support the notion suggesting that the war on terror can only be won by deploying excessive US military might while at the same time promoting democratic ideals. Therefore, history may be termed as a recognised backdrop narrative that needs to be coded within theoretical categories that exist. Realism has its main focus on state power and security (Fazer 2010, p. 53). Early realists, including Morgenthau and Carr, opined that states are inherently interested in themselves and seek actors who rationalise power in a bid to maximise their survival and security chances. Similarly, current studies of international relations explain that the way states cooperate is ideally targeted at maximising the security status of each individual state, which is in opposition to idealistic reasons (Jackson 2006a, p. 164). In like manner, acts of war ought to be founded on self-interest and not idealism. Then, as a theory, liberalism is founded on the assumption of political institutions’ values and the natural integrity of the individual in the promotion of social development. Liberalism opines individuals to be good and able to advance positive changes meaningfully. Neoliberalism, as explained by Waltz, has its focus on updating liberalism through the acceptance of neorealist presumptions that the fundamental actors in international relations are states (Baylis & Smith 2007, p. 103). However, it is also maintained through neoliberalism that intergovernmental organisations and non-state actors are of significance. Perpetrators of the regime theory derive their ideals from the moderate tradition in which it is argued that regimes or international institutions impact on the conduct of states or international actors (Hobson & Lawson 2008, p. 417). From this argument, regimes are agreeably, even though by assumption, international cooperation instances that are based on historical information but created through international relations. On the post-positivist front, the international society theory has its focus on the values and standards shared by nations how their international relations are regulated. This includes, for example, international law, order and diplomacy. In contrast to neorealism, international society theory is not positivist necessarily. In social constructivism is encompassed a wide scope of theories aiming to address issues of ontology and epistemology (Carlsnaes 2012, p. 217). Ideally, constructivism cannot be viewed as an international relations theory in the same manner as neorealism but, rather, as a social theory that better explains the actions that states take as well as other major actors. The critical international relations theory, with a focus on the necessity of emancipating humans from states, applies the ‘critical theory’ to international relations. In that sense, it criticises mainstream theories of international relations that seem to lean towards the state (Buzan & Little 2000, p. 74). Liberal or realist perspectives of cooperation or conflict between states are rejected by Marxist theories, which focus on material and economic aspects by assuming that all other concerns are overridden by the economy. In conclusion, it is evident that the descriptions of history are successfully explained by international relations. It can be seen that history provides a passive background through which international relations theorists can successfully explain their experiments. The fact that political scientists and international relations scholars look back at history to either support or disregard theories is an indication that history and the theories of international relations can give details of international events (Jackson 2010b, p. 14). This is an implication that international relations as viewed presently give explanations of historical facts. History presents more facts than generalisations, which international relation scholars develop and come up with models used to predict international affairs. Therefore, there is an inherent correlation between history, theory and the study and practice of international relations, through which appropriate historical facts provide relevant material for developing theories of international relations. References Baylis, J & Smith, S 2007, The globalisation of world politics: an introduction to international relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Beaulac, S 2004, ‘The Westphalian model of defining international law: challenging the myth,’ Australian Journal of Legal History, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 83-88. Buzan, B & Little, R 2000, International systems in world history: remaking the study of international relations, Prentice, New Jersey. Carlsnaes, W 2012, Handbook of international relations, Sage, New York. Fazer, M 2010, Three methods of political theory: historicism, ahistoricism and transhistoricism, Havard University, New York. Hobson, J & Lawson, G 2008, ‘What is history in international relations,’ Journal of International Studies, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 415-435. Jackson, P 2006a, The present as history, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jackson, P 2010b, The conduct of enquiry in international relations, Routledge, London. Lawson, G 2007a, ‘Historical sociology in international relations: Open society, research pro­gramme and vocation,’ International Politics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 343-368. Lawson, G 2012b, ‘The eternal divide? History and international relations,’ European Journal of International Relations, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 203-226. McNeill, W 2003, The human web, Norton, New York. Mimiko, O 2012, Globalization: the politics of global economic relations and international business, Carolina Academic Press, Durham. Mingst, K & Arreguín-Toft, I 2011, Essentials of international relations, Norton, New York. Nau, H 2010, Perspectives on international relations: power, institutions, ideas, Pearson, New York. Reus-Smit, C & Snidal, D 2010, The oxford handbook of international relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Roskin, M & Berry, N 2009, International relations: the new world of international relations, London, Oxford University Press. Sewell, W 2005, Logics of history, University of Chicago Press. Snyder, J 2011, Religion and international relations, Columbia University Press. Suganami, H 2008, ‘Narrative explanation and international relations,’ European Journal of International Relations, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 365-386. Tosh, J 2006, The pursuit of history, Longman, New York. Vaughan-Williams, N 2005, ‘International relations and the problem of history,’ Journal of International Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 163-182. Woods, N 1996, Explaining international relations since 1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More