1. Who offers a more convincing stance on the role of morality in international politics? Liberals or realists?

Realism offers a more convincing stance on the role of morals within international politics as it recognises that the anarchical state of international politics is immutable as long as sovereign states exist. Maintaining the balance of power, which may involve concessions or gains in the form of limited conflict in peripheries, is perhaps even more moral when observed holistically.

At the root of the conflict between the two theories of liberalism and realism in their approach to ethics is that the former adopts a deontological approach to international diplomacy, while the realists adopt a unique utilitarian perspective. Compared to a realist, a liberal emphasises concepts such as human rights, democracy and international norms in their approach to foreign relations. This is because liberals such as John MacMillan see these values and institutions as ultimately leading to conflict averse societies (2004). As the aim of the discipline of International Relations is greatly concerned with conflict resolution, the prospect of both working within established norms and also fulfilling the aim of the discipline makes the ideas of liberalism very attractive. However, realists argue that the implications of liberalism are dangerous and create instability in search of an idealist world order that ignores how global politics really functions. The realist may be a proponent of actions that break international norms, permit cruelty in the peripheries of the spheres of influence, and work together with authoritarian regimes to realise a working balance of power. This ultimately serves to contain conflict in a way that does not draw in the great powers and prevents greater loss of life and preserving global stability.

One way in which liberal approaches to international politics fail morally is the reliance on international organisations and international law to solve regional issues. Michael C. Desch gives the examples of where collective security completely failed in the interwar era as the League of Nations was impotent to prevent events such as the Abyssinian Crisis of 1935-6 and the following war, the annexation of Austria, and Japanese occupations in China (2003). Furthermore, Desch discusses the implications of liberal involvement in the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, insinuating that the deaths of seven to eight thousand boys and men at Srebrenica was caused by the intent of the international community to safeguard Bosnian Muslims in certain areas, demonstrating a failure of liberal international policy to effectively advance human rights protection (2003). Desch also mentions the Vietnam War as an example of realist virtue, as many liberals had spearheaded the cause while realists such as Kennan, Waltz and Morgenthau as early and cogent critics of US policy in the country (2003), and ultimately it was Richard Nixon’s realist foreign policy which had started the peace process.

A liberal argument for why some of these values are of importance, such as that of democracy, is that democratic countries do not go to war with each other. Though realist arguments against this could be that two countries that go to war are likely to abandon the system of government as democracy and democratic rights could stifle the war effort.

Overall, realist approaches to international politics and morality may end up saving more lives, even if they had not intended to.

Wordcount: 549

Bibliography:

Desch, M. C. (2003) ‘It’s kind to be cruel: The humanity of American realism’, Review of International Studies, 29(3), pp.415-426. Available at DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210503004157.

MacMillan, J. (2004) ‘Liberalism and the Democratic Peace’ Review of International Studies, 30(2), pp.179-200. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021050400600X.

2. Compare and contrast Constructivism and Marxism on the topic of change in the international order.

Both the constructivist and marxist theories of International Relations are described as reflexive due to their interpretation of what can change international politics. Proponents of both theories accept that discourse around international relations theory can have an impact on how we approach international politics. For the constructivists, this concept is exemplified best by the phrase, “Anarchy is what states make of it”, the title of Alexander Wendt’s article that puts forth the idea that power politics and a self-help system are not necessitated by the concept of anarchy (1992), but are seen as such because of socially constructed approaches. Marxists on the other hand can see the disciplines leading theories as reinforcing and justifying imperialism.

Change in IR is defined differently between the two theories. According to Finnemore and Sikkink, constructivists view the international structure as being determined by the “international distribution of ideas” such as “shared ideas, expectations and beliefs about appropriate behaviour” that give the world its “structure, order and stability” (1998). Explaining changes is then explaining the shifts of norms and ideas in international politics. For example, one example of a change in the constructivist perspective could be the distribution of the idea of state sovereignty following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 or the many conventions on appropriate state behaviour and regulations surrounding states since, such as UNCLOS.

Marxism meanwhile, as an intellectual tradition preceding the discipline of IR studies, has had many ideas of change that differ from one another. For example, Immanuel Wallerstein is critical of traditional Marxist thinking in terms of developmental stages of history, a linear idea of change that looks at a country’s mode of production and economic activity (1974). Wallerstein’s critique of the traditional Marxist stages of history stems from the fact that stages can theoretically be skipped by countries, from ‘Feudalism’ to ‘Socialism’ (ibid.), which make little sense as it is meant to be linear. Another criticism is that these stages that countries are supposed to be changed to and from are “synchronic portraits” or ideal types (ibid.). Instead, Wallerstein looks at the whole “World System”. There can be changes in the World System, as the current World System is a capitalist one, and there can be changes within the World System as the “structural positions” of the world economy change (ibid.). The latter, however, is not very important for Marxist analysis as there is only a shift in who is exploited. An important change for a Marxist would be the change in the world system. Marxism has more varied yet limited approaches to change in IR, while constructivism has a broad definition, that even the Marxist perspective of change can be seen through the wider umbrella of the norm shifts of constructivist theory.

Wordcount: 470

Bibliography:

Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) ‘International norm dynamics and political change’ International Organization, 54(2), pp.887-917. Available at https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.

Wallerstein, I. (1974) ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis’ Society and History, 16(4), pp.387-415. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500007520

Wendt, A. (1992) ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics’, International Organization, 46(2), pp.391-425. Available at DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764.

3. How do the differing understandings of the relation between knowledge and power inform the different approaches which critical theorists and poststructuralists take to critique?

Both critical theorists and poststructuralists are described as reflectivists, holding that theories are not separate to the world that they analyse, and as such, are both influenced by and have influence over the world. Such theories such as realism, liberalism and their revised counterparts, often grouped as rationalist theories, are not just normative, but perform an instrumental as well as an ideological function (2021b). Often, this is in the form of legitimization of violence and power politics. This means that proponents of both theories (or attitudes, as poststructuralism is often described) see the dominant IR theories as having more of a use-value than a truth-value. Both theories are also critical of the state as the primary unit of analysis within the discipline.

Where the two theories diverge is that critical theory is concerned with emancipation while post structuralism is concerned with unending problematization. What is meant by this is that critical theorists intend to use theory in order to challenge injustices and inequalities perpetuated by the prevailing world order (ibid.). Poststructuralists on the other hand do not take there to be an end point to the critique. The critique must be ongoing, and every claim or concept held to be correct is to be questioned and broken down. CT then supposes there to be an arbitrary end point to theorising where is an ideal to reach, while poststructuralism holds that there should be a constant process of discourse.

For example, using a political map, we can demonstrate the differences between the approaches of both theories. A political map is selective in content regarding what it takes to be its subject (2021a). Both groups of theorists would critique the state as the primary unit of the political map, as it may be seen as an arbitrary depiction of the actual political order. Many countries in Oceania, such as Nauru or Micronesia, possess statehood yet delegate some of their state functions such as foreign policy or defence to other, more powerful states. Meanwhile, many non-recognised or autonomous political entities, such as Somaliland or the KRG in Northern Iraq have greater governmental functions. In this case, a critical theorist may work to provide a more emancipatory map, perhaps even leaving behind the concept of governments as the primary political unit on a map, opting for cultural markers. A poststructuralist on the other hand would continuously critique and improve on a political map without settling.

Another aspect where the two theories differ is on the value placed on the relation between knowledge and power. For critical theorists, power is necessarily a negative concept that feeds itself through inventing narratives to justify violence. Poststructuralists, such as Foucault, do not take power to be solely a repressive concept, instead pointing out that power and exclusionary policies result in the creation of identities and meanings (ibid.).

Wordcount: 493

Bibliography:

Campbell D. and Bleiker, R. (2021) ‘Poststructuralism’ in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.197-219

Roach, S.C. (2021) ‘Critical Theory’ in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.147-162

4. What are the most important contributions which Postcolonialism and Feminism make to destabilising dominant perspectives in International Relations Theory?

Both the feminist and postcolonial theories or approaches to International Relations Theory have provided new insights to the discipline through bringing perspectives of marginalised groups to light.

Postcolonial approaches build upon poststructural approaches to international relations, as again power and knowledge are linked greatly. That is used to reason that the discipline of IR is characterised by the people who have made it, generally European men. As such, the development of International Relations reflects this, with the history of IR in particular focusing mostly on the western tradition of sovereign states, whereas other cultures’ interpretations of the international system have generally been ignored. An example of this is the universalising language used to describe global politics, where concepts such as “liberal”, “conservative”, “socialist” and other labels yet their political behaviours are greatly different from one another due to cultural differences (2011). The study of culture is also very important in postcolonial IR approaches, as it can convey the power dynamics between two different groups. An example of this is orientalist art,

that conveys either overt or subtle themes of imagined exoticness and backwardness associated with ‘the other’. Because postcolonialism is reflective, it holds that not just theories but also cultural works can have influence on international politics, because ultimately policy makers will make decisions based on preconceived biases. These critiques are important because IR can hold eurocentric perspectives that are not historically well supported, such as the Military Revolution Thesis which posits that the triumph of Europe was due to its technological and military advancements in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Likewise, feminist IR hopes to bring the perspective of marginalised groups such as women. However, feminist IR is a diverse set of approaches to the discipline with some holding an empiricist epistemology and others taking a postmodern approach (1989). Feminist IR observes that international politics, and political concepts such as the state, are gendered structures of domination (ibid.). A group of feminist IR scholars referred to as proponents of “standpoint” theories emphasise the unique experience of women from being at the margins of society (ibid.). So it aims to answer questions regarding how women are impacted by the consequences of international relations, such as famines and conflicts. There is also postcolonial feminism which draws on concepts such as intersectionality to demonstrate the unique experiences of women in the third world. While both theories are useful as they widen a narrow discipline, they are limited by the fact that unlike the rationalist theories or those that sit in the middle such as constructivism, they do not discuss how international politics works in the same way realism or liberalism does.

Wordcount: 453

Bibliography:

Keohane, R. O. (1989) ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint’, Millennium, 18(2), pp.245-253. Available at DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298890180021001.

Seth, S. (2011) ‘Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations’, Millennium, 40(1), pp.167-183. Available at DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811412325.