International Relations Theory

International relations theory is the study of international relations from a theoretical perspective; it attempts to
provide a conceptual framework upon which international relations can be analyzed.[1] An adherent of realism may
completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. The three most
popular theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism.[2]
International relations theories can be divided into:
positivist/rationalist - theories which focus on a principally state-level analysis
o

Realism, Liberalism

Post- positivist/reflectivist - ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to
gender, to postcolonial security.
o

constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, neo-Gramscianism, and others.

Introduction
Explanatory and constitutive approaches in international relations theory is a distinction made when
classifying international relations theories.
Explanatory theories are ones which see the world as something external to theorize about it.
A constitutive theory is one which believes that theories actually help construct the world.

Realism
Further information: Classical realism in international relations theory, Neorealism (international relations), Offensive
realism, Defensive realism, Liberal realism,Neoclassical realism, Postclassical realism, Relative gains and Absolute
gains
Realism or political realism has been the dominant theory of international relations since the conception of the
discipline. The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers such
as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Early realism can be characterized as a reaction against interwar idealist
thinking.
Realism spans a spectrum of ideas which revolve around the four central propositions of Political
Groupism, Egoism, International anarchy and Power politics
The outbreak of World War II was seen by realists as evidence of the deficiencies of idealist thinking. There are
various strands of modern day realist thinking. However, the main tenets of the theory have been identified as
statism, survival, and self-help.[10]

Statism: Realists believe that nation states are the main actors in international politics. [11] As such it
is a state-centric theory of international relations. This contrasts with liberal international relations theories which
accommodate roles for non-state actors and international institutions. This difference is sometimes expressed by

describing a realist world view as one which sees nation states as billiard balls, liberals would consider relationships
between states to be more of a cobweb.

Survival: Realists believe that the international system is governed by anarchy, meaning that there
is no central authority.[9] Therefore, international politics is a struggle for power between self-interested states. [12]

Self-help: Realists believe that no other states can be relied upon to help guarantee the state's
survival.
Realism makes several key assumptions.
Relative gain, in international relations, is the actions of states only in respect to power balances and without regard
to other factors, such as economics. In international relations, cooperation may be necessary to balance power, but
concern for relative gains will limit that cooperation due to the low quality of information about other states' behavior
and interests. Relative gain is related to zero-sum game, which states that wealth cannot be expanded and the only
way a state can become richer is to take wealth from another state
Absolute gain is what international actors look at in determining their interests, weighing out the total effects of a
decision on the state or organization and acting accordingly. The international actor's interests not only include
power but also encompass the economic and cultural effects of an action as well. The theory is also interrelated with
a non-zero-sum game which proposes that through use of comparative advantage, all states who engage in
peaceful relations and trade can expand wealth.
It assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically based actors in an anarchic international system with no
authority above capable of regulating interactions between states as no true authoritative world government exists.
Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than IGOs, NGOs or MNCs, are the primary actors in
international affairs. Thus, states, as the highest order, are in competition with one another. As such, a state acts as
a rational autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own
securityand thus its sovereignty and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to
amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power. That level of
power is in turn determined by the state's military, economic, and political capabilities.
Some realists, known as human nature realists or classical realists believe that states are inherently aggressive, that
territorial expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while others, known as offensive/defensive
realists, believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state's existence. The defensive
view can lead to a security dilemma, where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the
opponent(s) builds up its own arms, making security a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

Neorealism
Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its focus is predominantly
on the anarchic structure of the international system.
States are primary actors because there is no political monopoly on force existing above any sovereign.
While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states
through levels of analysis or structure-agency debate. The international system is seen as
a structure acting on the state with individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as
a whole.

While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English School, neorealism differs in
the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict. To ensure state security, states must be on constant
preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.
Prominent neorealists:

Robert Jervis defensive realism

Kenneth Waltz structural realism

John Mearsheimer offensive realism

Robert Gilpin hegemonic theory

Structure is defined twofold as:
a) the ordering principle of the international system which is anarchy
b) the distribution of capabilities across units.
Waltz also challenges traditional realism's emphasis on traditional military power, instead characterizing power in
terms of the combined capabilities of the state.

Liberal realism or the English school or rationalism

The English School holds that the international system, while anarchical in structure, forms a "society of
states" where common norms and interests allow for more order and stability than what might be expected
in a strict realist view. Prominent English School writer Hedley Bull's 1977 classic, The Anarchical Society, is
a key statement of this position.

Hedley Bull argued for both the existence of an international society of states and its
perseverance even in times of great systemic upheaval, meaning regional or so-called "world wars"

Liberalism
In international relations, idealism (also called "Wilsonianism" because of its association with Woodrow Wilson who
personified it) is a school of thought that holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its
foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling
poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise
amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II.
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior.
Unlike realism, where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus,
preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government
type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security ("high politics"),
but also economic/cultural ("low politics") whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus,
instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of
power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of films leading to the popularity of the country's culture

and creating a market for its exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through
co-operation and interdependencethus peace can be achieved.

Democratic Peace theory

The democratic peace theory argues that liberal democracies have never (or almost never) made war on one
another and have fewer conflicts among themselves. This is seen as contradicting especially the realist theories and
this empirical claim is now one of the great disputes in political science. Numerous explanations have been
proposed for the democratic peace. It has also been argued, as in the book Never at War, that democracies conduct
diplomacy in general very differently from non-democracies. (Neo)realists disagree with Liberals over the theory,
often citing structural reasons for the peace, as opposed to the state's government. Sebastian Rosato, a critic of
democratic peace theory, points to America's behavior towards left-leaning democracies in Latin America during
the Cold War to challenge democratic peace. One argument is that economic interdependence makes war between
trading partners less likely. In contrast realists claim that economic interdependence increases rather than
decreases the likelihood of conflict.

Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism, liberal institutionalism or neo-liberal institutionalism is an advancement of liberal thinking. It argues
that international institutions can allow nations to successfully cooperate in the international system.
Neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that states are, or at least should be, concerned first and
foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other states.
Neoliberal international relations thinkers often employ game theory to explain why states do or do not
cooperate; since their approach tends to emphasize the possibility of mutual wins, they are interested in
institutions which can arrange jointly profitable arrangements and compromises.
Neoliberalism is a response to Neorealism; while not denying the anarchic nature of the international
system, neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated. The neoliberal argument is
focused on the neorealists' underestimation of "the varieties of cooperative behavior possible within ... a
decentralized system. Both theories, however, consider the state and its interests as the central subject of
analysis; neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are.
Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can
emerge through the building of norms, regimes and institutions.
In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign interventionism, the debate between
Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra-paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on
the state system as the primary unit of analysis.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered the founders of the neoliberal school of thought.

Keohane and Nye

Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to neorealism, develop an opposing theory they dub
"Complex interdependence." Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye explain, "... complex interdependence
sometimes comes closer to reality than does realism." In explaining this, Keohane and Nye cover the three
assumptions in realist thought: First, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international

relations; second, force is a usable and effective instrument of policy; and finally, the assumption that there
is a hierarchy in international politics.
The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is that in international politics there are, in fact, multiple channels
that connect societies exceeding the conventionalWestphalian system of states. This manifests itself in
many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. Here
they define their terminology; interstate relations are those channels assumed by
realists; transgovernmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist assumption that states act
coherently as units; transnational applies when one removes the assumption that states are the only units. It
is through these channels that political exchange occurs, not through the limited interstate channel as
championed by realists.
Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a hierarchy among issues, meaning that not only
is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a state's agenda, but that there
are a multitude of different agendas that come to the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy
becomes blurred in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations.
Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails. The idea is
developed that between countries in which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in
resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact
important in that "alliance's political and military relations with a rival bloc."
Keohane and Martin argue that the fact that international institutions are created in response to state
interests, that the real empirical question is "knowing how to distinguish the effects of underlying conditions
from those of the institutions themselves."
Mearsheimer (neo classical realist, critic of neoliberalism)
Mearsheimer purports that, "institutions cannot get states to stop behaving as short-term power
maximizers."
The debate between the institutionalists and Mearsheimer is about whether institutions have an independent
effect on state behavior, or whether they reflect great power interests that said powers employ to advance
their respective interests.
Mearsheimer is concerned with 'inner-directed' institutions, which he states, "seek to cause peace by
influencing the behavior of the member states." In doing so he dismisses Keohane and Martin's NATO
argument in favor of the example of the European Community and the International Energy Agency.
According to Mearsheimer, NATO is an alliance that is interested in "an outside state, or coalition of states,
which the alliance aims to deter, coerce, or defeat in war." Mearsheimer reasons that since NATO is an
alliance it has special concerns. He concedes this point to Keohane and Martin. However, Mearsheimer
reasons, "to the extent that alliances cause peace, they do so by deterrence, which is straightforward realist
behavior."

Post-liberalism

One version of post-liberal theory argues that within the modern, globalized world, states in fact are driven to
cooperate in order to ensure security and sovereign interests. The departure from classical liberal theory is most
notably felt in the re-interpretation of the concepts of sovereignty and autonomy. Autonomy becomes a problematic
concept in shifting away from a notion of freedom, self-determination, and agency to a heavily responsible and duty
laden concept. Importantly, autonomy is linked to a capacity for good governance. Similarly, sovereignty also
experiences a shift from a right to a duty. In the global economy, International organizations hold sovereign states to
account, leading to a situation where sovereignty is co-produced among "sovereign" states. The concept becomes a
variable capacity of good governance and can no longer be accepted as an absolute right. One possible way to
interpret this theory, is the idea that in order to maintain global stability and security and solve the problem of the
anarchic world system in International Relations, no overarching, global, sovereign authority is created. Instead,
states collectively abandon some rights for full autonomy and sovereignty.[22] Another version of post-liberalism,
drawing on work in political philosophy after the end of the Cold War, as well as on democratic transitions in
particular in Latin America, argues that social forces from below are essential in understanding the nature of the
state and the international system. Without understanding their contribution to political order and its progressive
possibilities, particularly in the area of peace in local and international frameworks, the weaknesses of the state, the
failings of the liberal peace, and challenges to global governance cannot be realised or properly understood.
Furthermore, the impact of social forces on political and economic power, structures, and institutions, provides some
empirical evidence of the complex shifts currently underway in IR.

Constructivism
Constructivism or social constructivism has been described as a challenge to the dominance of neo-liberal and neorealist international relations theories.
The key element of constructivism is the belief that "International politics is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective
values, culture, and social identities." Constructivism argues that international reality is socially constructed by
cognitive structures which give meaning to the material world.
The theory emerged from debates concerning the scientific method of international relations theories and theories
role in the production of international power.
The failure of either realism or liberalism to predict the end of the Cold War boosted the credibility of constructivist
theory. Constructivist theory criticises the static assumptions of traditional international relations theory and
emphasizes that international relations is a social construction. Constructivism is a theory critical of the ontological
basis of rationalist theories of international relations.[31]
Whereas realism deals mainly with security and material power, and liberalism looks primarily at economic
interdependence and domestic-level factors, constructivism most concerns itself with the role of ideas in shaping the
international system; indeed it is possible there is some overlap between constructivism and realism or liberalism,
but they remain separate schools of thought.
By "ideas" constructivists refer to the goals, threats, fears, identities, and other elements of perceived reality that
influence states and non-state actors within the international system. Constructivists believe that these ideational
factors can often have far-reaching effects, and that they can trump materialistic power concerns.
For example, constructivists note that an increase in the size of the U.S. military is likely to be viewed with much
greater concern in Cuba, a traditional antagonist of the United States, than in Canada, a close U.S. ally. Therefore,
there must be perceptions at work in shaping international outcomes.

As such, constructivists do not see anarchy as the invariable foundation of the international system, but rather
argue, in the words of Alexander Wendt, that "anarchy is what states make of it. Constructivists also believe
that social norms shape and change foreign policy over time rather than security which realists cite.
Alexander Wendt calls two increasingly accepted basic tenets of Constructivism "that the structures of human
association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and
interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature"

Marxism and Critical Theory

Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories are structuralist paradigms which reject
the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects.
Marxist approaches argue the position of historical materialism and make the assumption that the economic
concerns transcend others; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international
system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. A sub-discipline of Marxist IR is Critical
Security Studies. Gramscian approaches rely on the ideas of Italian Antonio Gramsci whose writings concerned the
hegemony that capitalism holds as an ideology. Marxist approaches have also inspired Critical Theorists such
as Robert W. Cox who argues that "Theory is always for someone and for some purpose". [34]
One notable Marxist approach to international relations theory is Immanuel Wallerstein's World-system theory which
can be traced back to the ideas expressed by Lenin in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of capitalism. World-system
theory argues that globalized capitalism has created a core of modern industrialized countries which exploit a
periphery of exploited "Third World" countries. These ideas were developed by the Latin American Dependency
School. "Neo-Marxist" or "New Marxist" approaches have returned to the writings of Karl Marx for their inspiration.
Key "New Marxists" include Justin Rosenberg and Benno Teschke. Marxist approaches have enjoyed a renaissance
since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.
Criticisms of Marxists approaches to international relations theory include the narrow focus on material and
economic aspects of life.

World Systems Theory

World-systems theory (also known as world-systems analysis or the world-systems perspective) a
multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to world history and social change, emphasizes the worldsystem (and not nation states) as the primary (but not exclusive) unit of social analysis.
"World-system" refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the world
into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and the periphery countries.
Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on lowskill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials.
This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system has dynamic
characteristics, in part as a result of revolutions in transport technology, and individual states can gain or
lose their core (semi-periphery, periphery) status over time
World-systems theory was aiming to replace modernization theory. Immanuel Wallerstein criticized
modernization theory due to:
1.

its focus on the state as the only unit of analysis,

2.

its assumption there is only a single path of evolutionary development for all countries,

3.

its disregard of transnational structures that constrain local and national development
World-systems theory was also significantly influenced by dependency theory - a neo-Marxist explanation of
development processes.
Immanuel Wallerstein broke with orthodox dependency theory's central proposition. For Wallerstein, core
countries do not exploit poor countries for two basic reasons. First, core capitalists exploit workers in all
zones of the capitalist world-economy (not just the periphery), and therefore the crucial redistribution
between core and periphery is surplus value, not "wealth" or "resources" abstractly conceived. Second, core
states do not exploit poor statesas dependency theory proposesbecause capitalism is organized around
an inter-regional and transnational division of labor rather than an international division of labor.
Dependency and world system theory propose that the poverty and backwardness of poor countries are
caused by their peripheral position in the international division of labor. Since the capitalist world system
evolved, the distinction between the central and the peripheral nations has grown and diverged.
Wallerstein characterizes the world system as a set of mechanisms which redistributes surplus value from
the periphery to the core. In his terminology, the core is the developed, industrialized part of the world, and
the periphery is the "underdeveloped", typically raw materials-exporting, poor part of the world;
the market being the means by which the core exploits the periphery.
Chirot (1986) lists the five most important benefits coming to core nations from their domination of periphery
nations:

1.

Access to a large quantity of raw material

2.

Cheap labor

3.

Enormous profits from direct capital investments

4.

A market for exports

5.

Skilled professional labor through migration of these people from the noncore to the core

Core nations

The most economically diversified, wealthy, and powerful (economically and militarily)

Have strong central governments, controlling extensive bureaucracies and powerful

militaries

Have more complex and stronger state institutions that help manage economic affairs
internally and externally

Have a sufficient tax base so these state institutions can provide infrastructure for a strong
economy

Highly industrialized; produce manufactured goods rather than raw materials for export

Increasingly tend to specialize in information, finance and service industries

More often in the forefront of new technologies and new industries. Examples today include
high-technology electronic and biotechnology industries. Another example would be assembly-line auto
production in the early 20th century.

Has strong bourgeois and working classes

Have significant means of influence over noncore nations

Relatively independent of outside control

According to Immanuel Wallerstein, a core nation is dominant over all the others when it has a lead in three
forms of economic dominance over a period of time:

1.

Productivity dominance allows a country to produce products of greater quality at a

cheaper price compared to other countries.

2.

Productivity dominance may lead to trade dominance. Now, there is a favorable balance of
trade for the dominant nation since more countries are buying the products of the dominant country than it is
buying from them.

3.

Trade dominance may lead to financial dominance. Now, more money is coming into the
country than going out. Bankers of the dominant nation tend to receive more control of the world's financial
resources

Peripheral nations

Least economically diversified

Have relatively weak governments

Have relatively weak institutions with tax bases too small to support infrastructure
development

Tend to depend on one type of economic activity, often on extracting and exporting raw
materials to core nations
Tend to be least industrialized
Are often targets for investments from multinational (or transnational) corporations from core
nations that come into the country to exploit cheap unskilled labor for export back to core nations

Have small bourgeois and large peasant classes

Tend to have populations with high percentages of the poor and uneducated

Tend to have very high social inequality because of small upper classes that own most of the
land and have profitable ties to multinational corporations

Tend to be extensively influenced by core nations and their multinational corporations. Many
times they are forced to follow economic policies that favor core nations and harm the long-term economic
prospects of peripheral nations.

Neocolonialism / Dependency Theory

A G Frank, Kwame Nkrumah, Samir Amin, Frantz Fanon
Neo-colonialism implies political control of an underdeveloped people whose socio-economic life is directed by a
former colonizer. Dependency theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank argued that neo-colonialism leads to net
transfer of wealth from the colonized to the colonizer, inhibiting successful development.
The essence of neo-colonialism: the state is in theory independent and has all outward trappings of international
sovereignty, but in reality its economic system and its political policy is directed from the outside
Types of Neo-Colonialism :
Economic Dependencies: control over financial strings of a nation allows control over its political and social
institutions as well.
Satellites: formal independence but political and economic control still exercised by colonial power. Control
exercised by colonial power over a satellite is more extensive than that exercised by imperial states
Former colonies are particularly prone to become economically dependent on colonial powers due to its capital
investments, financial loans, and because of unequal exchange of goods and resulting trade imbalances.
Technological dependency on former colonial powers enables retaining control over prior colonies. Military presence
in the form of bases also helps exert and retain control of former colonies

Dependency Theory
Dependency theorists assert that so-called 'third-world' countries were not always 'poor', but became
impoverished through colonial domination and forced incorporation into the world economy by expansionist
'first-world' powers. Thus, 'third-world' economies became geared more toward the needs of their 'first-world'
colonial masters than the domestic needs of their own societies. Proponents of dependency theory contend
that relationships of dependency have continued long after formal colonization ended. Thus, the primary
obstacles to autonomous development are seen as external rather than internal, and so 'third-world' countries
face a global economy dominated by rich industrial countries. Because 'first-world' countries never had to
contend with colonialism or a world full of richer, more powerful competitors, dependency theorists argue that it
is unfair to compare contemporary 'third-world' societies with those of the 'first-world' in the early stages of
development

Feminism
Feminist approaches to international relations became popular in the early 1990s. Such approaches emphasize that
women's experiences continue to be excluded from the study of international relations. International Relations
Feminists who argue that gender relations are integral to international relations focus on the role of diplomatic wives
and marital relationship that facilitate sex trafficking. Early feminist IR approaches were part of the "Third Great
Debate" between positivists and post-positivists. They argued against what they saw as the positivism and statecentrism of mainstream international relations. Christian Reus-Smit argues that these approaches did not describe
what a feminist perspective on world politics would look like.
The feminist international relations scholar Jacqui True differentiates between empirical feminism, analytical
feminism and normative feminism.

Empirical feminism sees women and gender relations as empirical aspects of international relations. It is argued
that mainstream international relations emphasis on anarchy and statecraft mean that areas of study that make the
reproduction of the state system possible are marginalized.
Analytical feminism claims that the theoretical framework of international relations has a gender bias. Here gender
refers not to the "biological" differences between men and women but the social constructs of masculine and
feminine identity. It is claimed that in mainstream international relations masculinity is associated with objectivity.
Analytical feminists would see neo-realism's dislike of domestic explanations for explaining interstate behaviour as
an example of this bias.
Normative feminist sees theorizing as part of an agenda for change.
Criticisms of feminist international relations theory include its portrayal of third-world women.
Feminist International Relations is sometimes oversimplified into a women's issue or simply a need to 'add women
and stir'. Charlotte Hooper makes the case that looking at international relations through a gendered lens is
important for all genders. The article illustrates that the hyper-masculinity used in international relations has a
negative impact on all genders. It privileges only a certain kind of man, forcing all others to fit into the constraints of
one vision of masculinity. Hooper also argues that this gendered lens requires a complete overhaul of traditional
methods, rather than just adding women to the study. "In order to investigate the intersections between gender
identities and international relations, one cannot rely on approaches which would take gender identities as 'givens'
or as independent, externally derived variables". Hooper offers the example of war which has shaped the male
body; it has created men as takers or life and women as givers of it. We proceed to tell men they simply have more
natural aggression. Hooper also illustrates the ways masculinity, like femininity, has been influenced by colonization.
The hierarchy formed by colonization labels Asians as effeminate, Africans as savage and white men as the proper
balance at the top the hierarchy. War and colonialism still influence international relations to a large extent. It is
important to realize that Feminist International Relations or a gendered lens is not just for women, but is a relevant
theory that can help us all.

Functionalism
Functionalism is a theory of international relations that arose principally from the experience of European
integration. Rather than the self-interest that realists see as a motivating factor, functionalists focus on common
interests shared by states. Integration develops its own internal dynamic: as states integrate in limited functional or
technical areas, they increasingly find that momentum for further rounds of integration in related areas. This
"invisible hand" of integration phenomenon is termed "spillover". Although integration can be resisted, it becomes
harder to stop integration's reach as it progresses. This usage, and the usage in functionalism in international
relations, is the less common meaning of functionalism.
More commonly, however, functionalism is an argument that explains phenomena as functions of a system rather
than an actor or actors. Immanuel Wallerstein employed a functionalist theory when he argued that
the Westphalian international political system arose to secure and protect the developing international capitalist
system. His theory is called "functionalist" because it says that an event was a function of the preferences of a
system and not the preferences of an agent. Functionalism is different from structural or realist arguments in that
while both look to broader, structural causes, realists (and structuralists more broadly) say that the structure gives
incentives to agents, while functionalists attribute causal power to the system itself, bypassing agents entirely.

State cartel theory

State cartel theory in international relations is derived from an old institutional theory of economics, from the theory
of private or enterprise cartels. It has a German background, because Germany was formerly the land of highest
developed economic cartels and the motherland of classical cartel theory. State cartel theory uses a mix of methods
ranging from positivist data evaluation to critical socioeconomic analyses or reflexive methods like criticism of
thinking or ideology. Among the other theories of International Relations, state cartel theory has most in common
with functionalism in international relations. A bit more than the latter, state cartel theory has its focus on a theory
of international organizations.

Post-structuralism
Post-structuralism differs from most other approaches to international politics because it does not see itself as a
theory, school or paradigm which produces a single account of the subject matter. Instead, post-structuralism is an
approach, attitude, or ethos that pursues critique in particular way. Post-structuralism sees critique as an inherently
positive exercise that establishes the conditions of possibility for pursuing alternatives.

Post-modernism
Post-modernist approaches to international relations are critical of metanarratives and denounces traditional IR's
claims to truth and neutrality.

Post colonialism
Postcolonial International relations scholarship posits a critical theory approach to International relations (IR), and is
a non-mainstream area of international relations scholarship. Post-colonialism focuses on the persistence of colonial
forms of power and the continuing existence of racism in world politics.[41]

Evolutionary perspectives
Evolutionary perspectives, such as from evolutionary psychology, have been argued to help explain many features
of international relations. Humans in the ancestral environment did not live in states and likely rarely had interactions
with groups outside of a very local area. However, a variety of evolved psychological mechanisms, in particular
those for dealing with intergroup interactions, are argued to influence current international relations. These include
evolved mechanisms for social exchange, cheating and detecting cheating, status conflicts, leadership, ingroup and
outgroup distinction and biases, coalitions, and violence. Evolutionary concepts such as inclusive fitness may help
explain seeming limitations of a concept such as egotism which is of fundamental importance to realist and rational
choice international relations theories.

International Political Economy Approach

International political economy (IPE), also known as global political economy (GPE), is an academic discipline
within political science that analyzes economics and international relations, interdisciplinary in nature draws from
political science, economics, sociology, cultural studies and history. IPE scholars are at the center of the debate and
research surrounding globalization. Areas of study:
1.

international trade (with particular attention to the politics surrounding trade deals, but also significant work
examining the results of trade deals)

2.

international development (poverty and the role of institutions in development)

3.

international finance, global markets, political risk, multi-state cooperation in solving trans-border economic
problems, and the structural balance of power between and among states and institutions.

Unlike the broader field international relations, power is understood to be both economic and political, which
are interrelated in a complex manner.

Comparative Politics

Comparative politics is about comparing political phenomena.

The nature and scope of comparative politics has been determined historically
by
changes in:
(a) subject matter
(b) vocabulary
(c) political perspective.
To understand where, why and how these change took place we have to look
at what is the focus of study at a particular historical
period, what are the tools, languages or concepts being used for the study
and what is the vantage point, perspective and purpose of enquiry.
The Utility of comparative politics:
political behaviour is common to all human beings and manifests itself in diverse
ways and under diverse social and institutional set ups all over the world. It may be
said that an understanding of these related and at the same time different political
behaviours and patterns is an integral part of our understanding of politics itself. A
sound and comprehensive understanding would commonly take the form of
comparisons
The stress in comparative political analysis, is on theory-building and theory-testing with the
countries acting as units or cases. A lot of emphasis is therefore laid, and energies spent, on
developing rules and standards about how comparative research should be carried out. A comparative
study ensures that all generalisations are based on the observation of more than one phenomenon or
observation of relationship between several phenomena.
the comparative method gives these theories scientific basis and rigour. Social scientists who
emphasise scientific precision, validity and reliability, see comparisons as indispensable in the social
sciences because they offer the unique opportunity of 'control' in the study of social phenomena.