His proof that there must be this intelligible possession and not merely physical possession turns on the application of human choice 6: An object of choice is one that some human has the capacity to use as means for various ends or purposes. Rightful possession would be the right to make use of such an object. Suppose that for some particular object, no one has rightful possession. This would mean that a usable object would be beyond possible use. Kant claims that this is problematic because in a practical respect an object is considered merely as an object of possible choice.
This consideration of the mere form alone, the object simply as an object of choice, cannot contain any prohibition of use for an object, for any such prohibition would be freedom limiting itself for no reason. Thus in a practical respect an object cannot be treated as nothing, and so the object must be considered as at least potentially in rightful possession of some human being or other. So all objects within human capacity for use must be subject to rightful or intelligible possession. Intelligible possession, then, is required by right in order for free beings to be able to realize their freedom by using objects for their freely chosen purposes.
This conclusion entails the existence of private property but not any particular distribution of private property. All objects must be considered as potential property of some human being or other. Now if one human being is to have intelligible possession of a particular object, all other human beings must refrain from using that object. Such a one-sided relation would violate the universality of external right. Kant further worries that any unilateral declaration by one person that an object belongs to that person alone would infringe on the freedom of others.
Each person must acknowledge an obligation to refrain from using objects that belong to another. The state itself obligates all citizens to respect the property of other citizens. The state functions as an objective, disinterested institution that resolves disputes about individual property and enforces compliance with those determinations. Without a state to enforce these property rights, they are impossible. Prior to a social contract the only manner in which human beings can control things is through empirical possession, actual occupation and use of land and objects.
In order to gain full property rights to land and objects, individuals must all agree to respect the property rights of others in a social contract. Only in such a society can persons exercise their freedom, that is their pursuit of ends, by legitimately using objects for their own purposes without regard for others. Hence a social contract is the rational justification of the state because state power is necessary for each individual to be guaranteed access to some property in order to realize their freedom.
A puzzle arises here with regard to property. Since property is a relation of wills that can occur only in a civil condition under a common sovereign power, Kant suggests that prior to this civil condition property can be acquired only in anticipation of and in conformity with a civil condition. Provisional property is initial physical appropriation of objects with the intention of making them rightful property in a state 6: Property is of three types for Kant 6: First is the right to a thing, to corporeal objects in space.
Examples of these things include land, animals, and tools. The second is the right against a person, the right to coerce that person to perform an action. This is contract right. Of these three types, the first has already been discussed in relation to acquisition. At first glance this contract right appears to violate the second formula of the categorical imperative which states that persons are to be treated always as ends and never merely as means.
A contract appears to be a case in which an individual is used merely as a means. A homeowner, for example, hires a repair specialist specifically as a means for repairing a house. For example, he notes that the repair specialist who is contracted to work on a house has agreed to the exchange in order to obtain a personal end, namely, money Each party to the contract is both means for the other and an end. Kant argues that some contracts or rightful obligations such as the parent-child relation allow one party to the contract to control not only the choice of the other, but also to possess some power over the body of the other, such as the power to insist that the other remain in the household.
Kant describes this legal relation as equal in these powers of possession and in the communal property. The very idea of a right to rebel against the government is incoherent, Kant argued, because the embodiment of all right is the actually existing state. By this he did not mean that any actually existing state is always completely just, or that merely by virtue of having power, the state could determine what justice is. Any state embodies the general legislative will better than no state. While such reasoning seems pragmatic, it is not.
It is instead based upon the claims above that a rightful condition requires the centralizing of coercive power in a state as the only means of bringing about reciprocal coercion and obligation. Kant also argues that a right to rebel would require that a people be authorized to resist the state. This kind of authorization for action, however, is an exercise of sovereign power, and to any people who claimed such a right would be claiming it the people rather than the state embodies sovereign power.
This is a contradiction. The nature of sovereignty is such that sovereign power cannot be shared. Were it shared between the state and the people, then when a dispute arose between them, who would judge whether the state or the people are correct? There being no higher sovereign power to make such a judgment, all other means for resolving the dispute fall outside of rightful relations. This role of judgment relates to the judgment that Kant discusses with regard to the social contract.
Under the idea of a social contract, the sovereign legislator may not make a law that the people could not make for itself because it possesses irrational, non-universal form. The state, not the people, is the judge of when a law is rational 8: People who argue for a right to revolution, Kant claims, misunderstand the nature of a social contract. They claim that the social contract must have been an actual historical occurrence from which the people could withdraw 8: Citizens are still allowed to voice their grievances through their use of public reason, but they can do nothing more than attempt to persuade the sovereign to adopt or repeal decisions.
While the people cannot rebel against the state, Kant does not insist that citizens always obey the state. He allows at least for passive civil disobedience. This comes in two forms: In the context of this discussion it is clear that Kant is referring to the use of the power of the legislature to refuse funding, and therefore approval, of actions of the executive. He clarifies that the legislature is not allowed to dictate any positive action to the executive, its legitimate resistance is only negative.
A second form of acceptable resistance applies to individuals.
Nor does Kant always reject the actions of revolutionaries. If a revolution is successful, citizens have as much obligation to obey the new regime as they had to obey the old one 6: Since the new regime is in fact a state authority, it now possesses the right to rule. Further, in his theory of history, Kant argues that progress in the long run will come about in part through violent and unjust actions such as wars. Kant is not pointing to the revolution itself as a sign of progress but to the reaction of people such as himself to news of the revolution.
The spectators endorse the revolution not because it is legitimate but because it is aimed at the creation of a civil constitution. Revolution, then, is wrong but still contributes to progress. In fact, Kant did believe that the French Revolution was legitimate, and a look at his argument illuminates some of his complex terminology.
Further, the king could not have any power to restrain the actions of the assembly as a condition for it being given the sovereign power, for there can be no restrictions on this sovereign power. This understanding of sovereignty shows the difference between a rebellion against authority and peaceful transfer of sovereign power such as an election. In an election, sovereignty is passed back to the people, so there is nothing wrong with the people replacing the entire government.
Without an election or similar method of designating the return of sovereignty to the people , any action aimed at replacing the government is wrong. Kant was long considered to be an exemplar of the retributivist theory of punishment. While he does claim that the only proper justification of punishment is guilt for a crime, he does not limit the usefulness of punishment to retributivist matters.
Punishment can have as its justification only the guilt of the criminal. All other uses of punishment, such as rehabilitation the alleged good of the criminal or deterrence alleged good to society uses the criminal merely as a means 6: Once this guilt is determined, however, Kant does not deny that something useful can be drawn from the punishment. The state is authorized to use force to defend property rights 6: Retributivist theory holds not only that criminal guilt is required for punishment, but that the appropriate type and amount of punishment is also determined by the crime itself.
Kant supports this measurement for punishment because all other measurements bring into consideration elements besides strict justice 6: As a principle, retribution grounds but does not specify the exact punishment. He argues that the only punishment possibly equivalent to death, the amount of inflicted harm, is death. Death is qualitatively different from any kind of life, so no substitute could be found that would equal death. The latter person wills the crime but not the punishments, but the former person wills in the abstract that anyone who is convicted of a capital crime will be punished by death.
Retributivist theory holds not only that criminal guilt is required for punishment, but that the appropriate type and amount of punishment is also determined by the crime itself. Oxford University Press van der Linden, Harry, In practice, international relations and international affairs forms a separate academic program or field from political science, and the courses taught therein are highly interdisciplinary. This role of judgment relates to the judgment that Kant discusses with regard to the social contract. The state is authorized to use force to defend property rights 6:
Hence one and the same individual both commits the crime and endorses the punishment of death. This solution mirrors the claim that individuals can be coerced to join a civil condition: Given the lack of international institutions, Kant says, states must be considered to be in a state of nature relative to one another. Like individuals in the state of nature, then, they must be considered to be in a state of war with each other. Like individuals, the states are obligated to leave this state of nature to form some type of union under a social contract. Before the creation of some such union see next paragraph , states do have a right to go to war against other states if another state threatens it or actively aggresses against it 6: Rulers who wage war without such consent are using their subjects as property, as mere means, rather than treating them as ends in themselves.
Once war has been declared, states are obligated to conduct the war under principles that leave open the possibility of an eventual league of states. Actions that undermine future trust between states, such as the use of assassination, are prohibited. States are obligated to leave this state of nature among states and enter into a union of states. He considers several models of this worldwide political institution. The first is a single universal state in which the entirety of humanity is ruled directly by the single state or is subject to a single monarch.
He rejects this model for failing to fulfill the function of the international institution by in effect dissolving the separateness of states rather than providing a means for peaceful relations among states. The second model is a league of states in which states voluntarily submit themselves to an organization for resolving international disputes.
The league would not have coercive power to enforce its decisions, and states would be free to leave the league if they chose. The third model is a state of states or a world republic of states in which each state joins a federation of states with coercive power. He offers different reasons for supporting each of the two models. Kant holds out the third model as the ideal form for the correct international institution.
The ideal international union is a federation of states that has coercive power over member states but whose decisions arise from debate and discussion among those member states. Kant is unclear regarding whether that coercive force is to be realized by joint action of member states, sanctioned by the federation, against a non-compliant member or by a distinct international force controlled by the federation itself.
Kant recognizes that actual states will balk at this international federation since rulers will object to such a surrender of their sovereign power. In a league of states, individual nations are allowed to leave at will and the league itself has no coercive powers over members. States voluntarily agree to settle disputes in a way that avoids war and encourages further peaceful relations. Leagues of states need not extend worldwide but should expand over time in order to approximate a worldwide union of all states.
These are a ban on making temporary peace treaties while still planning for future wars, the prohibition of annexation of one state by another, the abolition of standing armies, the refusal to take on national debts for external affairs, a ban on interference by one state in the internal affairs of another, and a set of limits on the conduct of war that disallows acts that would breed mistrust and make peace impossible. These six articles are negative laws that prohibit states from engaging in certain kinds of conduct. They are not sufficient by themselves to prevent states from lapsing back into their old habits of warring on one another.
The first of these is that every state shall have a republican civil constitution 8: In a republican constitution, the people who decide whether there will be a war are the same people who would pay the price for the war, both in monetary terms taxes and other financial burdens and in flesh and blood. Republican states will therefore be very hesitant to go to war and will readily accept negotiations rather than resort to war. He believes that when states are ruled in accordance with the wishes of the people, their self-interest will provide a consistent basis for pacific relations among states.
The second definitive article is that each state shall participate in a union of states 8: The third definitive article advocates a cosmopolitan right of universal hospitality 8: He actually presents several versions of his argument for the progress of humanity toward the ideal condition in which states, each governed by a republican civil constitution and thus each providing maximal consistent freedom for its citizens, all cooperate in a republican federation of states.
He argues that incessant wars will eventually lead rulers to recognize the benefits of peaceful negotiation. They will gradually increase the freedoms of their citizens, because freer citizens are economically more productive and hence make the state stronger in its international dealings. Importantly he claims that the creation of civil constitutions in particular states is dependent upon the creation of an international union of states, although he does not elaborate on this reasoning. These positions certainly reveal that Kant considered world peace impossible without both individual republican states and an international federation among them.
Relations among the states of the world, covered above, are not the same as relations among the peoples nations, Volk of the world. Individuals can relate to states of which they are not members and to other individuals who are members of other states. Since all peoples share a limited amount of living space due to the spherical shape of the earth, the totality of which they must be understood to have originally shared in common, they must be understood to have a right to possible interaction with one another. This cosmopolitan right is limited to a right to offer to engage in commerce, not a right to actual commerce itself, which must always be voluntary trade.
A citizen of one state may try to establish links with other peoples; no state is allowed to deny foreign citizens a right to travel in its land. Colonial rule and settlement is another matter entirely. In his published writings in the s, Kant is strongly critical of the European colonization of other lands already inhabited by other peoples. Settlement in these cases is allowed only by uncoerced informed contract.
Even land that appears empty might be used by shepherds or hunters and cannot be appropriated without their consent 6: Kant himself produced a theory of human racial classifications and origins and thought that non-Europeans were inferior in various ways.
Kant thought that the course of world progress involved the spread of European culture and law throughout the world to what he considered to be less advanced cultures and inferior races. By the mids, however, Kant appears to have given up beliefs about racial inferiority and no longer discusses it in his lectures. He publicly criticized European colonial practices as violations of the rights of indigenous peoples who are capable of governing themselves 8: Cosmopolitan right is an important component of perpetual peace.
Interaction among the peoples of the world, Kant notes, has increased in recent times. Violations of cosmopolitan right would make more difficult the trust and cooperation necessary for perpetual peace among states. Family is a clear example of a social institution that transcends the individual but has at least some elements that are not controlled by the state. Other examples would be economic institutions such as businesses and markets, religious institutions, social clubs and private associations created to advance interests or for mere enjoyment, educational and university institutions, social systems and classifications such as race and gender, and endemic social problems like poverty.
It is worth noting a few particulars, if only as examples of the range of this topic. Kant advocated the duty of citizens to support those in society who could not support themselves, and even gave the state the power to arrange for this help 6: Kant had no comprehensive social philosophy.
One might be tempted to claim that, in line with natural law theorists, Kant discusses natural rights related to some social institutions. Kant even offers an explanation of this difference by claiming that the opposite of state of nature is not a social but the civil condition, that is, a state 6: The state of nature can include voluntary societies Kant mentions domestic relations in general where there is no a priori obligation for individuals to enter them.
It is thus not obvious how there can be any social institutions that can exist outside the civil condition, to the extent that social institutions presuppose property relations. He also holds that educational institutions, the subject of his book On Pedagogy , should be designed to provide for the development of morality in human beings, who lack a natural disposition for the moral good. Kant had envisioned anthropology as an empirical application of ethics, akin to empirical physics as a application of pure metaphysical principles of nature.
Further, this knowledge can aid moral agents in their own task of motivating themselves to morality. He does little critical assessment of social prejudices or practices to screen out stereotypes detrimental to moral development. His own personal views, considered sexist and racist universally today and even out of step with some of his more progressive colleagues, pervade his direct discussions of these social institutions. Walter de Gruyter, Most translations provide the pagination to this edition in the margins, often using volume and page number. All citations in this article use this method.
The following volumes of that series contain relevant material, some of which is also issued separately:. Freedom as the Basis of the State 3. Republics, Enlightenment, and Democracy 5. Contrary to popular belief, Westphalia still embodied layered systems of sovereignty, especially within the Holy Roman Empire. The centuries of roughly to saw the rise of the independent, sovereign states , the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies.
The French Revolution added to this the new idea that not princes or an oligarchy, but the citizenry of a state, defined as the nation, should be defined as sovereign. Such a state in which the nation is sovereign would thence be termed a nation-state as opposed to a monarchy or a religious state. The term republic increasingly became its synonym. An alternative model of the nation-state was developed in reaction to the French republican concept by the Germans and others, who instead of giving the citizenry sovereignty, kept the princes and nobility, but defined nation-statehood in ethnic-linguistic terms, establishing the rarely if ever fulfilled ideal that all people speaking one language should belong to one state only.
The same claim to sovereignty was made for both forms of nation-state. In Europe today, few states conform to either definition of nation-state: The particular European system supposing the sovereign equality of states was exported to the Americas, Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the "standards of civilization".
The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during the Cold War. However, this is somewhat over-simplified. While the nation-state system is considered "modern", many states have not incorporated the system and are termed "pre-modern". Further, a handful of states have moved beyond insistence on full sovereignty, and can be considered "post-modern".
The ability of contemporary IR discourse to explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed. What is explicitly recognized as international relations theory was not developed until after World War I , and is dealt with in more detail below. IR theory, however, has a long tradition of drawing on the work of other social sciences. The use of capitalizations of the "I" and "R" in international relations aims to distinguish the academic discipline of international relations from the phenomena of international relations.
Similarly, liberalism draws upon the work of Kant and Rousseau , with the work of the former often being cited as the first elaboration of democratic peace theory. In the 20th century, in addition to contemporary theories of liberal internationalism , Marxism has been a foundation of international relations. International relations as a distinct field of study began in Britain. IR emerged as a formal academic discipline in with the founding of the first IR professorship: Georgetown University 's Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service is the oldest international relations faculty in the United States , founded in The creation of the posts of Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at LSE and at Oxford gave further impetus to the academic study of international relations. The first university entirely dedicated to the study of IR was the Graduate Institute of International Studies now the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies , which was founded in to form diplomats associated to the League of Nations.
The Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago was the first to offer a graduate degree , in The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy , a collaboration between Tufts University and Harvard , opened its doors in as the first graduate-only school of international affairs in the United States. IR theories are roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces.
They typically focus on features of international relations such as state interactions, size of military forces, balance of powers etc. Post-positivist epistemology rejects the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way. A key difference between the two positions is that while positivist theories, such as neo-realism, offer causal explanations such as why and how power is exercised , post-positivist theories focus instead on constitutive questions, for instance what is meant by "power"; what makes it up, how it is experienced and how it is reproduced.
Often, post-positivist theories explicitly promote a normative approach to IR, by considering ethics. This is something which has often been ignored under "traditional" IR as positivist theories make a distinction between "facts" and normative judgments, or "values". During the late s and the s, debate between positivists and post-positivists became the dominant debate and has been described as constituting the Third "Great Debate" Lapid Realism focuses on state security and power above all else.
Early realists such as E. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival. Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory. Realists argue that the need for survival requires state leaders to distance themselves from traditional morality.
Realism taught American leaders to focus on interests rather than on ideology, to seek peace through strength, and to recognize that great powers can coexist even if they have antithetical values and beliefs. Thucydides , the author of Peloponnesian War is considered to be the founding father of the realist school of political philosophy.
Political realism believes that politics, like society, is governed by objective laws with roots in human nature. To improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws.
It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion—between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking. Placing realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however.
Major theorists include E. According to liberalism, individuals are basically good and capable of meaningful cooperation to promote positive change. Liberalism views states, nongovernmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations as key actors in the international system. States have many interests and are not necessarily unitary and autonomous, although they are sovereign. Liberal theory stresses interdependence among states, multinational corporations, and international institutions.
Theorists such as Hedley Bull have postulated an international society in which various actors communicate and recognize common rules, institutions, and interests. Liberals also view the international system as anarchic since there is no single overarching international authority and each individual state is left to act in its own self-interest. Liberalism is historically rooted in the liberal philosophical traditions associated with Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant that posit that human nature is basically good and that individual self-interest can be harnessed by society to promote aggregate social welfare.
Individuals form groups and later, states; states are generally cooperative and tend to follow international norms. Liberal international relations theory arose after World War I in response to the inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell , who argued that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be essentially futile. Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and derisively termed idealism by E. Doyle , Francis Fukuyama , and Helen Milner.
Neoliberalism seeks to update liberalism by accepting the neorealist presumption that states are the key actors in international relations, but still maintains that non-state actors NSAs and intergovernmental organizations IGOs matter. Proponents argue that states will cooperate irrespective of relative gains , and are thus concerned with absolute gains. This also means that nations are, in essence, free to make their own choices as to how they will go about conducting policy without any international organizations blocking a nation's right to sovereignty.
Neoliberal institutionalism, an approach founded by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, emphasize the important role of international institutions in maintaining an open global trading regime. Prominent neoliberal institutionalists are Christina Davis , Judith L. Regime theory is derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behaviour of states or other international actors.
It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, indeed, regimes are by definition, instances of international cooperation. While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy.
International relations (IR) or international affairs (IA) — commonly also referred to as The history of international relations can be traced back to thousands of years The French Revolution added to this the new idea that not princes or an .. is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation (what Wendt. Minois, G. () History of Old Age: from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Paper delivered to 18th International Congress of Historical Sciences. Pelling, M. and Smith, R.M. (eds) () Life, Death, and the Elderly: Historical Perspectives. Premo, T.L. () Winter Friends: Women Growing Old in the New Republic.
Often they cite cooperation in trade, human rights and collective security among other issues. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition of regimes comes from Stephen Krasner , who defines regimes as "principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area". Not all approaches to regime theory, however, are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like Joseph Grieco have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory.
Realists do not say cooperation never happens, just that it is not the norm; it is a difference of degree. International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the shared norms and values of states and how they regulate international relations. Examples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and international law. Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily positivist. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention, and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value in order and sovereignty.
Jackson are perhaps the best known pluralists. Constructivism is not a theory of IR in the manner of neo-realism, but is instead a social theory which is used to better explain the actions taken by states and other major actors as well as the identities that guide these states and actors. Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Ted Hopf calls "conventional" and "critical" constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the role that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivist scholar, Alexander Wendt , noted in a article in International Organization —and later in his book Social Theory of International Politics— that "anarchy is what states make of it".
By this he means that the anarchical structure that neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by states. For example, if the system is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation what Wendt terms a "Hobbesian" anarchy then the system will be characterized by warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted a "Lockean" anarchy then a more peaceful system will exist.
Anarchy in this view is constituted by state interaction, rather than accepted as a natural and immutable feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR scholars. Feminist IR considers the ways that international politics affects and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline of IR e. Feminist IR has not only concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security, but feminist IR scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global political economy.
From its inception, feminist IR has also theorized extensively about men and, in particular, masculinities. Many IR feminists argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" Signs , Carol Cohn claimed that a highly masculinized culture within the defence establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion. Feminist IR emerged largely from the late s onwards.
The end of the Cold War and the re-evaluation of traditional IR theory during the s opened up a space for gendering International Relations. However, the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy communities for example at the World Bank and the United Nations is more reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women.
Ann Tickner and Jacqui True. It makes the assumption that the economy trumps other concerns; 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. Thus, colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence. A prominent derivative of Marxian thought is critical international relations theory which is the application of " critical theory " to international relations.
Early critical theorists were associated with the Frankfurt School which followed Marx's concern with the conditions that allow for social change and the establishment of rational institutions. Their emphasis on the "critical" component of theory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of positivism.
Modern-day proponents such as Andrew Linklater , Robert W. Cox and Ken Booth focus on the need for human emancipation from the nation-state. Hence, it is "critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend to be both positivist and state-centric. Further linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory and the core—periphery model , which argue that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, appropriate developing states through international banking, security and trade agreements and unions on a formal level, and do so through the interaction of political and financial advisors, missionaries, relief aid workers, and MNCs on the informal level, in order to integrate them into the capitalist system, strategically appropriating undervalued natural resources and labor hours and fostering economic and political dependence.
Marxist theories receive little attention in the United States. It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the more important theoretic contributions of Latin American academia to the study of global networks.
Interest group theory posits that the driving force behind state behaviour is sub-state interest groups. Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists , the military, and the corporate sector. Group theory argues that although these interest groups are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in the exercise of state power.
Strategic perspective is a theoretical [ citation needed ] approach that views individuals as choosing their actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of others with the intention of maximizing their own welfare. The " inherent bad faith model " of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles ' beliefs and his model of information processing.
They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Post-structuralist theories of IR developed in the s from postmodernist studies in political science. Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of concepts traditionally not problematic in IR such as "power" and "agency" and examines how the construction of these concepts shapes international relations.
The examination of "narratives" plays an important part in poststructuralist analysis; for example, feminist poststructuralist work has examined the role that "women" play in global society and how they are constructed in war as "innocent" and "civilians". See also feminism in international relations. Rosenberg's article "Why is there no International Historical Sociology" [23] was a key text in the evolution of this strand of international relations theory. International relations are often viewed in terms of levels of analysis.
The systemic level concepts are those broad concepts that define and shape an international milieu, characterized by anarchy. Preceding the concepts of interdependence and dependence, international relations relies on the idea of sovereignty. Described in Jean Bodin 's "Six Books of the Commonwealth" in , the three pivotal points derived from the book describe sovereignty as being a state, that the sovereign power s have absolute power over their territories, and that such a power is only limited by the sovereign's "own obligations towards other sovereigns and individuals".
While throughout world history there have been instances of groups lacking or losing sovereignty, such as African nations prior to Decolonization or the occupation of Iraq during the Iraq War , there is still a need for sovereignty in terms of assessing international relations. The concept of Power in international relations can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up into the concepts of hard power and soft power , hard power relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering economics , diplomacy and cultural influence.