A New A-Z of International Relations Theory

Chris Farrands, Imad El-Anis, Roy Smith, Lloyd Pettiford

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781848855014
• eBook ISBN: 9780857739919
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

"International Relations" is the multi-disciplinary and heterogeneous study which goes to the heart of relations between states and international organisations embracing international politics, economics, political economy, diplomatic and international history. It seeks to explain the mainsprings of global politics, which is a prime field for historians and especially for political scientists and IR theory, and provides the essential intellectual underpinning of the discipline. This book features over 250 alphabetical entries covering the most important and the latest cutting-edge theory from anarchy to world systems theory. Entries include scholars, writers, concepts, principal debates, argumentation, theories, leading schools of thought, states, international bodies, conflicts and war, treaties and alliances. The coverage is global and comprehensive with substantial cross-referencing, and the extensive index serves as a major reference tool enabling readers to pick up additional important subjects from the main alphabetical entries.Clear and concise writing cuts through even the most opaque theoretical subjects and the result is an essential reference guide for students of International Relations, politics and history and will guide both specialists and general readers through the fast-changing complexities of global politics.

I

Ideal types

This is a phrase developed largely by Max Weber (1864–1920) and expanded on by later scholars. It refers to the characteristics of a given phenomenon (whether an actor, process, issue, narrative, and so on). An ‘ideal type’ is a perfect example of a given phenomenon which is being referred to or studied. This is not to say a perfect type in the normative or desired sense. Rather it is a phrase used to represent the common or core characteristics of something. An ideal type paradigm, for example, is one which possesses a range of core assumptions which can be combined into theoretical frameworks for analysis – without describing any single set of assumptions or theories as being the best. Though the term ‘Third World’ is discredited, we might also speak of an ‘ideal type’ Third World country; it would have a colonial past, typically lack socio-economic capacity, and be (in political-institutional terms) a weak state. This example perhaps demonstrates how an ‘ideal type’ can be woefully inadequate in practice, while retaining analytical value.

Idealism, idealist (Angell, Norman – 1872–1967)

Within IR theory idealism can have two separate, but related, meanings – the first being the belief that international relations can be peaceful, cooperative, profitable, stable and beneficial to all; the second, arising out of this initial set of assumptions, identifies a broad school of thought. This school is based on multiple assumptions and theories which allow for the study of international relations in a manner which places primacy on achieving peace and cooperation as the central aim. Norman Angell (1909), for example, argued in the early 1900s that interdependence between states and peoples, as well as the inherent good nature of all humans and their desire for peace and prosperity, lead to a condition of harmony of interests. When such a condition exists conflict is less likely, or even impossible, as the interests of actors will not be achieved through taking a course of action which leads to it. In fact, Angell argued that the belief that war can be a successful means to pursue national interests is in fact a ‘great illusion’.

One of the core assumptions of idealism is that war and anarchy in the international system are not necessary and are not ‘natural’ characteristics of the human condition. Instead, divisions between people in the form of nationalist identities, state borders, disintegrated markets and non-democratic governance are to blame for conflict and anarchy. For the idealist, these barriers to peaceful interaction can be overcome by actively pursuing certain policies. Included here are the fostering of democratic republics, the creation of IGOs which can act as forums for governments to discuss any disputes rather than wage war over them, and the practice of free marketeering. Early foundations of idealism include works by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) including his essay Perpetual Peace (1795) – in which he calls for an international federation of democratic republics.

Following World War I and the establishment of IR as a university discipline, idealism formed the backbone of IR theorizing. The impetus of the idealist project was largely generated by the atrocities of World War I and the destruction that resulted from it. Of the early twentieth-century idealists, Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924) – president of the United States from 1913–21 – developed a set of 14 points which he believed should be followed in the post-war era. These points were aimed at institutionalizing idealist policies to ensure peace and stability. As part of this project the League of Nations was established to act as an international forum. However, despite early optimism, the rise of nationalism in Europe in the 1920s, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the following mercantilist policies and the eventual outbreak of World War II served to relegate idealism from mainstream IR. In the post-Cold War era idealism has once again increased in importance in IR. The end of the bipolar system has led to the study of a multipolar world system and the opportunity to re-engage with idealist thought.

The primacy of ideas in giving an explanation of events is also stressed in more recent work in foreign policy in IR. Writers such as Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane (1993), Helen Milner (1997) and Kathryn Sikkink (1991) trace the ways in which ideas become embedded in institutions so that they in turn shape how the world is perceived and how basic policy assumptions are formed. Working originally on trade policy, Milner and Goldstein showed how ideas become embedded within collective understandings of reality, helping to clarify the principles of causal relationships, and, therefore, behaviour. Furthermore, these ideational structures can be dynamic and change over time.

Identity

All actors possess their own ontological and epistemological foundations, as well as their own perspectives, biases, ideals, interests and knowledge. The combination of how we understand the world around us, how we determine our interests, and how we perceive our own agency and subsequently our place in the world, helps to construct identity. Other factors which contribute to the development of identity include one’s belief system, ethnicity, language and so on. IR theory has been interested in identity for a number of reasons and it can be claimed that paramount among these is that an actor’s identity helps to shape its interests and its actions. All theoretical approaches in IR have something to say about identity; but how important identity is seen to be, and what assumptions are made about it, vary from one perspective to another. Realism, for example, tends not to give much importance to issues of identity – although it sees that the ways in which groups identify with or against each other (as in allies or enemies) can be important in maintaining balances of power.

Perhaps the most interesting arguments regarding identity in the contemporary world come from post-modernist scholars such as R. B. J. Walker and Richard Ashley (1990). Post-modernists suggest that identity has been misunderstood by other, more mainstream, approaches. Identity has traditionally been understood as something that either conforms to the division of the world into nation states, or something that undermines the sense of identification with one state or another. However, in our globalizing world, where travel, communications and interactions of all kinds take place at an exceptionally fast rate, the influences on identity are becoming more numerous and diverse. At the same time, post-modernists (and other critical theorists like Andrew Linklater (1988)) suggest that this helps to create a sense of identity that is not linked to any specific space (i.e. the state). This means that understandings of identity and community are more varied than traditional notions of nationalism. The existence and growing influence of international (or even global) social movements, for example, challenge the inside/outside boundaries of state-centric analysis. The emergence of transnational communities, multiculturalism and hybrid identities as significant influences on international relations are likely to be increasingly important as aspects of globalization intensify (see separate entry on Hybridity).

Ideology

In IR, the term ‘ideology’ is often confused with the terms ‘paradigm’, ‘perspective’, or ‘school of thought’. However, ideology refers to a distinct form of belief system or narrative which is not characterized by use as an explanatory framework. Ideologies are consciously constructed and adapted by individuals or groups of people and consist of basic principles, assumptions or statements about the human (and natural) world(s). Very often, ideologies are systems of beliefs and prescriptions which are used in order to determine or influence behaviour. They also offer descriptions about past and present events and processes, often providing a version of how things came to be as they are. In short, ideologies offer perspectives on the world, as well as predictions of what may unfold and prescriptions on how to behave in order to pursue certain interests. They can be based on religious, political, economic or socio-cultural belief systems – or a combination of any number of these.

The term first appears in the French Revolution and its immediate aftermath. Destutt de Tracy (1754–1836) coined the term at the end of the eighteenth century as he attempted to study the science of ideas and how they impact upon behaviour (1801). More recent work done by Karl Mannheim (1893–1947) demonstrates how the use of the term ‘ideology’ has developed in philosophy and the social sciences (1929). While ideologies are not the same as paradigms in IR, they form the basis of contemporary paradigms and perspectives which are used in the discipline. Karl Marx (1867), for instance, adopted and developed a revisionist ideology in the nineteenth century which was later developed into more comprehensive meta-narratives such as Marxism and structuralism.

Ideologies can be very influential and important elements of international relations. Separating a discussion of ideology from considerations of power and agency is, for example, seen by many theorists to weaken any analysis. Ideologies are often fixed or static, and exclusionary: the choice is to either adopt the ideological position (usually in its entirety) and be included in the community of adherents; or not to accept it (or parts of it) and be excluded. Furthermore, there is little room for the synthesis of two or more ideologies into one, or compromise between them. Instead, ideologies tend to exist in opposition to, and in competition with, each other. For example, some forms of Palestinian nationalism and forms of Zionism (as ideologies) compete with each other and cannot co-exist in the same space and time; and are one of the reasons for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Richard Rosecrance’s 1963 book Action and Reaction in World Politics is a well-respected study and offers a good discussion of how ideologies have helped shape conflict in Europe since the 1700s.

Imperialism

Imperialism is a form of relationship characterized by conquest, expansion, domination and subjugation. It is a term which represents the interests and actions of some actors, and the relationships between these centres of power and authority with other actors. The latter are integrated into the spheres of influence or imperial domains of the imperial powers. In IR the term is most commonly used to refer to the period of human history where international relations were largely dominated by empires and conflict over resources. The study of imperialism is often focused on by theories dealing with the study of conflict, the spread of capitalism and contemporary development issues.

Some scholars, such as Niall Ferguson (2004), argue that imperialism was (and potentially still is) necessary in order for the modern world system to emerge out of disintegrated pre-industrial economic systems. In short, imperialism helped to spread the capitalist world system, increase global economic development, encourage technological and industrial progress, and usher in modernity. This is, however, a contested viewpoint, and imperialism has been seen to be far less of a necessary or desired process by Marxists and structuralists. Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924) argued that imperialism was the highest form of capitalism, and was the means to preserve the capitalist system. Lenin, and later Marxists, claimed that while the capitalist system was decaying in Europe due to the inherent contradictions found within it, capitalists found new markets to sell their excess goods in, import raw materials from, and exploit labour in. These markets were the non-European realms and once integrated into the capitalist system they allowed some measure of development and economic justice in Europe while maintaining the capitalist system of competition, exploitation and accumulation. In this way, therefore, critical theorists have seen imperialism as a policy initiated by the bourgeoisie with the goal of maintaining their position. Imperialism was thus something to be resisted.

Contemporary scholars argue that imperialism is not a stage of human history that has passed. Instead, theorists such as Raúl Prebisch (1950) argue that a form of neo-imperialism exists where the same processes of dominance, subjugation, exploitation and control are still present. Prebisch sees the modern world economy as being divided up into zones (which are not necessarily geographically delineated as contiguous territories), and relationships between capitalistic entities and markets for labour, imports and exports. The rich entities can include states, but it is more common to view actors such as MNCs as the real centres of power; and underdeveloped markets and societies as the subjugated peripheries. The relationship between these centres of power and their ‘...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G
• H
• I
• J
• K
• L
• M
• N
• O
• P
• R
• S
• T
• U
• V
• W
• Z
• Bibliography