Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
IR Theory Review - Coggle Diagram
IR Theory Review
Structural Realism
-
-
The anarchic structure of the international system forces states to compete for survival in a self-help system to provide for their own sake.
-
-
Cooperation is extremely difficult under anarchy, even where states genuinely seek joint gains (stag hunt). Cooperation is first choice but can't be pulled off.
Because cooperation is dangerous, due to problems like relative gains and dependency, states often will prefer defection, even if cooperation is possible (deadlock)
-
English School
-
-
States exist in anarchy, but can still forge relationships and behave in ways that transcend the pursuit of narrow self-interest: Where states have a high degree of shared normative and institutional commitments, they comprise a "society"
International society has existed since the beginning of the state system: Even during wartime, the basic foundations of international society have endured, allowing it to reemerge once conflict has ended
International society imposes limits on the behavior of states: Even if states use social norms simply as a pretext for actions that they want to take their behavior is still limited by the pretext
International politics does not resemble a Hobbesian world of constant conflict, or a Kantian world of perpetual peace
International politics resembles a middle, Lockean ground: Morality and social behavior is possible even under anarchy (though hobbled by the barriers that anarchy creates to cooperation), International politics is at once an anarchy and a society
Classical Realism
-
-
Human nature is lustful and domineering, leading states to behave in a similar fashion. This makes international politics a realm of competition and strife.
-
Power is an end in itself, not simply a means to an end.
Statecraft is a realm all of its own, with different standards from domestic society and politics
Constructivism
-
Discusses variables from all three images of IR, but focuses most of its attention on the implications of the 3rd image for intl politics
An attempt to move beyond rationalism: States preferences and identities are not exogenously given and fixed, but rather are endogenous to interaction and can change over time through social interaction
Anarchy does not necessitate competitive, power politics
The nature of intl politics can be either cooperative or conflictual, depending on the social relationships between states
The meaning and significance even of material variables is at least in part socially constructed: A wide range of behavior is compatible with material/biological imperatives such as the will to survive (Which behavior an actor adopts is a matter of choice and will depend, to a significant degree on socialization), A material object could mean different things depending on social context (A nuclear weapon in the hands of Great Britain has different meaning for the US than a nuclear weapon in the hands of N. Korea)
Liberal Republicanism
-
-
Although democracies are, overall, just as warlike as other types of states, democracies do not fight other democracies
The data support this claim, even when one controls for potentially confounding variables such as wealth, alliances, distance, and political stability
Culture and norms, as well as structure and institutions, create expectations amongst democracies that they can pursue peaceful dispute resolution with one another without being victimized: Democracies will prefer to pursue peaceful dispute-resolution mechanisms at the international level (just as they do in their domestic politics), Even if democracies wish to employ violent strategies (domestic checks and balances will impede their ability to do so)
Complex Realism
-
-
-
Combines elements of the first (honor and glory as motivations for the war), second (differences between Athenian and Spartan states creating different propensities for war, as well as different ways of fighting) and third (rise of Athenian power as cause of war) images.
-