Key International Relations Theories

Why This Matters

Understanding IR theories isn't about memorizing definitions—it's about learning to see global events through different analytical lenses. When you're asked why states go to war, why international institutions succeed or fail, or why certain voices dominate global politics, your answer depends entirely on which theoretical framework you apply. You're being tested on your ability to identify assumptions, compare explanations, and apply theories to real-world cases.

These theories divide into distinct camps based on their core assumptions about human nature, the international system, and what drives state behavior. Some prioritize power and survival; others emphasize cooperation and institutions; still others challenge whose perspectives even get heard. Don't just memorize what each theory says—know what questions each theory asks and what it assumes about the world.

---

Power and Survival: The Realist Tradition

These theories share a core assumption: the international system is anarchic (no world government), so states must prioritize survival and security above all else. The key mechanism is self-help—states can only rely on themselves.

Realism

• Anarchy and self-interest—states operate in a system with no higher authority, forcing them to prioritize their own survival
• Power as currency—military capability determines a state's security; power is the ultimate resource in international politics
• Pessimistic view of human nature—assumes competition and conflict are inherent, making lasting peace unlikely

Neorealism

• Structural focus over human nature—shifts analysis from individual leaders to the structure of the international system itself
• Balance of power—states naturally form alliances to prevent any single state from dominating; this mechanism maintains stability
• Defensive vs. offensive variants—defensive realists argue states seek security; offensive realists argue states maximize power whenever possible

---

Cooperation and Institutions: The Liberal Tradition

Liberal theories challenge realism's pessimism by arguing that cooperation is possible even in an anarchic system. The key mechanism is interdependence—states benefit from working together and create institutions to facilitate this.

Liberalism

• Cooperation through institutions—international organizations and norms can overcome anarchy and enable collective action
• Democratic peace theory—democracies rarely fight each other; regime type matters for international behavior
• Progress is possible—human rationality and shared interests can produce a more peaceful global order over time

Neoliberalism

• Institutions reduce uncertainty—organizations like the UN, WTO, and IMF provide information and enforce agreements, making cooperation rational
• Absolute gains focus—states can all benefit from cooperation simultaneously; it's not zero-sum
• Non-state actors matter—NGOs, multinational corporations, and transnational networks shape global governance alongside states

---

Ideas and Identity: Social Approaches

These theories argue that material factors alone can't explain international relations. What states believe, how they identify, and what they consider appropriate shapes behavior as much as power or wealth. The key mechanism is social construction—meaning is created through interaction.

Constructivism

• Ideas constitute interests—state interests aren't fixed; they emerge from norms, identities, and social interaction
• Anarchy is what states make of it—the same anarchic system can produce conflict or cooperation depending on shared understandings
• Change is possible—if ideas shape behavior, then changing ideas (like human rights norms) can transform international politics

English School

• International society concept—states form a society with shared norms and institutions, not just a competitive system
• Three traditions combined—integrates realist power politics, liberal institutionalism, and cosmopolitan ethics
• Sovereignty vs. global governance—explores the tension between state autonomy and collective responsibilities like humanitarian intervention

---

Power Structures and Inequality: Critical Approaches

These theories ask who benefits from the current international order and whose voices are silenced. They critique mainstream theories for accepting existing power structures as natural or inevitable. The key mechanism is ideology—ideas that serve powerful interests while appearing neutral.

Marxism

• Economic base drives politics—class struggle and capitalist exploitation explain international conflict better than state interests
• Imperialism as capitalism's logic—wealthy states exploit poorer ones to sustain economic growth; global inequality is structural, not accidental
• State serves capital—governments protect capitalist interests rather than representing national interests

Critical Theory

• Theory is never neutral—all IR theories reflect particular interests and perspectives; knowledge itself is political
• Emancipation as goal—scholarship should work toward human freedom, not just explain existing power arrangements
• Discourse shapes reality—how we talk about security, terrorism, or development determines what policies seem possible

Postcolonialism

• Colonial legacies persist—contemporary global inequalities trace directly to imperialism and colonial exploitation
• Eurocentrism critique—mainstream IR theories reflect Western perspectives and marginalize Global South experiences
• Identity and culture matter—race, culture, and historical memory shape international relations in ways traditional theories ignore

---

Gender and International Relations

Feminist IR asks questions other theories ignore: Where are the women? and How does gender shape global politics?

Feminism

• Gender as analytical category—international relations are structured by masculinity and femininity, not just states and power
• Critique of mainstream theories—realism's focus on war and security reflects male-dominated perspectives and priorities
• Women in conflict and peace—examines how war disproportionately affects women and how women contribute to peacebuilding processes

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both neorealism and neoliberalism accept that the international system is anarchic. How do they reach such different conclusions about cooperation?

2. If you were analyzing why human rights norms have spread globally since 1945, which two theories would provide the strongest explanations, and why?

3. Compare and contrast how Marxism and postcolonialism would explain persistent poverty in former colonial states.

4. An FRQ asks you to evaluate the role of international institutions in preventing conflict. Which theory would be most supportive, which most skeptical, and what evidence would each cite?

5. How would a feminist scholar critique a realist analysis of national security policy? What questions would feminism ask that realism ignores?