Key Theories of International Relations

Why This Matters

Understanding international relations theories isn't about memorizing definitions—it's about grasping the lenses through which scholars and policymakers interpret global conflict. When an FRQ asks you to explain why states go to war, cooperate on trade deals, or join international organizations, you're being tested on your ability to apply these theoretical frameworks. Each theory offers a different answer to the same fundamental questions: What drives state behavior? Why does conflict occur? How can peace be achieved?

These theories cluster around core debates: power vs. cooperation, material interests vs. ideas, and state-centric vs. human-centric security. The exam loves asking you to compare how different theories explain the same event—say, the Cold War or the formation of the European Union. Don't just memorize what each theory claims; know what assumptions it makes about human nature, the international system, and the possibility of change. That's where the points are.

---

Power-Centric Theories

These theories assume that the international system is fundamentally competitive, with states prioritizing survival and security above all else. Conflict isn't a bug—it's a feature of a world without a global government.

Realism

• Anarchy is the defining condition—with no world government to enforce rules, states must rely on themselves for survival
• Power and military capability determine outcomes; cooperation is temporary and strategic, not principled
• Human nature is competitive—realists see conflict as inevitable because states (like people) pursue their own interests first

Neorealism

• System structure matters more than human nature—Kenneth Waltz shifted focus from leaders' psychology to how power is distributed globally
• Polarity determines stability—whether the system is unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar shapes the likelihood of war
• Defensive vs. offensive variants disagree on whether states seek just enough power to survive or maximum power to dominate

---

Cooperation-Focused Theories

These theories challenge the assumption that conflict is inevitable. They argue that institutions, economic ties, and shared values can create pathways to peace—even in an anarchic system.

Liberalism

• Institutions enable cooperation—international organizations like the UN create rules and forums that reduce uncertainty between states
• Democratic peace theory holds that democracies rarely fight each other, making regime type a key variable
• Economic interdependence raises the cost of war—states that trade heavily have more to lose from conflict

Neoliberalism

• Absolute gains over relative gains—unlike realists, neoliberals argue states care about their own benefits, not just beating rivals
• International institutions reduce transaction costs—regimes like the WTO make cooperation easier by providing information and enforcement mechanisms
• Collective security arrangements can deter aggression by promising coordinated responses to rule-breakers

---

Ideas and Identity Theories

These theories argue that material factors like military power and economic wealth don't tell the whole story. What states believe, who they think they are, and how they construct meaning shapes international politics.

Constructivism

• Identities shape interests—states don't have fixed preferences; what they want depends on how they see themselves and others
• Norms evolve and matter—ideas like sovereignty, human rights, and non-intervention are socially constructed but have real effects on behavior
• Anarchy is what states make of it—Alexander Wendt's famous claim that the system's competitive nature isn't inevitable but created through interaction

English School

• International society exists—states share common norms, rules, and institutions despite lacking a world government
• Bridges realism and liberalism—acknowledges power politics while recognizing that diplomacy and international law constrain behavior
• Pluralist vs. solidarist debate asks whether this society should enforce universal values or respect state diversity

---

Critical and Emancipatory Theories

These theories challenge mainstream IR for ignoring inequality, marginalized voices, and structural injustice. They ask: whose interests do traditional theories serve?

Marxism

• Economic structures drive international politics—class conflict between capital owners and workers extends to the global level
• Capitalism causes imperialism—states expand abroad to find markets, resources, and cheap labor, creating global inequality
• Core-periphery dynamics explain why wealthy states exploit poorer ones, perpetuating underdevelopment

Critical Theory

• Theory is never neutral—all IR theories reflect the interests of those who create them, typically powerful states
• Emancipation is the goal—scholarship should expose hidden power structures and work toward a more just global order
• Questions what counts as "security"—challenges state-centric definitions that ignore poverty, oppression, and environmental destruction

Feminism

• Gender is invisible in traditional IR—mainstream theories assume a male perspective and ignore how war and diplomacy affect women differently
• Redefines security as human security—shifts focus from state survival to individual well-being, including freedom from violence and want
• Highlights gendered power structures—from the underrepresentation of women in diplomacy to the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war

---

Postcolonial Perspectives

This approach challenges the Eurocentric foundations of IR theory, centering the experiences and perspectives of formerly colonized peoples.

Postcolonialism

• Colonialism's legacy shapes today's conflicts—borders drawn by imperial powers, resource extraction patterns, and cultural hierarchies persist
• Challenges Eurocentrism—mainstream IR theories were developed in the West and often universalize Western experiences
• Foregrounds identity and culture—examines how colonial categories (civilized/uncivilized, developed/underdeveloped) continue to structure global politics

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both realism and neorealism predict conflict in the international system—what is the key difference in why they expect conflict to occur?

2. If an FRQ asks you to explain why European states cooperated to form the EU, which two theories would provide the strongest (and contrasting) explanations?

3. Compare and contrast how Marxism and feminism critique traditional IR theories. What does each identify as the key blind spot?

4. A question asks whether international institutions can prevent war. How would a neoliberal respond differently than a realist?

5. You're analyzing a conflict rooted in borders drawn during colonialism. Which theory offers the most relevant framework, and what key concepts would you use?