Strategy, International Politics, and Foreign Policy: A Comparative Study in Theoretical Foundations

Strategy, international politics, and foreign policy are deeply interrelated concepts that together help shape how states behave and interact on the global stage. At their core, strategy refers to the plans and methods used to achieve particular goals, politics refers to power relationships and governance within and between states, and foreign policy refers to a state’s approach towards the external world. Though distinct, these three areas heavily influence and feed into one another in practice.

A nation’s grand strategy sets its overarching goals and outlines how all instruments of national power – political, economic, military, and informational – will be deployed in their pursuit (Kissinger 1969). International politics provides the global context in which grand strategy is formulated and executed, generating threats, opportunities, and relationships that strategy must account for. Foreign policy translates elements of grand strategy into concrete principles, actions, and messaging directed at other international actors. Changes in any one area elicit shifts across the board.

Given these critical interlinkages, comparative analysis of the theoretical underpinnings of strategy, international politics, and foreign policy can provide crucial insight into the forces that drive state behavior and the international system. Examining foundational concepts and assumptions allows one to better understand continuity and change in global affairs. This article undertakes such a comparative theoretical analysis. It assesses realist, liberal, and constructivist perspectives as applied to strategy, politics, and foreign policy, illuminating differences and points of convergence.

The analysis is structured as follows. The first section focuses on strategy, outlining key theoretical debates regarding its nature and utility. The second section examines perspectives on international politics, contrasting views on issues like power, interests, and cooperation. The third section explores foreign policy theory, analyzing divergent takes on foreign policymaking and state interaction. The conclusion synthesizes findings and reflects on implications for scholarship and policymaking. In total, the comparative study enables an enhanced , nuanced understanding of strategy, politics, and foreign policy as subjects of both theory and practice.

Theoretical Perspectives on Strategy

Strategy is a longstanding focus of statecraft and scholarship. Yet theorists diverge regarding why strategy matters, what makes it effective, and how it should be evaluated. Core divides concern strategy’s purpose, relationship to power, and degree of rationality.

Realist, liberal, and constructivist thinkers carry differing assumptions on these issues into their analysis. Realism sees strategy as the manifestation of rational state efforts to accumulate and leverage power in pursuit of the national interest in an anarchic international environment (Mearsheimer 2001; Waltz 1979). Liberals grant strategy a more constrained role, emphasizing that state power and interests are tempered by international institutions, economic linkage, and non-state actors (Keohane and Nye 1977; Moravcsik 1997). Constructivists argue that strategy derives not from objective realities like anarchy but subjective identities and shared ideas which give meaning to power and interests (Hopf 1998; Wendt 1992).

These perspectives generate debates regarding what constitutes effective strategy and how specific strategies should be judged. Realists focus on assessments of relative power. Liberals judge strategy by its effects on global welfare and cooperation. Constructivists analyze whether strategy bolsters or erodes shared norms and institutions. Just as theoretical lenses color analysis of grand strategy, they shape evaluations of military strategy, economic statecraft, and soft power engagement alike. Ongoing contests over core assumptions fuel contrasts in strategic assessment.

Realism and Strategy

For realists, strategy fundamentally concerns the acquisition and application of power within an international system characterized by anarchy and self-help. In the absence of central authority, states cannot take their security for granted and will thus relentlessly pursue power under the logic of survival. Hans Morgenthau (1948) classically argued that interest defined as power governs all state action in this Hobbesian context, making power the core concern of strategy. Other realists like Kenneth Waltz (1979) focused specifically on explaining recurrent power balancing efforts aimed at preventing hegemony.

Either way, realism asserts that all states fundamentally seek to maximize relative power capabilities. This assumption carries through to assessments of strategy. Realists judge strategy by its success at bolstering a state’s power position and influence over outcomes. They expect balancing in response to significant power shifts via the strategic actions of other states. Historically, leading states have been guided by realist logic in diligently monitoring and responding to power distributions (Wohlforth et al. 2018).

Realism does acknowledge limited space for strategic flexibility within the competitive power politics paradigm. States may utilize different strategic means – internal mobilization, foreign alliances, arms buildups – to shift power balances (Mearsheimer 2001). Some periods see defensive rather than offensive postures. But the overarching realist expectation is that strategy will rationally serve power maximization goals. States foregoing opportunities to improve their position risk exploitation by rivals, fueling recurrent security dilemmas. Even cooperation is guided by realpolitik, abandonment concerns, and relative gains – as in the Concert of Europe or Sino-American detente (Kissinger 1994; Mearsheimer 2001). Ultimately realism asserts that power and self-interest govern strategy in an anarchic world.

Liberalism and Strategy

Liberal theory presents strategy as more multidimensional than the realist power calculus suggests. Liberals argue states pursue enlightened self-interest, tempering traditional security concerns with economic interests and values. International institutions and relationships then shape how states define and pursue interests through strategy (Ikenberry 2011; Keohane 1984; Moravcsik 1997).

Rather than pure power maximization, liberal states craft strategies advancing complex state preferences. They employ institutions like the UN and WTO to mitigate conflict and promote absolute over relative gains through interdependence. Trade, diplomacy, and cultural exchange supplement crude calculations of power. Transnational actors furnish additional strategic insights and interests for consideration. In this view, strategy involves identifying and leveraging networks, relationships, and institutions to achieve diverse state goals – not just balancing hard power (Nye 2004).

Effective strategy under liberal logic advances national welfare through stability and economic growth as much as relative power. It mobilizes multilateral coalitions to address shared challenges from climate change to nuclear proliferation. Strategy succeeds by expanding cooperation and reducing conflict. Misguided strategies underplay economic incentives, institution building, and values or rely excessively on coercive power. Flawed realist assumptions of self-help complexity and interdependence actually undermine state interests. In the liberal lens, strategy must align means and ends while accounting for global integration.

Constructivism and Strategy

Constructivist theories posit that strategy is socially constructed rather than defined by objective constraints like anarchy or objectively-defined state interests. Strategy does not involve rational choices based on power distributions or maximization of exogenously-given preferences under institutional constraints. Rather, constructivists see strategic choices as shaped by intersubjective structures of identities, norms, ideas, and shared knowledge (Hopf 1998; Ruggie 1998; Wendt 1992).

These socially-constructed structures imbue states with meaning, values, and roles that frame how they define security, perceive threats, and craft strategy. Power and interests have no inherent logic but take form through interstate relationships and discourse. Effective strategy will internalize and leverage prevailing norms and collective knowledge to mobilize resources and justify action rather than purely maximize material capabilities. Strategies pursued without legitimacy grounded in shared ideas will struggle (Clark 2009). Constructivism expects strategy to constitute identities and give life to institutions as much as the reverse.

This perspective generates skepticism regarding rationalist treatments of strategy as the planned advancement of objective national interests. Strategy unfolds through practice and socially-situated interaction, not detached optimization (Ringmar 1996). Successful strategies will reinforce prevailing norms and collective narratives. Failed strategies neglect social context and meaning in favor of materialist logics. Constructivist analysis assesses the degree of “social fit” between strategic means and ends rather than material outcomes. Insights into strategic effectiveness come through discourse analysis and process tracing, not parsimonious models. By stripping materialist assumptions, constructivism opens new avenues for understanding strategy rooted in ideas, norms, and meaning.

Realism, liberalism, and constructivism carry divergent assumptions about the nature and practice of strategy into their analysis. Realism asserts an inherent logic focused on power and self-help. Liberalism sees strategy as the advancement of state interests within institutional context. Constructivism argues interests and strategy only have meaning rooted in social structures. These perspectives generate ongoing contests within international relations and foreign policy theory regarding how strategy functions and what makes it effective. Their relative explanatory power remains subject to debate.

Synthesizing insights, it becomes clear that theoretical perspectives shape what scholars see when analyzing strategy and evaluating strategic choices. Recognizing these effects is crucial for interpreting international outcomes and informing policy. Theorizing on strategy provides a window into broader paradigmatic divides within international relations. Further research could probe additional theories like critical approaches or English School conceptualizations of grand strategy. Engaging diverse lenses enriches understanding of this field with resonance across scholarship and policymaking. In a complex world, strategy benefits from pluralistic theorizing and application.

Theoretical Perspectives on International Politics

Just as theories carry different assumptions about strategy into analysis, they furnish contrasting interpretations of international politics. Core issues concern the roles of power, interests, and institutions in global affairs. Realism presents international politics as a struggle for power driven by self-interested states. Liberalism asserts that interests are multiple and institutions mediate contests for power. Constructivism sees power and interests as subjective products of normative structures rather than objective truths. These divergent logics generate ongoing theoretical debates with practical policy implications.

Realism and International Politics

Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau (1948) and E.H. Carr (1946) portrayed international politics as a perpetual struggle for power among self-interested states. The concept of interest defined as power (Morgenthau 1948) governs state motivations. Without a supreme authority, states can only provide for their own security, ensuring recurrent conflict as power dynamics ebb and flow. Kenneth Waltz (1979) modernized realism through systemic theory, attributing recurring conflict and competition to anarchy and distribution of capabilities. But the emphasis on power and self-help remained.

Either way, realism assumes states are functionally similar in seeking security and influence as power maximizers. International politics unfolds as a consequence, driven by shifts in relative power and cycles of balancing and equilibrium (Waltz 1979; Mearsheimer 2001). States may temporarily cooperate to advance shared interests, but self-help logic predominates and agreements easily unravel. Moravcsik (1997) terms this assumption of perpetual competition rooted in human nature the “realist first image.”

While allowing some variance in how states pursue interests defined as power, realism proffers a tragic vision of international politics dominated by conflict, suspicion, and the security dilemma. Theories of hegemonic stability grant limited space for order under a dominant state, but otherwise the realist tradition predicts disorder and danger as inherent to global affairs (Gilpin 1981). Critics accuse realism of being too pessimistic, reifying rather than explaining conflict. But realists counter that their power politics paradigm best reflects historical reality and human nature (Mearsheimer 2019). Either way, realism imprints power, anarchy, and self-help assumptions onto analyses of international outcomes.

Liberalism and International Politics

Liberal international relations theories contend that realist assumptions paint an unduly narrow picture of global politics focused excessively on conflict. Liberals acknowledge that states seek power and security but argue they also pursue multiple interests relating to wealth, wellbeing, and values (Doyle 1997; Moravcsik 1997). Politics need not be tragic zero-sum competition.

The diversity and interdependence of state interests allows possibilities for positive-sum cooperation and gains. Institutions help states identify and achieve absolute over relative gains, providing information, reducing transaction costs, and stabilizing expectations (Keohane 1984). Norms and regimes mitigate uncertainty and enforcement dilemmas that otherwise inhibit collaboration. International organizations, alliances, and trade pacts all expand cooperation. Liberal institutionalism holds that relations are not doomed to perpetual conflict (Ikenberry 2011).

Critics contend liberalism is overly optimistic about prospects for transforming “bad” realist incentives that ultimately govern state behavior (Mearsheimer 2019). But liberals see themselves offering more nuanced explanations of politics between idealism and reflexive pessimism. Interests are not monolithic and collaboration can reflect rational state behavior given interdependence and institutions. Liberals acknowledge distributional debates within cooperation. But they provide logic for order along anarchy’s spectrum between Hobbesian war and Kantian perpetual peace (Oye 1986). Liberal perspectives expand conceptions of global politics beyond one-dimensional power politics.

Constructivism and International Politics

Constructivism presents the most radical counter to materialist theories like realism and liberalism that treat power and interests as objective phenomena. Instead, constructivists argue power and interests only have meaning rooted in collective knowledge and social values (Onuf 1989; Wendt 1992). Anarchy does not dictate state behavior but rather material conditions interact with intersubjective factors like identities and norms to shape conduct (Hopf 1998).

Rather than objective laws, the logic of anarchy and the content of interests are constructed through culture, discourse, and practice. Shared knowledge constitutes structures that give meaning to power and provide roles and expectations guiding behavior (Wendt 1994). State actions then either reproduce or reshape prevailing structures. This constitutive rather than causal relationship means international politics unfold through dynamic processes, not fixed incentives.

Constructivists contend that materialist approaches like realism and liberalism rely on flawed positivist assumptions (Guzzini 2000). Interests and power have no inherent logic but take form through ideas in a given cultural and historical context. A constructivist lens opens new avenues for analyzing international politics as a world of meaning, discourse, and socialization rather than merely objective material forces. Critics argue constructivism overstates ideational factors and fails to provide falsifiable explanations (Fearon and Wendt 2002). But constructivists present a powerful critique of rationalism and materialism that continues to animate theoretical debates.

Theoretical Perspectives on Foreign Policy

Like strategy and international politics, foreign policy has spawned diverse schools of thought offering contrasting interpretations. The purpose, rationality, and forces shaping foreign policy take different form across realist, liberal, and constructivist theory. Fundamental divides concern whether foreign policy reflects objective realities or social context and the role of individual decisionmakers. As with grand strategy, theoretical frameworks color analyses of and prescriptions for foreign policy.

Realism and Foreign Policy

The realist paradigm generally treats foreign policy as rationally aimed at advancing objective national interests defined in terms of power under anarchy. Hans Morgenthau’s (1948) classical realism asserted that interest defined as power drives all policy. States objectively require power to survive, making its accumulation through shrewd diplomacy rational. Later neorealists like Kenneth Waltz focused more narrowly on security but retained assumptions of rationality and objective national interests (Waltz 1979). States respond predictably to systemic constraints and opportunities.

This thinking generates hypotheses that states will balance power, pursue hegemony if able, and work to shift alignments and alliances in their favor. Foreign policy becomes a strategic game grounded in material capabilities and incentives. Resources and threats, not intangible factors, drive decisionmaking. States act as cohesive units in an anarchic environment rather than torn by internal divisions. Personality and belief matter little compared to structural forces.

Critics contend realist foreign policy theory is too rigid and materialist. They argue leaders have more agency and ideology shapes interests (Rosenau 1980). But realists claim their spare assumptions have great explanatory power for major events like the Peloponnesian War. Realist approaches remain influential within policy circles today. Pure rationalism has limits but realism provides insight into how systemic constraints shape foreign policy.

Liberalism and Foreign Policy

Liberal international relations theory holds that realism provides an overly narrow view of foreign policy. Liberals argue states pursue multiple interests beyond just power and security. Domestic influences shape how states define and prioritize interests, not just systemic pressures (Moravcsik 1997; Putnam 1988). Foreign policy emerges through internal bargaining processes involving many actors across government, business, and civil society. This generates diverse and fluctuating state preferences that policies seek to realize.

Leaders and societies influence foreign policy, not just abstract national interests. Policy results from competitive pluralist processes rather than rational unitary choice. Outcomes depend on configurations of domestic power and coalitions, not just calculations of material power. Moravcsik (2008) terms this the “liberal second image” focused on societal drivers. Liberal theory examines how preferences translate into policy under constraints. This helps explain phenomena from human rights policies to trade pacts.

Critics contend liberal foreign policy theory overly obscures geopolitical realities. But liberals argue that neglecting ideational and societal factors risks misdiagnosing interests and making flawed policy predictions. Blending systemic and domestic lenses provides greater insight into the complex forces driving behavior. Liberalism remains influential in both scholarship and policy practice.

Constructivism and Foreign Policy

Like their take on international politics, constructivists diverge from materialist approaches to foreign policy. Constructivists argue systemic pressures and domestic interests only acquire meaning through social context and intersubjective structures of ideas and knowledge. Identities and norms shape how states interpret threats and opportunities to define interests and craft foreign policies (Hopf 2002). Material capabilities alone fail to explain behavior.

Foreign policy does not just pursue objective interests within constraints but helps actively construct state identities and shared knowledge of what constitutes appropriate action. Policy has a constitutive role projecting values and shaping discourse. Wendt’s (1999) argument that states are role takers as well as role makers captures this relationship between agency and structure. Foreign policy discourse constructs the subjective reality it pretends to merely respond to.

From this lens, effective foreign policy will internalize collective knowledge and norms into its construction. Policies will reconstitute state identities and the meaning of interests. Constructivists see foreign policy as a dynamic social process, not a static material calculation. This perspective highlights policy feedback loops and possibilities for transformative outcomes constituting new realities. It provides tools to analyze how ideas and discourse shape policy choices and why policy legitimation matters.

Conclusion

This comparative study demonstrates that diverse theoretical perspectives carry differing assumptions into analyses of strategy, international politics, and foreign policy. Realism presents an anarchic world where rational states pursue power-based interests. Liberalism sees possibilities for mutual gains under institutional constraints. Constructivism argues power and interests lack inherent meaning. These divergent paradigms lead to ongoing contests within these subfields regarding the logics shaping state behavior and global outcomes.

Realist, liberal and constructivist lenses each furnish valuable but incomplete insights. Synthesizing approaches allows scholars and practitioners to build more comprehensive understanding of world politics. Rather than vanishing debates, diverse theoretical perspectives persist because they capture elements of complex realities. Their interplay drives intellectual progress. Avoiding paradigmatic straightjackets and fostering pluralism serves both scholarship and policymaking.

Engaging the interplay between systemic pressures, domestic influences, norms, and material forces proves crucial for sound analysis and strategy. Assumptions profoundly shape interpretations and policies. The Ukraine crisis demonstrates that distribution of capabilities still matters greatly but also that identities and discourse shape how states perceive self and other. Trade pacts reveal possibilities for mutual gains through interdependence but also persistent contests over distribution. Foreign policies transmit values but also help constitute state interests. No single theory provides all the answers.

This comparative study demonstrates the need for theoretical breadth and openness in studying and practicing world politics. Different perspectives reveal blind spots and address shortcomings in alternatives. Synthesis provides a path for building knowledge about multifaceted phenomena. International relations theory has progressed through debate and integration. Both scholarship and policymaking benefit from conceptual plurality and dialogue across paradigms when grappling with complex realities of strategy, politics, and foreign policy in a globalized world.

References

Carr, E.H. 1946. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan.

Clark, Ian. 2009. “Towards an English School Theory of Hegemony.” European Journal of International Relations 15(2): 203-228.

Doyle, Michael. 1997. Ways of War and Peace. New York: Norton.

Fearon, James and Alexander Wendt. 2002. “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth Simmons. London: Sage, 52-72.

Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 6(2): 147-182.

Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 23(1): 171-200.

Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Cornell University Press.

Ikenberry, G. John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye Jr. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little Brown.

Kissinger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kissinger, Henry. 1969. “The Vietnam Negotiations.” Foreign Affairs.

Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.

Mearsheimer, John J. 2019. “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order.” International Security 43(4): 7-50.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51(4): 513-553.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 2008. “The New Liberalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, 234-254.

Morgenthau, Hans. 1948. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Nye, Joseph S. Jr. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. World of Our Making. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Oye, Kenneth. 1986. Cooperation Under Anarchy. Princeton University Press.

Putnam, Robert. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42(3): 427-460.

Ringmar, Erik. 1996. Identity, Interest and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Sweden’s Intervention in the Thirty Years War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenau, James N. 1980. The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. London: Frances Pinter.

Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. New York: Routledge.

Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46(2): 391-425.

Wendt, Alexander. 1994. “Collective Identity Formation and the International State.” American Political Science Review 88(2): 384-396.

Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Wohlforth, William C., Benjamin de Carvalho, Halvard Leira, and Iver B. Neumann. 2018. “Moral authority and status in International Relations: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking.” Review of International Studies 44(3): 526-546.