International relations as a field of study seeks to analyze and explain the complex interactions between states and other actors in global politics. A range of theories have emerged in IR scholarship that aim to describe the forces that shape interstate relations, foreign policymaking, the balance of power, causes of conflict and cooperation, and the dynamics of the international system. However, there remains much debate over the interplay between abstract IR theories and the real-world practice of international politics.
This article provides an analytical perspective on the linkages and divergences between theoretical conceptualizations of international relations and the realities of relations between states and non-state entities. It examines major IR theories and schools of thought, analyzing their explanatory powers and limitations in capturing the nuances of real world developments.
The complex picture that emerges underscores both the insights theories provide as well as the difficulty of neatly categorizing international events within theoretical frameworks.
Realist Theories
Realist theories occupy a predominant place in international relations scholarship and foreign policymaking. Viewing the international environment as anarchic and self-help in nature, realists emphasize nation-state competition for power and security in what is seen as an inherently conflictual world. Different strands of realism offer somewhat varying takes[1]. Classical realism focuses on human nature and the egoistic and power-driven motives of states that make conflict endemic in global affairs[2]. Structural realism or neorealism highlights the structure of the international system, especially polarity between major powers, as the key force shaping state interactions[3]. Defensive realism contends that anarchy compels states to seek security first and foremost, rather than power for its own sake[4].
In many ways, realist tenets reflect observable realities about the primacy of nation-states and centrality of power in how countries navigate international relations. Major events from great power wars to arms races and alliance politics contain elements explainable by realism. For example, realist views on strategic balancing were evident in the shifting alliances against rising hegemonic threats seen in the Napoleonic Wars and the two World Wars[5]. Yet realism tends to overpredict conflict and underpredict cooperation. Its focus on material capabilities misses how social and normative factors can moderate state behavior and foster cooperative gains. It cannot fully account for historical trends toward globalization and interdependence. As such, realism provides valuable insights but requires integration with other perspectives.
Liberalism
In contrast to realists, liberal IR theory holds a more optimistic view focused on possibilities for mutual gains through cooperation[6]. Liberals dispute assumptions of state fixity and see relations being shaped by many types of state and non-state actors in both domestic and transnational spheres. Institutions, economic ties and international law are seen as providing structures for establishing norms and reducing conflict. Different strands exist, including idealism’s belief in transcending power politics; interdependence liberalism’s emphasis on economic integration; and institutional liberalism’s faith in international organizations[7].
Liberalism offers a counterpoint to realism’s state-centric competitiveness and helps explain phenomena from increasing democratization and regional integration to the expansion of global governance. Liberal institutionalism sheds light on postwar alliance politics and institution building. Yet liberalism tends to downplay the enduring centrality of states and overlook how international structures shape domestic politics and interests. For instance, while the EU demonstrates possibilities of integration, its evolution continues to be shaped by state interests. Both liberal ideals and realist calculations are at play in practice.
Marxism and Dependency Theory
Marxist and dependency theories represent critical perspectives oriented around class relations, economic exploitation and structural inequality in global politics[8]. Marxism conceives of conflict and cooperation in terms of class struggle and capitalist expansion. Imperialism and colonialism are analyzed as byproducts of capitalist development. Dependency theory similarly views the international order as divided between dominant ‘core’ states and weaker ‘peripheral’ states constrained by global capitalist structures.
These theories provide frameworks for understanding colonial legacies, underdevelopment and great power domination still evident in parts of the world today. Marxist concepts help reveal interconnections between domestic politics and foreign relations shaped by economic class interests. However, their explanatory scope is limited given the decline of socialism and rise of hybrid forms of governance. They tend to be too generalized and focused on economic determinism when political, social and ideological factors are also hugely impactful.
Constructivism
Social constructivism offers a diferentes lenses, emphasizing the socially constructed nature of international relations[9]. It sees core aspects of global affairs such as state identities, norms, shared meanings and roles as shaped through societal interactions and ideas rather than being predetermined categories. This enables examining how collective norms, perceptions and identities evolve and reshape state priorities and diplomatic practices.
Constructivism provides a useful corrective to materialist theories by showing how social facts and beliefs constitute structures of global politics as much as material capabilities. Studies drawing on constructivism have revealed the socially constructed nature of concepts like sovereignty. Constructivism helps makes sense of phenomena from changing norms on human rights to the rise of new national identities. However, it is less capable of explaining the power political dimensions of international conflicts and interactions between competing states.
The English School
The English school conceptualizes international relations in terms of the existence of an international society bound by shared rules and institutions that mediate state relations and limit violence[10]. Unlike realism, it sees the possibility for international cooperation and norms shaping state behavior through concepts like reputation, trust, and legitimacy. But is also recognizes that national interests preclude world government.
This nuanced approach sheds light on the complex moral and sociopolitical dimensions of foreign policy and diplomacy evident in history from the Concert of Europe to the UN system. However, the English school has struggled to achieve empirical consistency and integrate material and social factors. The boundaries of international society remain blurry in an age of non-state actors and transnational forces.
Subaltern Perspectives
Subaltern theories focus on marginalization in global politics and aim to challenge dominant Western-centric worldviews. They highlight uneven structures of power from race and gender to colonial legacies that have endured into the post-colonial era[11]. These perspectives crosscut various theoretical traditions but are united in decentering the state and bringing issues of identity, culture, and justice to the forefront of IR.
Given enduring disparities between the West and non-West and voices that remain excluded, subaltern approaches reveal key blind spots in mainstream IR theory. They provide frameworks to understand problems from global inequities to gender oppression and racial discrimination that affect international outcomes. However, subaltern theories tend to be highly heterogeneous and fragmented into different subject areas. Integrating these perspectives with state, power and security concerns remains an ongoing challenge.
Practice and Contingency in Foreign Policy
Beyond debates within IR theory, the practice of foreign policy and statecraft involves adaptability, ambiguity and contingency. Events from wars to diplomatic exchanges often entail more complexity and unpredictability than theoretical models can account for. Foreign policy practitioners are guided by disparate ideas, cultures, psychological dispositions, and domestic pressures that theories may not capture[12]. State behavior reveals inconsistencies, miscalculations, and cognitive biases rather than fixed rationality.
This demonstrates the limitations of IR theories in simplifying the murky realities of human judgment, group dynamics, individual personality and real-time decision making involved in international relations.Abstract frameworks inevitably struggle to encompass the multiplicity of factors and fluidity that characterize relations between states and non-state entities across context and time. Both theoretical insights and practical wisdom are essential for effectively navigating global affairs.
Realist Principles in Practice
Regardless of other critiques, core realist notions remain deeply ingrained in policymaking and diplomacy. Realism’s emphasis on shaping the balance of power and protecting national interests continues to dominate foreign policy thinking in major capitals[13]. Concepts like deterrence and reputation for resolve have proven validity regarding national security. Arms buildups and alliance commitments reflect the persistence of realist strategic thinking between powers like the US, Russia and China.
At the same time, cooperation between great powers has been more common than pure realist competition would predict. Realism cannot explain complex economic interdependence or the growth of international institutions that socialize states toward shared rules and norms. Both competitive realpolitik behavior aimed at advantage and liberal forms of cooperation based on enlightened self-interest are manifest in statecraft. This demonstrates realism’s enduring relevance along with its limitations.
Rise of Non-State Actors
Increasing role of non-state actors from terrorist networks to multinational firms represents a reality not easily reconciled with state-centric theories[14]. Relationships between states and non-state entities add layers of complexity beyond traditional IR frameworks focused on states alone. For example, the reach of ISIS or the sway held by corporations like Pfizer shape geopolitics in ways theories have struggled to completely capture.
Non-state actors are neither fully autonomous nor controlled by states but rather exert agency that both complements and clashes with state power. This calls for rethinking the conceptualization of levels of analysis and the international system in IR theory. It also underscores the need to incorporate insights from diverse disciplines to fully grasp transnational dynamics. Both theorizing and policy need to adjust to increasingly pluralistic global actors.
International Cooperation and Conflict
A mix of cooperation and conflict consistently characterizes the actual state of play between nations. No theory fully explains variations in amity and enmity within different bilateral relationships and regional contexts. US-Canada ties have proven far more cooperative than US-Russia relations due to factors like ideology and geopolitics. Southeast Asian states have opted for regional integration while serious rivalries persist in the Middle East.
This demonstrates that cooperative or conflictual patterns are driven by complex particular circumstances rather than universal laws. Theories help categorize general orientations states exhibit at times toward competition, balancing, or collective institutions. However, deterministic assumptions need to be avoided in examining multidimensional state relationships. No framework can predict or explain the totality of interactions within the intricate global ecosystem.
The Fog of War and Statecraft
Clausewitz’s metaphor of the fog of war remains applicable for conceptualizing the uncertainties and nonlinear dynamics through which international crises and military conflicts unfold[15]. The inherently disruptive and unpredictable nature of war challenges the rational actor assumptions underpinning most IR theory. Psychological and emotional factors take on outsized importance during wartime and humanitarian emergencies.
Moreover, warfare involves social currents, unintended consequences, and tipping points that theories struggle to model. For all their strategic calculations states often blunder into wars through escalating tensions. The actual conduct of war and peacemaking reveal realities more complex than scholarly abstractions can encompass. This reinforces the need for dynamic and adaptive thinking in navigating major international confrontations and upheavals.
Nationalism and Identity
Ethnic nationalism and civilizational identities have proven to be powerful forces in international affairs even as globalization advances[16]. struggles for self-determination from the Balkans to the Baltics reveal the endurance of nationalist sentiments tied to history, culture, and language. Religious and sectarian identities also continue to fuel conflicts across boundaries. This underscores the presence of communal affiliations and passions that interest-based theories downplay.
Identity factors constrain the fungibility of state preferences and actions. International conflicts often involve competing collective narratives rooted in contested views of the past and national psychology. While realism recognizes power and interest, constructivism and sociological approaches provide better insight into how communal identity shapes states’ international orientation. Appreciating the role of nationalism and social identity provides a fuller understanding of global conflicts.
Morality and Foreign Policy
Moral principles and ethical considerations form an integral part of statecraft and diplomacy despite being discounted in much IR theory[17]. Democracies exhibit shared norms on human rights that influence their foreign policies. However, all states to some degree face tensions between moral ideals and pragmatic interests. Issues like mitigating civilian casualties during war see ethics and realpolitik collide.
At times moral stances prove decisive in international relations, from humanitarian interventions to sanctions over rights violations. But states only unevenly live up to moral principles, often bending rules and norms when needed to advance their national interests. Morality has complex and subjective impacts on international relations not easily captured through theoretical lenses alone.
Psychology of Decision Makers
Individual leaders and elite decision makers wield significant influence in the practice of foreign policy and diplomatic relations[18]. The ideologies, experiences, psychological makeup and inner motivations of figures from Bismarck to Kissinger shape their statecraft and international maneuvers. Group dynamics within inner councils and biases that distort risk perceptions further complicate rational decision making.
IR theories often treat states as unitary rational actors. In reality, individuals and small groups wield power within political systems in ways theories overlook. Better incorporating psychological and cognitive insights on how leaders interpret and misperceive threats provides a micro-level corrective to overly abstract theorizing. Links between personality, beliefs and foreign policy require further exploration.
Domestic Politics Constraints
As IR theories have acknowledged, domestic political pressures within states reverberate onto the world stage[19]. Interest groups, legislative politics, public opinion, and election cycles all impact a government’s foreign policy choices and international bargaining range. For example, Russias moves have been shaped by nationalism at home. Populist politics are affecting Western foreign policy across domains from trade to security.
Domestic influences are often crucial intervening variables between systemic forces and foreign policy outputs. The boundaries between comparative politics and IR become blurred. While theories account for some domestic sources of foreign policy, the complexity of internal state dynamics remains challenging to fully capture through theoretical models. Linking systemic, domestic and individual levels of analysis remains an endeavor and obstacle for IR theory.
Technological Change
Rapid advances in technology from renewables and AI to hypersonic missiles are transforming international relations in ways IR theory has not kept pace with[20]. Technological change alters power balances, forms of competition and risks of conflict. Technologies expand options and capabilities of state and non-state actors in multifaceted ways. For instance, cyber and space domains have emerged as new frontiers for potential confrontation between great powers.
IR theory tends toward astatic conception of global politics whereas technological innovation is fast altering material realities. Theories lack frameworks for conceptualizing future international systems transformed by technologies still being developed and deployed. This requires going beyond existing schools of thought to envision and prepare for rapidly shifting technological environments in international relations.
Conclusion
This analytical overview reveals both the utility and limitations of abstract theoretical frameworks for explaining complex international realities. Different theories highlight salient aspects of global politics: Realism focuses on power; liberalism cooperation; constructivism ideas. But no theory provides a complete picture or predictive model for international relations. Prevailing dynamics involve interplay between material and social conditions, individual and group behaviors, and domestic and systemic constraints that preclude definitive theoretical synthesis. Valid insights can be gleaned from various IR schools yet inevitable gaps between theory and reality remain. The contingent nature of global events emerges starkly from the clash between simplified theoretical models and the intricacy of human interactions and forces that shape world affairs.
References
[1] Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and International Relations, Cambridge University Press.
[2] Morgenthau, H. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The struggle for power and peace. Knopf.
[3] Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics, McGraw Hill.
[4] Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma, World Politics, 30(2), 167-214.
[5] Rosecrance, R., & Stein, A. (1993). The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy. Cornell University Press.
[6] Doyle, M. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics, The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151-1169.
[7] Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51(4), 513-553.
[8] Hobden, S. & Jones, R. (2005). Marxist Theories of International Relations. In J. Baylis et al. (Eds.) The Globalization of World Politics. (pp.225-243). Oxford University Press.
[9] Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.
[10] Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Columbia University Press.
[11] Tickner, A. & Waever, O. (2009). International Relations Scholarship Around the World. Routledge.
[12] Saunders, E. (2017). Leaders, Advisers and Foreign Policymaking. In C. Hill et al, Foreign Policy Analysis. Routledge.
[13] Dueck, C. (2006). Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy. Princeton University Press.
[14] Josselin, D. & Wallace, W. (2001). Non-state Actors in World Politics: A Framework. In D. Josselin and W. Wallace (Eds.), Non-State Actors in World Politics (1-20). Palgrave.
[15] Betts, R. (2000). Is Strategy an Illusion? International Security, 25(2), 5-50.
[16] Mayall, J. (1990). Nationalism and International Society. Cambridge University Press.
[17] Nye Jr, J. (2005). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
[18] Post, J. M. (2004). Leaders and their followers in a dangerous world: The psychology of political behavior. Cornell University Press.
[19] Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
[20] Bitzinger, R. (1994). The Impact of Technology on International Relations Theory. Journal of International Affairs, 47(2), 353-377.
