Chapter Three

Theories and Approaches to the Study of International Relations

This chapter deals with the dominant theories from the two big schools:
classical/traditional/grand/ vs. critical/radical/ theories in the study of international
relations. These are classical/traditional/grand/ vs. critical/radical theories:
 Classical School of thought: Liberalism/Political Idealism and neo-
liberalism/neo-idealism, Realism/neo-realism,
 Critical school of thought: comprised of Marxism, Structuralism and
Feminism, and Post Structuralism/Constructivism

3.1. Classical Liberalism/Political Idealism

Level of analysis: Individual: moral principles of individuals may translate into that of
nations. &/or form of government: democratic governments are preferred means for
transferring those moral principles of individuals into those of the international system.
Democratic governments exist as moral examples for other nations still struggling on the
path to Enlightenment. Liberalism adds values into the equation. It is often called
idealism. It is a state level theory which argues that there is a lot of cooperation in the
world, not just rivalry. States don‘t just compete or worry about power. States try to
build a more just world order. They often do so because they have learned that in many
instances cooperation is a better strategy that conflict. States try to create enforceable
international law. States are progressive forces for social justice. Liberalism might look
at the cold war and examine the different values of the US and USSR and point out the
repressive and murderous nature of the Soviet state as the key to the US and USSR
animosity. It also might look at the decades-worth of US-USSR cooperation in the
midst of the cold war (arms control, the lack of direct conflict).

1
 Common Assumptions of all Liberalists
Community of states - norms, laws and international institutions constrain
anarchy so it is possible to limit anarchy.
Actors – there are multiple actors in the international system which is
interdependent up on one another.
Goals – there is no hierarchy among issues. Power is changeable and can be
replaced by some other issues. So power and security issues do not usually
dominate.
System Structure – it is multilateral in the sense that multiple channels of
interaction exist among states. There are no power distribution, no hierarchy of
power and no balance of power.
Outcomes – absolute gains are more crucial and take priority over relative
gains. Absolute gain means both parties gain which is mutually beneficial. So
actors seek mutual benefits for all of them. In other words the concept of win-
win game prevails.
Dominant Issues – are security, human welfare and environmental issues.
Capabilities – military power is not the sole/single form of power. Power is not
unique and differs from one issue to another.
Type of Action – human nature is rational and not self – centered and not
egoistic. So, negotiation can be used as problem solving mechanism.
International cooperation – idealists are optimistic about potential for
cooperation. Conflicts can be solved by human nature which is rational, not
egoistic. International Institutions provide ways for the cooperation of people
and wars can be avoided by having different institutions. Basic units of analysis
here are individuals and states.
Institutions and Regimes: Their existence constrains anarchy and can serve as
the instruments to achieve states common goals.

2
 Historical Development of Liberalism
Hugo Grotius
He is called the “father of international law” as he was the most advocate of
international law. His assumption was that cooperation is possible through using
the rational/good nature of human beings.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
He mentioned the idea of an international civic society. For him, morality governs
human behavior. And the existence of morality and law can lay the ground for
international cooperation.

Idealists: Immanuel Kant, Woodrow Wilson, Neville Chamberlain

 Neo-Liberalism/Neo-idealism

Level of analysis: international system: Like classical idealism, neo-idealism accepts

the notion that peace may be established in international politics through democratic
principles applied to real situations. It differs from its classical predecessor in that it
views the workings of other states as central to its own survival. Therefore, all states
must and will eventually adopt a democratic form of government. Neo-idealists actively
advocate intervention in the inner workings of other states to promote stability prior to
the transfer of democratic principles to that state. A current example is the war in the
former Yugoslavia where Secretary of State Albright has argued NATO has a moral
interest in stabilizing the regimes. Neo-idealists, unlike their classical predecessors, do
not use state power to intervene, but instead focus on forming transnational actors
(NATO) to act as the democratic force in the interventions. Further, they point to the
gradual world acceptance of liberal democratic principles and liberal economic
programs to justify their interventions. For them, the democratic path has widened

3
enormously and it is the job of those in power to help those struggling on it along a little
faster than a classical idealist might advise.

Generally, Neo-liberalism/neo-idealism is an offshoot of liberalism. It is a system level

version of liberalism and focuses on the way in which institutions can influence the
behavior of states by spreading values or creating rule-based behavior. Neo-liberals
might focus on the role of the United Nations or World Trade Organization in shaping
the foreign policy behavior of states. Neo-liberals might look at the cold war and
suggest ways to fix the UN to make it more effective.

Neo-idealists: Hegel, Charles W. Kegley, Jr., Madeline Albright, William Cohen,

Francis Fukuyama

 Criticisms of Liberalism
 Empirical Failing: The collapse of the post-WWI world order invoked
criticism of both the content of the approach and of its application.
 Theoretical Criticism: This approach rests on a number of implicit
assumptions that are not theoretically sustainable. Human nature is not benign.
The state nature is not benign. International arrangements that are not based on
intrinsic interests of states are unsustainable.
 Normative Criticism. The application of utopian approaches that rest on shaky
empirical and theoretical foundations is likely to yield disastrous consequences.

3.2. Classical Realism

Level of analysis: State: the power of state translates into the national interest of
that state. States are viewed as „black boxes‟- There are clear separations between
domestic politics/processes and international politics. Any politics within the state
(i.e. the form of government) is irrelevant for understanding that states‘ interests in
international society. States are assumed to be power-seeking entities that enter into
competition with one another in the absence of a central power to overawe/restrain

4
them. This situation is anarchy. Anarchy simply means lack of central power (say
Hobbes‟ Leviathan) to which all states would pledge their obedience. It doesn‘t
mean disorder.

Common Assumptions of All Realists

Anarchy – that is, the structure of international system is anarchic characterized
by absence of world government. In other words, there is an absence of world
government ruling above sovereign states.
Actors – states are the principal, unitary, rational and most important actors.
States are key units of analysis. It is the sole rational actor with the capacity for
making – decisions. The state may be overrun by different international
organizations and transnational organizations, NGOs, in case of less interest of
states. But there is less probability to be over run in cases of high interest of the
state.
Goals – national interest defines states‘ goals. It might be military, strategic and
economic. There might be hierarchies of issues but national interest is always at
the top.
System structure – the whole international system is accounted by the
distribution, balance and hierarchy of power across the various actors in the
system.
Outcomes – realists believe that relative gains are more important than absolute
gains. Relative gain means one state will gain and the other loses because every
state goes for its national interest and not for mutual benefit. This in other words
means the concept of Zero-sum games
Capabilities – the behavior of a state in the international system depends on
power capability.
Dominant Issues – Military and related political issues like security issues are
important. There are issues of high politics while economic and social issues are

5
 viewed as issues of low politics. Those with strong power capability will win in
the international system.
Type of Action - military and diplomacy are the two dominant types of action.
International cooperation -realists are pessimistic about international
cooperation. For them cooperation is impossible in such anarchic international
system because all states strive to achieve their own national interests.
International Institution - international institutions do not have the capacity to
limit anarchy and the state. And there is no as such super ordinate authority to
rule over state actors.
Historical Development of Realism
Two terms gave the genesis to the concept ‗realism‘. These were ‗real politik‘ and
‗raison d‘etat‘. Real Politik is a German coinage which means the power of
politics. Raison d‟etat is a French term meaning the reason of the state. It is used to
explain an important action for state to take, that is, state‘s motive for an action.

 Thucydides (471-400 B.C.)

He brought about the principle of “might makes right‖. For him, in a world where
there is no power to rule over all states, the strong do what they want to and the
weak accept what they are supposed to accept and do.
 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527)
He was famous for his idea of “national interest”. In his book called ―The Prince‖,
the survival of the state and the prince important thing. The prince must employ any
means to assume the state‘s survival and every state has to keep its own interest.
 Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679)
He generated the idea of “anarchy” for the first time. Since human nature is
egoistic, the state has to run for its interest. International politics like domestic
politics is characterized by the struggle for power. Hence, the state must build its
own power. For him, Power means “man‟s control over the minds of others”.

6
Realists: Thucydides, Niccole Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Martin Wight, Henry
Kissinger, E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, Reinhold Nieburgh, Pat
Buchanan (who is also a mercantilist)

Classical Realism vs. Neo-Realism

 Neo-realism

Level of analysis: international system: One of the central propositions of classical

realism is that the relations between states are necessarily anarchic as there is no central
power (Leviathan, world government) to maintain order and stability. Anarchy simply
means a lack of a central power. Neo-realism builds on this classical theory making
anarchy the logic of the international system. In other words, the anarchy of the
international system is primary, compelling states to act as self-preserving, power-
seeking entities. Thus, the structure (or system) of international politics is what compels
states to act in the international system. The theory implies that states no longer have a
conscious interest in forming foreign policy but that the best possible policy formulas
are determined by the structure of the system itself (anarchy) and the states‘ place within
that system (distribution capabilities).

Classical realism is a state level theory that argues that all states seek power. That is
the first and last principle of state behavior. States seek to increase their power; they
seek to decrease the power of their enemies; and everything they do is in the name of
amassing/building up power. States see other powerful states as rivals because power,
when it is not in your hands, is threatening. People are greedy, insecure, and aggressive,
so the states they govern will have those same characteristics. This doesn‘t mean war,
however. There can be peace, but a durable peace is based upon a stable balance of
power – the big players in the international systems are roughly equal in power
resources, so therefore no one thinks they can win a war. If you don‘t think you can win
a war, you generally don‘t start one. The US and USSR were rivals in the cold war

7
because they were the two most powerful states after WW II. They were both wary of
each other‘s power and became enemies. But they did not go to war because they were
roughly equal in power.

Neo-realism is a system level theory that is an offshoot of classical realism. It argues

all of what classical realism does. However, it sees the cause of all the power struggles
and rivalries not as a function of the nature of states, but as a function of the nature of
the international system. States are out there alone. There is no world government, no
one looking out for states, no rules that can‘t be easily broken. The world is anarchy and
states do what they can get away with to gain power and they do what they must to
protect themselves. Power creates rivalry because it is threatening by its nature. If some
other state is more powerful than your state, you have no way to protect yourself but to
defend yourself or attack your rival first. A neorealist might say the cold war was
caused by the fact that there were only two powerful states that survived WW II. Since
there was no world government or rules of behavior to restrain the rivalry it became the
cold war. This theory dominates scholarly thinking today and will be discussed in a lot
of the books.

Neo-realists: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin

 Neo-classical realism
It is a sort of revival of classical realism. It accepts all of the above about power
rivalries, but it suggests that state characteristics (state level variables) play a large role
in the behavior of states. States don’t just seek power and they don’t just fear other
powerful states, there are reasons that states seek power and there are reasons that
states fear other states. It‘s a sort of combination of classical and neo-realism that
factors in both system level and state level variables. For example, a neo-classical
realist might look at the cold war and say that the differences in ideology between the

8
US and USSR was a factor in the US-USSR rivalry that exacerbated the tendency for
two powerful states to form rivalries.
 Criticisms of Realism
• Limited Content. Realism focuses on national and international security, and on
international conflict; it ignores or discounts the more frequent types of
international interaction that are cooperative in nature.
• Partly Valid Assumptions. Modern IR is characterized by both state and nonstate
actors; there are bi-directional influences of domestic and international politics;
states are neither unitary, nor universally rational actors; states are guided by
complex concerns many of which do not concern power; anarchy describes only the
realm of international security but not other aspects of world politics.
• Complexity. Realism oversimplifies reality. Modern international politics is more
complex and multilayered than what realist theory would have us expect.
•Interdependence. International relations are characterized by complex
interdependence; relations within one state have major effects on other states. No
state—regardless of its power—can uniquely shape all events in the international
system. And no state is completely insensitive to what‘s going on in its
environment.
•Empirical Criticism. Political realism failed in predicting major events and
processes in world politics. In fact, most of the hypotheses derived from this
paradigm have been refuted by empirical research

3.3. Critical/Radical School of Thought

This school of thought consists of variants of other theories in social science stream.
The variants include Marxism, Structuralism and Feminism. Each provides its own
analysis to explain the essence of international system and its constituents as
follows.

9
 A. Marxism-
Level of analysis: Class: societies (nations) are divided along antagonistic class
lines: those who own the means of production, the bourgeois class (e.g. factories
and capital) and those who do not, the proletarian class. As the bourgeois class,
driven by the motive of gaining profit, increasingly alienates the proletarian class
from the means of production, these antagonisms grow stronger and stronger until
the proletarian class realizes its subjugation and rises up against the bourgeois class.
This proletarian class seizes the state machinery (the government) in order to ensure
equitable distribution of goods and capital in society. Therefore, Marx views the
state as an instrument for imposing the will of the bourgeois class or, in the case of
revolution, the proletarian class. It all depends upon which class holds state power.
It argues the following basic assumptions:
The human nature is motivated by self-interest, egoism and the readiness to
dominate others. Due to this, some get rich at the expense of others and hence
this gives rise to a system of exploitation.
Classes are more important than society and states. There is nothing as such
like national interest. But states reflect the interests of the dominant/rich class.
International cooperation among the working class/proletariat [Proletariat
Internationalism] will eventually bring about a just and fair international
system where everyone equally benefits. There could not be peace in the world
unless the proletariat class wages proletarian internationalism and seizes power.
There is no anarchy; rather there is hierarchy in international system. This is
to mean that some states (dominant classes within them) dominate other states
and peoples of the world. States are unified but categorized into different classes
that also dominate the international system.
Economic power is the most crucial power [Economic Determinism] to
dominate others.

10
Marxists: the only Marxist is Marx himself, all others following in his tradition were
influenced by the revolutionary impulse provided by Leninism.

 Marxism-Leninism

Level of analysis: finance capital: the bourgeois classes of the richest nations
accumulate capital (through hoarding). This capital needs an outlet (i.e. somewhere to be
re-invested). These classes form a financial oligarchy in which banks and large
industrial corporations merge to dominate underdeveloped portions of the world. The
existence of finance capital equals imperialism; they are one and the same. The state is
still instrumental (like in Marx) reflecting only the interests of the financial oligarchy.
Therefore, like Marx, class is the central analytic category except Marx’s idea that class
transcends the level of the state (or, society) and takes on an international character.
There is another difference: the proletarian class cannot come to realization of its
alienation and subordination to bourgeois interests as the capitalists create opportunities
for the upper tier of this class. This upper tier is called the „aristocracy of labor.‟
Therefore, the problem of revolution becomes all the more problematic and urgent. For
Lenin, a vanguard party must lead the confused proletariat onto the path of liberation
through seizure of the state apparatus (government) and then redistribute goods and
wealth throughout society. This party then helps establish a ‗dictatorship of the
proletariat.‘ Thus, the central difference between classical Marxism and Marxism-
Leninism is the latter‘s insistence that revolution precedes all theoretical analysis of
political economics.

Marxism-Leninism: Theotonio dos Santos, Rosa Luxembourg, Immanuel Wallerstein,

Che Guevara, Sub-commander Marcos, Mao

11
B. Structuralism-

It argues the following issues:

o There is hegemony of the North or Developed world over the South or the
underdeveloped world. Unequal and unjust relationships prevail in the international
system.
o The international system is more of hierarchical than anarchical. Accordingly,
there are three broad groups of states within it namely:
 The Core (representing the developed first world),
 The Semi-periphery (also called second world) and
 Periphery (typically the under developed).
o Since the Core dominates the international system in general, there is no
potential for international cooperation.

C. Feminism
This theory contends that:
o There is masculine hegemony in the international system. Men not only
dominate the domestic system but also the international system because they
have control over majority of resources, authority and leadership.
o Conflicts and wars are inevitable and there can be no potential for cooperation
in the international system if gender equality is not assured because men are
naturally aggressors.

There are different strands within feminism school of thought with somehow
conflicting views. Though not exhaustive lists, the following are the major strands:
Liberal Feminism: This is the variety of feminism that works within the
structure of mainstream society to integrate women into that structure. Its roots
stretch back to the social contract theory of government instituted by the

12
American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there
from the start, proposing equality for women. As is often the case with liberals,
they slog along inside the system, getting little done amongst the compromises
until some radical movement shows up and pulls those compromises left of
center. This is how it operated in the days of the suffragist movement and again
with the emergence of the radical feminists.

Radical Feminism: Provides the bulwark of theoretical thought in

feminism. Radical feminism provides an important foundation for the rest of
"feminist flavors". Seen by many as the "undesirable" element of feminism,
Radical feminism is actually the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising
from feminism; ideas which get shaped and pounded out in various ways by
other (but not all) branches of feminism. Radical feminism was the cutting edge
of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally
accepted as it was then, nor does it provide a foundation for, for example,
cultural feminism. This term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of
the civil rights and peace movements in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets
the "radical" label is that they view the oppression of women as the most
fundamental form of oppression, one that cuts across boundaries of race,
culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change,
change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact.

Marxist and Socialist Feminism: Marxism recognizes that women are

oppressed, and attributes the oppression to the capitalist/private property
system. Thus they insist that the only way to end the oppression of women is to
overthrow the capitalist system. Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism
meeting radical feminism. Despite significant differences between socialist
feminism and Marxism, they often call themselves "radical," but they use the
term to refer to a completely different "root" of society: the economic system.

13
 Cultural Feminism: As radical feminism died out as a movement, cultural
feminism got rolling. In fact, many of the same people moved from the former
to the latter. They carried the name "radical feminism" with them, and some
cultural feminists use that name still. The difference between the two is quite
striking: whereas radical feminism was a movement to transform society,
cultural feminism retreated to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's
culture. These alternative-building efforts were accompanied with reasons
explaining (perhaps justifying) the abandonment of working for social
change. Notions that women are "inherently kinder and gentler" are one of the
foundations of cultural feminism, and remain a major part of it. A similar
concept held by some cultural feminists is that while various sex differences
might not be biologically determined, they are still so thoroughly ingrained as to
be intractable.
Eco-Feminism: This branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political
or theoretical in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess
worship and vegetarianism. Its basic tenet is that a patriarchal society will
exploit its resources without regard to long term consequences as a direct result
of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchal/hierarchical society. Parallels are often
drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources
and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchal culture, eco-feminists feel
that they are also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth.

Summary of Assumptions of the Radicals

Although all the three radical schools of thought offer their own respective
premises, all in all they have the following basic assumptions.
i. System structure – they believe that the international system is hierarchical
and characterized by:

14
  Exploitation for Marxism
 Inequality for Structuralism, and.
 Patriarchy for Feminism
ii. Actors – states are transitory (transient) actors that last for a short period of
time. But classes are the most important for Marxists, gender for Feminists and
social movements for Structuralists.
iii. International system – they assume that global society forms the core of the
international relations.
iv. Goals – goals in international system are determined by the interests of the
classes, genders, etc. Goals are subject to changes and not static.
v. Outcomes – absolute gains with no discrimination on the bases of sex, classes
and economic statuses are more important than relative gains.
vi. Capabilities – human potential is a more important power to achieve goals.
While Marxists and Structuralists give due focus for the importance of
economic power while Feminists contend that there is a masculine hegemonic
control of all powers in the international system.
vii. Dominant Issues – issues of low politics like economy, human welfare and
identity are more important than issues of high politics like military/security
matters. Economic issues are important for Marxists and Structuralists and
human welfare issues for Feminists.
viii. Type of Action – radicals believe that there should be a collective action and
not an action taken individually by every independent state. Collective action
may remove the inequality/patriarchy for Feminists and exploitation for
Marxists and Structuralists.
ix. International cooperation – it is impossible to have cooperation at
international level unless the hierarchical, unequal and patriarchal relationships
are eliminated. But there is still cooperation (horizontal) between or among the
different groups, that is, classes (rich and poor) for Marxists and Structuralists

15
 and women of the world for Feminists. Such horizontal cooperation also
extends to states. Accordingly, the core cooperates with the core, the Semi
Periphery with the Semi Periphery and the Periphery with the Periphery.
x. International Institutions and Regimes – reflect the prevailing interest of the
dominant states and groups such as classes and gender. Hence, international
institutions cannot be the means for international cooperation and can never
limit the hierarchical power relationships.

3.4. Post-structuralism (Constructivism)

Level of analysis: text: For poststructuralists, power is not a tangible element that exists
in a material actor or institution, but its effects can be measured through its dispersion.

Constructivism is a theory that examines state behavior in the context of state

characteristics. All states are unique and have a set of defining political, cultural,
economic, social, or religious characteristics that influence its foreign policy. States
have identities and those identities define their behavior in the international system. The
US has a foreign policy character. Russia has a foreign policy character. The cold war
is a product of the clash of those identities. The end of the cold war may be a function
of changes in the Russian identity.

 Origins: Philosophy and sociology of knowledge

 Key assumptions
• Behavior is driven by ideas: states behave on the basis of their understanding of
their own identity and of the principles that govern international relations
• Perception of reality is socially constructed: Key values and ideas about
international relations emerge as social conventions

16
• States‟ experience in the international system defines the manner in which
they construct their reality: how states perceive their reality is shaped by the
lessons they draw from the interaction with other states

 Implications
• Key constructs in international relations (e.g., anarchy, power, norms) are
socially constructed: international anarchy exists only to the extent that it is an
ideational convention

• Prevailing shared ideas define international cultures (Hobbesian, Lockean,

Kantian): the structure of the system is based on states‘ shared beliefs about the
rules of international behavior

• Agents (states) and structures (system) mutually constitute each other: ideas
shape behavior; behavior shapes ideas.

• Since the structure of the system is a result of shared ideas of states, it is

constituted by agents.

• However, since the structure is a function of states behavior and behavior shapes
ideas, agents are constituted by structure.

 The Common divisions of power by traditional IR/IL scholars are:

Tangible elements of power: military capability, economic strength, population,
technology, intelligence, also law, but only ―official law‖ Intangible elements of
power: national will or resolve, power differentials. For example, a classical realist
would argue that power resides in the state machinery alone, the tangible elements, are
the only important aspect of politics (a ―unitary actor‖) whereas a poststructuralist would
argue that power resides in other venues less amenable to direct or visible criticism
Poststructuralists: Ann Marie Slaughter, Michel Foucault, Vaclav Havel,
Subcommander Marcos, Owen Harries

17
3.5. Other Modern Theories

A. Cognitive Theories

These are theories which examine the role of psychological processes – perception,
misperception, belief systems – on the foreign policy behavior of states. It can be state,
organization, or individual level of analysis depending on whether the research is
focusing on the psychological dynamics of a state decision maker or the shared
perceptions of an organization, or the shared belief systems of a nation. Cognitive
theorists might look at the shared images of the US and USSR political leaders had of
each other and explain the cold war as the product of these negative images and the
inability of either state to reshape the perceptions of the other.

B. Hegemony Theory:
Hegemonia, in the original Greek sense, means ‗leadership‘. In international
relations, a hegemon is the ‗leader‘ or ‗leading state‘ of a group of states. But a
‗group of states‘ presupposes relations between them. Indeed, leadership by
necessity implies some degree of social order and collective organisation. The
states which form the group are the units, of which the hegemonic state is but one,
albeit the primary one. It is clear, therefore, that when we think about hegemony,
we are thinking as much about interstate systems. Hegemony does not exist by
itself, but is a unique political phenomenon that exists within a given interstate
system, which is itself the product of specific historical and political circumstances.

Hegemony consists of the possession and command of a multifaceted set of power

resources. More importantly, all hegemonic states share one common characteristic:
they enjoy „structural power‟. It is this structural power that permits the hegemon
to occupy a central position within its own system, and, if it so chooses, to play a

18
leading role in it. Indeed, the ability to shape other states‘ preferences and interests
is just as important as the hegemon‘s ability to command power resources, for the
exercise of structural power makes it far less likely that the hegemon will have to
mobilise its resources in a direct and coercive manner. This is also why only some
states, with their rich endowment of human and natural resources, have at least the
potential to become hegemons. Hegemony, then, which in any case is backed by a
preponderance of material power, may be sustained by a hegemonic transnational
culture that legitimates the rules and norms of a hierarchical interstate system.

Thus hegemony at a global level is not necessarily to be equated with material or

military dominance (as in some forms of realism, particularly in the way that realists
elaborate hegemonic stability theory); nor is it necessarily to be regarded as a desirable
public good (as in some forms of liberal internationalism). According to Gramsci,
the definition of “state” is force plus consent. This state is managed by the
“historical bloc” those in power who apologize for the way things are while at the same
time forming compromises with those populations who might object to state policies.

The central idea behind hegemonic stability theory is that the world needs a single
dominant state to create and enforce the rules of free trade among the most important
members of the system. To be a hegemon, a state must have the capability to enforce the
rules of the system, the will to do so, and a commitment to a system that is perceived as
mutually beneficial to the major states. In turn, capability rests upon three attributes: a
large, growing economy; dominance in a leading technological or economic sector; and
political power backed up by military power. Over time, there is an uneven growth of
power within the system as new technologies are developed. An unstable system will
result if economic, technological, and other changes erode the international hierarchy
and undermine the position of the dominant state. Pretenders to hegemonic control will
emerge if the benefits of the system are viewed as unacceptably unfair. A hegemonic

19
state will allow other states to ‗free ride‘ on the benefits that the hegemon provides to
the international economy in the form of international public goods.

On the other hand, if power is more evenly distributed among states, they are less
likely to support an open trading system. The less economically developed states
will try to avoid the political danger of becoming vulnerable to pressure from
others, whilst the state whose hegemony is in decline will fear a loss of power to its
rivals and will find it hard to resist domestic pressures for protection from cheap
imports. Despite its attractive simplicity, the theory suffers from very few agreed-
upon cases of hegemonic stability. Empirically, most scholars cite three instances of
hegemonic stability: the Netherlands in the seventeenth century; Britain in the late
nineteenth century; and the United States after 1945. To base a theory on only three
case studies is problematic.

The United States is a questionable case for two reasons. First, during the Great
Depression, when the US had the ability to stabilise the system, it did not do so,
even though stabilisation was certainly in its and the world‘s interest. Second, US
hegemony has been fleeting. The high mark of US global economic hegemony was
in the immediate decades after 1945. Since the 1960s, the US has actually declined
in importance as Germany and Japan have eroded its dominance. How strong a case
of hegemonic stability is the US if we can only point to roughly 27 years of
economic dominance (1944–71)? One of the difficulties of evaluating hegemonic
stability theory is the absence of agreed criteria for measuring hegemony. The
theory was developed against a backdrop of a perceived decline of American
hegemony and a dramatic rise in Japanese power. Since the end of the cold war, the
collapse of the former Soviet Union and the prolonged recession in Japan have
forced many scholars to re-evaluate their estimates of hegemonic decline.

20
 C. Post-Modern Approach

The intellectual foundations of post-modernism are largely in the humanities, but

the current debates extend well beyond issues of humanistic versus social science
perspectives on world politics. They are rooted in epistemology: what can we
know? Rather than addressing the validity of specific variables, levels of analysis,
or methodologies, most post-modernists challenges the premise that the social
world constitutes an objective, knowable reality that is amenable to systematic
description and analysis.

Although realism has been a prime target, all existing theories and methodologies
are in the cross-hairs of post-modern critics who, as Pauline Rosenau noted,
―soundly and swiftly dismiss international political economy, realism (and
neorealism), regime theory, game theory, rational actor models, integration theory,
transnational approaches, world system analysis and the liberal tradition in
general.‖ Nor are any of the conventional methodologies employed by political
scientists or diplomatic historians spared/safe.

Some versions of post-modernism label ―evidence‖ and “truth” as meaningless

concepts, and they are critical of categories, classification, generalization, and
conclusions. Nor is there any objective language by which knowledge can be
transmitted; the choice of language unjustifiably grants privileged positions to one
perspective or another. Thus, the task of the observer is to deconstruct “texts”
(everything is a “text”). Each one creates a unique ―reading‖ of the matter under
consideration, none can ultimately be deemed superior to any other, and there are
no guidelines for choosing among them.
Indeed, they appear to undermine the foundations of both undertakings,
eliminating conventional research methods and aspirations for the cumulation of

21
knowledge. Even more moderate versions of post-modernism are skeptical of
theories and methods based on reason and Western logic, but works of this genre
have occasionally offered insightful critiques of conventional theories,
methodologies and concepts.

Finally, most post-modernists are highly critical of other approaches because those
all have failed to come up with viable solutions for mankind‘s most pressing
problems, including war, poverty, and oppression. Though some progress has been
made on all these fronts, not even a modern-day Pangloss would declare victory on
any of them. Post-modernist nihilism/negativism prevails over all other theories.
Generally, Postmodern approaches call into question the basic categories and
methods by which international relations has traditionally been studied, arguing that
international relations scholarship is an arbitrary discipline invented by powerful
special interests to advance their own agendas.

22