International Relations

Disiplin Hubungan Internasional menurut kamus terbaru International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences ed William A. Darity

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International relations (IR) is the study of relationships
among the actors of international politics. Such actors
include nation-states, international organizations, nongovernmental
organizations, and multinational corporations.
The field is also sometimes called international
politics, international studies, or international affairs. In the
United States, IR is a branch of political science, while it
is considered its own interdisciplinary field in the
European and British academy. What makes IR unique
from other forms of political analysis is that international
politics is characterized by anarchy—or the absence of any
authority superior to the nation-state. Sovereign states are
thus the primary, though not the sole, important actors in
the international system, because historically states are the
organizations with the legitimate authority to use force
within their geographically recognized areas.

APPROACHES TO IR THEORY
IR theorists do not all share the same epistemology (ways of
knowing) or methodology (analyzing what they know) for
approaching the puzzles of world politics. There are generally
three epistemological perspectives in the field of IR. A
plurality of IR scholars are positivists, and assert that the
only way to know something about the world is to
approach it scientifically, by producing models that approximate
the reality of international politics. These models are
tested with facts in order to predict the future behavior of
international actors. Interpretivists disagree with this
approach, in that they do not aim to predict the behavior of
international actors, but to interpret and understand the
motives behind that behavior. Interpretivists see a world of
intersubjective understandings and ideas to be interpreted
rather than used for prediction. Post-positivists think that
both interpretation and causal analysis is inappropriate, and
that the theories and models developed by IR theorists
could instead be used to control global populations. Postpositivists
seek to emancipate oppressed groups by deconstructing
the relationships and concepts taken for granted
in world politics to reveal how they are not “natural” but
forms of power and discipline.
Epistemology influences the methodology various
scholars use. For instance, most (but not all) positivists use
quantitative, statistical techniques to test their models,
whereas interpretivists and post-positivists use qualitative
techniques (such as discourse analysis or process tracing)
to illustrate their arguments.
There are several theoretical approaches in IR, as well
as substantive subfields of study, as noted below.

Realism Realist IR theorists argue that the condition of
anarchy in international politics results in one motivation
for state action—survival. Because power helps states
ensure their own survival, state interests are defined in
terms of power. This means that cooperation among states
will be rare, and plans to overcome such tension will ultimately
fail. Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau
(1946), John Herz, Raymond Aron, and E. H. Carr conceptualized
power in a variety of ways—both materially
(the military, the economy, geography) and strategically
(diplomacy, prestige). While much of the defining literature
of classical realism was produced in the immediate
decades after World War II (1939–1945), later scholars
such as Anthony Lang, Richard Ned Lebow, and Michael
C. Williams (2004) resurrected the critical nature of classical
realist work.

Liberalism Liberalism assumes that while states operate
within anarchy and are primarily self-interested, this selfinterest
leads to cooperation rather than conflict.
Institutional liberalism posits that international organizations and
regimes facilitate cooperation by reducing
uncertainty among states and increasing transparency.
Economic or commercial liberalism asserts that open trading
systems make cooperation more likely because the
benefits of trade outweigh the costs of going to war.
Political liberalism assesses the likelihood of cooperation
or conflict based upon the nature of a country’s political
system. Political liberalism has developed into a separate
research program known as democratic peace theory, which
posits that democratic countries are less likely to go to war
with one another because of the structural and cultural
nature of democratic decision-making. Liberalism is often
termed idealism, but this label is inaccurate in that all IR
perspectives focus upon certain ideals over others. Yet liberalism
is an admittedly more optimistic view of international
politics than most other perspectives.

English School (Grotian or International Society) The
English school has been a viable approach to the study of
IR theory since the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Representatives of this school include Herbert Butterfield,
Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, R. J. Vincent, Martin Wight,
and more recently Barry Buzan, Timothy Dunne, Robert
Jackson, Nicholas Wheeler, and Barak Mendelsohn. The
name English school refers to the location where many of
the founders of the school first congregated—the London
School of Economics. These scholars acknowledge the
role that material forces play in international politics, but
also how rules, principles, and ideas augment these material
forces. Thus, while states cannot escape anarchy in
their calculations with other states, certain “rules” of
membership govern state relations. Therefore, international
politics resembles an anarchical society where sovereignty
as a principle is usually respected because states
value order to ensure their survival (see Bull 2002).

Constructivism Constructivism is a sociological approach
to social relations, rather than a specific theory of international
politics. IR constructivists see the relations and patterns
of nation-states and nonstate actors as socially
constructed, or made up of intersubjectively shared ideas.
Constructivists explore the manner in which identities,
discourse, and rules shape and are shaped by states. They
claim that states seek to do more than survive in a condition
of anarchy; states also seek to socialize with other
nation-states. Because ideas are intersubjectively shared
among states, ideas can change and thus so can the interests
of nation-states. This does not mean, however, that
constructivists deny the importance of conflict. IR constructivists
include such mainstream scholars as Alexander
Wendt, Martha Finnemore, and Michael Barnett, as well
as critical theorists such as Nicholas Onuf (1989) and
Friedrich Kratochwil (1989).

Neorealism and Neoliberalism

Neorealism (sometimestermed structural realism)
and neoliberalism both represent
attempts to develop classical realism and liberalism
into scientific theories of international politics to make
them more amenable to causal analysis. The defining publications—
for neorealism, Theory of International Politics
(1979) by Kenneth Waltz; for neoliberalism, Power and
Interdependence (1977) by Robert Keohane and Joseph
Nye—both attempted to develop systemic analyses of
international politics. Both neorealists and neoliberals
argue that states are units that act rationally to survive in
a realm of anarchy, and such a universal motive produces
regular behavior that can be predicted through hypothesis
testing and theoretical development similar to that found
in the physical sciences. The principal disagreement
between the two approaches is whether states are concerned
with relative gains (i.e., how a state performs relative
to other states) or absolute gains.

Foreign Policy Analysis
Foreign policy analysis seeks to understand the ways in
which foreign policies are enacted
by individuals or small groups of decision makers.
International politics, from this perspective, is grounded
in decisions made by leaders and elites. This subfield of IR
borrows heavily from other disciplines in social science—
most notably psychology. Much of this work views elites
as having, for various reasons, imperfect rational capabilities,
and thus attempts to make intelligible how individuals
interpret incoming information and produce decisions
that result in varied and sometimes disastrous outcomes.
Although much foreign policy analysis focuses on individuals,
it also accommodates the influence of domestic
political entities (such as parties and coalitions) and
bureaucracies on the foreign policy decisions made by
elites. Scholars who have shaped this approach include
Richard Snyder, James Rosenau, Harold and Margaret
Sprout, Margaret Hermann, Charles Hermann, Richard
Herrmann, Stephen Walker, and Martha Cottam.

CRITICAL THEORY
Critical theorists seek to challenge the core concepts and
“commonsense” or prevailing wisdoms of mainstream IR
approaches. Such theorists posit that mainstream
approaches are “problem-solving theories” that through
predictive analysis seek to form solutions to the most
prevalent puzzles of international politics. Critical theory,
on the other hand, is meant to develop an understanding
of how theories and assumptions in IR are formed in the
first place—and to reveal how some of these assumptions
(like the “permanence” of nation-states) might instead be
responsible for much of the suffering that occurs in international
politics. Several forms of critical theory are discussed
below.

Poststructuralism Poststructuralism draws on the social
theory of philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel
Foucault to reveal how forces and power operate in subtle
ways. Poststructuralists problematize even the idea that
history is connected in any meaningful way. Notable IR
post-structuralists include Richard Ashley, David
Campbell, and James Der Derian.

Neo-Marxist and Gramscian Theory World-systems theory
and dependency theory are forms of what is known as
neo-Marxist IR. Such perspectives focus less upon states
and more upon the forces of capital and production in the
international economic system. Gramscian perspectives
(derived from the work of early twentieth-century Italian
Marxist Antonio Gramsci), defined by Robert Cox (1981)
and Stephen Gill, have focused upon the ways in which
social relationships work in conjunction with market
forces to produce certain processes and patterns evident in
the international economy. It is not enough, Gramscian
scholars posit, for the forces of capital to create the
inequality that exists in international politics. It is also
necessary for individuals and groups to believe in the market
itself—and thus such internalization (ideas plus materials)
makes change much more difficult and inequality
more permanent.

Feminism Feminist IR is a subset of feminist social theory.
As a form of critical theory, it challenges the mainstream
assumptions of IR. For instance, feminist IR scholars such
as J. Ann Tickner (1992), Spike Peterson, Elizabeth
Hutchings, Christine Sylvester, and Cynthia Enloe have
explored the masculine assumptions (war, aggressive
behavior, etc.) that underpin how the nation-state is conceptualized
in IR theory.

SUBFIELDS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

All these perspectives, to varying degrees, encompass
important subfields in IR. Security studies, also known as
international security, focuses on threats to states and the
state system that stem from the environment, health (such
as pandemics like HIV-AIDS), nuclear weapons, and
transnational terrorist organizations. Certain scholars in
this subfield use formal modeling and game theory to
understand the strategic patterns of state behavior. Civil
society studies focuses upon the manner in which nongovernmental
organizations influence the state system.
Another normative turn in IR theory has produced
vibrant work on international ethics. Much of this work
focuses upon phenomena such as humanitarian intervention,
human rights doctrines, just war theory, genocide
and ethnic conflict, and economic deprivation. The field
of international political economy examines the relationships
between nation-states and the international market,
as well as how multinational corporations use the global
economy to further their material goals. And international
law remains an important subfield of interest for IR scholars.
For instance, many constructivists and English school
theorists have used the development of international laws
to demonstrate their arguments regarding the presence of
identity communities or an international society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bull, Hedley. [1977] 2002. The Anarchical Society: A Study of
Order in World Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Cox, Robert. 1981. Social Forces, States, and World Orders:
Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal
of International Studies 10 (2): 126–155.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye Jr. [1977] 2000. Power
and Interdependence. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions on the
Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International
Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Morgenthau, Hans. [1946] 1978. Politics Among Nations: The
Struggle for Power and Peace. 6th ed. New York: Knopf.
Onuf, Nicholas 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in
Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
Tickner, J. Ann 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist
Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Williams, Michael C. 2004. The Realist Tradition and the Limits
of International Relations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Brent J. Steele

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Popularity: 6% [?]