Theories of International Relations

Student’s name:
Instructor’s name:
Course:
Date:
Theories of International Relations
International Relations is a significant area of study in Political Science. It integrates many theoretical approaches and borrows from a wide range of related disciplines such as law and governance. Veteran scholars have locked horns in making various postulates about the subject. Whereas some of the theories are universally accepted, others faced contentions and challenged from different perspectives, Marxist scholars, feminist and post-colonial have had a critique of international relations demonstration of the behavior of the state mostly concerned with power and state construction. The theories of international relations expound on the working of global systems. Conventional approaches include liberalism, realism, and constructivism.
Theories of international relations are hypothesized from the idea of national interests. Apparently, Individual nations profess certain reservations in respect of how they relate to other states. Governments will always seek self-preservation in the search for social or economic prosperity. In the view of economic benefit, especially trade, countries will always strive to outdo their close allies. There is an apparent need for countries to lead in global markets as a way of seeking international recognition. The military equally at the heart of international relations and is a measure of the might of a state. Often, Nations appear to diametrically conflicting interests that are only reconcilable through extensive negotiations and at times, war.

Realism
The theory postulates that states are keen on outdoing one another regarding power. It suggests that governments are autonomous and no amount of coercion can force relations between states. Systems of governance are also anarchical such that sovereign power of the key is the single most important element for any nation. State power exists in different contexts including diplomatic, military and economic forces and that state must desire power for self-preservation to be achieved. Realism is conceptualized through international politics that has advanced following the quest by states to muscle out own sovereign powers.
The theory of realism has emanated from the growing need for countries to seek self-reliance. It presumes that colonization is the worst ordeal that can happen to any country. One possible advantage of realism is that a state focuses on national interest which results in substantial political and military systems. The major disadvantage is that a country fails to address significant internal issues such as cultural development and non-existence of democratic peace.
Liberalism
This theory is the opposite of realism in the sense that realists profess a common agenda whereas liberalism focuses on the unique attributes of states at individual levels. It reveals less cohesiveness between states and more individuality regarding unique feature or principals attributable to a given country. Liberalism is mostly linked to advanced democracies and liberal states as it has led to the development of democratic peace which has consequently resulted in the absence of war between liberal states. The theory rose following the view that the ideas of realism were outdated. The advancement of globalization has also over the years, camouflaged military power.
The concept of liberalism resulted from the realization that use of military commands would have adverse outcomes. It would be therefore prudent to exercise international corporations to benefit all the states at stake. It also makes great considerations for an alternative to military power that is socio-economic power. The theory is superior to the realism in that it is not practical for any state so focus on military force as the single most component in international relation.
It is apparent that despite nations having similar needs, there exist numerous conditions that separate such interests. The importance of liberalism is that it helps to demystify the role of international foreign relations. The role of globalization should be governed by fostering prosperity and corporation between different states. The theory, however, presents a challenge to international law practitioners who do not consider domestic regimes.
Constructivism
Constructivism is ontology about human motivation and is governed by rationalism. The theory has evident deviations from the views of liberalists and realists particularly in the understanding of anarchy. Some have also argued that constructivist is mostly concerned with the construction of interest, unlike other theories which take interest as fixed and given. Constructivists differ with the realist over the notion that excessive state power results in war and by contrast, it emphasizes on social and the relation between states on the elements of states and the wants of the States. They hold a view that anarchy is the making of the state and therefore does not define possibilities of fallouts between states.
The theory describes a system of global interaction that is based on unique identities of different countries. Nations coexist positively or adversely based on how they interact but not because of the underlying differences that define them and this relationship greatly contribute to the success or failure of international life. This social or rather mutual constitution helps in defining and influencing the states for example fear that exist between the United States and Korea. It is only through interactions that define the extent of enmity between the two states. Constructivists are also of the view that states are rational and continually seek self-sufficiency. It also accommodates social norms as an important element of international politics. It is also keen on the role of non-state actors, for example, the non-governmental organization opinions simply because constructivist has an interest in beliefs and ideology. Therefore, non-state actors would come up with important issues such as the use of land mines or even the application of human rights. Embracing non-state organizations believed to have particular ideologies could have the capacity to influence state behavior. However, it notes the possibility of international bureaucracies developing and targeting their interests for example free trade, and this may be against the wish of the state.
The biggest challenges to constructivism is that the intentions of unifying individualism and collectivism are almost unattainable. In fact many non-constructivist argue that the state’s interest on the needs is practically necessary thus cannot change and also desires for power, wealth and survival hence in the real sense the main interest are material forces and the nature of the state. However, the advantages of the concepts far outweigh the challenges in that their ideals are synonymous with global integration for example other theorist have recognized the social aspect content of the concepts they apply such as status and reputation, and this can be attributed to constructivism.
Conclusion
All the above theories of international relation are unified by internal and external aims of prosperity. Some theories may have a unique or rather extreme conclusion, but generally, no theory can be described as right or wrong, each has its goal and objective it pursues therefore not worth to describe as rivals on presentation of world politics.