Theories of International Relations-Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. By Ishaya, Solomon. Phone number: 08095266843. Email address: ishayasolomonzuru@gmail.com


Basically, theories of international relations seek to explain happenings in the international system based on historical evidences. Furthermore, the theories of IR attempt to uncover why states behave the way the do in the international system. In other words they seek to answer one question, that is, why do states behave the way they do in the international system?. It thus becomes clear that state behavior in the international system is the major focus of theories in international relations. Different states react differently to different actions and inactions from other states in the international system, this work therefore seeks to explain some of the core theories of international relations.

In trying to comprehend and explain their behaviors theorists of international relations have adopted different levels of analysis from which they are to analyze state behavior. According to Newmann(n.d. Para. 3) Some theorists of IR adopt the stystem level of analysis in which state behavior is seen as a consequence of the nature of the international system in which states operate, other scholars adopt the state level of analysis under which internal factors peculiar to indivisual nation-states
are responsible fo the way and/or manner in which sates behave in their dealing with other sovereign states in the international system. Other scholars tend to adopt the organization level of analysis of state behavior which argues that organization within a particular states can influence how the state acts towards other states for example the FBI, CIA or military influencing the way the US behaves in the international system. Lastly, some scholars adopt the indivisual level of analysis to put forward their theory, they argue that state behavior has a lot to do with the personality of the leaders or indivisuals at the helm of affairs. For example they asked questions like would The US have reacted different towards Iraq and the 9/11 incident if another person other than George .W. Bush was the president? Or would Nigeria have allowed Cameroun to have Bakassi peninsula after the international court's ruling if say Abacha was the head of state in place of Obasanjo?

All theories of IR adopt one or more of the above levels of analysis to explain state behavior in the international system. The theories of IR that i will be discussing in these work are; Realism-classical, neo-realism, and neo-classical realism, Liberalism, and constructivism.


REALISM:
Realism is the happens to be the earliest and to some extent most dominant theory of International relations. Thucydides the authous of "History of the Peloponessian war" is considered to be one of the earliest realist scholars, others include but are not limited to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, E.H. Carr. The basic tenets of realism are as follows:

(1) that the international is in a state of anarchy in the sense that there is no any form of government in place that possesses the power to control states' behavior in their relations with one another. The anarchichal nature is thus seen by realist to be hostile for states to operate in, as such every state has to find a means of survival. Thus survival is the principal goal of every state in the international system, foreign invasion and occupation are therefore the most pressing threats facing any state.

(2) secondly, realists view states to be the sole actors in international politics, they also argued states are rational actors. That is to say since states desire and work to survive, they act in any way in other to ensure their continuous existence and to prevent their extinction.

(3) Realists also argue that states possess some military capacity, and the level of military capacity of a particular states tells more of the power that the state possess. Thus, realists emphasize the distribution of coercive material capacity as the determinant of international politics (Slaughter, 2011 para.2).

(4) realists also argue that no state knows what its neighbours intend precisely. This can be used as a way to view the rise in secret agencies having secret agents infiltrating in to other states' affairs in other to know what they are up to, the CIA, MOSAD, MI6, KGB are some of such secrets agencies. This makes the world an uncertain place according to realists.

(5) realists further opined that in such and atmosphere of hostilities and uncertaintiess it is the great powers, that is, those states with superior military capability that are decisive, international relations is thus viewed as a story of great power politics (Slaughter, 2011 para.3)


Mearsheimer (2001 as cited in Slaughter, 2011) argued that there are two types of realists who tend to disagree on certain issues, the offensive realists argued that in order to ensure survival states will seek to maximise their power relative to others. He further stated that if rival countries possess sufficient power to threaten a state it can never be safe. Hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue if it can.

Defensive realists on the other hand uphold that domination is an unwise strategy for any state that wants to survive, they note that seeking hegemony may bring a state into dangerous conflicts with its peers. Instead defensive realists emphasized the need for stability of systems through balance of power, in which there is a certain degree of power distribution amongst states to the extent that none will risk attacking the other. Polarity which connotes distribution of power among the great powers is thus a major to
tool for ensuring state survival. Lets take a look at the some of the sub-theories that are embedded in realism.
CLASSICAL REALISM: this is a standpoint that was first developed and adopted by theorist of IR, classical realist adopt a state level of analysis. They argue that states by their very nature try to possess power in the international system in other to decrease the powers of other states deemed to be hostile or unfriendly. States believe that the more power they have they more secure they are, as such they try as much possible to always try to top-up the military and diplomatic capabilities in other to create the notion that they are more powerful. This explains the reason for the cold war between USSR and USA. The both of them being most powerful states then in the post-world war era perceived themselves as enemies though with no physical confrontations because they both believed they possessed equal power.
Thus, the struggle for power according to classical realists doesn't breed war due to the presence of mechanisms to ensure a balance of power between and amongst states. In other words in such an environment of hostility in the international system the only guarantee for peace is a stable balance of power (Newmann, n.d. para. .

NEO-REALISM:

this is an offshoot of classical realism, its major proponent is kenneth Walts. Neo-realists agree with classical realists in some aspects but their major point of departure is that neo-realists adopt a system level of analysis and thus argues that state struggle for power in the international system is not as a result of the nature of the state but as a result of the nature of the international system, in other words the atmosphere or situation obtainable in the international system compels states to struggle for power. What then is the nature of the nature of the international system that forces states to struggle for power? Neo-realists opined that the absence of a central government in the international system to regulate the behavior of states and checkmate their excesses makes the international system to be in a state of anarchy, as such states are being forced to look for means of survival and since state A can not trust state B to guarantee its survival state A has to resort to "self-help survival technique" which has to do wit acquiring enough power as possible to with stand and overcome any form of threat (Newmann, n.d. Para. 9).

NEO-CLASSICAL REALISM: this is a combination of both classical realism and neo-realism in that they argue that states behavior is as a result of the nature of the states and that the fear of other states in the international system and a desire for survival by states is a determinant of their behavior. Neo-classical realists went further to state that there are other things that maybe responsible for state behavior other than the nature of the states, nature of international system and the desire for survival by states (Newmann, n.d. Para 10).

LIBERALISM
Liberalism also called idealism by some is a theory of International relations that originated as a critique of realist theories. Some of the proponents of this theory are but not limited to Immanuel Kant, Andrew Moravcsik, Edward Mainsfield, and Jack Snyder. Liberalists adop a state level of analysis and argued that international relations is not all about rivalry between states, they opined that there is a lot of cooperation between and among states in the international system. Interaction between states in the international system is not limited to military/political/security but also economic, social, and cultural. Liberals opined that overtime states have learned that cooperation is much more mutually beneficial for all of them as such they try to establish a kind of social order in the international system which promotes cooperation. This brings about the creation of enforceable international laws, the creation of an international judicial body such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and lots of its kind.

CONSTRUCTIVISM:

Constructivism adopts a state level of analy and thus argues that states are dynamic and unique as such they view states behavior from the angle of indivisual state characteristics. They argued that states have their unique social, political, ideological, cultural and even religious characteristics that influence their behaviors (Wendt, 2000 as cited in Slaughter, 2011 para. 13).
The major arguement of Constructivists is the belief that international relations is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture and social identities. By "ideas" constructivists reffe to the goals (national interest), threats, fears, beliefs, norms, values and other similar things that influence the behavior of state and non-state actors in the international system.
Constructivist argue that state behavior is socially created by cognitive structures whic gives meaning to the material world. Whereas realists are concerned about security and military capability (power) and liberalists are concerned about cooperation and inter-dependence in all aspects especially economically between states, constructivism is concerned mainly with the role of ideas in shaping the behavior of states and the international system. For example they argued that an increase in the size of the North Korean military is likely to be viewed with much greater concern by South Koreans and vice-versal(Slaughter, 2011). Some proponents of constructivism are Alexander Wendt, Emmanuel Adler, Iain Johnstone, Micheal Barnett and others.

In conclusions, there abound theories of international but this work focused on only three-realism, liberalism and constructivism, which the writer considers to be the foundational theories of IR, that is, theories upon which the foundations of other theories were built. I am of the opinion that for students of international relations to vividly understand other theories of IR it is paramount for them to first of all seek to understand the three afore explained theories of IR, this prompted me to embark on this task of watering down these theories in other to make it clearer for students of IR.
From the above theories we can thus conclude by saying that survival is of essence for every state in the international system as such states use what ever tool at their disposal to ensure that they survive in the midst of hostilities in the international system even if it means going to war but that does not mean that cooperation between states is overruled, as a matter of fact the possibility for cooperation is higher because states have realized that it is of mutual benefit to them, we can also sufficiently argue that the international system consists of other non-state actors who play a crucial role in international relations, and also the role of idea in shaping state behavior and the international system can not be overemphasized.

REFERENCE

Newmann, B. (n.d). A brief introduction to the theories of international relations. Retrieved from http://www.people.vcu.edu/~wnewmann/468theory.htm

Slaughter, A.M. (2011). "International relations, principal theories". Max plank Encyclopedia of public international law. Retrieved from http://www.mpepil.com