Introduction to International Relations – Reviewer

What is International Relations (IR)?

International Relations (IR) is a field of study concerned with the interactions, relationships, and behavior
of states and other actors in the global arena. It examines how nations cooperate, compete, and
sometimes clash over political, economic, cultural, and security issues. Brown and Ainsley (2005)
describe IR as the study of relations between states, understood primarily through diplomatic, military,
and strategic terms. This emphasis reflects the traditional focus of IR on state-to-state relations, though
modern IR has expanded to include non-state actors like international organizations, multinational
corporations, and even advocacy networks.

IR is inherently interdisciplinary — it draws knowledge from political science (for theories of power and
governance), history (to understand past conflicts and alliances), economics (to analyze trade,
development, and globalization), and law (for treaties and international norms).

The scope of IR is vast, including:

●​ Security studies: war, peace, military alliances.​

●​ International political economy: trade, globalization, development.​

●​ Global governance: the role of the UN, WTO, IMF, and other institutions.​

●​ Human rights and ethics: humanitarian intervention, refugee crises.​

●​ Environmental politics: climate change cooperation and disputes.​

Prof. Manning’s witty remark in 1939 — that a student of IR is “always apologizing for not knowing more
about everything” — reflects the complexity and interconnectedness of world politics. Every issue, from
climate change to cyberwarfare, can have international implications.

The International System

Hedley Bull (1977) defined the international system as existing when two or more states interact
frequently enough to affect one another’s decisions, behaving — at least in part — as components of a
larger whole. This concept helps us understand that IR is not random but is shaped by systemic patterns.

Core Features of the International System

1.​ Anarchy – Unlike domestic political systems, there is no central global authority to enforce laws.
Even the United Nations cannot compel states to act against their will without consent or power to
 enforce.​

2.​ Offensive military capability – All states possess, or can develop, means to defend themselves
or threaten others. Even small states can harm others, whether through conventional forces,
cyberwarfare, or alliances.​

3.​ Uncertainty of intentions – A state’s friendly posture today does not guarantee it will remain so
tomorrow. This uncertainty drives arms races, alliances, and deterrence strategies.​

Because of these features, the system is often described as a self-help system where states prioritize
their own survival, sovereignty, and security above all else.

Major Theories of International Relations

IR theories are analytical lenses that explain why states act as they do and predict possible outcomes in
the international system. While each theory has different assumptions, they often address three
questions:

1.​ What motivates state behavior?​

2.​ What is the role of power?​

3.​ How can conflict or cooperation be explained?​

The main schools of thought are Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, and Marxism, each with
sub-branches.

1. Realism
Realism is rooted in the belief that power and security are the most important concerns in world politics.
It has ancient roots — Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War, Machiavelli’s The Prince, and
Hobbes’ Leviathan all influence its core ideas. Realism assumes the world is dangerous, conflict is
inevitable, and states must rely on themselves to survive.

Core Assumptions

●​ States are the primary actors: Other actors exist, but states have the final say over war and
peace.​

●​ The system is anarchic: There is no world government with real enforcement power.​
 ●​ States act rationally: They weigh costs and benefits to maximize survival.​

●​ Military power is central: Control of military resources ensures influence and deterrence.​

●​ Conflict is inevitable: Competition over scarce resources, mistrust, and security dilemmas make
lasting peace difficult.​

Realism often uses the Security Dilemma to explain conflict: when one state increases its military to feel
secure, others see it as a threat and respond in kind, leading to an arms race even if no one initially
sought war.

1.1 Classical Realism

Classical realism traces state behavior to human nature. It holds that humans are inherently
self-interested and power-seeking; since states are led by humans, they inherit this competitive,
sometimes aggressive, nature.

Key Thinkers: Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, Hans Morgenthau.

●​ Application in the State: Leaders must be pragmatic, prioritizing survival over morality.
Morgenthau argued that moral principles must be adapted to political reality.​

●​ Application in the International System: Alliances and balances of power are tools to prevent
domination by one state.​

●​ Example: The Cold War’s balance of power strategy, where both the US and USSR maintained
spheres of influence to prevent the other’s dominance.​

Criticism: It may be too pessimistic, assuming constant conflict, and downplaying cooperative human
tendencies.

1.2 Neorealism (Structural Realism)

Kenneth Waltz shifted focus from human nature to the structure of the international system as the
cause of state behavior. States are constrained by the anarchic structure, which forces them into self-help
behavior regardless of leaders’ personalities.

Assumptions:

1.​ States have offensive military capability.​

2.​ They can never fully know other states’ intentions.​

 3.​ Survival is the overriding goal.​

4.​ States are rational actors making strategic decisions.​

Defensive Realism (Waltz)

●​ Argues that seeking too much power is counterproductive, as it triggers balancing coalitions.​

●​ States should aim for security rather than dominance.​

●​ Example: NATO’s defensive posture during the Cold War, aimed at deterring but not provoking
the USSR.​

Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer)

●​ States should aim for maximum power and, if possible, regional hegemony to ensure security.​

●​ Competition is constant, and expansion is often rational.​

●​ Example: Imperial Germany’s aggressive policies before WWI, aimed at dominating Europe.​

Criticism of Neorealism: It assumes all states respond similarly to structural pressures, ignoring
domestic politics, ideology, and leadership.

2. Liberalism
Liberalism challenges realism’s pessimism by arguing that cooperation is not only possible but can be
beneficial for all. It emphasizes economic interdependence, democracy, and institutions as pathways
to peace.

Core Assumptions

●​ Multiple actors, including non-state actors, influence international politics.​

●​ Economic interdependence makes war costly.​

●​ International institutions can reduce uncertainty and foster trust.​

●​ Domestic politics affect foreign policy; democracies tend to be more peaceful toward each other
(Democratic Peace Theory).​
 ●​ Progress in international relations is possible through mutual benefit.​

2.1 Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism highlights the importance of internal characteristics of states. Democracies, open
economies, and law-abiding states are seen as “good” states, less likely to engage in war with one
another.

●​ Example: The European Union as a peace project — deep economic integration reduces
incentives for conflict.​

●​ Application: Promoting democracy and trade as tools of foreign policy.​

●​ Criticism: Can be naive about the persistence of power politics, as even democracies can act
aggressively when interests are threatened.​

2.2 Neoliberalism (Neoliberal Institutionalism)

Neoliberalism accepts the anarchic structure but argues that institutions mitigate its effects by facilitating
cooperation.

Functions of Institutions:

1.​ Provide reliable information to reduce mistrust.​

2.​ Lower the cost of negotiations.​

3.​ Increase credibility through monitoring and enforcement.​

4.​ Create focal points for coordination.​

5.​ Enable reciprocity through repeated interactions.​

●​ Example: WTO’s trade dispute mechanism preventing escalation into trade wars.​

●​ Criticism: Overestimates the ability of institutions to constrain powerful states.​

Varieties of Institutionalist Theories

 ●​ Collective Security: All states pledge to act together against aggression (e.g., UN Security
Council).​

●​ Critical Theory: Emphasizes ideas and discourse; questions power-driven assumptions of

realism.​

3. Constructivism
Constructivism focuses on social structures, ideas, and norms rather than material power. It argues
that the international system is socially constructed — shaped by shared beliefs and meanings.

Core Assumptions

●​ Interests and identities of states are not fixed but shaped by interaction.​

●​ Norms influence what behavior is considered acceptable.​

●​ How actors perceive each other affects their actions.​

Example Applications:

●​ State Level: Japan’s pacifist foreign policy identity after WWII.​

●​ System Level: The global taboo on using chemical weapons, despite military utility.​

Criticism: Lacks precise predictive power; stronger at explaining changes after they happen.

4. Marxism
Marxist IR theory sees the global system as an extension of capitalist exploitation. Instead of focusing on
states as equals, it highlights economic hierarchy — the “core” (wealthy industrialized states) exploiting
the “periphery” (developing states).

Core Assumptions

●​ Capitalism is inherently unequal.​

●​ Economic interests shape political relations.​

 ●​ Global institutions often protect capitalist powers.​

Applications:

●​ State Level: Developing countries locked into exporting low-value raw materials.​

●​ System Level: IMF/World Bank structural adjustment programs reinforcing dependence.​

Example: The exploitation of African mineral resources by multinational corporations headquartered in

wealthy states.

Criticism: Overemphasizes economics and neglects cultural, identity, and political factors.

Introduction to International Relations – Expanded Reviewer

What is International Relations?

International Relations (IR) is the academic discipline that examines the interactions between states, as
well as between states and other influential actors in the global arena. It seeks to understand how nations
cooperate, compete, and sometimes clash over issues of power, security, economics, culture, and law. As
defined by Brown and Ainsley (2005), IR focuses primarily on diplomatic, military, and strategic
dimensions of these relations. This emphasis reflects the historical roots of IR as a discipline emerging
after World War I, when understanding the causes of war and the means of preserving peace became an
urgent scholarly and political priority.

IR is not just about war and diplomacy; it also addresses the forces of globalization, the roles of
international organizations, and the spread of global norms and values. For instance, the United Nations,
the World Trade Organization, multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and even
transnational activist movements are now part of the IR landscape. This broad scope is why Prof.
Manning humorously remarked in 1939 that a student of IR “is a person who is always apologizing for not
knowing more about everything,” acknowledging the immense variety of issues the field encompasses.

The discipline draws from multiple sources: political science for understanding governance and power;
history for tracing patterns of war, alliances, and empire; economics for analyzing trade, development,
and inequality; sociology for studying cultural and identity factors; and law for exploring treaties and legal
norms. This interdisciplinarity makes IR dynamic but also complex, as it must account for both timeless
power struggles and rapidly evolving global challenges.

The International System

The concept of the international system is central to IR theory. Hedley Bull (1977) defines it as existing
when two or more states interact regularly and affect each other’s decisions enough to behave, at least
partly, as members of a larger whole. This system is not governed by a central global authority; instead, it
operates under what scholars call “anarchy” — not chaos, but the absence of an overarching authority
above sovereign states.

This anarchic environment has several defining features. First, every state retains offensive military
capability to defend itself or threaten others if necessary. This does not mean all states have equal
power — far from it — but even small or weaker states can pose challenges, especially through
asymmetric means such as guerrilla warfare, cyberattacks, or terrorism. Second, states can never be
entirely certain of each other’s intentions. A nation that appears peaceful today might become
aggressive tomorrow, so caution and preparedness are constants in statecraft. Finally, in the absence of a
global enforcer, states exist in a self-help system, meaning they cannot rely on others to guarantee their
security. They must build their own capacity, forge alliances, and constantly assess the balance of power.

Understanding the international system is crucial because it shapes the context in which states operate.
Theories of IR differ primarily in how they interpret the implications of this anarchic structure — whether it
inevitably produces conflict, allows for cooperation, or is shaped by ideas and identities.

Theories of International Relations

1. Realism

Realism is one of the oldest and most enduring approaches to IR, rooted in the belief that the struggle for
power and security is the central dynamic of world politics. It emerged from a long tradition of political
thought stretching back to Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, who all emphasized the competitive,
conflict-prone nature of human beings and, by extension, the states they lead.

At its core, realism assumes that the international system is anarchic and that states — as the most
important actors — must prioritize survival above all else. This requires amassing power, which in the
realist lexicon is usually measured in military terms. Realists are skeptical of moral idealism in foreign
policy, arguing that good intentions mean little if a state lacks the capability to defend itself. They also
stress the inevitability of conflict, driven by competition for scarce resources, mistrust among states, and
the tendency for power to beget ambition.

A key realist concept is the security dilemma: when one state increases its military capacity to feel safer,
others perceive this as a threat and respond by building up their own forces. This spiral of mutual
suspicion can lead to arms races and war, even if no side originally intended aggression. The Cold War
arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union is a textbook example.

1.1 Classical Realism

Classical realism attributes the drive for power and dominance to human nature itself. Thinkers like Hans
Morgenthau argued that leaders and states act from an inherent lust for power, much like individuals in
society. For classical realists, this trait is universal and unchanging, meaning that the quest for security
and influence will persist regardless of cultural, political, or economic differences.

In practice, classical realism urges leaders to be pragmatic and even cynical when necessary. Moral
principles are important, but they must be adapted to the realities of power politics. This perspective
explains why some leaders form alliances with former enemies or negotiate with regimes whose values
they do not share — because strategic necessity outweighs ideological purity.

Historically, classical realism can be seen in the diplomacy of 19th-century Europe, particularly the
Concert of Europe, where major powers cooperated not out of goodwill but to maintain a balance that
prevented any one state from dominating the continent. It also resonates in modern policies where
national interest takes precedence over human rights or democratic ideals.

Critics of classical realism argue that it overstates human selfishness and ignores the capacity for
cooperation and moral progress. They also note that it tends to underplay the role of domestic politics,
culture, and economic interdependence in shaping foreign policy.

1.2 Neorealism (Structural Realism)

In the late 20th century, Kenneth Waltz reformulated realism into what he called neorealism or structural
realism. This approach shifts the explanation of state behavior away from human nature and toward the
structure of the international system itself. For Waltz, it is the anarchic nature of the system — not the
flawed character of human beings — that compels states to seek security through power.

Neorealism posits that all states operate under the same structural constraints: they must ensure their
survival in a self-help system where no higher authority can protect them. Because they can never be
certain of other states’ intentions, and because all have some capacity to harm, states behave in ways
that maximize their relative power. Importantly, neorealism treats states as unitary, rational actors,
focusing on external constraints rather than internal politics.

Defensive Realism

Defensive realists, following Waltz’s line of thought, argue that states should seek enough power to
secure themselves but avoid aggressive expansion. Overreaching can trigger counterbalancing coalitions,
ultimately making a state less secure. Defensive realism explains why many states pursue external
balancing through alliances rather than aggressive conquest. For instance, NATO’s defensive alliance
during the Cold War was designed to deter Soviet aggression, not to expand territorially.

Offensive Realism

In contrast, offensive realists like John Mearsheimer argue that the best way to ensure survival is to
maximize power and, if possible, achieve regional hegemony. This perspective holds that great powers
are inherently revisionist — always seeking to improve their position because in an uncertain world, the
strongest state is the safest. Imperial Japan’s expansion in East Asia before World War II and Nazi
Germany’s drive for dominance in Europe are examples of offensive realist behavior.
Neorealism has been influential for its systemic analysis, but critics say it oversimplifies state behavior by
ignoring domestic factors like regime type, leadership, and public opinion. It also struggles to explain
instances where weaker states defy the logic of balancing or where powerful states refrain from
expansion.

4. Constructivism
Constructivism emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the materialist focus of Realism and
Liberalism, shifting attention toward the role of ideas, beliefs, and identities in shaping international
relations. Unlike Realism, which emphasizes power and survival, and Liberalism, which focuses on
institutions and cooperation, Constructivism argues that the international system is not fixed; rather, it is
socially constructed by the interactions, norms, and shared understandings among states and other
actors. According to Constructivists, "anarchy is what states make of it" (as Alexander Wendt famously
stated), meaning that the nature of the international system depends on how states perceive and interact
with each other. For example, two states may exist in an anarchic environment, but if they share mutual
trust, common norms, and cooperative expectations, their relationship will be peaceful. On the other
hand, if they see each other as rivals or enemies, that same anarchic environment will breed hostility.
Constructivism emphasizes that actors act toward others based on the meanings and interpretations they
attach to them, which are shaped by history, culture, and shared experiences. This theory also highlights
the role of non-state actors, ideas, and even language in shaping state behavior. Norms such as human
rights, sovereignty, or the prohibition of slavery did not arise naturally; they were socially constructed and
became powerful because actors believed in and reinforced them. In practice, Constructivism can explain
phenomena like the European Union’s deep integration, where a shared European identity has helped
reduce the possibility of conflict. Similarly, it sheds light on how anti-colonial nationalism reshaped global
politics in the 20th century — an example of ideas influencing real political change. Critics of
Constructivism often point out that it struggles to predict events since it focuses on interpretation rather
than measurable material capabilities, but its strength lies in explaining why states behave differently in
similar conditions, depending on their identities and shared beliefs.

5. Marxism
Marxism, rooted in the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, offers a radically different lens for
understanding international relations by focusing on economic structures, class conflict, and the capitalist
system. It views global politics primarily as a struggle between classes — not just states — in which the
capitalist class (bourgeoisie) exploits the working class (proletariat). In this perspective, the international
system is driven by economic interests, and the political, military, and legal structures of the world are
designed to maintain the dominance of capitalist elites. Marxists argue that both Realism and Liberalism
ultimately serve to protect the existing global capitalist order, even if they differ on methods. For instance,
international institutions like the World Bank or International Monetary Fund (IMF) may promote free trade
and economic growth, but Marxists would say these institutions perpetuate inequality by keeping
developing countries dependent on wealthier nations through debt and structural adjustment programs. In
this view, “actors” in the international arena are not simply states, but also classes and transnational
corporations that wield significant influence over policy. The global economy is seen as an extension of
capitalist exploitation, where the core (developed countries) extracts resources and labor from the
periphery (developing countries), a concept developed further in dependency theory and world-systems
theory. Marxism explains events like colonialism, imperialism, and modern-day neocolonialism as
mechanisms by which the wealthy maintain dominance. For example, the scramble for Africa in the late
19th century, U.S. interventions in Latin America, or China’s Belt and Road Initiative can be interpreted
through a Marxist lens as efforts to secure resources, markets, and strategic dominance. However, critics
argue that Marxism underestimates the role of non-economic factors such as nationalism, culture, and
identity in shaping state behavior. Despite this, Marxist perspectives remain influential in critical
approaches to IR, especially in highlighting global inequality, exploitation, and the role of capitalism in
shaping power relations.

Introduction to International Relations –

Deep-Dive Reviewer

I. What is International Relations (IR)?

International Relations is the academic and practical study of how states, organizations, groups, and
individuals interact across national boundaries. At its core, it examines political, economic, social, and
cultural exchanges between actors in the international arena. IR is not only about diplomacy and war; it
also concerns itself with trade, human rights, environmental issues, migration, and cultural exchange.
Historically, the study of IR grew out of the aftermath of World War I, when scholars sought to understand
the causes of war and develop ways to prevent future conflicts. Over time, it expanded to include a variety
of perspectives — from the traditional state-centered approaches to broader frameworks that consider
non-state actors like multinational corporations, international organizations (e.g., the UN, WHO, WTO),
NGOs, terrorist groups, and transnational movements.

The study of IR is both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, it seeks to explain patterns and dynamics
in global politics through competing schools of thought like Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, and
Marxism. Practically, it informs foreign policy, military strategy, and economic decision-making. For
instance, a government’s decision to enter a trade agreement, form a military alliance, or intervene in a
humanitarian crisis can be shaped by IR analysis.

IR also looks at how the international system is structured. Traditionally, the system is described as
“anarchic” — meaning there is no single global authority with the power to enforce rules over sovereign
states. This lack of central authority influences how states behave, often leading to competition, alliances,
and conflicts. Yet, the degree to which this anarchy results in war or cooperation depends on the lens
through which we interpret it, which is why theoretical perspectives are crucial in IR.

II. Major Theoretical Perspectives in IR

1. Realism
Realism is one of the oldest and most dominant theories in International Relations, with intellectual roots
tracing back to thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. It portrays the international system as
anarchic and competitive, where states are the primary actors, and survival is their most important goal.
According to Realists, states act rationally to maximize their power and security in a world where no
higher authority can protect them. This often leads to a “self-help” system, where states must rely on their
own capabilities — primarily military — to ensure survival.

Realism assumes that human nature is inherently selfish and power-seeking, and since states are run by
humans, they too behave in a way that prioritizes power over morality. For example, even if states
cooperate temporarily, Realists argue this cooperation is only a strategy to serve their own interests. A
classic illustration is the shifting alliances during World War II: the United States and the Soviet Union
cooperated against Nazi Germany, not out of shared values, but because it was strategically necessary.

1.1 Classical Realism

Classical Realism, influenced heavily by the writings of Hans Morgenthau, emphasizes that the drive for
power and dominance is rooted in human nature. In this view, leaders and decision-makers are motivated
by a desire for prestige, control, and security, and this shapes state behavior. International politics is thus
a constant struggle for power, where morality often takes a backseat to strategic necessity. For example,
the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, as chronicled by Thucydides, is often cited to show
that states will act in their own interest even when it leads to destructive conflict.

1.2 Neorealism (Structural Realism)

Neorealism, popularized by Kenneth Waltz, shifts the focus from human nature to the structure of the
international system. It argues that the anarchic structure of the world compels states to behave in certain
predictable ways regardless of their internal politics or leaders. The distribution of power — whether
unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar — determines the level of stability or conflict in the system. For instance,
the Cold War’s bipolar structure (U.S. vs. USSR) led to a relatively stable balance of power because both
superpowers deterred each other from direct conflict. Neorealism also highlights the security dilemma,
where actions taken by one state to increase its security (e.g., building more weapons) can threaten other
states, prompting them to do the same and escalating tensions.

Criticism of Realism: Critics argue that Realism overemphasizes conflict and ignores the possibilities of
cooperation and the influence of international norms. It also underplays the role of economic
interdependence, domestic politics, and non-state actors.

2. Liberalism

Liberalism offers a more optimistic view of international relations, focusing on the possibilities for
cooperation, peace, and progress. It acknowledges that the international system is anarchic, but believes
that states and other actors can work together to mitigate conflict through institutions, trade, and shared
values. Liberalism argues that human nature is capable of progress and that democratic governance,
economic interdependence, and international law can create a more peaceful world.

Liberalism’s optimism can be seen in the establishment of the League of Nations after World War I, and
later, the United Nations after World War II — both aimed at promoting collective security and resolving
disputes peacefully. Liberals emphasize that war is not inevitable; rather, it results from poor
communication, lack of trust, or absence of institutional frameworks to manage conflicts.

2.1 Classical Liberalism

Classical Liberalism in IR builds on Enlightenment ideas, particularly the belief in reason, individual rights,
and progress. It suggests that states, like individuals, can act morally and cooperate for mutual benefit.
Early Liberal thinkers such as Immanuel Kant proposed the idea of “perpetual peace” through republican
constitutions, international trade, and the creation of a federation of free states.

2.2 Neoliberal Institutionalism

Neoliberal Institutionalism, championed by scholars like Robert Keohane, focuses on the role of
international institutions in facilitating cooperation among states. It argues that institutions like the World
Trade Organization (WTO) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can reduce uncertainty, provide
information, and create mechanisms for dispute resolution, thereby making cooperation more likely even
in an anarchic system. For example, the European Union shows how institutional frameworks can turn
former adversaries into close partners.

Criticism of Liberalism: Critics point out that liberal institutions can fail (as seen with the League of
Nations before WWII) and that powerful states often dominate these institutions, using them to serve their
own interests. Moreover, economic interdependence does not always prevent war — the outbreak of
World War I occurred during a time of unprecedented trade between European powers.

Constructivism
Constructivism in International Relations challenges the idea that global politics is governed solely by
material forces like military strength or economic capacity. Instead, it emphasizes that the international
system is socially constructed—meaning that the identities, interests, and behaviors of states are shaped
by shared ideas, norms, values, and beliefs. Constructivists argue that what states perceive as “threats”
or “alliances” is not predetermined by objective reality but rather created and sustained through social
interaction and historical context. For example, the United States sees the United Kingdom as an ally
despite both being powerful states with advanced militaries—because they share a history of cooperation,
common democratic values, and cultural similarities. In contrast, the U.S. perceives North Korea as a
threat not purely because of its military, but because of the ideological, political, and historical narratives
surrounding it.

Key thinkers such as Alexander Wendt famously stated, “Anarchy is what states make of it”, meaning
that the anarchic nature of the international system does not inherently lead to conflict—rather, the
behavior of states is shaped by the social meanings they attach to one another’s actions. Constructivism
also focuses on the role of international norms—rules and expectations about appropriate
behavior—that evolve over time. For example, the global norm against the use of chemical weapons has
become so strong that even powerful states risk condemnation and isolation if they violate it. This
perspective is particularly useful in explaining phenomena like the spread of human rights norms, the
growing importance of environmental cooperation, and the role of identity politics in international affairs.
Marxism
Marxist theory in International Relations views the global system through the lens of economic class
struggle and exploitation. It draws heavily from Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism, applying it to
international politics by arguing that the world is divided between the wealthy, industrialized “core” states
and the poorer, resource-dependent “periphery” states. This is closely related to dependency theory and
world-systems theory, which explain how capitalist powers maintain their dominance by exploiting the
economic and labor resources of less-developed countries.

From a Marxist perspective, wars, alliances, and even foreign aid are often tools used by dominant
capitalist states to protect their economic interests. For instance, interventions in oil-rich regions are
interpreted not just as security concerns but as attempts to secure valuable resources for capitalist
economies. Marxists also critique international institutions like the IMF and World Bank, arguing that they
perpetuate global inequality by imposing neoliberal policies—such as privatization and trade
liberalization—that benefit wealthy countries while keeping poorer nations dependent and
underdeveloped.

Neo-Marxist approaches in IR further adapt these ideas to account for modern realities, such as
globalization and the rise of multinational corporations. According to this view, corporations can wield as
much influence as states, shaping trade rules, labor conditions, and even domestic policies. This explains
why, in Marxist thought, true global justice would require dismantling the capitalist system itself and
restructuring the global economy to prioritize equitable development over profit maximization.

Feminism in International Relations

Feminist perspectives in IR examine how international politics is shaped by gendered power structures.
They argue that traditional IR theories like realism and liberalism are largely based on masculine
assumptions—such as competition, dominance, and militarization—while ignoring the roles and
experiences of women and marginalized groups. Feminist scholars contend that this leads to an
incomplete and biased understanding of global politics, because it overlooks how power operates in both
public and private spheres.

For example, feminist IR highlights how war and conflict disproportionately impact women, not only
through direct violence but also through displacement, loss of livelihoods, and increased vulnerability to
exploitation. They also point out that women’s underrepresentation in diplomatic and political
decision-making means that policies often fail to address their needs or perspectives. Additionally,
feminist IR critiques the tendency to see security only in military terms, instead promoting a broader
human security perspective that includes economic stability, health care, education, and freedom from
domestic violence.

There are multiple branches of feminist IR, including liberal feminism, which advocates for women’s
equal participation in political institutions; postcolonial feminism, which examines how race, class, and
historical colonialism intersect with gender in global politics; and critical feminism, which questions the
deep-rooted social and cultural narratives that sustain gender inequalities. By incorporating these
perspectives, feminist IR seeks not only to describe the world but also to transform it into a more inclusive
and equitable system.
Hard Power and Soft Power
Hard Power

Hard power refers to the ability of a state or actor to influence or coerce others to do what it wants
primarily through the use of force or tangible incentives. This often includes military strength (coercive
power) and economic capability (inducements or sanctions). In international relations, hard power
operates on the principle of compulsion: making others comply through threats, rewards, or direct action.

Key Assumptions of Hard Power:

1.​ Power is measurable in terms of military strength, technological advancement, population size,
and economic resources.​

2.​ Coercion is effective in shaping the behavior of other states if the costs of noncompliance are
higher than compliance.​

3.​ States are rational actors that will respond to direct incentives or deterrence measures.​

Application in State Policy:​

Hard power is evident when a state uses its armed forces or economic leverage to achieve foreign policy
goals. For instance:

●​ Military Intervention – The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq aimed to remove Saddam Hussein’s
regime and reshape Iraq’s political landscape.​

●​ Economic Sanctions – Western sanctions against Russia following its annexation of Crimea in
2014 aimed to pressure Moscow to alter its behavior.​

Application in the International System:​

In a world without a central authority (anarchic system), hard power plays a central role in maintaining
balance of power and deterrence. NATO’s military capability, for example, serves as a deterrent against
potential aggressors.

Criticisms of Hard Power:

●​ Reliance on hard power can breed resistance, hostility, and long-term instability.​

●​ It often fails to address the root causes of conflicts (e.g., ideological, cultural, or socio-economic
grievances).​

●​ Military victories may not translate into sustainable political outcomes (e.g., U.S. withdrawal from
Afghanistan).​
Soft Power

Soft power, a term popularized by Joseph Nye, refers to a state’s ability to shape the preferences and
behaviors of others through attraction rather than coercion or payment. It stems from the appeal of a
country’s culture, political values, and foreign policies when they are seen as legitimate and morally
authoritative.

Key Assumptions of Soft Power:

1.​ Influence can come from credibility, legitimacy, and attraction, not only force or money.​

2.​ International outcomes are shaped by persuasion and the ability to set agendas rather than
simply imposing will.​

3.​ States and non-state actors can gain influence by making others want what they want.​

Sources of Soft Power:

●​ Culture – Export of language, media, art, and entertainment (e.g., South Korea’s K-pop and
dramas).​

●​ Political Values – Democratic institutions, human rights promotion, transparency.​

●​ Foreign Policy Legitimacy – Actions perceived as moral or aligned with global norms (e.g.,
peacekeeping missions).​

Application in State Policy:​

Countries invest in cultural diplomacy, educational exchange programs, and global branding campaigns
to enhance their soft power.

●​ Example: Japan’s global promotion of anime and technological innovation has shaped its positive
international image.​

●​ Example: Scandinavian countries leverage their reputation for social welfare, equality, and
environmental leadership.​

Application in the International System:​

Soft power facilitates international cooperation, norm-building, and alliance formation without direct
coercion. For example, the European Union often uses diplomacy, aid, and cultural initiatives to spread
democratic governance norms.

Criticisms of Soft Power:

●​ It is intangible and harder to measure compared to hard power.​

 ●​ It works slowly and may not be effective in urgent crises.​

●​ Cultural appeal can be undermined by domestic policies that contradict projected values (e.g.,
human rights issues diminishing credibility).​

Hard Power vs. Soft Power in Practice

In reality, most states use a combination of both, sometimes referred to as “smart power”—the
strategic integration of coercion and attraction. For example:

●​ The United States combines military alliances (NATO) with cultural exports (Hollywood, Silicon
Valley).​

●​ China balances its growing military capacity with Belt and Road Initiative investments and
Confucius Institutes to spread language and culture.​

A purely hard power approach might secure short-term compliance but alienate allies, while a purely soft
power approach might be too slow to address immediate threats. Successful foreign policy often lies in
calibrating the balance depending on the situation.

Reviewer: Neorealism, Neoliberalism, and Constructivism

in International Relations Theory

1. Core Focus of the Debate

The debate between realists and liberals in international relations has evolved over time. In the past,
these differences were often rooted in competing ideas about human nature — whether people (and by
extension states) are inherently competitive or cooperative. In the modern context, the debate has shifted
toward questions about the relationship between structure and process. Structure refers to the anarchic
nature of the international system and the distribution of power among states, while process refers to the
patterns of interaction, learning, and the role of international institutions. The central question is whether
anarchy inevitably forces states into competitive power politics or whether institutions and sustained
interaction can lead to cooperation, trust, and even transformation of state behavior. This also leads to a
deeper inquiry: which aspects of anarchy are fixed and unchangeable, and which are malleable through
human agency?

2. Shared Ground: Rationalism

Both neorealists and neoliberals work within the framework of rationalism, an approach that treats the
identities and interests of states as given, or exogenous, and focuses primarily on how states behave
given these fixed characteristics. Rationalism adopts a behavioral perspective in which international
institutions and processes may influence state behavior but do not fundamentally alter the core identities
or interests of states. In this framework, states are considered the dominant actors in the international
system, and security is defined in terms of self-interest. Neorealists and neoliberals may disagree about
the extent to which states prioritize relative versus absolute gains, but they share the assumption that the
starting point of theory must be the self-interested state operating in an anarchic world.

3. Neorealist Position

Neorealism argues that the anarchic nature of the international system produces a self-help environment.
Because there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or provide security, each state must rely on its
own capabilities to survive. This leads to inherently competitive dynamics such as the security dilemma,
in which one state’s efforts to enhance its security are perceived as threats by others, leading to an arms
race or conflict escalation. Neorealists view self-help not as a policy choice but as a structural condition
that is inseparable from anarchy. States that fail to operate according to self-help principles risk being
eliminated from the system, either through conquest, subjugation, or political irrelevance. For neorealists,
learning in this environment is limited to simple behavioral adaptation — changes in tactics that help
states survive — rather than fundamental redefinitions of their identities or interests. As a result,
questions about how identities and interests are formed are considered irrelevant to systemic theory.

4. Neoliberal Position

Neoliberalism, while sharing many of neorealism’s assumptions about the anarchic structure of the
international system, takes a more optimistic view of the potential for cooperation. Neoliberals argue that
through repeated interaction, international institutions can reduce uncertainty, create norms of reciprocity,
and make cooperation more likely even in a self-help environment. They focus on the ability of regimes —
sets of rules, norms, and decision-making procedures — to facilitate mutually beneficial outcomes, often
emphasizing absolute gains rather than the relative gains prioritized by neorealists. However, many
neoliberals, sometimes called weak liberals or “weak realists,” still accept the core realist assumption
that state identities and interests are shaped by anarchy and remain essentially self-interested. In doing
so, they limit their explanatory scope to behavioral change rather than transformation of underlying
motivations, which prevents them from fully breaking away from realist logic.

5. Strong Liberalism

Strong liberals go further by asserting that institutions do not merely alter state behavior; they can
fundamentally transform identities and interests. Thinkers such as Joseph Nye, who speaks of
“complex learning,” Robert Jervis, who emphasizes “changing conceptions of self and interest,” and
Robert Keohane, who promotes “sociological” conceptions of interest, all point toward a liberal research
program in which interaction through institutions can lead to deeper transformations in world politics. For
strong liberals, this transformation of identities and interests is equivalent to a transformation of structure
itself. However, this position faces challenges because rationalism — the theoretical framework that still
shapes much of liberal thought — cannot account for such transformations, since it assumes identities
and interests are fixed. Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie have criticized this limitation, arguing that
rationalism’s individualist ontology is incompatible with the intersubjectivist epistemology needed for
regime theory to reach its full potential. Without a theory of how identities and interests change, even
strong liberals risk falling back on realist structural explanations.

6. Constructivist Alternative

Constructivism offers a theoretical alternative that directly addresses the question of how identities and
interests are formed and transformed. Originally referred to as “reflectivist” by Robert Keohane, Nicholas
Onuf popularized the term constructivist to emphasize the role of social construction in shaping
subjectivity. Constructivist scholarship is diverse, encompassing cognitivists, poststructuralists, standpoint
and postmodern feminists, rule theorists, and structurationists, but all share a common interest in the
sociological processes ignored by rationalists. For constructivists, identities and interests are
endogenous to interaction — they are produced and reproduced through social practices. This means
that anarchy itself does not have fixed effects; rather, its consequences depend on the meanings and
relationships constructed among states. Constructivism thus holds significant potential for strengthening
liberal theory by providing a framework for explaining identity and interest change, though this potential
has sometimes been obscured by internal debates between modernist and postmodernist scholars.

7. Bridging Strong Liberalism and Constructivism

Strong liberals and constructivists share a deep interest in the transformative potential of institutions and
social interaction. Both traditions adopt an intersubjective conception of process, where identities and
interests are shaped by the interactions in which states participate. In contrast, rationalists maintain that
these attributes are fixed prior to interaction. The author’s objective in bridging these two approaches is to
draw from structurationist and symbolic interactionist sociology to defend the liberal claim that
international institutions can indeed transform state identities and interests. This requires directly
challenging the neorealist belief that self-help is an inevitable feature of anarchy. Constructivists, the
author argues, have not sufficiently engaged with the realist claim about anarchy’s causal powers, but
doing so is essential to preventing process and institutions from being subordinated to structure. The core
argument is that if we currently live in a self-help world, it is not because anarchy dictates it, but because
historical processes have created and sustained such a system.

8. “Anarchy is What States Make of It”

The constructivist challenge to neorealism is encapsulated in the claim that there is no inherent “logic” of
anarchy apart from the social practices that give it meaning. Structure, in terms of identities and interests,
has no independent existence or causal power outside of the processes that constitute it. From this
perspective, self-help and power politics are not inevitable consequences of anarchy but are instead
institutions — historically contingent arrangements sustained by state interaction. In other words, anarchy
is what states make of it. This view opens the possibility for significant transformation under anarchy, as
identities and interests can be reshaped through new practices and institutions. The author identifies
three primary pathways through which this transformation can occur: first, through the institution of
sovereignty, which defines mutual recognition and the limits of state authority; second, through the
evolution of cooperation, where repeated interaction builds trust and shared expectations; and third,
through intentional efforts to transform egoistic state identities into collective identities based on shared
norms and purposes.

9. Key Distinctions

While neorealism, neoliberalism, strong liberalism, and constructivism all engage with the problem of
anarchy, they differ fundamentally in their assumptions and implications. Neorealism treats anarchy as an
immutable condition that necessitates self-help, with institutions playing only a marginal role. Weak
neoliberalism accepts the self-help logic but argues that institutions can improve cooperation within that
framework. Strong liberalism goes further, asserting that institutions can transform identities and interests,
though it often struggles to explain how. Constructivism resolves this gap by showing that identities and
interests are socially constructed and can therefore be reshaped through interaction, norms, and shared
understandings. The main divergence lies in whether identities and interests are seen as fixed or
changeable, and whether anarchy is understood as an unchangeable structure or as a malleable social
arrangement.

10. Main Takeaways

The contemporary debate in international relations is not simply between realism and liberalism, but
between rationalist and constructivist assumptions about the nature of states, anarchy, and change. Weak
liberals remain close to realism in their acceptance of fixed identities, while strong liberals aspire to
transformation but lack the tools within rationalism to explain it. Constructivism provides those tools by
grounding identities and interests in social interaction, thereby opening space for fundamental change.
The most powerful critique of neorealism is that self-help is not an inherent property of anarchy but a
social construct. This leads to the transformative insight that anarchy is what states make of it, and that
the international system can evolve through changes in shared practices, norms, and identities.

Got it — you want the “Anarchy and Power Politics” section expanded into longer, paragraph-form
explanations, matching the style of the earlier extended Constructivism notes.

Here’s your expanded version:

Anarchy and Power Politics

In the study of international relations, the relationship between anarchy and power politics has been
interpreted differently by classical realists and structural realists (or neorealists). Classical realists such
as Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau grounded their explanations in the belief
that human nature is inherently egoistic and predisposed toward the pursuit of power. In their view, power
politics arise not because of the structure of the international system, but because individuals and
leaders, by nature, are self-interested, competitive, and often distrustful of others. For them, conflict is
rooted in the innate flaws and ambitions of human beings, which are then reflected in the behavior of
states.

By contrast, structural realists or neorealists, most notably represented by Kenneth Waltz, place the
primary emphasis on the anarchic structure of the international system itself. Anarchy, in this context,
does not mean chaos but rather the absence of a central governing authority that can enforce rules and
ensure security. For Waltz, the absence of such an overarching power creates a condition in which states
must rely on self-help for survival. This condition, according to neorealists, inevitably produces
competitive behavior and power politics, regardless of human nature.

Waltz’s contributions are significant because he approaches anarchy from different angles in his works. In
Man, the State, and War, Waltz treats anarchy as a permissive cause of war — meaning it creates the
conditions under which conflict is possible but does not actively cause it. In this framework, wars occur
because nothing exists to prevent them; however, the actual triggers — the efficient causes — of conflict
are found in either the nature of individuals (first image) or the internal dynamics of states (second
image). For example, the aggressive behavior of a predator state or the ambitions of a particular leader
can initiate hostilities, forcing other states to respond defensively in a self-help manner.

However, Waltz’s later work, Theory of International Politics, shifts toward a more deterministic
interpretation of anarchy. Here, he dismisses first- and second-image explanations as “reductionist” and
instead asserts that the logic of anarchy itself generates self-help behavior and power politics as
necessary features of the system. In this view, the structural condition alone is enough to produce
competitive, conflict-prone dynamics, regardless of human intentions or domestic politics. This leap,
however, has been criticized because it assumes that anarchy necessarily leads to self-help, rather than
seeing self-help as a contingent outcome shaped by state interaction and social processes.

This distinction is crucial because in the permissive view of anarchy — which Waltz initially entertained
— the character of international politics is not predetermined by structure alone. Instead, it depends on
the practices and choices of states. Anarchy may allow for conflict, but it does not dictate that states must
always engage in power politics. If human or domestic factors do not lead one state to attack another,
peaceful coexistence is possible even under anarchy. Thus, the practices of states — their decisions,
norms, and institutions — play a decisive role in shaping whether anarchy results in competition or
cooperation. This opens the door for alternative theories, such as constructivism, which argue that
identities and interests are socially constructed and can evolve to produce more cooperative international
orders under anarchy.

Alright — I’ve now expanded your notes so each section is in paragraph form with longer, integrated
explanations that connect the points in your provided text. I’ve also preserved the academic tone and flow
so it reads like a structured, detailed lecture note.
Constructivism, Liberalism, and Institutional
Transformation
Constructivism, both in its modern and postmodern forms, shares a core interest in understanding how
knowledgeable social practices shape and constitute political subjects, their identities, and their
interests. This is similar to the liberal focus on how institutions transform state interests and behaviors.
Both approaches reject the purely rationalist-behavioral assumption that identities and interests are fixed
and exogenous, instead embracing a cognitive and intersubjective process where these elements
are endogenous to social interaction. This means that who states are (their identities) and what they
want (their interests) are not predetermined, but are constantly shaped through interaction,
communication, and shared norms.

In this sense, constructivism offers a bridge between realist-liberal and rationalist-reflectivist debates.
By drawing on sociological traditions such as structuration theory and symbolic interactionism,
constructivists can reinforce the liberal claim that international institutions can transform state
identities and interests. Unlike the dominant “economic” style of theorizing in systemic IR—where
preferences are assumed fixed—this approach sees identities and interests as dependent variables that
evolve over time. Constructivism can thus enrich liberalism with deeper insights into learning, cognition,
and socialization, while liberalism can contribute to constructivism’s understanding of how institutions
operate as transformative agents.

Challenging the Neorealist Claim on Anarchy and

Self-Help
A central obstacle to this integration lies in the neorealist argument that self-help is an unavoidable
consequence of anarchy. In the realist view, anarchy—defined as the absence of a central
authority—inevitably compels states to rely on their own means for security, justifying skepticism about
the ability of institutions to alter state behavior. However, constructivists argue that self-help and power
politics are not intrinsic to anarchy; rather, they are social institutions that arise from specific
historical and social processes. Anarchy, in itself, has no inherent logic apart from the practices and
norms that states enact within it.

This means that structure has no causal power independent of process. If the current world is
characterized by self-help and competitive politics, it is not because anarchy demands it, but because
states have collectively constructed a system that rewards such behavior. In other words, anarchy is what
states make of it. By reframing self-help and power politics as products of social interaction rather than
structural inevitabilities, constructivism opens the door for the possibility that norms, institutions, and
shared understandings could lead to alternative, more cooperative forms of anarchy.
Anarchy and Power Politics: Realist and Neorealist
Interpretations
Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau rooted the
competitive nature of international politics in human nature. They argued that egoism and the drive for
power stem from inherent qualities of individuals and societies. Structural realists, or neorealists, shifted
this explanation to the structure of the international system, with Kenneth Waltz playing a pivotal role
in defining anarchy as the fundamental condition shaping state behavior.

In Man, the State, and War, Waltz described anarchy as a permissive cause of war—a condition that
allows conflict to occur because there is no authority to prevent it. However, the efficient causes of war,
in this view, come from first-image (human nature) or second-image (domestic politics) factors that initiate
aggression and compel states to respond. In Theory of International Politics, Waltz moved away from
these first- and second-image explanations, labeling them “reductionist,” and instead argued that the logic
of anarchy itself constitutes self-help and power politics as necessary features of international life.
This shift diminished the role of state practices in shaping anarchy’s character, portraying competitive
politics as a structural given rather than a contingent outcome.

Constructivists push back on this view, emphasizing that even in a permissive anarchic environment,
whether states engage in competition or cooperation depends on the social practices and norms that
emerge. In other words, anarchy does not dictate one inevitable outcome—it can lead to different forms of
interaction depending on how states define their identities and relationships.

Reducing Practice in Neorealism and Constructivist

Response
In neorealism, the role of state practice in shaping anarchy is significantly reduced. Because self-help
and competitive power politics are treated as exogenous to interaction, there is little room for meaningful
debate about how alternative structures might emerge. The structure of the state system is seen as
naturally producing competition and distrust, regardless of the history or practices of its members.

Constructivists do not dispute that today’s world exhibits strong elements of self-help. However, they
reject the neorealist explanation for why this is the case. The constructivist argument proceeds in three
stages. First, it separates the concepts of self-help and anarchy, showing that self-interested
security-seeking behavior is not a necessary component of anarchy. Second, it explains how self-help
and power politics can emerge causally from patterns of interaction among states, with anarchy acting
only as a permissive condition, not a determinant. Third, it reintroduces first- and second-image
factors—human nature and domestic politics—to examine how different forms of anarchy might arise
depending on these variables. By doing so, constructivists argue that the “logic” of anarchy is not fixed but
is socially constructed, and therefore subject to change through processes of learning, cooperation, and
identity transformation.
Realism
Classical Realism

Classical realism is grounded in the belief that the driving force in international relations is rooted in
human nature. Thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau saw
humans as inherently self-interested, competitive, and power-seeking, and these traits inevitably shape
the behavior of states. From this perspective, power politics and conflict are not accidental or purely
situational—they are the natural outcomes of the egoistic tendencies embedded in human beings. In this
tradition, anarchy in the international system is a permissive condition that allows conflict to occur, but the
real "efficient" cause is human ambition, fear, and the desire for dominance. For example, in Hobbes’s
state of nature, there is no overarching authority to enforce peace, which makes competition and mistrust
inevitable. In Morgenthau’s interpretation, moral principles are important but cannot override the
fundamental reality of power struggles. This view leaves little room for the idea that international
institutions or cooperative norms can fundamentally change state behavior, because the core problem lies
within human nature itself.

Neorealism (Structural Realism)

Neorealism, most prominently associated with Kenneth Waltz, shifts the explanatory focus from human
nature to the structure of the international system. Waltz argues that anarchy—not the moral failings of
individuals—is the defining feature that shapes state behavior. In his Theory of International Politics, he
describes anarchy as a condition where there is no central authority above states. Under these
conditions, states exist in a self-help system where survival is the primary goal. From this view, self-help
and competitive power politics are seen as necessary and inevitable outcomes of anarchy. This
structural logic reduces the role of human agency and domestic politics, implying that even
well-intentioned states will behave similarly because they operate under the same anarchic constraints.

However, as the passages you provided highlight, constructivist critiques challenge the neorealist claim
that self-help and power politics follow logically or causally from anarchy. Instead, they argue that these
are institutions—patterns of practice—created through interaction, not essential features of anarchy
itself. For example, if states interact in a competitive, distrustful manner, they will reinforce a self-help
world; but if they interact cooperatively, anarchy could be organized around trust and shared identities.
This distinction is crucial because it opens the door for change, something neorealism tends to downplay.
The constructivist perspective thus sees neorealism as overly deterministic, neglecting how identities and
interests are shaped and reshaped through ongoing social processes.

Liberalism
Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism offers a very different vision of international relations, grounded in Enlightenment
ideas about human rationality, progress, and the capacity for cooperation. Thinkers like John Locke,
Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith believed that individuals—and by extension, states—are capable of
overcoming conflict through reason, mutual benefit, and shared moral principles. This school of thought
emphasizes individual rights, rule of law, free markets, and limited government domestically, and
extends these values to the international sphere through diplomacy, trade, and the spread of democratic
governance. The assumption here is that war is not inevitable; instead, it results from poor institutions,
lack of communication, or violations of natural rights. For classical liberals, the formation of just and
effective institutions—both domestic and international—can align interests and reduce incentives for
conflict. In this view, anarchy does not inherently doom states to self-help; rather, cooperative
arrangements can create a more peaceful and stable order.

Neoliberalism (Neoliberal Institutionalism)

Neoliberalism, or neoliberal institutionalism, builds on the liberal tradition but adapts it to engage with
realist insights—especially the acceptance of anarchy as a structural feature of the international system.
Neoliberals, such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, acknowledge that anarchy creates incentives
for self-help, but argue that international institutions can mitigate these effects by providing information,
reducing transaction costs, creating expectations of reciprocity, and establishing dispute resolution
mechanisms. In this framework, states are rational actors concerned with absolute gains (improving their
own welfare), and cooperation can be sustained when institutions help ensure that agreements are
honored.

Here is where your provided passages connect directly: both modern and postmodern constructivists
and neoliberal institutionalists share an interest in how institutions can transform state identities and
interests. While realists see state interests as fixed and exogenous, liberals and constructivists view
them as endogenous to interaction—they change as states engage with each other. Neoliberalism thus
shares with constructivism a “cognitive, intersubjective conception of process” where cooperation is
possible, even under anarchy, if the right institutional frameworks exist. This means that institutions are
not just tools for managing existing interests but can also reshape the very identities of states, fostering
norms and values that make cooperation more natural over time.

Relating Realism and Liberalism to the Constructivist Challenge

The constructivist argument embedded in your sources offers a bridge between realism’s attention to
structure and liberalism’s optimism about institutions. By rejecting the neorealist idea that self-help is an
automatic feature of anarchy, constructivism opens space for liberal ideas about transformation and
learning. The key takeaway is that anarchy is what states make of it: if states interact competitively,
anarchy will be defined by power politics; if they interact cooperatively, it can be organized around trust,
shared norms, and collective security. In this sense, neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism both
push back against realism’s determinism, emphasizing that change in international relations is not only
possible but contingent on the patterns of practice that states enact.
 Aspect Classical Realism Neorealism Classical Neoliberalism
(Structural Liberalism (Neoliberal
Realism) Institutionalism)

Core Human nature is States act in a Humans are States are rational
Assumption inherently self-help manner rational, capable actors; although
about self-interested, not because of of cooperation, anarchy exists,
Human power-seeking, and human nature but and can improve cooperation is
Nature / competitive; conflict is due to the anarchic through reason, possible when
State inevitable due to structure of the law, and facilitated by
Behavior egoism and ambition. international institutions; effective institutions.
system. conflict is not
inevitable.

Primary Human nature (fear, Structure of the Rationality, Institutional

Driver of ambition, desire for international shared moral frameworks that
State dominance). system (anarchy, values, and manage cooperation
Behavior distribution of pursuit of mutual and reduce
capabilities). benefits. uncertainty.

View of Permissive condition Central defining Does not Accepts anarchy but
Anarchy that allows conflict, feature; forces inherently lead to sees it as
but human nature is states into conflict; can be manageable through
the root cause. self-help managed institutions and
competition. through norms.
cooperation and
law.

Main Goal of Accumulate power to Ensure survival Promote liberty, Maximize absolute
States secure survival and through relative prosperity, and gains and mutual
dominance. power balancing. peace through benefits via
cooperation. cooperation.
Role of Central; both hard Primarily material Secondary to Important but can be
Power and soft power are (military, law, trade, and balanced through
tools for dominance economic) power; institutions; institutional
and security. focus on relative power is a cooperation.
power. means for
mutual goals.

Role of Minimal role; cannot Marginal; reflect Essential for Crucial for
International override power power distribution promoting facilitating
Institutions politics rooted in and cannot cooperation, law, cooperation,
human nature. fundamentally and peace. reducing transaction
change anarchy’s costs, and building
logic. trust.

Possibility of Very limited; conflict Very limited; High; progress Moderate to high;
Change in is perpetual due to structure changes possible through institutions can
the System human nature. only with shifts in education, foster long-term
power distribution. democracy, and shifts in behavior
law. and even state
identities.

Relation to Often opposed; sees Strongly opposed; Partially aligned; Closely aligned;
Constructivi identities/interests as treats interests as sees norms and acknowledges that
sm fixed. given and values as interaction and
exogenous to important in institutions can
interaction. shaping shape state
cooperation. identities and
interests.

Key Thinkers Thucydides, Kenneth Waltz, John Locke, Robert Keohane,

Machiavelli, Hobbes, John Mearsheimer Immanuel Kant, Joseph Nye.
Hans Morgenthau. (offensive realism Adam Smith.
variant).
 Theory Main Assumptions Criticisms Examples in State &
International System

Classical Realism - Human nature is - Overly pessimistic about - Cold War power
inherently selfish, human nature. - Ignores politics between the
power-seeking, and the role of international U.S. and USSR. -
driven by fear and institutions and norms. - European colonial
ambition. - States are the Can justify aggressive expansion driven by
main actors in an foreign policy as “natural” desire for power and
anarchic world and act in behavior. resources.
pursuit of power to
ensure survival. - Morality
is often subordinated to
national interest and
security.

Neorealism - Anarchy defines the - Ignores domestic politics, - U.S.-China rivalry in

(Structural international system. - culture, and identity. - the 21st century. -
Realism) State behavior is Overemphasis on Bipolar stability during
determined by the military/economic power. - the Cold War
distribution of material Cannot explain instances of explained by balance
capabilities (polarity). - cooperation that persist of power.
Self-help system forces without shifts in power.
states to prioritize relative
gains.

Classical - Humans are rational, - Too idealistic; - League of Nations

Liberalism capable of cooperation, underestimates the (post-WWI attempt at
and driven by progress. - persistence of conflict and peace). - Kant’s idea
Free trade, democracy, power politics. - Assumes of “perpetual peace”
and international law can states will prioritize influencing post-WWII
foster peace. - cooperation over liberal order.
International institutions self-interest.
and moral norms are key
to stability.
 Neoliberalism - Accepts anarchy but - Overestimates the ability - European Union as
(Neoliberal argues it can be of institutions to change a supranational
Institutionalism) mitigated through power politics. - Critics institution promoting
institutions. - States are argue powerful states still peace. - WTO
rational actors focused dominate institutions. - facilitating global
on absolute gains rather Ignores cases where trade rules. - Paris
than only relative gains. - cooperation breaks down Climate Agreement as
Repeated interactions despite institutions. cooperative effort
build trust and under anarchy.
cooperation.

1. Prisoner’s Dilemma
Concept: Two actors must choose between cooperation and defection. Cooperation benefits both, but
each has an incentive to defect for short-term gain. If both defect, both end up worse off than if they had
cooperated.

IR Application: This models situations like arms races or nuclear proliferation. For example, during the
Cold War, both the U.S. and USSR would have been better off reducing arms spending (cooperation), but
fear of the other gaining a military advantage led both to keep building weapons (mutual defection),
resulting in high costs and insecurity.

2. Tragedy of the Commons

Concept: When a shared resource is available to all, individuals acting in their own short-term self-interest
overexploit it, ultimately destroying the resource and harming everyone.

IR Application: Climate change negotiations fit perfectly here. States benefit from burning fossil fuels
(short-term gain), but if all do so excessively, global warming will cause catastrophic harm. The
“commons” is the Earth’s atmosphere, and without regulation or mutual restraint, overuse is inevitable.

3. Stag Hunt
Concept: Two hunters can either cooperate to hunt a stag (big payoff for both) or individually hunt a hare
(smaller, guaranteed payoff). Cooperation requires trust—if one defects, the other gets nothing.
IR Application: Collective security systems like the League of Nations or NATO resemble a stag hunt.
States can achieve major security benefits if all commit (hunt the stag), but if some defect and free-ride,
the cooperative security system collapses.

4. Chicken Game
Concept: Two drivers speed toward each other; the first to swerve is the “chicken” (loses face), but if
neither swerves, both crash (worst outcome).

IR Application: Nuclear brinkmanship fits this model. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, both the U.S. and USSR
pushed each other to the brink of nuclear war, hoping the other would back down first. The danger is that
stubbornness can lead to mutual destruction.

5. Assurance Game
Concept: Similar to stag hunt, but here actors are willing to cooperate if they believe others will too. The
risk of defection is lower, but initial coordination is the challenge.

IR Application: Post–Cold War arms control agreements like the Chemical Weapons Convention rely on
assurance—states will destroy stockpiles as long as they are confident others are doing the same.
Verification mechanisms (inspections) help sustain trust.

6. Zero-Sum Game
Concept: One player’s gain is exactly equal to the other’s loss—total benefits remain constant.

IR Application: Realists often view security competition as zero-sum: if one state becomes militarily
stronger, others become relatively weaker. This thinking drives balance-of-power politics and military
alliances.

7. Non–Zero-Sum Game
Concept: Both players can gain (or lose) simultaneously; cooperation can increase the total benefit.

IR Application: Trade agreements like NAFTA or the WTO can produce mutual economic growth, showing
that states aren’t always locked in zero-sum competition—though relative gains concerns can still limit
cooperation.
If you want, I can put these into a nice comparative chart showing:

●​ Game concept​

●​ Main logic​

●​ Best IR example​

●​ Theoretical relevance (Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism)​

1. Collective Action Problem

Concept:

This is when everyone would benefit from a public good, but each individual has an incentive to avoid
contributing—hoping others will bear the costs instead. Because everyone thinks this way, the good is
underprovided or not provided at all.

Difference from Tragedy of the Commons:

●​ In Tragedy of the Commons, overuse destroys a shared resource.​

●​ In Collective Action Problem, the issue is under-provision of a good because people try to
free-ride.​

IR Application:

●​ NATO and defense spending — each member benefits from the alliance’s security, but many
smaller states spend less on their own defense, relying on the U.S. to bear the burden.​

●​ Global climate change mitigation — everyone benefits from reducing emissions, but some
countries delay action, hoping others will take the costly steps first.​

2. Free-Rider Problem

(Subset of Collective Action Problem)

Concept:

Occurs when individuals enjoy the benefits of a public good without contributing to its creation or
maintenance.

IR Application:

●​ In UN peacekeeping, countries benefit from a stable international order but often contribute little
in terms of troops or funding.​

●​ In anti-piracy naval patrols, shipping nations benefit from safe trade routes even if they don’t send
ships to help patrol.​

3. Common-Pool Resource Problem

Concept:

A hybrid between private and public goods—resources that are rivalrous (one’s use diminishes another’s)
but non-excludable (you can’t easily stop people from using them).

IR Application:

●​ Overfishing in international waters: Tuna stocks decline because states can’t be excluded from
fishing and each tries to maximize its own catch.​

●​ Arctic exploration and oil drilling: Multiple countries want to exploit resources before others do,
leading to competitive extraction.​

Collective Action Problem

– Full Explanation
Core Idea

The collective action problem happens when everyone agrees on a goal and would benefit if it’s
achieved, but no one has enough incentive to actually work toward it, because each individual
hopes others will take on the costs.

In simpler terms:
 ●​ Everyone wants the cake.​

●​ Nobody wants to bake it.​

This leads to under-provision or complete failure to achieve the goal.

Why It Happens

It comes from a tension between individual rationality and group benefit:

●​ Individually rational choice: Save your own resources (money, effort, risk) and let others
handle the problem.​

●​ Group rational choice: If everyone pitches in, the group succeeds and everyone benefits.​

In reality, people (or states) often act in self-interest first, which results in the goal not being met.

In International Relations

The problem gets worse in IR because:

1.​ No world government — There’s no central authority that can force states to cooperate.​

2.​ Sovereignty — States protect their own independence, making them reluctant to follow
binding rules.​

3.​ Unequal benefits and costs — Some states benefit more than others from the same
policy, so burden-sharing is contentious.​

Classic Examples in IR

1.​ Climate Change Agreements​

○​ Everyone benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions.​

 ○​ But it costs money to transition to green energy.​

○​ Some countries wait for others to act first while continuing cheap, polluting
practices.​

○​ Result: Global progress is slower than needed.​

2.​ Defense Alliances (NATO)​

○​ All members benefit from collective defense.​

○​ But smaller states often spend less on their militaries because they rely on big
members (like the U.S.) for protection.​

○​ This is called free-riding within the alliance.​

3.​ Global Health Initiatives​

○​ During pandemics, all states benefit if a virus is contained quickly.​

○​ But some states may not invest in early detection or vaccines, hoping others will
fund and share them.​

Why It’s Hard to Solve

●​ Enforcement Problem: No global authority can punish non-contributors effectively.​

●​ Transparency Problem: Hard to verify if states are doing their fair share.​

●​ Short-Term vs. Long-Term: States focus on short-term costs rather than long-term
benefits.​

●​ Incentive to Cheat: The temptation to benefit without contributing is always present.​

Possible Solutions in IR

●​ Institutions & Agreements: Create rules, monitoring, and penalties (e.g., Paris Climate
Accord).​
 ●​ Issue Linkage: Tie cooperation on one issue to another (e.g., trade deals linked to
environmental standards).​

●​ Small-Group Leadership: Powerful states lead and bear more costs to encourage
participation (e.g., U.S. in NATO).​

●​ Norm Building: Make contributing part of a state’s identity and international reputation.​

Tragedy of the Commons

– Full Explanation
Core Idea

The tragedy of the commons describes a situation where a shared resource is overused and
eventually destroyed because individuals (or states) act in their own self-interest, ignoring the
long-term sustainability of the resource.

The “commons” is any shared, finite resource — historically, it came from the idea of a common
pasture in a village where everyone could graze their animals. If each herder adds more
animals to get more profit, the pasture becomes overgrazed and useless for everyone.

Why It Happens

●​ Rational for the individual: Take as much as you can now, before others take it.​

●​ Irrational for the group: Everyone loses in the long run because the resource collapses.​

The logic is:

“If I don’t use it, someone else will — so I might as well use it first.”

This creates a destructive feedback loop.

In International Relations
The tragedy of the commons is particularly relevant globally because many resources are
shared internationally, and there’s no central authority to regulate them effectively.

Examples:

1.​ Climate Change & Atmosphere​

○​ The atmosphere is a shared resource.​

○​ Every country benefits from clean air and a stable climate.​

○​ But burning fossil fuels is cheaper for economic growth, so states overuse this
“carbon budget.”​

○​ Result: Worsening climate crisis.​

2.​ Overfishing in International Waters​

○​ Oceans beyond national borders are “commons.”​

○​ Countries race to fish as much as possible.​

○​ If one state exercises restraint, another might still overfish.​

○​ Leads to collapse of fish populations.​

3.​ Space Debris​

○​ Outer space is shared by all.​

○​ States and private companies put satellites in orbit without adequate debris
removal.​

○​ If too much debris accumulates, space activities become dangerous for

everyone.​

Why It’s Hard to Solve

●​ No ownership → No one feels ultimate responsibility.​

●​ Short-term incentives dominate → Leaders prioritize immediate economic/political gains.​

 ●​ Free-rider problem → Some benefit from others’ restraint while continuing harmful
practices.​

●​ Enforcement difficulty → No global “police” for the commons.​

Relation to IR Theories

●​ Realism: Predicts that without a central authority, states will prioritize self-interest,
leading to overuse of shared resources.​

●​ Liberalism: Argues that institutions (like the UN or environmental treaties) can manage
commons through rules, monitoring, and enforcement.​

●​ Constructivism: Suggests that changing norms, identities, and shared understandings

can reshape how states view their responsibility for the commons.​

Possible Solutions

●​ Privatization or clear property rights: Give ownership to specific actors so they have an
incentive to manage resources sustainably.​

●​ International institutions & treaties: Set quotas, monitor behavior, and penalize violators
(e.g., the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).​

●​ Technological solutions: Innovations to reduce pressure on resources (e.g., alternative

energy, lab-grown fish).​

●​ Norm-building: Create moral pressure and reputational consequences for overusing

shared resources.​

Varieties of Institutionalist Theories – Collective Security

& Critical Theory
Collective Security
Collective security is a branch of institutionalist thinking that challenges the realist belief in the
inevitability of conflict under anarchy. It is based on the idea that the threat of war can be greatly
reduced — or even eliminated — if states work together to uphold certain shared norms and
principles. At its core, collective security rests on three anti-realist norms.

First, states should reject the idea of using force as a legitimate tool for advancing their
interests, except in cases of self-defense or when sanctioned by the collective will of the
international community. This goes directly against the realist assumption that force is an
ever-present option in foreign policy.

Second, states must be willing to join together in confronting aggression wherever it occurs,
presenting the aggressor with the threat of overwhelming, united force. This deters would-be
aggressors by making it clear that any act of hostility will provoke a collective response rather
than isolated retaliation from a single victim.

Third, collective security requires a high degree of trust among states — trust that each member
will renounce aggression themselves and honor their commitments to defend others. Without
this trust, the system collapses into suspicion and self-help behavior, as predicted by realism.
Institutions such as the League of Nations and the United Nations were created with collective
security in mind, though their success has varied depending on the political will and trust
between members.

Critical Theory

Critical theory, another variety within institutionalist approaches, goes even further in challenging
the realist worldview. While realism sees state behavior as driven primarily by material power
and self-interest, critical theory argues that ideas, discourse, and the way we think and talk
about international politics are the true driving forces behind state action. According to this
perspective, the international system is not fixed by immutable laws of anarchy; instead, it is
socially constructed through shared beliefs, norms, and language.

Critical theorists contend that if we change the dominant narratives and challenge entrenched
assumptions — such as the belief that states must compete for power — we can also change
the behavior of states themselves. They emphasize that intellectuals, scholars, and policy
thinkers play a key role in shaping the discourse of international relations, influencing how
leaders and publics perceive security, cooperation, and conflict. By exposing hidden biases and
questioning “common sense” in global politics, critical theory seeks to open the door to more
peaceful and just alternatives to the current system.