International Relations Theories

After the Second World War and the Cold War, conflicts decreased, and peace was generally present all over the world. Nevertheless, since the beginning of the 2000s, with the decrease of the United States’ power and the rise of additional states, there has been an increase in tensions in international relations (IR) and threats of war have multiplied. IR can be defined as the study of relationships between states, but also between other entities. International relations are a sub-division of international politics which include the conflicts and controversies at the international level and their resolution. There are four theories in IR: Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, and the English School. They all attempt to explain war and peace in IR. There exists a debate as to whether power is the currency of international politics. This question amounts to weighing Realism against other IR theories. This essay seeks to demonstrate that Realism is the most pertinent theory. This essay will determine what we mean by power and quickly establish the principles of Realism before evaluating realism to other theories.

Power is the ability of an actor to exert influence on other actors within the international system. It is divided into several aspects including military personnel and economic growth. Power is determined by the context of the international system, which is anarchy, meaning there is no higher authority that dominates others. In this environment, each state must ensure its own survival. This political context encourages states to fear each other and consequently, each nation-state seeks to gain an absolute advantage over its competitors. However, states are not irrational. In fact, they pay great attention to calculating the costs and benefits of each action. Realism is divided between Classical Realism, which considers that the behaviour of states is due to human nature and the structure of the international system, and Structural Realism, which only focuses on the distribution of power (be it unipolar, bipolar or multipolar). Identically, Structural Realism can also be divided into two parts. Offensive Realists think that the safest position for a country is to be the hegemon, while Defensive Realists believe that if one country tries to be the next hegemon, other countries will try to attack it.

Liberalists, who can be divided into two camps (Classical Liberalists and Neo- Liberalists), do not reject the idea that the world is anarchic, and that power is prominent. However, they believe it is not the sole determinant. They claim that mutual economic interdependence, democratic peace and international institutions, which are “a set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other” (Mearsheimer, 1994, p.8), can bring peace. In my opinion, Liberalism is mistaken. A country should not pool its resources with potential enemies. For example, Germany reduced its steel

and