Theories Of International Relations
Theories of InternationalRelationsThird editionScott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, RichardDevetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson,Christian Reus-Smit and Jacqui True
Theories of International Relations
This page intentionally left blank
Theories ofInternationalRelationsThird editionScott Burchill, Andrew Linklater,Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly,Matthew Paterson, ChristianReus-Smit and Jacqui True
Material from 1st edition Deakin University 1995, 1996Chapter 1 Scott Burchill 2001, Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater 2005Chapter 2 Jack Donnelly 2005Chapter 3 Scott Burchill, Chapters 4 and 5 Andrew Linklater,Chapters 6 and 7 Richard Devetak, Chapter 8 Christian Reus-Smit,Chapter 9 Jacqui True, Chapter 10 Matthew Paterson 2001, 2005All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of thispublication may be made without written permission.No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmittedsave with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of theCopyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licencepermitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP.Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publicationmay be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.The authors have asserted their rights to be identifiedas the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988.First edition 1996Second edition 2001Published 2005 byPALGRAVE MACMILLANHoundmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010Companies and representatives throughout the world.PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the PalgraveMacmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.Macmillan is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdomand other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the EuropeanUnion and other countries.ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–4865–6 hardbackISBN-10: 1–4039–4865–8 hardbackISBN-13: 978–1–4039–4866–3 paperbackISBN-10: 1–4039–4866–6 paperbackThis book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fullymanaged and sustained forest sources.A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataTheories of international relations / Scott Burchill [et al.]. – 3rd ed.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–4865–6 (cloth)ISBN-10: 1–4039–4865–8 (cloth)ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–4866–3 (pbk.)ISBN-10: 1–4039–4866–6 (pbk.)1. International relations – Philosophy. I. Burchill, Scott, 1961–JZ1242.T48 2005327.1 01—dc2210 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 114 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05Printed in China2005043737
ContentsPreface to the Third EditionviiiList of AbbreviationsixNotes on the Contributorsx11IntroductionScott Burchill and Andrew LinklaterFrameworks of analysisDiversity of theoryContested natureThe foundation of International RelationsTheories and disciplinesExplanatory and constitutive theoryWhat do theories of international relationsdiffer about?Evaluating theories2312569151823RealismJack Donnelly29Defining realismHobbes and classical realismWaltz and structural realismMotives matterProcess, institutions and changeMorality and foreign policyHow to think about realism (and its critics)30323440444852LiberalismScott Burchill55After the Cold WarLiberal internationalism: ‘inside looking out’War, democracy and free tradeEconomy and terrorismConclusion5557587081v
viContents4The English SchoolAndrew Linklater84From power to order: international societyOrder and justice in international relationsThe revolt against the West and the expansion ofinternational societyProgress in international relationsConclusion89935MarxismAndrew LinklaterClass, production and international relations inMarx’s writingsNationalism and imperialismThe changing fortunes of Marxism inInternational RelationsMarxism and international relations theory al TheoryRichard Devetak137Origins of critical theoryThe politics of knowledge in International Relations theoryRethinking political d Devetak161Power and knowledge in International RelationsTextual strategies of postmodernismProblematizing sovereign statesBeyond the paradigm of sovereignty: rethinking the ristian Reus-Smit188Rationalist theoryThe challenge of critical theoryConstructivism189193194
Contents9viiConstructivism and its discontentsThe contribution of constructivismConstructivism after 9/11Conclusion201205207211FeminismJacqui True213Empirical feminismAnalytical feminismNormative feminismConclusion21622122823210 Green PoliticsMatthew PatersonGreen political theoryGlobal ecologyEcocentrismLimits to growth, post-developmentGreen rejections of the state-systemObjections to Green arguments for decentralizationGreening global liography258Index289
Preface to the Third EditionLike its predecessors, the third edition is intended to provide upper-levelundergraduates and postgraduates with a guide to the leading theoreticalperspectives in the field.The origins of the project lie in the development by Deakin Universityof a distance-learning course in 1995: early versions of several chapterswere initially written for the course guide for this. The first edition ofthis book brought together substantially revised versions of these withnew chapters on Feminism and Green Politics. The second edition addeda further chapter on Constructivism. None of those involved in the project at the outset guessed that the result would be quite such a successfultext as this has turned out to be, with course adoptions literally all overthe world.The third edition has again been substantially improved. For thisedition, Jack Donnelly has written a new chapter on the varieties ofRealism. Jacqui True has produced what is virtually a new chapter onFeminism. Andrew Linklater’s chapter on the English School replacesthe one on Rationalism which he contributed to the first and secondeditions. All chapters, however, have been revised and updated to reflectdevelopments in the literature and to take account, where appropriate,of the significance of ‘9/11’ for theories of world politics. The thirdedition also includes a significantly revised introduction on the importance of international relations theory for students of world affairs.Last but not least, the whole book has been redesigned, consistencybetween chapters in style and presentation has been improved, and aconsolidated bibliography has been added with Harvard referencesreplacing notes throughout.As with the earlier editions, our publisher, Steven Kennedy has beenkeenly involved in every stage of the production of this book. We aregrateful once again for his unfailing commitment and wise counsel.Thanks also to Gary Smith of Deakin University and Dan Flitton fortheir contributions to earlier editions. Above all we would like to thankour co-authors for their hard work and forbearance.SCOTT BURCHILLANDREW LINKLATERviii
List of Asia Pacific Economic CooperationCampaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)Foreign direct investmentGender and developmentGreen political theoryInternational Criminal CourtInternational Court of JusticeInternational organizationInternational Labour OrganizationInternational Monetary FundInternational Political EconomyInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature andNatural ResourcesMAIMultilateral Agreement on InvestmentsMNCMultinational corporationNAFTA North American Free Trade AgreementNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNGONon-governmental organizationNTBNon-trade barrierOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentSAPStructural adjustment policy (IMF)TNCTransnational corporationUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNDPUnited Nations Development ProgrammeWCED World Commission on Environment and DevelopmentWHOWorld Health OrganizationWMDWeapons of mass destructionWTOWorld Trade OrganizationWIDWomen in international developmentix
Notes on the ContributorsScott Burchill is Senior Lecturer in International Relations, DeakinUniversity, Australia.Richard Devetak is Lecturer in Politics, Monash University, Australia.Jack Donnelly is Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Political Science,University of Denver, USA.Andrew Linklater is Woodrow Wilson Professor of InternationalPolitics, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK.Matthew Paterson is Associate Professor of Political Science, Universityof Ottawa, Canada.Christian Reus-Smit is Professor of International Relations, AustralianNational University, Australia.Jacqui True is Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland,New Zealand.x
Chapter 1IntroductionSCOTT BURCHILL AND ANDREW LINKLATERFrameworks of analysisThe study of international relations began as a theoretical discipline.Two of the foundational texts in the field, E. H. Carr’s, The Twenty Years’Crisis (first published in 1939) and Hans Morgenthau’s Politics AmongNations (first published in 1948) were works of theory in three centralrespects. Each developed a broad framework of analysis which distilledthe essence of international politics from disparate events; each soughtto provide future analysts with the theoretical tools for understandinggeneral patterns underlying seemingly unique episodes; and each reflectedon the forms of political action which were most appropriate in a realmin which the struggle for power was pre-eminent. Both thinkers weremotivated by the desire to correct what they saw as deep misunderstandings about the nature of international politics lying at the heart ofthe liberal project – among them the belief that the struggle for powercould be tamed by international law and the idea that the pursuit of selfinterest could be replaced by the shared objective of promoting securityfor all. Not that Morgenthau and Carr thought the international political system was condemned for all time to revolve around the relentlessstruggle for power and security. Their main claim was that all efforts toreform the international system which ignored the struggle for powerwould quickly end in failure. More worrying in their view was the danger that attempts to bring about fundamental change would compoundthe problem of international relations. They maintained the liberal internationalist world-view had been largely responsible for the crisis of theinter-war years.Many scholars, particularly in United States in the 1960s, believedthat Morgenthau’s theoretical framework was too impressionistic innature. Historical illustrations had been used to support rather thandemonstrate ingenious conjectures about general patterns of internationalrelations. In consequence, the discipline lagged significantly behind thestudy of Economics which used a sophisticated methodology drawnfrom the natural sciences to test specific hypotheses, develop general1
2Introductionlaws and predict human behaviour. Proponents of the scientific approachattempted to build a new theory of international politics, some for thesake of better explanation and higher levels of predictive accuracy, othersin the belief that science held the key to understanding how to transforminternational politics for the better.The scientific turn led to a major disciplinary debate in the 1960s inwhich scholars such as Hedley Bull (1966b) argued that internationalpolitics were not susceptible to scientific enquiry. This is a view widelyshared by analysts committed to diverse intellectual projects. The radicalscholar, Noam Chomsky (1994: 120) has claimed that in internationalrelations ‘historical conditions are too varied and complex for anythingthat might plausibly be called “a theory” to apply uniformly’ (1994:120). What is generally know as ‘post-positivism’ in InternationalRelations rejects the possibility of a science of international relationswhich uses standards of proof associated with the physical sciences todevelop equivalent levels of explanatory precision and predictivecertainty (Smith, Booth and Zalewski 1996). In the 1990s, a majordebate occurred around the claims of positivism. The question ofwhether there is a world of difference between the ‘physical’ and the‘social’ sciences was a crucial issue, but no less important were disputesabout the nature and purpose of theory. The debate centred on whethertheories – even those that aim for objectivity – are ultimately ‘political’because they generate views of the world which favour some politicalinterests and disadvantage others. This dispute has produced verydifficult questions about what theory is and what its purposes are. Thesequestions are now central to the discipline – more central than at anyother time in its history. What, in consequence, is it to speak of a ‘theoryof international politics?Diversity of theoryOne purpose of this volume is to analyse the diversity of conceptions oftheory in the study of international relations. Positivist or ‘scientific’approaches remain crucial, and are indeed dominant in the UnitedStates, as the success of rational choice analysis demonstrates. But this isnot the only type of theory available in the field. An increasingly largenumber of theorists are concerned with a second category of theory inwhich the way that observers construct their images of internationalrelations, the methods they use to try to understand this realm and thesocial and political implications of their ‘knowledge claims’ are leadingpreoccupations. They believe it is just as important to focus on how we
Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater3approach the study of world politics as it is to try to explain globalphenomena. In other words the very process of theorizing itself becomesa vital object of inquiry.Steve Smith (1995: 26–7) has argued that there is a fundamental divisionwithin the discipline ‘between theories which seek to offer explanatory(our emphasis) accounts of International Relations’ and perspectiveswhich regard ‘theory as constitutive (our emphasis) of that reality’.Analysing these two conceptions of theory informs much of the discussionin this introductory chapter.The first point to make in this context is that constitutive theories havean increasingly prominent role in the study of international relations,but the importance of the themes they address has long been recognized.As early as the 1970s Hedley Bull (1973: 183–4) argued that:the reason we must be concerned with the theory as well as the historyof the subject is that all discussions of international politics proceed upon theoretical assumptions which we should acknowledgeand investigate rather than ignore or leave unchallenged. The enterprise of theoretical investigation is at its minimum one directedtowards criticism: towards identifying, formulating, refining, andquestioning the general assumptions on which the everyday discussion of international politics proceeds. At its maximum, the enterpriseis concerned with theoretical construction: with establishing thatcertain assumptions are true while others are false, certain argumentsvalid while others are invalid, and so proceeding to erect a firm structureof knowledge.This quotation reveals that Bull thought that explanatory and constitutive theory are both necessary in the study of international relations:intellectual enquiry would be incomplete without the effort to increaseunderstanding on both fronts. Although he wrote this in the early 1970s,it was not until later in the decade that constitutive theory began toenjoy a more central place in the discipline, in large part because of theinfluence of developments in the cognate fields of social and politicaltheory. In the years since, with the growth of interest in internationaltheory, a flourishing literature has been devoted to addressing theoretical concerns, much of it concerned with constitutive theory. This focuson the process of theorizing has not been uncontroversial. Some haveargued that the excessive preoccupation with theory represents a withdrawal from an analysis of ‘real-world’ issues and a sense of responsibility for policy relevance (Wallace 1996). There is a parallel here witha point that Keohane (1988) made against post-modernism which is
4Introductionthat the fixation with problems in the philosophy of social science leadsto a neglect of important fields of empirical research.Critics of this argument maintain that it rests on unspoken orundefended theoretical assumptions about the purposes of studyinginternational relations, and specifically on the belief that the disciplineshould be concerned with issues which are more vital to states than tocivil society actors aiming to change the international political system(Booth 1997; Smith 1997). Here it is important to recall that Carr andMorgenthau were interested not only in explaining the world ‘out there’but in making a powerful argument about what states could reasonablyhope to achieve in the competitive world of international politics. Smith(1996: 113) argues that all theories do this whether intentionally orunintentionally: they ‘do not simply explain or predict, they tell us whatpossibilities exist for human action and intervention; they define notmerely our explanatory possibilities, but also our ethical and practicalhorizons’.Smith questions what he sees as the false assumption that ‘theory’stands in opposition to ‘reality’ – conversely that ‘theory’ can be testedagainst a ‘reality’ which is already ‘out there’ (see also George 1994).The issue here is whether what is ‘out there’ is always theory-dependentand invariably conditioned to some degree by the language and cultureof the observer and by general beliefs about society tied to a particularplace and time. And as noted earlier, those who wonder about the pointof theory cannot avoid the fact that analysis is always theoreticallyinformed and likely to have political implications and consequences(Brown 2002). The growing feminist literature in the field discussed inChapter 9 has stressed this argument in its claim that many of its dominanttraditions are gendered in that they reflect specifically male experiencesof society and politics. Critical approaches to the discipline which arediscussed in Chapters 6 and 7 have been equally keen to stress that thereis, as Nagel (1986) has argued in a rather different context, ‘no viewfrom nowhere’.To be fair, many exponents of the scientific approach recognized thisvery problem, but they believed that science made it possible for analyststo rise above the social and political world they were investigating. Whatthe physical sciences had achieved could be emulated in social-scientificforms of enquiry. This is a matter to come back to later. But debatesabout the possibility of a science of international relations, and disputesabout whether there has been an excessive preoccupation with theory inrecent years, demonstrate that scholars do not agree about the natureand purposes of theory or concur about its proper place in the widerfield. International Relations is a discipline of theoretical disagreements –a ‘divided discipline’, as Holsti (1985) called it.
Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater5Contested natureIndeed it has been so since those who developed this comparatively newsubject in the Western academy in the aftermath of the First World Warfirst debated the essential features of international politics. Ever sincethen, but more keenly in some periods than in others, almost everyaspect of the study of international politics has been contested. Whatshould the discipline aim to study: Relations between states? Growingtransnational economic ties, as recommended by early twentieth-centuryliberals? Increasing internat
Jacqui True is Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand. x. Chapter 1 Introduction SCOTT BURCHILL AND ANDREW LINKLATER Frameworks of analysis The study of international relations began as a theoretical discipline. Two of the foundational texts in the field, E. H. Carr’s, The Twenty Years’ Crisis (first published in 1939) and Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among .
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 63-81 Learning Objectives 63 Key Terms 63 Role Theories 65 Motivational Theories 67 Learning Theories 69 Cognitive Theories 73 Symbolic Interaction Theories 75 Socio-Cultural Theories 77 Evolutionary Theories 78 Summary and review 80 review QueStionS 81 4. SELF AND IDENTITY 82-107
2 S o c i a l T h e o r i e s Theories can be used to study society—millions of people in a state, country, or even at the world level. When theories are used at this level they are referred to as macro-level theories, theories which best fit the study of massive numbers of people (typically Conflict and Functional theories).
of International Politics which is different from traditional theories of international relations such as realism and neo-realism in manner; that it does not support to maintain status-quo in the international system. Rather, it attempts to bring the radical change in the prevailing social and political order.
These are equational theories that can be turned into convergent rewrite systems, modulo associativity and commutativity of certain binary operators. Many important theories for intruder deduction fall into this category, e.g., theories for exclusive-or [10,7], Abelian groups [10], and more generally, certain classes of monoidal theories [11].
Theories Proof Systems Class PV, S1 2 eF P [11, 6] PSA, U1 2 QBF PSPACE [18, 6] Ti 2, S i p1 2 G i, G 1 P i [29, 31, 6] VNC0 Frege (F) ALogTime [14, 15, 1] VL GL L [34, 15] VNL GNL NL [35, 15] The rst three theories are rst-order theories; the last three theories are second-order. The last three theories could also be viewed as multi-sorted rst .
The scientific method is the logical scheme used by scientists searching for answers to the ques-tions posed within science. Scientific method is used to produce scientific theories, including both scientific meta-theories (theories about theories) as well as the theories used to design the tools for .
1.1 This Book and Theories of Economics 1 1.1.1 Theories: Economic and Otherwise 4 1.1.2 Economic Theories in Disagreement 5 1.1.3 Are WAll e Economic Theorists? 6 1.2 Theories and Society 9 1.2.1 Changes in Europe and the Hum
that our initial survey of business communication theories was an adequate canvassing of essential business communication theories. We used the judges' ratings to classify the theories into four categories: notable, focused, major, and core. For categorizing the theories, we first averaged all raters' theory scores for each theory across all
