IRL 111

WEEK 4: APPROACHES TO STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Outline

1. What is an approach?
2. Importance of international Relations Approaches?
3. Philosophical Approach, Historical Approach, Systems Approach, Games Approach,
Cybernetics Approach, Realist Approach, and Marxist Approach.
Introduction.

Approaches to international relations are theoretical perspectives to the study of international

relations. Approaches provides a conceptual framework upon which international relations can
be analyzed. Ole Holsti describes international relations theories as a pair of coloured sunglasses,
allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the approaches. Put differently,
theories mean an abstracted view of reality. It is seen as a structured way of looking at reality. It
is a collection of tested variables which can still be verified. Approaches are guided look at
reality or images of reality which have been constructed by a researcher or an informed mind.
More so, the term approaches has technical and common sense meaning. In common sense term,
Approaches means idea, proposition and explanation that get to the essential truth behind
something that is often hidden. Approaches like a paradigm is used to mean a set of assumptions
that establish a framework of understanding.
Approaches can also be defined as a system of interconnected abstraction or ideas that condenses
and organizes knowledge about the social world. It is a compact way to think of the social world.
In general, an Approach is a hypothetical deduction system which describes the inter- relations
between variables as means of explaining a given phenomenon. An approach begins as a
collection of general observations or statements which are testable. It is after testing the variables
contained in a number of situations that such an effort can lead to an approach. Scholars may
formulate approaches through a process of perception and intuition. E.g social contract
utilitarianism or through empirically tested methods

1
 ROLE OF APPROACHES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
Approaches to the study of international relations are significant for several reasons among
which include

 The application of theories has potential to mark out our research works from those
carried out by non-professional. For instance, a journal article is intellectually distinct
from social blogs and soft sell magazine because of the application of theory. Academic
journals are distinguish from other forms of writing because they are based on theoretical
assumption and are also subject to peer reviews unlike other non-academic writings.

 Theories contain concepts, their definitions and assumption. More significantly, theories
specify how concepts relates to one neither. Theories tell us whether concept are related
or not. Simply put, approaches states how concepts relate to each other. For instance,
Marxism stresses the correlation between class and exploitation. Realism explain
relationship between national interest and the foreign policy pursuit of any country.

 Theories give reasons for why relationship such as economic distress among the white
population caused an increase in mob violence against African’s to why South African
express anger towards Nigerian’s and Zimbabwean in what is now term xenophobia.

 The whole essence of theorizing is aimed at increasing our knowledge stock. As one
Approach is being rejected and another developed, we are surely increasing in our
knowledge acquisition. Simply stated, it increases our knowledge base.

 Approaches explain more intensely a phenomenon. This explanation sheds more light on
what is being investigated.

 The extension of theories to our research works makes them more structured or focused.
Instead of viewing an issue from different backgrounds which ultimately makes it to lose
its structure; an Approach well-constructed directs our minds and attention strictly to a
particular area that is in congruence with our intellectual map.

2
 TYPES OF APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

There are numerous approaches to the study of international relations they include, Idealism,
Liberalism, Realism, Marxism, Dependency, Functionalism, Elite, Critical, social
Constructivism, Feminist , World-systems, and Structuralism approach among others. However
for the purpose of this course we will concentrate on a few.

REALIST APPROACH

The major proponent of this perspective include Thucydides, Kautilya, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
Morgenthau, Clausewitz, E.H.Carr, Kenneth Waltz, Quincy Wright, Reinhold Niebuhr, Spyman,
and Fredrick Schuman; they all agree that the basic currency of international relations is power.
The approach has become synonymous with power politics, that is the primacy of power in all
form of relations. Realist believe that as money is the life blood of commerce or economics, so
also the pursuit of power and national interest is critical to the understanding of International
relations. Simply stated, power is to international relations what fuel is to a car. Realist argue that
all relations can only be understood, measured, and explained within the context of power,
manipulation, consolidation, wrestling, struggle, tussle, coercion and maneuvering. In the words
of Harold Lasswell, it is who gets what, when and how. Thucydides asserted in the Athenian-
Melian Dialogue, “that the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what
they have to accept”. Morgenthau , maintained that “international politics, like all other politics,
is a struggle for power. And “that statesmen think and act in terms of interests defined as
power”.

Realist posits that human nature is selfish and the determinant of state behavior is the radical
pursuit of self-interest. Hence, clashes of interest and conflict cannot be exempted as they are
inevitable part of such relationship. Realist further maintains that international relations is the
survival of the strongest and restiveness of the less powerful (Israel takeover of Entebbe Airport,
the Death of Gadaffi). The realist approach assumes that state rather than any other international
actor is regarded as the unit of analyzing international politics. Realist characterizes the
international environment as hostile and dangerous, it follows that state behavior will be
analyzed from the perspective of those environment forces.

3
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
(a) Security is achieved by balancing power within the international system. To this effect, the
doctrine of harmony of interests is advanced by the strongest states that seek to impose an order
that suits them.

(b) The international structure is anarchical (that is, there is no sovereign authority) and so the
first priority for each state is to ensure its security. Invariably, each state seeks to enhance its
relative power within the system.
(c) The goal of state is security, preservation, national interest .

(d) State is the basic and most important actors in the international arena

(e) The international arena is anarchical in nature.

(f) International morality is the product of power, since it has never been based on the principles
of justice or any other objective criteria. Morality, as an explanatory tool of IR, is therefore
inconsequential.

EXAMPLES: Crusader, European Expansionist Drive, Colonialism, Slavery, (Pls read They kill
Gadaffi so what? By Dr Sherrif Folarin National Mirror Online).

However, like every other international relations theory, there are certain limitations with Realist
theory of international relations, these include:
(1) It emphasizes only one aspect of inter-state relations which is competition while neglecting
cooperation. It is common knowledge that certain interests of states are better served through
cooperation rather than competition. For instance, Global terrorism, global climate change and
other environmental issues. Similarly, it explains the deficient aspect of human nature. If
humankind is unchanging, how do we account for the growth of collaborative multilateral
institutions, economic expansion through integration and states’ observable willingness to abide
by ethical principles and bilateral/multilateral agreements?

4
(2) Also, realism suggests that maximization of state power is a central goal of political elites,
thus ignoring the many examples of developing world political elites actually dismantling the
edifices of state power.

(3) Realism’s disregard for the material and social costs that some of developmental goals may
be more central to explaining some leaders’ behaviour than is the structure of the international
system. Put differently, pursuit of military buildup may be specific with certain character type
rather than a typical state character

(4) Similarly, realism assumes that the state is the only unit of analysis but in Africa and other
part of the world states are not the only important actors. In the African context, nations and
armed nationalist movements like SWAPO and ANC are important units of analysis.

PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

Another fundamental approach to the study of international relation is the philosophical

perspective. It is more of an idealist view or framework. It is a combination of many methods of
inquiry and it draws most of its inspiration from long held tradition such as norms, value, and
ethics. The philosophical approach focus on three level of analysis. First, it raises question of
value judgment and ethical considerations. That is investigation into good and bad, rights and
wrong, just and unjust, morality. For instance, Jimmy Carter refused to associate with South
Africa because of Apartheid. Similarly Carter wanted to use US foreign policy to promote
Human Rights. Western world and most other part of Eastern Europe refused to identify with
Nigeria during Abacha regime because of human rights violation, specifically the hanging of the
eight Ogoni. Wildrow Wilson one time president of US stated that it is bad to base USA foreign
policy on material interest.

The second level of philosophical analysis is the nature of human being and human society. For
example, are decision makers whose decisions determine the course of event wicked or right? Do
decision makers perceive institutions created by society as brutalizing or humanizing? The third
level of philosophical analysis relates to major idea of the world such as democracy, Socialism,
Capitalism.

Fundamentally, Idealism usually refers to the school of thought personified by Woodrow Wilson.

5
It holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy, i.e
the export or imposition of its political system on neighboring or rival states. Philosophically,
idealism refers to the attitude that places special value on ideas and ideals as product of the mind,
in comparison with the world as perceived through the senses. In IR, idealism is the belief that
foreign policy is and should be guided by ethical and normative standards. It stresses the pursuit
of ideals like human rights and world peace. Idealism is also distinguished by the conspicuous
role played by international law and international organization in foreign policy formation. One
of the most well-known tenets of modern idealist thinking is “Democratic Peace Theory”, which
holds that states with similar liberal orientation do not fight one another. In this context, idealism
is used synonymously with liberalism. Unlike realism, idealism offered different prescriptions
regarding reform of the international system so as to eliminate wars. The four main proposals of
this school of thought are focused on international institutions, legal processes, disarmament and
self-determination. These are based on a set of beliefs (assumptions) relating to human nature,
war, ethics and democracy.
The credibility of idealism was severely undermined by the outbreak of World War II., and this
prompted harsh criticisms. Critics blamed the outbreak of the war on what they believed to be
the idealists’ naive legalistic and moralistic prescriptions about world peace and progress. They
accused liberal idealists of being utopias who neglected the harsh realities of power politics.

HISTORICAL APPROACH

This approach discusses international relations with little analytical insight. It stresses periods,
such as period of 1919 -1939, World War 1, World war II, Post second world war, Napoleonic
war, Franco-Prussian War. It tends to be more chronological by drawing inference from past
event specifically how past event impact on current realities in Global Politics. Secondly it stress
theme such as imperialism, colonialism, cold war, balance of power, the Great Crusade, the
Atlantic Slave Trade, Industrialization Revolution and French Revolution. Thirdly, This
approach emphasizes the role of great leader such as Mo Tseung, Nkrumah, Kennedy, Idi- Amin,
among others.

6
MARXIST APPROACH

Notable scholars include Karl Marx, Fredrick, Hegel, Andrew Gunder-Frank, Samir Amin and
Walter Rodney among others. Marxists focuses on exploitation, class structure. Marxist scholars
analyze society from the perspective of international exploitation and domination. They contend
that capitalist economies in the course of the expansion have had to colonize other people's

economies, in the course of which they expropriated wealth of these economies and societies.

According to them it was this process that began the phenomenon of the ‘development of under-
development of third world societies'. While the colonizing economies became the centers of the
world economic system, the colonized became the periphery of the same system, thereby
creating the centre-periphery nexus or the metro pole-satellite nexus.

The Marxist school can be grouped into three, the structuralist, the underdevelopment and
dependency theory. Although they tend to make similar proposition they differ slightly. While the
structuralist stopped at identifying and describing the indices of underdevelopment. The scholars
employing the Underdevelopment Theory are concerned with the dialectics of underdevelopment.
For instance while the UDT adopts the Marxian methodology, the structuralist are basically
descriptive in approach. The Marxist-Leninist theory is a criticism of the way in which
individual gain is prioritized over equity within and between nation-states. The approach
emphasizes equity. Two major concepts are important to understanding Marxist-Lenin
perspective these are historical materialism and historical Dialectic. Historical materialism in this
context is considered one of the intellectual foundations of Marxism. It looks for the causes of
developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly,
material factors, as well as the clashes of material interest among tribes, social classes and
nations.

In Lenin’s book imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, Lenin argued that capitalism must
be viewed as a global phenomenon, and different capitalist countries must not be treated as if
they are fully independent entities. Instead, one must look at capitalism globally. From this point
of view, Lenin argued that the developed capitalist countries “export” their poverty to poorer
counties, through colonial acquisitions (hence “imperialism”) and exploit them as the source of
cheap unskilled labor and resources. Part of the spoils from the colonies is used to raise the

7
standard of living of the industrialized states and thus checkmates revolution therein.

However, their basic propositions are thus (i) that society which is always in constant motion
cannot be understood outside the specific state of development of its production forces and that
no social, political and economic institution can be understood independent of the mode of
production within which they exist. Marxist have a materialistic and dialectic conception of
history. Therefore the development of phenomena in society will be understood only in their
interconnectedness and not in isolation in order (Omoweh 2004:3). Put differently, politics in any
place cannot be understood outside the struggle among and between classes. The struggle is
about power and nature of the distribution of resources. Put differently, certain concepts runs
through all discussion on Marxism and these includes: Exploitation, class struggle, economic
determinism. Simply stated the Marxist school has a dialectics and materialistic conception of
history and society. Marxism is preoccupied with economic determinism, class conflict,
inequality and they advocate for the reforming of the structure of global capitalism.

However a fundamental criticism against Marxism is that the traditions ignore other causes of
historical and social change, like biology , genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that
are not “materialist”.
GAMES APPROACH

Assume that interstate relations can be reducible to games and therefore can be predictable. Put
differently, interstate relations involve some form of simulation and forecasting of behavior. The
features of Games Approach to the study of international relations involve

1. Rational behavior

2. Strategy

3. Pay off matrix

4. Alliance such as economic e.g ECOWAS, EU, Military such as NATO, WARSAW
ECOMOG Peacekeeping force . dual entente vs triple entetent , Bismarkian Diplomacy

5. Solution

6. Bargaining Chips /Diplomacy

8
CYBERNETICS APPROACH.

This approach was propounded by Karl Deutsch to explain international Relations. Karl Deutsch
in his book Nerves of Government emphasis the primacy of information and communication in
the relationship between states in the IPS. This approach emphasis that what is transmitted in
communication must be measured, analyzed, recorded and homogenous. Information must have
direction which should lead to generalization. For Karl, international relations can only be
understood when we consider information flow among countries. Karl believes that when we are
able to analyze information flow we can understand, explain and predict international politics.
A major factor significant to cybernetic approach is control. State must be able to control the
flow of information so that there is no overflow which may lead to confusion. And finally there
must be the maintenance of the system through feedback process that allows states to react or act
to available information. Karl considers spying and leakages of information or outrights theft of
information as legitimate actions of state.

EXAMPLES: WIKI LEAKS

SYSTEMS APPROACH.

It is an abstract way of looking at international relations. It was adopted from the biological
science to explain the interwoven nature of relations in global politics. The description of
international relations as a system is a borrowed term from the natural science to explain
linkages that exists in relationship between states in world politics. The international relations
analysts imply in their analogy, that we can liken the global system to a human body. They argue
that just as the human body can be divided into a subsystems such as respiratory , digestive
system e.t.c , so also the international environment can be divided into systems and
subsystems.

A system is conceptually an autonomous unit capable of adaptive behavior. It is a set of complex

element standing in interaction. Each set of element is living and dynamic and has an
environment. The interaction between each of its element and part of the environment is
dynamics and promote both its adaptive behavior and its goal seeking function. The system has a
boundary. Notable system theorist includes David Easton, Arnold, Spirror McClelland and
Modelski, According to Beer and Ulan, by a system we mean at least a degree of

9
interdependence. According to McClelland, a system is a structure that is perceived to have some
identifiable boundaries that separate it from its environment. According to Frankel, a system
consists of a number of units which interact. International relations broadly speaking have
general properties of system. These include

1. Preservation and promotion of the system through peace and international order.

2. It makes authority or binding allocation of value through treaties law, sanction, force,
inter trade and inter cultural and intellectual relations e.t.c

3. Establishment of a world without wars

4. Use of collective measure as guarantee against disturbance of peaceful condition

5. Realization of international cooperation and friendship in many fields among state. e.g
FESTAC

6. Defense of Human rights and promotion of human liberties

The features and characteristics of the system include: input, conversion, output, feedback and
environment

EXAMPLES: Global climate change, biodiversity, contagion theory or domino, spread, split of
crisis from one place to another, spillover.

However, it is pertinent to note that there is nothing like an international system such as one in
which you can compartmentalized into various sub-unit. The international political system
cannot be compare with a Biological system. The contemporary international political system is
in no way a biological system but the system approach of explaining the inter-state behavior is an
attempt to explain relationships & interdependency among states.

The following difference exists between biological system and the International system.

1. The biological system is natural while the International system is conceptual & artificial. It
is man-made.

10
 2. The biological system is highly involuntary while the international system is voluntaristic.
Nations are not coerced to identify with the system. States voluntarily decide to join or not.

3. The rule of the biological system is natural, static & violation of the rule will lead to the
collapse of the entire system. But the international system is opposite. The rule that govern state
actor are man-made so state can choose to obey or disobey. Put differently, International law &
morality only exist in theory and is not applicable to states; as states may choose to obey or
disobey. Also a breakdown of the rule of the International system does not lead to the collapse of
the system. We have had state disobey rules and yet the system has not collapse.

In sum, a biological system is natural while international system is artificial. The international
system according to McClelland is abstract, descriptive and theoretical and voluntary.

Limitation of systems approach

Demerit or criticism that has been leveled against this approach include:

1. It is ahistoric or dehostoric. It does not take into account the factor of history in propounding a
framework of analysis of international relations.

2. Compartmentalization of system into political units : The international system does not
operate in compartmentalization, autonomy or Subunit.

3. It assumes that there exist a system which is self-adjusting without consideration of changes
such as revolution changes and the effect of culture. For instance, China for a whole century was
isolated from the rest of the world.

The system’s approach is merely a convenient way used by political scientist and student of
international relations in analyzing the nature & working of the international system and in
describing the relationship between and among states. The western perception of liberation
movement poses a threat to international peace and stability. For example, America’s response to
what it saw as Libyan Sponsorship of international terrorism especially against America target
and citizen which prompted president Reagan in 1986 to order the bombing of Libya cities of
Tripoli's and Behazi. On April 1986 America also bombed target in Sudan in the 1990s in

11
response to the bombing of American embassy in Tanzania and Kenya suspected to have carried
out by the Saudi dissident Osama Bin Ladin .

4. Another defect of the system approach to the study of international relations is that if the
international relations is a biological system then whatever affect one part of the world or system
invariably affect the other as it is the case with regard to natural system. But it is not always so
in international system because WAR CAN BE raging in ONE PART OF THE world while the
rest of the international system goes about its affairs in a relatively happy mood. with only
occasional concern about the event in the affected areas as reported in the media. For
instance, the circulatory system cannot be cut off from the rest of the body without serious
consequence.

5. System approach in determining the political system capacity to maintain its equilibrium in the
faces of stress and for adapting to changes that are forced internationally and externally.

LIBERAL THEORY

The word liberal is derived from the Latin liber , free, and up to the end of the eighteenth century
signified only “worthy of a free man”. It initially advocated freedom from the state in matters of
morality and religion. The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam
Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called The Wealth of Nations. He and
others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters.
Since the end of the eighteenth century, however, the word has been applied more and more to
certain tendencies in intellectual , religious, political, and economic life, which implied a partial
or total emancipation of man from the supernatural. Politically , liberalism is opposed to
centralization and totalitarianism. A fundamental principle of liberalism is seeing individual
liberty as the highest value in social and economic life. Liberals believe in a free market and free
trade, but they differ in the degree of limited government intervention in the economy which they
advocate.
Although liberal idealism agrees with the realist view of the basic anarchical nature of the
international system, the lack of a central authority which condemns actors to self-centered
endless conflict is never endorsed. Contrary to the realists’ view on the distribution of power ,
liberalism introduced a whole range of other factors that can explain events and tendencies

12
depending on the context and issue. Nigeria’s decision (under military dictatorship) to join the
galvanization of Islamic states (OIC) was not a show of power, but a reflection of religious and
ethnic considerations. Another illustration is the renunciation of nuclear weapons by Brazil,
Egypt and South Africa, despite the imbalance of power in Latin America, the Middle East and
Africa.
In economic matters, for example, multinational corporations (MNC’s) and individuals like Bill
Gates (Microsoft) take complex decisions about international (economic) activities. Similarly,
inter-governmental organizations (IGO’s) and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) play a
crucial role in international activities. Examples include the European Union and the AU for
IGO’s and the International Red Cross for INGOs. Neo-liberalism, a variant of liberalism,
concentrates on how non-state actors, such as the Nigerian trade unions and international
institutions, e.g the UN and AU, promote global co-operation, peace and prosperity. The role of
the General Assembly in according an observer status to SWAPO -a non-state actor - is crucial in
the liberation process of Namibia.
Limitation of Liberal Theory
Its limitation can be discovered in the apparent value it placed on the free market far more than it
did on democracy, as evidenced by the willingness to see democracy fall if it threatened property
rights. An illustration was the manner President Salvador Allende of Chile- the world’s first
democratically-elected Marxist head of state-was overthrown in a CIA-supported coup in 1973.
Over the years, both the perpetrators and their supporters justified the coup by arguing that it was
essential for preserving democracy and prosperity in Chile. They argued that Allende wanted to
establish a Cuban-style dictatorship, which in their view would have destroyed human rights as
well as their economic prosperity, and therefore they insisted that the forcible removal of the
elected president was a necessary and justified course of action. The CIA’s involvement was
purportedly extended to Nigeria during the military dispensation. It was widely held belief in
Nigeria in 1976 that Murtala Mohammed was killed with the sanction of the US and Britain.
Ideologically, Neo-Marxist developing state scholars finds liberalism inadequate. To Watson, for
instance, liberalism has always “rested on social systems based on negative freedom via
exploitation, national (ethnic and racial) oppression and political repression. The legitimacy of
liberalism is centered on the production and reproduction of capitalist ideology and social
reproduction as a whole. Liberalism has legitimized capitalist hegemony”.

13
ROLE THEORY

The development of role theory began in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Its central concern has
been with patterns of human conduct: roles with expectations, identities and social positions,
social structure and individual responses. However, role theory as use in political science and
international relations was introduced in 1970 by Kalevi Holsti in his seminal article National
Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Holsti 1970). Parsons asserted that the social
system contains an allocate process by which the problem of who is to get what, who is to do
what, and the manner and conditions under which it is to be done was made explicit. Access to
roles is determined by qualifications. Access to facilities is determined by positions.
CONCLUSION

Having examined the numerous approaches to the study of international relations, it is important
to note that, the limitation of theory is what leads to the building of models.

14