A Brief Introduction to Theories on International Relations and

Foreign Policy
(http://www.people.vcu.edu/~wnewmann/468theory.htm)
What are theories in IR and FP?
There is a big uestion in international relations and !oreign policy: "hy do states behave the
way they do in the international system# $ome people argue that this is a uestion o! international
relations theory and others say it is a uestion o! !oreign policy theory. %or our purposes& we can
consider them the same issue. "hy do states behave the way they do is the uestion that theories o!
international relations and theories o! !oreign policy are trying to answer. The search !or theory is a
search !or rules to e'plain social science phenomenon (in this case !oreign policy behavior). (any
authors in this !ield are developing a theory to e'plain the behavior o! all states& not )ust one state.
That is the tric* here. +an you !ind universal patterns o! activity& universal rules that can be used to
e'plain how any state behaves# The usual way is to develop a theory (a rule about state behavior) and
then test it with case studies.
,on-t be con!used by scienti!ic )argon o! these theories. .ust remember that theories are
statements about cause and e!!ect. "hen / heat up a liuid& it will boil. That-s cause and e!!ect. To
become a scientist& you start to e'periment 0 you heat up di!!erent liuids to see i! they all boil at the
same temperature& then you try to ma*e rules about the di!!erent types o! liuids you heat up& say types
o! )uices vs. types o! oil. That-s science. 1ow& since this is social science and we-re dealing with
nations& we can-t run e'periments. 2ou can-t invade several nations to see what their di!!erent
reactions to invasion might be. $o you use historical data to test your theories3how well does an
argument (a theoretical proposition) hold up when tested against the historical data#
The !ollowing overview will provide a brie! introduction to some o! the *ey ideas in
international relations& which will give you a starting point and a uic* re!erence !or dealing with the
theoretical issues. 4iews o! di!!erent authors might be slightly di!!erent !rom the way the theories are
described here& because they ta*e some o! these basic notions and redevelop them in their own way.
Theories evolve and below you are being given the basic starting points !or each theory.
2ou are e'amining the !oreign policy o! the +5ech 6epublic (+5echoslova*ia) and these
theories can give you a use!ul tool to conceptuali5e and e'plain your !indings.

Levels of Analysis
7ne o! the *ey uestions in international relations and !oreign policy is the uestion o! how you
e'amine state behavior. This is the level o! analysis problem. $cholars see several levels o! analysis
through which state behavior can be e'amined.
System level analysis e'amines state behavior by loo*ing at the international system. /n this
level o! analysis& the international system is the cause and state behavior is the e!!ect. +haracteristics
o! the international system cause states to behave the way they do. +hange in the international system
will cause change in state behavior. The *ey variable in the international system is the power o! a state
within the system. $ome states are power!ul8 others are wea*. $o !or e'ample& the cold war had two
power!ul states. There!ore the central cause o! all state behavior in the cold war was the !act that the
9$ and 9$$6 were the two power!ul states in a bipolar system. Today& there is unipolar system 0 one
superpower (or hyperpower) :: and that de!ines the behavior o! all other states in the system. ($ee neo:
realism below). $o this level o! analysis might e'plain the 9$ intervention in /ra as a matter o! the
9$& the one and only power!ul state& !le'ing its muscles to police the world against states that threaten
it. The 9$ wants to preserve its dominance and there!ore crushes all challengers.
State level analysis e'amines the !oreign policy behavior o! states in terms o! state
characteristics. %or e'ample& some scholars say that all democracies behave a certain way8 they don-t
!ight with other democracies. $ome scholars might loo* at the di!!erent behaviors o! wea* or strong
states8 states that live in rough neighborhoods (;ermany or %rance) vs. states that live in more benign
surroundings (the 9$). $ome scholars might say that the !oreign policy behavior o! every state is a
cultural characteristic& de!ined by the historical legacy o! the state& the religious or social traditions& or
the economic and geographic nature o! the state itsel! (see constructivism below). $tate level o!
analysis might e'plain the 9$ intervention in /ra as a !unction o! the missionary uality o! 9$
!oreign policy. The 9$ has always had an idealist strea* in its !oreign policy (some disagree with this)
and sees <bad guys= out there in the international system. The 9$ is compelled by the nature o! its
political system and its belie! that some day all states will be li*e the 9$. /t has a drive to rema*e the
world in its own image. The )ob o! 9$ !oreign policy is not done until all states are democratic and all
nations have !ree mar*et economies.
Organiational level analysis e'amines the way in which organi5ations within a state
!unction to in!luence !oreign policy behavior. $tates don-t ma*e decisions. 7rgani5ations bargain
with each other to create a !oreign policy that is a compromise between competing organi5ations. This
level o! analysis !or e'ample& might loo* at the /ra war and try to e'plain it by e'amining the
interests o! the 9$ military& the department o! de!ense& the state department& and central intelligence
agency. >ow did these organi5ations create 9$ !oreign policy would be the *ey uestion at this level
o! analysis.
Individual level analysis !ocuses on people. ?eople ma*e decisions within nation states and
there!ore people ma*e !oreign policy. $cholars might loo* at the roles o! di!!erent leaders. This level
o! analysis might e'plain "orld "ar // by e'amining the role o! >itler. /t might loo* at the end o! the
cold war by studying ;orbachev. /t might suggest that the economic re!orms in +hina are a result o!
the transition !rom (ao @edong-s leadership to ,eng Aiaoping-s rule. This level o! analysis also
includes cognitive theories ::: theories that e'plain !oreign policy by loo*ing at the way leaders
perceive the world. Barson-s boo* is an e'ample o! this. This is a !ocus on perception& misperception&
and communication. /ndividual level analysis might as* uestions such as these: Cre there aspects o!
;eorge ". Dush-s character and belie! systems that have de!ined the 9$ response to the E/FF attac*s#
"ould Cl ;ore or .ohn Gerry have behaved any di!!erently in a similar situation# >ow do Dush and
his senior decision ma*ers perceive the world and their role in it#

Theories of State Behavior
The !ollowing list illustrates some o! the most important theories. Hach one is a speci!ic theory that
tries to e'plain the way states behave and this is )ust a brie! outline. Cgain& these are starting points
!or theory and di!!erent authors are modi!ying them to build better theory.
!lassical realism is a state level theory that argues that all states see* power. That is the !irst and last
principle o! state behavior. $tates see* to increase their power8 they see* to decrease the power o!
their enemies8 and everything they do is in the name o! amassing power. $tates see other power!ul
states as rivals because power& when it is not in your hands& is threatening. ?eople are greedy&
insecure& and aggressive& so the states they govern will have those same characteristics. This doesn-t
mean war& however. There can be peace& but a durable peace is based upon a stable balance o! power
0 the big players in the international systems are roughly eual in power resources& so there!ore no one
thin*s they can win a war. /! you don-t thin* you can win a war& you generally don-t start one. The
9$ and 9$$6 were rivals in the cold war because they were the two most power!ul states a!ter ""
//. They were both wary o! each other-s power and became enemies. Dut they did not go to war
because they were roughly eual in power.
"eo#realism is a system level theory that is an o!!shoot o! classical realism. /t argues all o! what
classical realism does. >owever& it sees the cause o! all the power struggles and rivalries not as a
!unction o! the nature o! states& but as a !unction o! the nature o! the international system. $tates are
out there alone. There is no world government& no one loo*ing out !or states& no rules that can-t be
easily bro*en. The world is anarchy and states do what they can get away with to gain power and they
do what they must to protect themselves. ?ower creates rivalry because it is threatening by its nature.
/! some other state is more power!ul than your state& you have no way to protect yoursel! but to de!end
yoursel! or attac* your rival !irst. C neorealist might say the cold war was caused by the !act that there
were only two power!ul states that survived "" //. $ine there was no world government or rules o!
behavior to restrain the rivalry it became the cold war. This theory dominates scholarly thin*ing today
and will be discussed in a lot o! the boo*s.
"eo#classical realism is a sort o! revival o! classical realism. /t accepts all o! the above about power
rivalries& but it suggests that state characteristics (state level variables) play a large role in the behavior
o! states. $tates don-t )ust see* power and they don-t )ust !ear other power!ul states& there are reasons
that states see* power and there are reasons that states !ear other states. /t-s a sort o! combination o!
classical and neo:realism that !actors in both system level and state level variables. %or e'ample& a
neo:classical realist might loo* at the cold war and say that the di!!erences in ideology between the 9$
and 9$$6 was a !actor in the 9$:9$$6 rivalry that e'acerbated the tendency !or two power!ul states
to !orm rivalries.
Li$eralism adds values into the euation. /t is o!ten called idealism. /t is a state level theory which
argues that there is a lot o! cooperation in the world& not )ust rivalry. $tates don-t )ust compete or
worry about power. $tates try to build a more )ust world order. They o!ten do so because they have
learned that in many instances cooperation is a better strategy that con!lict. $tates try to create
en!orceable international law. $tates are progressive !orces !or social )ustice. Biberalism might loo*
at the cold war and e'amine the di!!erent values o! the 9$ and 9$$6 and point out the repressive and
murderous nature o! the $oviet state as the *ey to the 9$ and 9$$6 animosity. /t also might loo* at
the decades:worth o! 9$:9$$6 cooperation in the midst o! the cold war (arms control& the lac* o!
direct con!lict).
"eo#li$eralism is an o!!shoot o! liberalism. /t is a system level version o! liberalism and !ocuses on
the way in which institutions can in!luence the behavior o! states by spreading values or creating rule:
based behavior. 1eo:liberals might !ocus on the role o! the 9nited 1ations or "orld Trade
7rgani5ation in shaping the !oreign policy behavior o! states. 1eo:liberals might loo* at the cold war
and suggest ways to !i' the 91 to ma*e it more e!!ective.
!ognitive Theories are those mentioned above which e'amine the role o! psychological processes 0
perception& misperception& belie! systems 0 on the !oreign policy behavior o! states. /t can be state&
organi5ation& or individual level o! analysis depending on whether the research is !ocusing on the
psychological dynamics o! a state decision ma*er or the shared perceptions o! an organi5ation& or the
shared belie! systems o! a nation. +ognitive theorists might loo* at the shared images o! the 9$ and
9$$6 political leaders had o! each other and e'plain the cold war as the product o! these negative
images and the inability o! either state to reshape the perceptions o! the other.
!onstructivism is a theory that e'amines state behavior in the conte't o! state characteristics. Cll
states are uniue and have a set o! de!ining political& cultural& economic& social& or religious
characteristics that in!luence its !oreign policy. $tates have identities and those identities de!ine their
behavior in the international system. The 9$ has a !oreign policy character. 6ussia has a !oreign
policy character. The cold war is a product o! the clash o! those identities. The end o! the cold war
may be a !unction o! changes in the 6ussian identity.