A Succinct Analysis of the Major Theories in International Relations

Jeremy Miller

Materialist Argument The world is an unavoidably dangerous place, where only the strongest can survive and prosper. In order to survive and succeed in such a world, leaders need to be aware of the causes of interstate conflict and the best methods and policies for protecting their national security and effectively gaining the upper hand vis a vis other states in the international system. All conflicts arise from the disproportionate amount of material bases, whether economic or military goods, accumulated by nation-states compounded by structural characteristics of the international system that fosters zero-sum competition and power struggles. A state with a vast surplus of military power or economic clout can exert influence or domination over another state deficient in these material goods, and it can do so with no repercussions from a higher authority. Sovereign states may have the supreme authority to settle domestic conflicts between opposing parties within its borders, but there is no world power to settle disputes between interstate actors. This single fact is the reason the world is such a dangerous place. Thomas Hobbes’ description of primitive man in a “state of nature”; governed by no rules, leading a brutal existence in a state of war of all against all, where self-help is required for survival, and might makes right, is a suitable parallel to the predicament of states in the international system. The lack of a supreme world authority with jurisdiction over sovereign nation-states is by default anarchic. Due to the inherently dangerous international order it is necessary to have an objective, parsimonious, and universally applicable theory concerning the causes of interstate wars as a means to simplify an otherwise complex reality. Such a theory helps state leaders to know what factors to ignore and to provide focus as to what courses of action should be utilized in all threats to national security regardless of context and the internal regime type of a hostile state. To achieve such a universally applicable theory it is necessary to view states in the international system as; sovereign actors, as acting rationally in pursuit of national interests, and existing in an anarchic system without a supreme authority. By relying on these three core assumptions, heads of state can more efficiently work to prepare their states against security threats posed to their national interests. The surest way for a nation to withstand potential threats to one's security is through self-help, acquiring the largest military power possible. If the means to building a strong military force are out of reach, a second best option may be to align oneself with another state in order to achieve strength in numbers as a form of deterrence against foreign aggression. This alignment can create a balance of power to offset the advantage initially held by the aggressive state, leading it to not pick a fight it cannot easily win. However, in an anarchic world no state can truly trust another state with its national interests; therefore military power is a necessity. Developing or purchasing materials such as weapons and military technology requires enormous amounts of wealth; therefore a nation's economic prosperity is of utmost importance. State leaders can promote efforts regarding self-help by actively trying to stimulate and grow the domestic economy in order to provide a means by which the state can buy or produce weapons to create military power. The paradox, of course, is that while one state is proactively trying to gain military power, so too are many of the other nation-states. The result is a security dilemma where one state's new military power is soon matched by other neighboring states' militaries in order to maintain security through the balance of power. The ultimate conclusion leads to a world populated by nuclear-armed states making the prospect of war with each other unthinkable. However, war and fears of military threats to security are not the only sources of interstate conflict. Amassing military power may have been the end to the means provided by economic prosperity, but the universal capitalist economic order has further made the prospect of interstate war unlikely. Just as mutually assured devastation by weapons of mass destruction made war less likely, so too did the spread

of capitalism across the globe. Since war between capitalist states disrupts trade and causes economic crises for all members of the international economic order, interstate conflicts are increasingly relegated to the economic realm. Conflict along economic terms operates in a more hierarchical structure as opposed to an anarchic one. The most developed states with the strongest economies can coerce and exploit the poor and less developed states in ways that serve the rich states' interests. Capitalist elites, through massive economic power, gain influence and control internationally through using their nation-state's power apparatus in order serve their economic interests by securing natural resources or new undeveloped foreign markets. However, as future international economic competition increases, security concerns could once again dominate interstate conflict. With the rise of new capitalists powers, such as China and India, the competition for natural resources and other strategic materials beyond state borders could very likely lead to conflicts or even war. A future war between great powers competing for resources would bring us full circle to the events of WWII when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor over access to oil, proving that the only way to protect oneself in such a dangerous world is through self-help and attaining strong military power.

Subjectivists Argument Throughout human history the world has been an inherently dangerous place, however it does not have to remain unavoidably that way. Rather than continuing to see the world as populated by violent states or distrustful strangers, steps can be taken to proactively create a more peaceful international system or community of neighbors similar to that of a domestic 'civil society'. It is more rational to invest in long-term goals like building an international community based on cooperation than to perpetuate the violence dominating international affairs caused by states concerned only with immediate self-interests. Non-cooperative, zero-sum, behavior between states only makes sense if they were to interact with each other once. However, in the real world states interact with one another continuously, and that constant interaction creates opportunities for cooperation, the exchange of ideas, and building confidence and trust. States that interact cooperatively and reciprocate to achieve absolute gains whereby each side benefits increase the likelihood that they'll benefit from each other in future interactions. Since it is in states' best interests to cooperate, it naturally makes sense to develop and maintain international institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. These institutions facilitate the pursuit of mutual gains while reducing the tendency for cheating or exploitation of other states. They also demonstrate the ability of states to overcome international anarchy by creating expectations and common rules to promote behavior conducive to increasing the possibilities of future mutual gains and cooperation. The longer these institutions exist, and continue to productively help states achieve mutual interests, the broader and deeper their reach becomes in the international community, creating semi-permanent norms of expected state behavior and decreasing the chances of conflict. States that violate these established norms are subject to sanctions by the UN or WTO, which can mean serious negative consequences to their economies or even military intervention. International security also benefits from reciprocal actions by states in reducing their supply of nuclear weapons in accordance with arms control agreements. The United Nations, NATO, and the EU also serve to enhance international security and make the world less dangerous by applying the concept of collective security; where many states jointly oppose aggression by any hostile actor. Such collective action by states helps to alleviate the inherent fear of living in an anarchic international system, while also serving to further instill norms against interstate aggression. Institutions like the UN create stable contexts for diplomacy, conflict resolution, and bargaining as increasingly effective nonmilitary means of leverage. Continually bringing states under the umbrella of these international organizations will serve to create more linkages and interdependence between states economically, militarily, and culturally. The highest goal to achieve through these linkages would be to spread and foster democratic values and aspirations to all countries internationally, eventually creating peace according to the concept of the Kantian Triangle. Through the three-pronged combination of international institutions, economic interdependence, and diffusion of democratic governance, the Kantian Triangle predicts increased peace worldwide due to the mutually reinforcing properties of each point of the triangle. Ultimately, as democratic governments and interdependence increase in the international community, so does the likelihood of democratic peace. Since mature or consolidated democracies have never waged wars against other democracies, hope for a future peaceful world seems possible if democracies continue to spread globally. The continuance of using IO's to promote interdependence, as well as peaceful conflict resolution, will hopefully lead to sustained long periods of peace allowing developing nations to focus on economic prosperity and decreasing global poverty. A prolonged period of relative peace and economic interdependence will create an environment of trust and cooperation, conducive to spreading democratic beliefs and norms far beyond today's reach, as well as deepening the social attachment to those norms.

The longer norms go without major challenges, the more likely those norms become the accepted standard among groups of people. In particular, norms become intersubjectively understood and accepted across large populations, societies, and even internationally as shared knowledge spreads through education, media, communications, and personal interactions. Aspects of globalization (social media, smart phones, ease of travel, music, and film) can greatly advance the positive effects that come from increased interactions on the individual level. As more people are opened to experiences with faraway populations in ways past generations could have never imagined the nationalist notions of 'us' and 'them' will eventually fade away, negating future attempts by state leaders to beat the drums of war against foreign populations. Increased shared knowledge will allow for more frequent exchanges of ideas and worldviews, helping people to construct a more interactive and flattened world hierarchy. The structures that currently divide the world can be overcome and re-constructed to better meet the needs of a more informed world, one not shaped by the fear politics of state leaders, but by individuals using new technologies to hold their leaders accountable.

My Evaluation The world is still very much a dangerous place, however I do believe that through international institutions and shared knowledge, nations and their people, can and will create a more peaceful international system. The subjectivist argument is more persuasive to me for many reasons, but the overarching reason may be that while the materialist argument is structurally static or to some extent deterministic, the subjectivist argument grants more agency to people as actors able to overcome structural factors. While realism/materialist theories concerned with power balances and class struggles have reigned supreme since ancient times as the dominant explanations for how the world works, the actual world itself has changed. For instance, man has not in lived in a Hobbesian "state of nature" since organizing into settlements and forming civilizations. These new social and political structures were an evolutionary step that better served man's interests by providing protection and more easily attainable food. Over millennia social structures and societies slowly evolved from villages, to cities, and city-states, and from hunter-gatherers, to feudalism, and capitalism. Each evolutionary step was also accompanied by technological improvements; tools, spoken language, written language, and industrialization. However, the materialist argument for how the world works remained the same. If man could transcend Hobbes' state of nature by creating authority and domesticating violence, it seems that man would also be able to transcend the international anarchic system, as well, creating a means to tame world violence. The objective universality and simplicity of materialist arguments provided an effective means to understanding a simpler world, but the exponential pace of technological advancements has created a far more complex and layered world today. The subjectivist argument offers a more relevant and useful way of dealing with the modern world. Entire nations of people are now capable of engaging others on the other side of the globe; sharing experiences, trading goods, even communicating in an increasingly global language (as learning English continues to spread). The creation of international institutions to aid commerce, cooperation, and peace among the majority of the world's nations is still a very recent accomplishment, and the positive long-term effects resulting from the investment in these institutions is increasingly evident today. Materialist theories, particularly realism, seem antiquated in today's information society. Mistrust and fear of foreign states should be relegated to a time when states were still strangers to one another in the international arena, restricted by limited interaction, lack of communication channels, and divided by geography. The lack of shared knowledge between states negatively affected international relations much the same way a lack of shared knowledge can create a fear of strangers in an unfamiliar city at night. Subjectivists have demonstrated the positive effects building an international community have had on world peace. By creating institutions to bridge the gap between states, state leaders are able to come together with foreign heads of states to cooperate, settle differences, and exchange ideas with one another. This international 'civil society' created friends and acquaintances out of strangers, the same way domestic civil societies do in hometowns across the U.S. The road to international peace is long, difficult, uncertain, and subject to a multitude of contingencies. While information technology may be a positive force for international cooperation and communication, it could also very well be a powerful tool for hostile sub-state actors. Indeed, as materialists argue that international wars and conflict are an inevitable aspect of the international system, peace is by no means guaranteed by subjectivists. However, subjectivists maintain that working towards world peace is at least an option worthy of the states, NGOs, MNC's, IOs, and individuals.