Both in theory and in practice International Relations there various schools of thought, essential to understand the functioning of the international system.
Let's see what the theories of International Relations are.
Theories of International Relations
To Stephen M.Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University, the field of International Relations (RRII) is a constant struggle between realist, liberal and radical traditions , although the same author recognizes that not all existing theories can be grouped into these three traditions.
The political philosopher Hedley Bull distinguishes between three other traditions: the Hobbesian or realist, the Kantian or universalist and the Grotian or internationalist .
On the other hand, the professor of International Relations at Columbia University, Jack Snyder, distinguishes between the realist, liberal and constructivist traditions.
Other authors, such as the Indian professor at the American University of Washington DC, Amitav Acharya, believe that these traditional theories fail to take into account the Eastern perspective of IR, since they have arisen in West and have been developed by Western authors, there being a notable absence of theorists from other origins.
This same author believes in the “interesting” possibility of creating a “Chinese School” of International Relations as a consequence of increase in the importance of this State in the international system.
A Eastern theoretical doctrine that opposes traditional Western perspectives on the field of International Relations.
From this we can extract that there are no official theories agreed upon by a majority of authors, but rather there are a multitude of schools of thought and each author distinguishes different traditions.
Let's look at some of these International Relations Theories:
Hobbesian or realist tradition
This tradition describes the International Relations as “a state of war of all against all".
A power struggle between selfish states that only follow their own interests, completely unrelated to any moral, ethical or legal restrictions.
This vision is based on the thought of the British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).
His most significant work is Leviathan (1651), which can be understood as a defense of absolutism but also of the social contract.
Contractualism (defense of the social contract) is going to be fundamental in the theories of these authors.
Hobbes is considered one of the main theorists of international anarchy. Therefore, he understands that there is no order in International Relations.
Recognizes the lack of mandatory global authorities, there is no global sovereignty or one world government: It is evident that sovereign States in their mutual relations are not subject to the authority of a common government.
The look that Hobbes offers us to the field of International Relations is intrinsically related to the model of international system in which he lived.
He witnessed the creation of the modern state, it was during his lifetime that the Westphalian order in force to this day.
This order is characterized by the disappearance of a figure of authority superior to the king, who, since the Peace of Westphalia, has the power to be the only one to exercise sovereignty in his territory.
Kantian or universalist tradition
This theory is based on the ideas of the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant, born in 1724 in Königsberg. He received a rationalist education, lived at the height of absolutism in Europe (consolidation of the precepts of the Peace of Westphalia), as well as of the Enlightenment and enlightened despotism.
Lace He was the highest representative of the German Enlightenment and found in King Frederick II an Enlightened monarch willing to listen to his ideas and even apply them.
Both rationalism and the Enlightenment will have a decisive influence on his work.
Regarding International Relations, Kant stands out for being an author who broke the paradigm of International Anarchy..
While Hobbes considers war a simple period of preparation for the next, Kant considers that “Practical-moral reason formulates in us its irrevocable veto: there should be no war.”.
War is a phenomenon that we are categorically obliged to avoid.
He defends that if it is possible to expect that Peace will one day come to human beings, it will do so through the law and international organizations created for this purpose and through the reform of hearts..
His pacifism is, therefore, not a religious or moral pacifism, but rather a legal-institutional one, and can be specified in three fundamental statements.
Differences between both actors
The essential difference between both authors is that Hobbes does not believe in submission to a supranational authority, in the same way that people give up part of their freedom by submitting to the social contract, Hobbes believes in a national contractualism.
Kant wants to solve the state of continuous war of international anarchy, comparable as we have already said to the state of war of individuals in the absence of a social contract, through the submission to a supranational authority to which States cede part of their sovereignty.
Kant believes in a national and international contractualism of a universalist nature, applicable directly to the inhabitants of the States, not to the States themselves (global society).
Grotian or internationalist tradition
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was a Dutch jurist who stood out in the field of International Law. He is considered the founder of this discipline along with Francisco de Vitoria, whom he regularly cites in De iure belli ac pacis (The Law of War and Peace), a work considered fundamental in International Law.
He worked for the Dutch company East Indies and became an expert in commercial law issues.
The Grotian theory tells us that the states are, indeed, limited in their relationships with each other by the rules and institutions of the society that form.
People/States are in a State of continuous war, but to avoid it, they create a consent from which the social contract is derived.
Rules and institutions are created that regulate behavior. That is, the Law is created, in the case of States, the International right.
International Contractualism
The "international contractualism” by Grotius It will not really have the form of a Constitution as normally happens in the national context, but will fundamentally materialize in a fundamental institution of Public International Law: the international treaty.
We have to understand that Hugo Grotius does not contemplate the creation of a real global society, unified after a long path of "interstate federation" that ends up "abolishing the system of States", as Kant does propose, but rather that understands States as agents independent of each other, but cooperating.
To facilitate good faith cooperation, the International Treaty that will be legally binding after its ratification.
In this way, we can describe the Grotian as “hinge theory”, but without merging both traditions.
On the one hand, he strongly defends the state sovereignty and wants to avoid its transfer. Grotius believes in the State and believes in the State System just like Hobbes.
On the other hand, he believes that natural relationship between States is one of coexistence and cooperation in a society of States, something similar to what Kant would say in a phase prior to reaching the Universal Union.
On the one hand, he believes in coexistence and cooperation unlike Hobbes and on the other he defends the sovereignty of the State unlike Kant.
Exemplification of the theories of International Relations
First place
Firstly, we have as an example of Grotian tradition the United Nations Organization (UN).
This is created as a international parliament in which nations can dialogue with each other, seeking alternatives to war, which is officially condemned by this Organization.
In addition, it has a legislation composed of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, consists of a International Court of Justice in The Hague and guarantor of Public International Law.
Another characteristic of the UN that really concerns it as an example of Grotian International Organization is that it does not have transfers of powers or sovereignty; That is, sovereignty remains totally and exclusively of the State.
Segundo Lugar
Secondly we have, as an example of Kantian tradition, a the European Union (EU). This is created as a political, customs, economic and social union between its member states, whose objective is “to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples" .
This International Organization has a governmental, legislative and judicial body. It can create regulations, directives, and decisions that are legally binding for all Member States.
It consists of a Court of Justice of the European Union that ensures its compliance, of a Commission that promotes initiatives and upholds the Treaties that found the Union, of a Parliament that gives a voice to the European people as a whole, and of Councils that give a voice to the Member States.
It is a project in the process of interstate Union that does not include a constitution (it was not approved in a referendum but its terms were later imposed on us in the Treaty of Lisbon). It is a true union in the sense that the States cede the exercise of their powers -although only partially-.
Actually, each of these traditions are competing perspectives on important aspects of world politics and our understanding would be seriously impoverished if our thinking were confined to only one of them; despite the fact that our political ideas make us come closer to some than others.
A competent internationalist must be able to recognize the realist emphasis on the role of power, the universalist emphasis on global society, and the internationalist emphasis on cooperation and coexistence.
Hello! I am a jurist and internationalist, semi-finalist of the XIII San Francisco Javier Debate League, fond of debate, photography, Rubik's cubes, maps and history. From Marbella but living in Córdoba.
