Theoretical Approaches in International Relations

International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline seeks to understand the complex interactions between states, non-state actors, and international institutions. Over time, scholars have developed numerous theoretical frameworks to interpret global phenomena, each offering distinct perspectives on how the international system functions.

Theoretical approaches in IR serve as intellectual tools that enable scholars and practitioners to analyze world politics through diverse lenses. From the power-centric realism to the cooperative ideals of liberalism, and from the critical perspectives of Marxism to the socially constructed realities of constructivism, these theories shape our understanding of diplomacy, conflict, cooperation, and global governance.

This chapter delves into the most prominent theoretical paradigms in International Relations, examining their fundamental assumptions, key proponents, and practical applications. By critically assessing these approaches, readers will gain insights into how theoretical frameworks influence both the analysis and practice of international affairs. Understanding these theories is crucial for anyone aiming to navigate the complex and evolving landscape of global politics.

Chapter One: The Conceptual Framework

Section One:

Definition of Approach: An approach consists of theoretical propositions that do not reach the level of a full-fledged theory; rather, it is a phase in the development of a theory.

Definition of Theory: The term originates from Greek, “theoria,” meaning the act of seeing or observing the world. Currently, it refers to an intellectual construct aimed at linking a large number of phenomena and laws; a theory is based on analysis and synthesis (supported by argument and evidence). Therefore, it consists of ideas that aim to connect premises with conclusions.

The definition of theory linguistically carries some ambiguity, with a lack of consensus on a single definition—a problem present in sociology and political science. However, several technical definitions exist:

• Definition by Kent Wolt: “A theory is a set of laws that provides a misleading behavior of a phenomenon, where the method of discovering laws differs from how theories are constructed.”
• Definition by Frederick Skinner: “A theory rests on the following characteristics: analysis and synthesis; inclusion of direct or indirect observation; use of terms to expand meaning.”

In general, a theory serves as a framework that gives other phenomena importance, helping to distinguish between significant and insignificant matters.

Section Two: The Concept of Introduction

An introduction is a pathway to approach the studied phenomenon by examining a particular phenomenon or can serve as a key to accessing specific aspects of a certain phenomenon (linking the phenomenon with various economic, social, and cultural variables). The idea of introductions arose in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a reaction to feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction with the developmental perspective among many political scientists. Simultaneously, a group of new approaches emerged, and some older approaches were revived, such as focusing on the state as a primary variable in determining public policies. There was also the emergence of international political economy in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by systemic, functional, and communication approaches.

Section Three: Types of Approaches

1. Behavioral Approach: Founded by John Broadus Watson and supported by B.F. Skinner, this approach summarizes the educational process into a form of automatic training based on action and counteraction. Followers believe behavior changes not through internal interactions within a person, but as responses to changing external factors. Important hypotheses underpinning this approach include:
   • If the reaction to a specific behavior is positive, the occurrence of that behavior will intensify.
   • If the reaction is negative (such as punishment), this leads to a decrease in the future appearance of that behavior, although in the long term, it may no longer impact behavior.
   • If certain behavior is ignored by the environment, that behavior will become extinct.

Based on these hypotheses (some derived from biology), Skinner proposed a teaching method known as “programmed instruction,” suggesting dividing curriculum into discrete knowledge units presented sequentially. After each unit, students are tested, and if they pass, they progress to the next unit; if not, their responses are ignored, and they return to the previous unit. Skinner was among the first to use computers in teaching during the 1950s and 60s.

2. Cybernetic Approach: This teaching method differs from the behavioral approach in that it views both teacher and learner as systems and teaching as an exchange of information between these systems. Several cybernetic concepts play a central role, such as circular connectivity, feedback, and measurement. This approach builds on Claude Shannon’s work in information theory but also acknowledges some experimental findings and results from biological and neurological sciences that point to its limitations. In general, the cybernetic approach takes into account the dynamic nature of teaching and the openness of the system. The hypotheses largely stem from the original cybernetic sciences, including the hypotheses of reinforcement, weakening, and openness.
3. Cognitive Approach: This approach relies on a cognitive perspective on teaching. It emphasizes the learner’s internal processes and views cognitive ability as an active function, not passive. This approach divides lessons into three parts:
   • Declarative knowledge
   • Procedural knowledge
   • Information related to the content itself

Since the 1970s, this perspective has gained prominence and was integrated into educational models in the 1980s.

4. Current Approach: The cognitive approach remained the dominant paradigm until the late 1980s. The current approach critiques the cognitive approach for not considering the learner’s emotions and the context of learning. Key differences between the two include:
   • In the cognitive approach, teaching is viewed outside a specific context, whereas the current approach situates learning within a context.
   • Knowledge in the cognitive approach contrasts with potential or capability in the current approach.
   • The concept of a problem corresponds to the concept of activities, while definition corresponds to the concept of limits.
   • The concept of problem-solving corresponds to surpassing apparent contradictions.

Chapter Two: Stages of Comparative Politics

Section One:

The Stage of Comparative Governments: This was known as the traditional or pre-behavioral stage, lasting from the late 19th century to the 1920s. It focused on the state, its institutions, constitution, and legal system, based on the premise that political science is the science of the state and that the state is the sole political actor domestically and internationally. It also emphasized specific types of states, such as those in Western Europe, the Soviet Union, and the United States, with most literature at that time focusing on the term “government” or “governments.”

Section Two:

Stage of Comparative Politics: This period commenced with a redefinition of political science, transitioning from the study of the state to the study of power or authority in the shift from the traditional to the behavioral perspective, where the field of comparative politics began comparing political processes within and across nations. After Harold Lasswell defined politics as “Who gets what, when, and how?,” the focus turned to analyzing the distribution process of values such as power, authority, wealth, and influence.

Consequently, interest grew in the behavior involved in distribution and redistribution processes, with comparisons focusing on similarities and differences in behaviors between political systems and their components, seeking to establish laws for explanation. The study of comparative politics moved beyond just the three main institutions and their relationships with parties to encompass culture, social environment, history, leadership, individual behavior, opinion expression, voting, values, and behavioral norms.

• Defining the Meaning of Comparison in the Study of Political Phenomena: Definitions of comparison vary, yet they generally stem from John Stuart Mill’s legacy, who defined it as “the study of similar or parallel phenomena in different societies, or a systematic analysis of differences on one or more subjects across two or more societies.” This definition serves as a central point around which various definitions of comparison in social sciences revolve, as it constitutes a continuous examination of similarities and differences based on the assumption that a degree of similarity and difference exists between the units being compared. It is not feasible to compare units that are entirely alike or entirely different.

In social sciences, comparison is considered an essential part of scientific research, even the core of the scientific method as per Alexis de Tocqueville. When the concept of comparison is linked to politics, forming a linguistic ratio of adjective to noun, the adjective remains constant while the noun varies, leading to concepts like comparative governments, comparative politics, the comparative method, and comparative analysis. Discussions ensue on the boundaries of disagreement and agreement among these concepts, as well as the nature of their relationships—whether they are synonyms or if differences persist. Some assert that the first two concepts (comparative government and comparative politics) express a single reality, while others suggest that all fall within the concept of comparative politics, which is more suited to studying the state, its institutions, functions, and its relationship with other groups like parties and interest groups. Meanwhile, comparative politics refers to a broader field that includes governments and other political policies not linked to the state, such as tribal societies and private organizations, etc.

Chapter Three

Section One: David Easton’s Approaches (The Systemic Approach)

David Easton is considered one of the first political scientists to employ the concept of a system in political studies. He defines the political system as “those phenomena that collectively constitute a system, which is, in fact, part of the larger social system but has emerged as a branch for research and analysis.” Easton emphasized the use of the system concept as an analytical tool to identify patterns and interconnected relationships present in political systems.

Easton’s analysis of the system rests on four main concepts or foundations:

1. The System: It is beneficial to view political life as a behavioral system or a system of behaviors.
2. Surrounding Environment: It is essential to differentiate between the system and the environment affecting and influenced by it.
3. Response: The diversity and plurality of structures and processes within any system can be interpreted as a collection of activities the system undertakes in response to the demands and pressures it faces from the surrounding environment or internally.
4. Feedback: The system’s ability to persist under pressure is influenced by the presence and effectiveness of information and influences received by political decision-makers from the surrounding environment.

From here, Easton identified the functions of the political system, positing that all systems engage in political activities and processes, which may differ from one system to another based on time and space, namely:

• Its capacity to make appropriate decisions and implement them on a societal level.
• Compelling citizens to accept these decisions, either through force or by cultivating a sense of their legitimacy.

Without these two functions, it cannot be said that a political life exists in any society. When both functions are unable to fulfill their roles due to pressure from forces on the system, leading to an incapacity to make decisions, this will inevitably result in the system’s extinction. However, this idea remains theoretical since a system can endure despite facing difficulties due to its adaptability and responsiveness to influences and necessary decision-making.

Easton’s model for analyzing the political system comprises the following elements:

1. Inputs: Comprising all pressures and influences directed at the political system that motivate movement and activity arising from its surrounding environment. Its significance lies in understanding the events and environmental conditions surrounding the political system; without this understanding, it becomes challenging to accurately conceptualize the situation across societal sectors. Inputs are divided into two types:
   • Demands: These are the requests individuals make, outlining their needs presented to the political system to perform its function of issuing binding decisions to the community. Given the multitude of demands, there must exist channels tasked with clarifying and conveying these demands to the political system. Meeting these demands mainly relies on the influence of each societal group rather than the actual need for those demands, as the political system cannot address all demands due to their abundance.
   • Support: Easton posits that the element of support consists of two types: specific support and latent or general support. Support reflects the loyalty that the political system may enjoy; the continuity of any system relates to the variable of support and loyalty; the lesser the support, the lower the system’s standing.
2. Outputs: Representing the system’s response to political demands or decisions concerning the distribution of resources and authority, which can be positive, negative, or symbolic.

Section Two: Functional Approach – Gabriel Almond

Gabriel Almond is regarded as one of the most in-depth political scientists studying the functional approach and using it as a framework to study and compare different political systems. Almond defines the political system as the network of interactions present in all societies that serves the functions of internal adaptation and unity; thus, the political system is the legitimate entity responsible for preserving or radically altering existing societal relationships, characterized by specific features:

1. Comprehensiveness: The political system encompasses all interactions, whether from inputs or outputs, which may affect the use of physical coercion or the possibility of outcomes resulting from that coercion. Hence, the political system comprises both formal and informal structures.
2. Interdependence: Changes occurring within one component of the system affect and induce changes in other components; thus, subsidiary political processes influence other secondary phenomena. For example, elections can alter the functions of the three branches of government.
3. Boundaries of the Political System: There are points where other systems end and from which the political system begins.

• Almond defines the political system based on the assumption that all political systems share certain characteristics:
  • All systems, regardless of the degree of authority, have political structures.
  • The same functions are performed across all political systems, albeit at varying levels and through different structures.
  • Regardless of their level of specialization and whether found in civilized or primitive societies, all political structures perform multiple functions.

Based on these characteristics, Almond identified the political system’s functions and classified them into two types:

A. Input Functions: He believes there are four essential political functions any system must perform to avoid collapse:

1. Political Socialization and Recruitment: Political socialization transmits political culture from one generation to another or disseminates new cultural ideas, while recruitment trains political leaders.
2. Articulation of Interests: This refers to identifying demands and relaying them from society to political decision-makers.
3. Aggregation of Interests: This involves sorting and organizing demands so that the political system can effectively confront them and make decisions.
4. Political Communication: The exchange of information between system elements or between the system and its surrounding environment.

B. Output Functions: Here, Almond distinguishes between three types of output functions:

1. Legislation.
2. Implementation of laws.
3. Judicial adjudication.

There exists a common function, which is political communication, through which the other output functions are realized.

Section Three: The Communication Approach – Karl Deutsch:

The communication approach derives its ideas and core concepts from cybernetic sciences, studying communication and control within organizations. Consequently, with advancements in communication engineering, some scholars have shown increased interest in trying to apply these principles to social phenomena.

Karl Deutsch is considered the primary theorist of the communications approach in political science, asserting that the study of communication signifies a shift in researchers’ interests toward concepts of leadership and direction. Moreover, Deutsch contends that communication—namely, the capacity to transmit and respond to messages—shapes organizations, making it imperative that any thorough analysis of political systems considers the role of communication processes.

• The significance of this approach lies in its ability to describe and explain the behavior of the political system; communication is essential in implementing and affirming human control over the environment.
• Through the communication process, inputs are received, decisions are made concerning them, and they are transformed into outputs.
• The political system continuously interacts with its environment and faces its demands; it must be able to read and respond to incoming messages.

The political scientist, Robert North, states, “Without communication, politics cannot exist, nor can wars be fought.”

• The communication approach assumes that the behaviors and interactions of political systems can be better analyzed using the communication concept. To achieve this, it employs several key concepts:

1. Information: Communication is responsible for transmitting and transforming information, the fundamental unit of analysis—information flows through communication channels, is received, analyzed, and responded to.
2. Load: The political system receives information regarding its environment and the changes occurring within it that may affect its goals and objectives. “Load refers to pressures on the system.”
3. Latency Period: This is the interval between receiving information and responding to it. “The longer the latency period, the less capable the system is of addressing the demands of its environment.”
4. Feedback: This refers to the information the political system receives regarding the success of its decisions and responses, enabling the system to make adjustments to its behaviors and decisions.

Thus, Deutsch posits that the most critical characteristic of the political system is its capability to adapt to a changing environment through the innovation process.

• The communication approach views a static system as having no chance of survival and continuity.
• Deutsch argues that many theoretical approaches in political science have focused on power, while the communication approach shifts attention to learning and the system’s ability to alter behavioral patterns and its fundamental institutions.

Chapter Four: Evaluation of the Three Approaches

Section One: Systemic Approach (David Easton):

The systemic approach offers several merits to political science, notably:

1. Its general nature allows for the incorporation of numerous variables when interpreting outputs and political decisions.
2. Easton did not adequately delineate the elements and relationships found within the political system; thus, the term (political system) could refer to any entity, government, democracy, oligarchy, federal, or unitary, parliamentary or presidential because Easton established his core concepts of these relationships at a high level of abstraction and generality, which permits their application across a wider range of societies and political systems.

• These elements have created fundamental weaknesses, leading to criticism of this approach from various perspectives:

1. The high level of abstraction and generality applied to the core concepts makes it difficult to define specific terms, which hampers the selection of fundamental hypotheses presented by the approach. Easton claims that failure to address pressures on the political system from demands will lead to its collapse.
2. Easton’s focus on the survival and longevity of the political system caused him to overlook the social, economic, and political objectives of the system, namely how values are distributed within society. Easton’s analysis primarily emphasizes the contributions individuals can make in their various roles towards the system’s survival and continuity, viewing conflict and disagreement as threats to the political system’s stability and sustainability.

Despite these flaws, a fundamental and significant truth emerges: the systemic approach directed attention toward the interconnected and complex relationships between political life and the overall social system.

Section Two: Functional Approach (Gabriel Almond):

1. Almond did not clarify why or how these specific functions were chosen as the essential roles necessary for the political system’s stability. He also did not indicate whether the existence of these functions is necessary and sufficient for the persistence of the political system, or simply necessary but insufficient.
2. Almond’s primary hypothesis has become so convoluted that it is impossible to test practically; for instance, his assertion that certain necessary functions must be performed to prevent system collapse suggests that when we study a given system, it is already in existence and able to perform varying functions.

Section Three: Communication Approach (Karl Deutsch):

This approach views the political system as an organization or a collection of organizations reliant on information about its environment for decision-making, subsequently adjusting its decisions based on this feedback.

1. Proponents of the communication approach generally concede that this perspective focuses solely on one dimension and aspect of the political system.
2. The approach allows for hypothesis generation, generalizations, and explanations of the political system—depending significantly on its ability to measure communications, which facilitates the development of useful hypotheses linking political system variables.

It is evident that the discussion circles in a vicious loop and cannot be subjected to empirical scrutiny and global research.

The fundamental problem facing both systems lies in the absence of precise and procedural definitions of essential concepts, such as the endurance, survival, and continuity of the political system.

References

• International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity” by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith
• Theories of International Relations” by Scott Burchill et al.
• Theory of International Politics” by Kenneth N. Waltz
• Social Theory of International Politics” by Alexander Wendt
• World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions” by Jeffry A. Frieden, David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz
• After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy” by Robert O. Keohane
• The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by John J. Mearsheimer
• International Theory: Positivism and Beyond” edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski
• Global Politics: A New Introduction” edited by Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss
• International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction” by Cynthia Weber