International relations theory:

A history

Dr. Aaron T. Walter

Introduction

The idea that International Relations (IR) had no

theoretical tradition and is new is nicely refuted in the

fact that roughly the last 700 years in the themes of war,

wealth, peace and power. In fact, within those four themes

statesmen, scholars, and soldiers have analyzed and

speculated on the subject for some time. Contemporary IR

theorist Rubinstein called Guicciardini the ‘first of the

Machiavellians’ but this is not accurate. Moreover, the

author, Tjborn Knutsen makes the claim using the analogy of

a mosaic to describe the development of international

relations theory. However, while not disputing the claim or

the way such insight was traced through 700 years of history

the analogy is disputed, insisting that melting pot is

better suited.

Beginning with the roots of the state and the concept of

sovereignty in the Middle Ages, the author draws upon the

insights of political thinkers such as Aquinas, Machiavelli,

Hegel, Rousseau, Bentham, Marx and Lenin to name a few.

They changed society, altered European society and affected

international interaction. In deed, the political thinkers

ideas within the context with the societies and intellectual

ideas that produced them is an opportunity to see the unique

nature of this theoretical evolution. Machiavelli wrote

about states and politics, but his contemporary Fancesco

Guicciardini played a much more important role to the

development and understanding of international relations

theory.

1. In the beginning…

International Relations theory appeared in the sixteenth

century. It was here that the modern world emerged though

three extremely important and significant inventions:

firearms, compass and the printing press. Inventions that

in their singular use helps theorize and explain the actions

of princes, kings, popes and the nation-state. In brief,

speculation with the intention to understand and explain,

and when put in the context of international relations

theory is quite different than that of Political theory.

The structure of Political theory is based upon a comparable

chain of classics: Plato and Aristotle to Augustine and

Hobbes to name a few. But while salient speculations about

relations between states can be found in the tradition of

Political Theory and is used within IR theory within this

context, IR theory deals with the human behavior. To be more

specific, the largest of all social groups: international

society.

Why while good, international relations draws upon broad set

of issues and actors. Therefore, the nature of international

relations theory draws upon phases throughout history and

the present to explain events. As such, from Medieval and

Renaissance discoveries and revolutionary understanding of

the ‘state’ and sovereignty to the various inter-state

synthesis in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of

human society and balance of power to speculations of

progress of the nineteenth century and present day competing

approaches. Moreover, as international events are speculated

upon other analysis can take place, that of the patterns of

political interaction. Such analytic tradition is arguable

as old as its historic tradition, a tradition complete with

great inventions and great personalities.

1.1 The Great Fleets

The invention of gunpowder and its introduction into Europe

destroyed the feudal organization. What followed was a

consolidation of power around monarchy since the cost of war

in terms of expenses were so much that only kings could

afford them. As warfare became more complex the introduction

of the infantry and later artillery occurred and again the

expenses of such military equipment saw the rise of taxes

and new ways to manage and collect taxes. This in turn

brought forth a dramatic and wide reaching change in

transport and commerce.

In the attempt to get funds from their people, monarchs also

found ways to extort revenues from the extra-European

regions. The best known for his skill as well as his ability

to receive taxes was Henry of Portugal better known as

Prince Henry the Navigator. The era of expansion inaugurated

by him saw competitive colonization and war.

Similar in impact to the emergence of modern notions in the

middle ages such as safe travel and the innovations such as

watermills and windmills that brought about the evolution of

new, more productive systems of social organization. And the

importance of the crusades on the building of commercial

networks across Europe offering opportunities to

entrepreneurial individuals, the era ushered in by Henry saw

a great increase in trade.

His creation of a naval academy brought together of European

mapmakers and astronomers, groups stimulated with new

developments in mathematics, astronomy and mapmaking

enhancing the accuracy of navigation. In doing this, wealth

was being accumulated faster. With better navigation came

the inauguration of a process followed by monarchs into the

twentieth century, financing domestic activities with income

from colonial exploits. In essence, wealth and power was the

result of overseas expansion.

Thus, came a period that recently has been named

Globalization 1.0 by New York Times columnist Thomas

Friedman in his own book The World Is Flat. In that period

roughly starting in 1492 the world went from a size large to

a size medium. As European nations vied for international

status as prevalent in number of colonies and goods produced

there were attempts made through war and trade for a balance

of power between the nations with competing maritime

efforts. However, to understand how nation states got to

this point of vying for international status the link to

inter-state relations must be made and Italian diplomat and

historian Francesco Guicciardini offers the best venue for

such an explanation.

2. Francesco Guicciardini

Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540), a contemporary of

Machiavelli adopted Thucydides method and balance of power

theory. In the former’s The Peloponnesian War was an

instructive account in understanding interstate relations

according to Guicciardini. An analysis that Guicciardini

uses not in his life as a diplomat, but rather in his work

as author, which has a lasting influence since its

description of the relations among the Italian city-states.

Guicciardini’s most well known work is History of Italy where he

uses the balance of power argument originally put forth by

Thucydides to explain the actions of Lorenzo de Medici.

Realizing that it would be most perilous to the Florentine Republic and to himself if any of the major powers should extend their area of domination, he carefully saw to it that the Italian situation should be maintained in a state of balance, not leaning more toward one and one side than the other (Guicciardini 1969, pp 4f)

If nothing else, an argument is made by the author and

echoed here that for this Guicciardini is one of the

earliest modern International Relations theoreticians. By

bringing forward Thucydides balance of power vision

Guicciardini reconnected the Greek to Western political

thought.

2.1 The heir of Thucydides

Thucydides discussed alliance politics from the ancient

(classic) Athena and Spartan war. By arguing as Guicciardini

did that from Thucydides writings parallels in the

competition among the Italian city-states of his day could

be made and furthermore that by an alliance of smaller

states could contain a strong ambitious state influenced

International Relations theory. But while Guicciardini’s

contemporary, Machiavelli suffered the moralist reaction to

his writings; the latter was able to avoid this.

Guicciardini as a fellow humanist believed that scholarship

based on analysis of historical events could shape policy.

Ethics and morality were not of primary importance. With

such claim the link between medieval Christendom and the

modern age is ruptured. Therefore, with this deviation from

orthodoxy Guicciardini also took on the propositions of

traditional political theory arguing that the concern over

God was replaced with the concern for the State. Society

likewise was man-made. As such, the State was a self-

sufficient entity exactly as Thucydides saw Athens and

Sparta. But Guicciardini took the argument further writes

Knutsen, “conceiving the State as a self-sufficient actor,

which continually interacted with other states, and they

vested in it a legitimizing authority for political acts.

So, as every State was part of an interstate context, it

needed to concern itself with its own security, with armies

and with leadership” (Knutsen p.51). The move from nature

to society took the final logical step when Guicciardini

explicitly and self-consciously removed God from political

considerations.

He replaced the prescriptive concerns of medieval thought

with descriptive analysis men became the master of their own

destinies. Therefore, the entire idea of political theory

was changed. What made it so revolutionary was the fact that

old theological discussions were replaced by modern

discourse. As the first decades of the 1500s proved vital

for political theory, the last quarter of the century saw

theorizing in International Relations lay the groundwork for

the modern age.

Edmund Burke (1729-97) further developed the idea of balance

of power championed by Guicciardini. In praising balance of

power as the chief established institution in international

politics Burke asserts that prudent management of Europe’s

balance of power preserves interstate order and by extension

international peace.

2.2. Secular theorizing

The author is clear that the sixteenth century was an era of

transition between the Middle Ages and Modern History (1996,

p. 78). In this era large fragments of the world were tied

together on a truly global scale while other fragments were

divided in ways never before seen. The religious dimension

crossed the distance between the Catholic tradition of

Augustine and the new, Protestant opposition of Luther and

Calvin. Gone was the understanding expressed by Aquinas that

peace is the first aim of government and that God’s laws

must be obeyed above those of man. While the Catholic Church

lost its exclusive domination over the minds of people it is

on this point that the most awakening development took

place. The author states it best in writing that “the

secular dimension…a greater belief in human rationality and

by more insistent demands for privacy and individual

freedom… as seen in the many major innovations” (1996, p.

79). In essence, the sixteenth-century saw not only

scientific awakening but within international relations

theory the ‘reason of the state’.

From this came the eighteenth century vision of social

balance that benefited the whole society that contained

individual members. As the author Knutsen writes, “ in this

notion, the primary purpose of balance of power politics was

not to preserve the sovereignty and independence of

individual state—although it did accomplish this. Rather, it

was to preserve the order of the interstate system itself”

(Knutsen, p.141) or said more plainly, it was an end in

itself. To this end Hume, Kant and Rousseau to name a few

put speculations about international affairs forth.

Since the late sixteenth century was also the time of great

diversity with new critical methods of thought and knowledge

from thinkers such as Bacon and Descartes. This lead later

to Rousseau making historical investigation a significant

part of International Relations theory and Emmanuel Kant

furthered this understanding by envisioning an organic

vision of order-as-progress-through-time to replace the

prescribed order-as-symmetry-in-space.

Moreover, the theoretical considerations about the nature,

operation and implications of these were considered. Still,

the sixteenth century saw the invention of elements of

modern international politics such as territorial states,

sovereign rulers, and overseas ventures to name a few and

how wealth and power enhanced these elements.

2.3. Wealth and Power

It can be argued that international relations theory was

advanced through nation-state competition and interaction

before the maritime expeditions. A revolution in thought

with the invention of the printing press spread texts and

theories apart from the scholarly elite. This was apparent

in the developing disciplines of geography and cartography.

It was also prevalent in a growing dissatisfaction with the

Catholic Church. In the short term the spread of printing

texts and increase of knowledge caused conflict within the

Church by those unwilling to accept doctrine. In the long

term, dissatisfaction turned to anger with what was seen as

hierarchical corruption. The few clergy that championed

reform used the printed press at their disposal. In doing

so, the very nature of the protest was changed. Now wealth

and power was not only with an elite. Merchants and middle-

class artisans now too had the opportunity. From this came

the idea of mercantilism where a century before Aquinas

pronounced skepticism towards mercantile affairs for the so-

called artificial wealth created, though Aquinas does not

expand upon issues of production, exchange or finance, the

central thrust is that against power of man where God is

taken out of the equation.

Mercantilism, best understood within the context of great

power rivalry and as a theory of statecraft, allowed

international relations to be the study of the

interrelations of states and the important idea of balance

of power.

Balance of power theories were not new in the seventeenth

century. Italian theorists like Guicciardini had expressed

viewpoints on this theme, but new thinkers, in particular

Francis Bacon and Thomas Mun wrote to inform how the

principle of balance of power could assist a state in

maximizing its independence of action or preserve it through

manipulation. As the author writes in chapter 4,

The balance of trade is a key notion of merchantilism…it is no coincidence that one of theearliest expositors of this notion was Frances Bacon (1561-1626), an early formulator of England’s balance of power policy. For Bacon wealth and military capabilities were mutually reinforcing dimension of national power…According to Bacon, a favorable balance of trade should be an important foreign-policy goal. (1996, 94).

Colonies, according to Bacon by exporting raw materials, can

help the mother country achieve this goal. Thomas Mun (1571-

1641) was influential in his arguments for mercantilism by

drawing a link between balance of trade and balance of

greatness. Likewise though the Treaty of Westphalia was

considered a turning point in international history it was

the Duke of Rohan who made the best contribution to modern

international relations theory in regards to power.

Rohan, influenced by Renaissance scholars such as

Guicciardini took from them the tradition of politics and

counterpoise, and devised an attractive balance of power

analysis that significantly influenced English social

theorists. In brief, the state was now a more clearly

observed analytic unit. This lead to an increase in

industrialism and democracy in the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries where Western concepts such as

‘nationalism’, ‘democracy’ proved tempting to extra-European

areas; in support, the economic and military power displayed

by Western nations made ideological vision extraordinarily

potent. If any description of the Renaissance spirit must

include accounts of the new individualism with classical

cultural and unique self-awareness. The Renaissance

gentleman was the great individual shaped by skill and

insight. The Enlightenment man was part of the mass audience

stirred to action by developed tools of mass propaganda and

organization.

The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 more clearly expressed the

terms on which the new international order was based. Jean-

Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) identified the treaty as just

that, a foundation for interstate interaction. By the

eighteenth century political power was concentrated with

interstate interactions regulated by precise protocol by

professional diplomats and scholars in international law.

Sovereignty, as discussed before, was explicitly

acknowledged through states recognizing the legitimacy of

others’ territory.

In this new international system Jean-Jacques Rousseau

speaks to the fact that humanity developed political

institutions backed by law due to responsibility imposed by

society. The idea that citizens owed secular loyalty to the

nation and its representative institutions was due to a

related effect of mercantilism: growing literacy allowed

people to be socialized and attach strong emotions to a

central state, in a word: nationalism. Moreover, nationalism

was able to spread due to industrialization from which

communication of ideas, exchange of goods and transport of

people easier than ever before. Different nations

industrialized at different rates which meant that this

uneven growth translated into uneven growth of nations’

military potentials as well that created confusion in world

affairs. This was acute in colonial regions where after

World War I colonialism and growth of Western values

weakened.

As the struggle for power, respect, and admiration developed

between England and France, navies played an important role.

This was particularly true for England where the Royal Navy

both protected English trade and projected English power

wherever and whenever necessary. In this fact the link

between mercantilism and the political doctrine of absolute

power occurred.

Absolute power, better known as absolutism evolved under

France’s Louis XIV (1661-1715) in the fact that power lay

within granted ministerial entourage. In brief, “through the

needs of recruitment and taxation, the kings’ ministers

forged the state structure ever more solid and tight. From

within absolutism itself emerged new structures and

processes of production, procurement and allocation”

(Knutsen, p.116). The impersonality of the state had been

created. But, for purposes during this period of history,

absolutist theory focused on the person, monarch, and on

sovereignty.

On this issue is the basic unit of eighteenth century

international relations. The dominant focus was the

territorial state. As a state’s interests, capabilities and

power occurred the idea of IR theory but also balance of

power theories. On this point, two individuals helped in the

spread of this theory’s understanding.

Baron Montesquieu (1689-1755) though not a contributor to

international politics did in fact offer contributions to

the study of international relations by drawing connections

within international issues such as Law, Government,

Economics, History as well as republics, peace and commerce

and monarchies and war to colonialism and slavery. His

writings are valuable, but mainly are consigned to principle

and theory. Crown Prince Frederick who became Frederick II

put theory to practice. His Politisches Testament of 1768

begins with the claim that in International relations one

should have “no special predilections for one people, nor

aversion to another. You must follow the interest of the

state blindly, allying yourself with the power whose

interest at the time match the interest of Prussia”

(Knutsen, p.127). This idea was fine in principle, but the

practice caused the most difficulty in the real world and

was soundly rejected by philosophers such as John Locke.

John Locke (1632-1704) refuted the doctrine of the Divine

Right of Kings by arguing for a view of man who was

reasonable and living in a God-given law of nature. Man was

content to enjoy their own Natural Rights and therefore

would not violate Rights of others. In effect, Locke in his

Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent,

and End of Civil Government cancels Hobbes’ state of nature.

Locke difference from Hobbes can be clearly seen in the idea

of natural rights as a set of specific rights limited by

duties towards others. As such, property rights was

considered part of the right to life for humans. Moreover,

while Hobbes saw the state of nature as a condition of war,

Locke saw it as a state of peace. Consequently, Locke’s

state emphasized the legislative and the judicial aspects of

government over the executive functions. The service to

mankind for humans according to Locke could be achieved in a

social contract of mutual obligations. Regarding government

though there are three aspects of governmental power:

legislative, executive and federative. On the last aspect

such power pertains to foreign affairs. For much of the

seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries foreign

affairs mean imperialism. In truth, on the point of

imperialism, Europe saw imperialism as a key to wealth and

glory and a service to mankind.

Nineteenth century wave of Western expansionism coupled with

the industrial revolution unleashed an unprecedented

dissemination of Western-style capital , products and modes

of economic and political organization to other parts of the

globe. When analyzed within the frame of imperialism, the

economic dimension is stark. Industrial nations of Europe

were not longer importers of colonial goods, but also major

exporters of capital too.

For the contemporary age this was Cold War politics. The

attentions of international relation scholars were attracted

to the colonial wars, those in the Third World, and wars of

national liberation. After World War II, the study of

International Relations grew more academically assured.

Similar to Guicciardini who studied the Medici’s in Italy, a

peculiar American brand of power politics as well as social

theorizing dominated the field of study.

Hans J. Morgenthau one of the most influential realist

theoreticians of the twentieth century saw power as a broad

concept, but important for a sophisticated discussion of the

national interest. Morgenthau followed the thread originally

constructed by Guicciardini arguing that the only order in

an interstate system is balance of power. “The international

order is thus sustained by an underlying perceptual

consensus.” In the most basic form, a silent compact (p.226)

that while understandable in principle is often difficult to

comprehend on the issues of war and peace.

3. War and Peace

G. John Ikenberry writes that Knutsen echoes other scholars

such as Robert Gilpin and George Modelski great whose

scholarship shows how wars destroy the old order and open

the way for newly powerful states. It is only to be

challenged later by the next rising state. Although the

analysis focuses on shifting balances of power, the author

also stresses ideology and moral appeal in accounting for

the success in building durable hegemonic orders. In the

post-modern world this may mean that communication

technology has shaped notions of conflict replacing

traditional roles of intelligence and the governments’

monopoly of knowledge. The threads of these can be seen

however back in the Age of Enlightenment and the role of

kings (government).

There was a backlash on foreign-policy entanglements since

said entanglements meant war, and as war grew more global it

was also more expensive. The wealthier groups of the public

objected to the consequences: heavy taxation, interference

with trade and industry, arbitrary justice and control of

consciences by the monarch.

As explained by the author, Jean Bodin in his work, Six Books

on the Commonwealth defines sovereignty as ‘that absolute and

perpetual power vested in a commonwealth’ (1967, p.25). This

definition hinges on there decisive postulates. First,

sovereignty does not really pertain to individuals but

states. Second, that sovereignty is perpetual, remaining

vested in the commonwealth, and third, sovereignty is

absolute. Bodin also outlined the three limits to sovereign

power such as natural law, regime type and covenants. In

Bodin’s argument on the principle that sovereignty is not

the personal property of the prince he challenges the

medieval theory of standestaat and since there can not be a

stable mix of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy Bodin

breaks from medieval political theory. Another break within

the old concept is that from English journalist Bagehot and

Prussian Haeckel.

The influential British journalist Walter Bagehot relied on

Darwin and Spencer in a sweeping attempt to explain the

principles of human history in the light of a few general

laws. In Physics and Politics (1889 [1872]) he explained how

civilization progresses through time because of man’s

“innate propensity to emulate all behavior which proves most

advantageous in the competition between nation and nation.”

The Prussian zoologist Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919) in support

of Charles Darwins’ work, argued that socialism and

liberalism are theories which assume people are equal, which

was untrue. Haeckel extended this to international politics

where he viewed states in a lawless environment; competition

was naked and absolute, where only the fittest nation

survived. Therefore, each nation should act according to own

interest.

The German general and military author Friedrich von

Bernhardi followed the international relations theory where

war was a force for the further evolution of humanity

towards ever-higher levels or moral and spiritual

perfection. In his book Germany and the Next War he argued that

the law of the strongest is a general principle of nature

for both humans and animals.

This was clearly observed after the Second World War as

international relations was viewed in a divided world with

study built on certain facts. Though not an academic, the

charge d’affaires at the US Embassy in Moscow, George F.

Kennan explained the Soviet foreign policy in realist terms.

Namely, that the Soviet Union would exploit any opportunity

to weaken American power and prestige. Thus, the US could

wait for change within the Soviet Union or to resist

attempts to undermine Western institutions. The politics of

the late twentieth century saw the long-lasting era of

ideological rivalry end with the collapse of the Soviet

Union. The break-up of old interstate structures unraveled

familiar geopolitical patterns accentuated by mass

communication and affected the development of the world’s

means for mass destruction as well as mass production. The

evolution of multicultural and global markets offered a

unique type of eclectic character best described by Buzan as

the end of three eras: post-war, the twentieth century and

modern history.

An example of this can be the simple reality of how

countries conduct economic affairs. Nations, import from

abroad a larger share of what they consume. As the author

writes, “these movements are increasingly controlled by

multinational corporations operating smoothly across state

boundaries,” (p.267). The traditional notions of self-

sufficiency and independence have been knocked down by

developments in trade transnationalism and interdependence.

Though important some important features of each era have

remained in the affairs and nations broadly and within

interstate relations in particular.

The discussion on interstate structures received its biggest

compliment by Morton Kaplan that supported the claims by

Morgenthau as well as Waltz in the two main areas of

structural theorizing: the interstate system and world

economy. His Systems and Process in International Politics (1957)

showed six structural models that the international system

might assume: balance of power, tight bipolar, universal,

hierarchical and unit veto. In the attempt to understand

these structural models and how each were derived analogies

are often used. The author uses the analogy of the mosaic.

It is on this point that the reader disagrees.

4. Mosaic vs. Melting Pot

The dispute with the author is over the analogy of

international relations theory as a mosaic. From a

historical point of view this may be fitting, but the term

melting pot may be best since the political interstate

objectives of sovereign nation-states constitute, at each

moment in history, an intricate political field and since

the author writes from the historical scope this point makes

more sense within the melting pot (over-time) analysis.

International Relations theorizing varied following the

sixteenth century. From the scientific revolution of the

seventeenth century modern themes came into view, while a

confident, secular, self-regulating properties of human

action was put forth in the eighteenth century along with

clear symmetry of the universe. The progress of mankind was

the focus of nineteenth century theorizing. However, in

eighteenth century a clear theme was characterized and an

advocate or distinct voice heard: Hobbes and Rousseau for

example. Fragmentation began with the Enlightenment and

growth of ideologies such as liberalism, radicalism and

conservatism so the contemporary period of the twentieth

century is different. Still, there is a merging of these

theorizing that is more of a melting process. In brief,

Christian Wolff’s Jus gentium (The Law of Nations’, 1749)

applied Locke’s ideas to International Relations and

Emmerich de Vattel, a pupil of Wolff wrote a Lockean

analysis of International Relations: the Droit des gens (The Law

of Nations’, 1916 [1758]). This was followed by Jean

Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau (1712-78) was a momentous contributor to

International Relations theory. Rousseau made the argument

that human beings are endowed with natural reason with a

natural right to freedom, but is enslaved. In fact, all of

Rousseau’s works address this apparent paradox of liberty

and enslavement. This paradox was made more relevant in the

writings of an Austrian nobleman.

Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clauswitz (1780-1831) is one of

the more sophisticated international relations theorists,

stating his view of international politics as, “never relax

vigilance, expect nothing from the magnanimity of others;

never abandon a purpose until it has become impossible,

beyond doubt, to attain it; hold the honor of the state

sacred” (Clauswitz 1962, p. 304). As such, after the First

World War, a purely American inspired context of

international relations was undertaken.

The new discipline of International Relations can be seen as

reflection of early nineteenth-century American thought.

This mirror is due to one of its presidents. Woodrow Wilson

proposal for peace after WWI had roots in the trading states

along the north-Atlantic rim with Wilsonian vision of a

liberal/free market in keeping with the tradition from

Continental intellectuals before the turn of the century

such as Haeckel. In terms of world politics, four

perspectives existed side by side in the interwar period:

Liberal legalism, Realpolitik, communism and fascism.

Social thinkers like Locke would have seen their ideas

behind the genesis of the League of Nations as well as

informing the introductory texts in the emerging field of

international relations that cover comprehensive

presentation of the history of interstate relations, concept

of sovereignty, an introduction to the nature and role of

conference, arbitration and treaties. Wilson though

dominated infant discipline. The biggest critic of the

utopian approach to international politics arguably was

Winston S. Churchill who depicts international relations as

a contest where war was frequent.

Another critic was Lenin whose book Imperialism: the Highest Stage

of Capitalism (1975b [1917]) is arguably the single most

influential book on international politics since he gave his

arguments in a accessible form and impressive empirical

base.

Edward Carr’s book on The Twenty-Year Crisis (1964 [1939]) is more

apologetic to Wilson stating that utopian orientation is

normal. In fact, tension between utopianism and the realism

of Churchill is parallel to the set of social-scientific

contradictions such as free will and determinism, theory and

practice, political left and political right. The utopian

orientation was set aside by theorists who wished to apply a

more scientific approach to the study of the International

Relations.

Karl Popper’s emerged in the 1930s to increase the

methodological self-awareness of International Relations

theorizing and encourage greater rigor in analysis. For

Popper this was based on the simple insight that through

conjectures and refutations human knowledge was processed.

In the modern age, and in particular, the contemporary

period International Relations was a study between anarchy

and interdependence. Realism was embraced by IR students who

sought pragmatism to failed idealism and the person who

provided a critical approach to international politics was

Reinhold Neibuhr. A student of Neibuhr and émigré scholar

Hans J. Morgenthau synthesized the Atlantic and Continental

approaches to world politics becoming one of the most

influential realist theoreticians. In both their account

liberal theorizing was reasserted by the influence of power.

The criticism by European scholars of power politics caused

debate between traditional or classical approaches to the

field of IR and the behavioralist approach where

objectification through research methods by natural science.

This fit nicely with the claim by liberal theorists that

human reason strengthened the natural harmony of human

society, creating a cooperative order. The cooperative

spirit also fit into the idea of interdependence and

transactions of goods and knowledge between states. Robert

O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye in their work Power and

Interdependence (1977) advanced the discussion by introducing

the idea of complex interdependence. This idea echoed that

promoted by Rousseau that dependence increased wealth as

well as dependence and vulnerability. In indicating that Nye

and Keohane’s work followed an echo or patter set as far

back as the period of the Renaissance the analogy of the

mosaic or pattern and its evolutionary character is made.

4.1. Counterargument: Mosaic is more accurate in its

evolutionary context

The economic situation of the nineteenth century amounted to

an intensifier in how structure and relations within states

were altered during the Enlightenment period in the more

distant medieval period. From the economic situation the

infant discipline relied on historical investigations and

jurisprudence not on social science mythology.

The analogy of the mosaic is arguably better with the

reassertion of liberal theorizing. Human reason tied with

the liberal claim that if cultivated and refined the natural

harmony of society will be strengthened since cooperative

order is created. In Europe, scholars elaborated on

realism’s subtleties and precepts of conservatism. From this

came a rational perspective of world politics. Joseph S. Nye

advanced the discussion on transactions introducing a new

concept, that of complex interdependence. This is clearly

demonstrated in Kenneth N. Waltz’s analysis of International

Relations. In his analysis there are three images. The first

analysis of IR is in relation to man; the second by

reference to states and the third is systematic interaction

of states using Rousseau’s Discourse as an analogy.

In more recent decades three basic paradigms of

International Relations has emerged, Realism, Rationalism

and Revolutionism. This is appealing to the student of

international relations theory because it links the three

traditional social contexts of practice: interstate, system

of habitual intercourse and the realm of moral solidarity.

However, though instructive to the potential student and

researcher, it should be stressed how evolutionary these

contexts and paradigms are. It has been a process. And in

such a process the pattern of thought development and

critique has taken place.

4.2. A matter of semantics

Ultimately, it is a matter of the meaning of in English or

really the logic behind the understanding of the theory of

International Relations that gives students and researchers

the analogy of either mosaic or melting pot. More frankly,

it is a matter of semantics.

For as traditional knowledge and intellectual spirit of

tolerance was challenged and contradicted by Aquinas,

Francis Bacon, Justus Lipsius (1517-1606) elaborated a

classical definition of virtue and repudiated Machiavelli

with mixed results in his Politics (1589). Tommaso

Campanella (1568-1639), the passionate Dominican philosopher

poet and political revolutionary sough to reconcile Catholic

theology with Renaissance science. In brief, his attempt

postulated that philosophy must be based on methodic doubt.

Giovanni Botero (1540-1617) added in his international

analysis an emphasis on economic factors. Pointing out that

production and international trade are also crucial, for

such activities create wealth by means of which a prince can

purchase means of force. Put another way, populations strive

to increase to the full extent made possible by human

fertility. Since however there is scarcity there will be

limited resources, which will mean wars. But the Spaniard

Francisco de Vitoria extended the scope of international law

offering more systematic treatment to maritime matters.

Vitoria’s view of politics was clearly based upon individual

decision-makers, in short interaction between states. This

was not the case with Italians.

Italians, such as Alberico Gentili (1552-1608) were occupied

with explaining ethics and balance of power. Though he does

not advance anything of Vitoria and Botero’s nature of war,

he does create several important insights about negotiated

settlement between states. Disputes according to Gentili

were unavoidable and could only be resolved by either

negotiation or force. Likewise, he proposes that negotiation

is the most desirable. While Gentili offers a distinct

modern outline of interstate relations the seminal

clarification is found in Jean Bodin (1530-95).

From Bodin international relations theory is given the

lasting definition of sovereignty and of the principle of

commitments binding rulers (pacta sunt servanda).

Furthermore, Bodin postulated that interaction between

sovereign states exists on two principles: force and faith.

His principle of commitments however is Bodin’s second major

contribution to international relations theory. Moreover,

Bodin’s method divides human knowledge into three main

branches: divine history, natural history and human history.

The analysis and scholarship can be clearly seen in the last

half of the twentieth century.

That International Relations became a discipline to be

studied came after World War I with the early students

confined to the Wilsonian vision of world politics. To

appreciate the utopian character of the early years it must

be said that the zone of scholarly growth was limited to the

north-Atlantic culture. Later, during the Cold War period

and after its conclusion the scope of this character

extended to Continental Europe and was refocused on the

structures of the interstate.

The discussion on interstate structures received its biggest

compliment by Morton Kaplan that supported the claims by

Morgenthau as well as Waltz in the two main areas of

structural theorizing: the interstate system and world

economy. His Systems and Process in International Politics (1957)

showed six structural models that the international system

might assume: balance of power, tight bipolar, universal,

hierarchical and unit veto.

4.3 Changes in post-Modern interstate relations

As the last half of the twentieth century proved, it was a

time of change in the world area that encompasses both

economics and politics from interstate affairs to offering

new questions as to the future.

Globalization, a term used within the context of the

transfer of goods and benefits to trading blocs is in fact

not a new concept. As discussed by Knutsen Europe, America

and Asia were interconnected as early as the late Middle

Ages and challenges to state authority have been constant

companions to modern politics confirming that universal

categories within the theoretical perspectives such as

Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism is true.

The globalization of production, the transnational

corporation has replaced the local factory. Productivity has

shifted from high-volume goods to high-value goods. The

trends of economic liberalization have helped in the smooth

flow of monies and goods within international markets.

As international relation theorists contemplate the shifting

relations and power politics of the early twenty-first

century the traditional models have been altered again

providing for a new look at the forces that influence the

relations between states.

Contemporary discussions on the changes in the world economy

has shown indicated various trends in globalization.

Moreover, transnationalism and transformation in the

political life and state erosion has brought consequences

for world affairs.

For example, nuclear weapons presented a deterrent during

the Cold War, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union,

proliferation of knowledge and material to make nuclear

weapons has occurred. Since September 11, 2001 the United

States and Western European nations Great Britain and Spain

and Germany increasingly fear the spread of biological and

chemical weapons. This has caused a change in interstate

relations. The 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq was

conducted under the auspice of destroying Iraq’s stock-pile

of weapons of mass destruction. This regime change has had

far reaching consequences that while controversial caused

some immediate changes. The declaration by Libya that they

were ceasing in their own attempts to acquire nuclear weapon

technology is a short-term example. Another example that may

have long-term effects is the international diplomatic

attempts to control the technological information Iran and

North Korea received. In effect, managing the specific

interstate relationships.

The old notion of security was briefly eclipsed by the

notion of society. Since 2003, the dimension of social and

economic and ecological have been included in a broad scope

of analysis what Barry Buszan (1991) refers to as

multidimensional security. This in fact is not a new concept

since it borrows from the Realist concept of interstate

anarchy as well as the Rationalist notion of complex

interdependence.

For example the rise in transnational corporations,

international knowledge workers and of a new, multicultural

political discourse. With the end of the Cold War and

liberal democracy being considered the only coherent

political aspirations, in effect the liberal democracies of

the West had “shown more effective in realizing the human

potential of their populations and in harnessing their

energies than did their totalitarian competitors,” (p.266).

As the territorial state modern state system emerged later

came a realization of balance-of-power politics. But with

the conclusion of the Cold War there was now a question of

not only stability but of the very transformation of the

three paradigms discussed in the paragraphs above. In brief,

what of Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism in the post-

Cold War era?

As described as neo-liberalism, cooperation theory was seen

as most effective within markets and in the field of

politics. The question about the behavior of rational actors

in anarchic societies was easily explained by Robert Keohone

in a firmly founded book about international cooperation

that was rooted in institutional economics. As to neo-

Realism directly, arguably the most influential

International Relations text, Theory of International Politics by

Kenneth Waltz offered a more solid social-scientific

foundation for Realist analysis. Interestingly, Waltz

dismisses mainstream social-science methods insisting on

investigating the ‘whole’ to explain the parts. These parts,

individual states, are determined by the whole, interstate

system, Waltz claims and by identifying the determining

agents he needs a more suitable method than what traditional

methods had offered.

Waltz goes further in his analysis by exploring systems

theory as a way to understand political structures. In doing

so, Waltz identifies three salient dimensions of political

structures: (1) ordering principles, (2) the extent of

specialization, and (3) relative capabilities of goals. As

to the first, whether the social structure is hierarchic or

anarchic in practice, the second point, the extent of

specialization and finally the relative capabilities of the

parts. Since, Waltz offered his version of neo-Realism much

criticism has been offered, but to his basic proposition

that the international political system is composed of

sovereign states whose interaction is ordered according to

the principle of anarchy.

Post-Revolutionism considered dead in the wake of the Cold

War saw a small revival in part due to criticism of Waltz.

Taking a stance based on structural form, especially when in

the historical arch of Enlightenment thought another term

post-structuralism came into use in an attempt to combine

notions of exile, cores and margins, et al that informed a

varied set of post-revolutionary International Relations

theories. Though as the author says a fashionable label, the

urge to criticize is Continental in origin, the turn-of-the

century Continental opposition to liberal, Atlantic scholars

such as Haeckel. Interestingly, from all this some valuable

new positions on international relations theory have come

forward. In fact, it can be claimed that International

Relations involve a change in focus: away from international

actors, interactions and structures towards the concepts

through which actors and interactions are understood.

Using words as archaeology, genealogy and deconstruction to

analysis, since the 1980s, writers of International

Relations knowledge have been prolific. Michel Foucault

famously used the archaeological approach to study

marginalized groups, Jens Bartelson, and James Der Derian

have demonstrated that within International Relations if

studied in the light of a modern concept of sovereignty i.e

genealogy the shape of contemporary political life can be

better understood. Der Derian relies on Nietzsche arguing

that diplomatic relations have been interpreted in light of

modern experience while deconstruction attempts to shine a

critical light on truth-claims that within the study of

international Relations key IR-concepts often come in pairs

i.e. war/peace. From the familiar paradigms and their ‘new’

adherents the question of what is the ultimate fate of each

should be asked.

From a rather ambiguous existence in the 1990s the core

paradigms have emerged in the twenty-first century either in

a clear liberal direction (Realism) the actual combination

of Realism and Rationalism in examining institutional

economics and the extinction of Revolutionists. In

conclusion an analysis of what has occurred within the field

of International Relations since the end of the Cold War is

a fractured portrait of IR. Still, contemporary

international relation theorists agree that “that states are

not static subjects, but dynamic agents; that state

identities are not give, but (re)constituted through

complex, historical, overlapping (often contradictory)

practices and therefore, volatile, unstable, constantly

changing; that the distinction between domestic politics and

international relations is tenuous,” (p.282) (Biersteker and

Weber 1996). In the final examination a strong tradition

prevails in the field of international relations.

5. In Sum: a strong tradition

The purpose of the paper was to support the idea that

International Relations (IR) had a theoretical tradition

through the themes of war, wealth, peace and power as seen

over a time span of seven hundred years. The author, Tjborn

Knutsen supports the claim using the analogy of a mosaic to

describe the development of international relations theory.

The reader however, while not disputing the claim or the way

such insight was traced dispute the analogy, insisting that

melting pot is better suited. But, ultimately it is a

matter of semantics since analogies and metaphors are used

to explain, at times, complex events and theories.

They are metaphors to assist in the explanation of old

values, unique concepts, synthesis and all other tools used

in theory building that help the student, researcher and lay

person understand and appreciate the strength of

international relations.

Resources

Bagehot, W. (1899) ‘Physics and politics’, Works, Vol. IV. Hartford, Conn: The Travelers Insurance Co. [1872] in Knutsen, T.L. (1996). A History of International Relations Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Berhardi, F. von (1912). Germany and the Next War. New York: Longman, Green & Co.

Bodin, J. (1945). Method for the easy Comprehension of History. New York: Columbia University Press [1566].

Carr, E.H. (1964). The Twenty-Year Crisis, 1919-1939. New York: Harper and Row [1939].

Clausewitz, C. von (1922). ‘Die Deutschen und die Franzosen’, in Rothfels, H., ed., Carl von Clausewitz: Politische Schriften und Brife, pp. 35-51. Munchen: Drei Masken Verlag.

Fredrick II (1768). Politisches Testament in Knutsen, T.L. (1996). A History of International Relations Theory p. 127. Manchester:Manchester University Press.

Kaplan, M. (1957). Systems and Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley.

Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence. New York: Little Brown and Co.

Knutsen, T.L. (1996). A History of International Relations Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lenin, V. (1975b). ‘Imperalism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, in Tucker (1975), pp. 204-75.

Locke, J. (1960). Two treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [1689].

Vattel, E. de (1863). The Law of nations or the Principles of Natural LawApplied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson [1758].

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Relations. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Wolff, C. (1749). Jus gentium (The Law of Nations) in Knutsen,T.L. (1996). A History of International Relations Theory p. 138. Manchester: Manchester University Press.