i

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Theories as a tool for analysing international relations ......................................................... 1

1.3 The evolution of international relations theories ................................................................... 2

1.3.1 Evolution of idealism ......................................................................................................... 2

1.3.2 Evolution of realism ........................................................................................................... 2

1.3.3 Evolution of Marxism ........................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER TWO: EVALUATION OF THE REALIST THEORY ............................................... 4

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Core assumptions of the realist theory .................................................................................. 4

2.3 Relevance of realism in international relations ..................................................................... 6

2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER THREE: EVALUATION OF THE LIBERAL THEORY .......................................... 9

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Core assumptions of the liberal theory .................................................................................. 9

3.3 Relevance of liberalism in international relations ............................................................... 10

3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 13

CHAPTER FOUR: EVALUATION OF THE MARXIST THEORY ......................................... 14

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Core assumptions of the Marxist theory ............................................................................. 14

4.3 Relevance of Marxism in international relations. ............................................................... 15

4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 17

ii

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION............................................................ 18

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Summarising the assessment of grand theories ................................................................... 18

5.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 20

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 21

1

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1 Introduction

This section gives an overview of the four grand theories used in the study of international

relations, including a historical perspective on how they evolved and the great thinkers behind

these theories.

1.2 Theories as a tool for analysing international relations

International relations is a branch of political science that studies relations between nations and

primarily with foreign policies (Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, 2014). Like all scientific studies,

international relations can be best understood by the aid of theories. The theorization of

international relations emerged during the interwar period with liberalists calling for collective

security system to replace the balance of power policy which was being fronted by the realists

(Burchill et al., 2013). Since the turn of the 20th century when interstate relations intensified, it

has always been hard to talk about international relations without making a reference to the three

grand theories; realism, Marxism, and liberalism. These theories have extensively been used by

different scholars to explain and predict interstate behaviours in the international system.

International relations theories are also described as a set of ideas that explain the nature of the

international system while predicting the outcomes from actions by major players in international

relations. These theories reflect what transpires in international relations and this implies that

their concepts reflect what happens on the ground. They have provided a conceptual basis upon

which to analyse the complicated and intricate mechanisms of international relations. However,

there have been constant clashes amongst the proponents of these theories with each group trying

to prove how relevant it is over the other.

Burchill et al. (2013) noted that international relations theories are divided into two: the positivist

(or rationalist) theories which are primarily focused on the state-to-state level analysis and on the

other side the post-positivist (or reflectivist) theories that seek to involve all levels of analysis to

include intrastate dealings, relations between classes or genders to globalist views. As Wendt

(1987) pointed out, each group has opposing views with the realists theorizing the system

structures in individualist terms as opposed to state agency while the idealists conceptualize

2

system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves. There have always

been three traditional theories of international relations and these are Marxism, realism and

idealism but over the past few decades, newer versions of these theories have emerged to explain

the shift in international relations and these include neorealism, neoliberalism, complex

interdependence, post-liberalism, feminism, dependency and world systems theories, the green

theory, structuralism, and many others.

1.3 The evolution of international relations theories

Before we evaluate how international relations theories have enhanced international relations, we

need to briefly understand how each of the grand theories emerged and the proponents behind

the rise of these theories. This will help us to understand the larger picture and how they have

been applicable over the years.

1.3.1 Evolution of idealism

Idealism is also known as liberalism due to the idealists’ emphasis on freedom for cooperation,

peace, and progress (Dixit, 2013). The theory emerged immediately after the first world war and

among its tenets, the world order needed to foster peace and order and blamed the outbreak of

world war one on the greedy power politics. Among the early proponents of idealism was US

president Woodrow Wilson who believed that the world needed to relieve itself of the traditional

trappings of power politics like the balance of power and the pursuit of national interests

(Encyclopaedia of the New American Nation, 2006). Among the notable proponents of idealism

include; Michael Brown, Ronald Reagan, Florence Stawell, Henry Kissinger, among others.

1.3.2 Evolution of realism

This is the most influential theory in international relations and is based on the writings of early

hardcore realists like Niccolò Machiavelli – from his book The Prince and Hans Morgenthau in

his book The Struggle for Power and Peace. They are considered to be the father of modern

realism and unlike idealists, they believe that national interests – not universal interests are the

main determinants of state behaviour in world politics (Morgenthau, 1948). The main features of

realism include power politics, international anarchy, conflict, national interest and war (Dixit,

2013).

3

1.3.3 Evolution of Marxism

Amidst the confusion created by idealism and realism, there arose Marxism to offer an

explanation about state behaviour from an economic perspective. The theory is based on the

ideological writings in a book The German Ideology by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels all of

whom were German social scientists. They portrayed the economy and class hierarchy as the

major focus among other concerns. Both highlighted the evilness of the capitalist globalization

which they blamed for all the volatilities in the international system and that class domination

and exploitation were the main source of endless conflicts (Marx & Engels, 1970). Marxists

stress social order and justice as in shared interests, rules and institutions (Dixit, 2013).

Neomarxist theories include the dependency and world systems theory.

1.4 Summary

This section has highlighted how the turn of events after the first world war led to the rise of

different ideologies all seeking to interpret and provide a detailed analysis of what was going on

in the international scene. Most notable is the conflict between these theories as each opposes the

other’s views while trying to prove how they give the most accurate ones. The section also

highlighted a brief overview about how these theories evolved and the notable proponents behind

their rise. All this information will help us to assess their influence in enhancing international

relations.

4

CHAPTER TWO: EVALUATION OF THE REALIST THEORY

2.1 Introduction

In this section, both the assumptions and relevance of the realist theory of international relations

are analysed. As one of the grand theories of international relations, realism gives a radical

viewpoint on what’s happening place on the international scene. Also, being a deep-seated

theory, the section examines the reasons for its tough stance and fierce criticism of other

theories, especially liberalism.

2.2 Core assumptions of the realist theory

The strength of every theory lies in its assumptions and the following is an in-depth evaluation of

the basic tenets upon which realism in international relations is founded. This evaluation is

important so that we can consider the contributions of the theory to the study of international

relations.

Realism assumes that the international system is all about power politics where military strength

is the major determinant of a state’s strength and success in the international system. The theory

assumes that states are building-up power to secure their national interests, expand their borders,

defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty and to ensure survival. This is implemented by

exercising power politics and realists believe that might is right (Internet Encyclopaedia of

Philosophy, 2001).

It also assumes that nation states are naturally aggressive and they will always seek to achieve

more and more at the expense of others. States are also willing to apply all means to pursue their

goals regardless of the legal or moral consequences because they believe that what belongs to

them is ultimately theirs. This portrays nation-states as being self-centred and war mongers

because of them being unitary and rational actors who strive to conquer as many resources as

they can.

Realists also believe in the balance of power policy when all states have equal security strength

thus making an attack on the other unlikely (Kegley & Blanton, 2015). It adds that the rise in the

military strength of one state will alert other states to team up and form a military coalition

thereby sustaining the balance of power. Van De Haar (2009) argues that nation states differ in

5

their military power and that it is necessary to prevent any from dominating or ruling over the

others and that is why states create alliances to prevent dominion by other states. They believe

that the only way to maintain global peace is when all states have the same military strength and

that it will be less likely for one state to attack the other, i.e. during the cold war between the

USA and the Soviet Union. Kenneth Waltz (2010) who is the initiator of neorealism stated that

in order to maintain the balance of power politics, two conditions should prevail and these are;

global anarchism and statesmen willing to execute their tasks to maintain this balance. He added

that this can be done by increasing their economic strength, manufacturing superior weapons or

reaching out to its allies by forming coalitions. Such internal and external measures of balancing

will bring about a balance in military strength.

Under realism, morality in the form of faith, beliefs, and ideas has no place in interstate relations

and that the policies of states shouldn’t be measured by their motives or means but by their

outcomes implying that morality and idealism have do not apply beyond a state’s borders

(Moseley, 2001). Realists argue that giving morality a consideration will only weaken or

undermine a state’s national interests but that states may pretend to follow moral political ethics

when they join international organizations or giving out aid to other states due to reputational

pressure to sustain a positive image of themselves (McElroy, 2014).

Another assumption is that states bear no accountability to anyone since there’s no international

authority to dictate their actions. Such a situation in world politics is called anarchy which is

characterized by the absence of a world regime to control or regulate state actions. The absence

of a global authority to enforce rules leaves the world in a chaotic situation where states have no

limits as per their actions and that this vacuum is the nature of states – being fixed and

unchanging (Moseley, 2001).

When it comes to influence, realists postulate that only states are the major relevant actors and

hence the main unit of study in global politics. This traditional belief is upheld on the basis that

states alone have the resources to implement effective foreign policies but they also acknowledge

the rising influence of non-state actors on the international scene. Other non-state actors like

non-governmental organizations, individuals, and multinational corporations are regarded as not

having “the military power needed to compete with states in the international system” and that

they have limited resources and minimal influence (International Organisations.org, 2014).

6

Realists also assume that the international system is conflictual (Pease, 2012) and that this is

because of the aggressiveness which places the system on tension and hence becoming

conflictual. However, it is posited that this is due to the pessimism or doubtful nature of humans

who are perceived to be naturally corrupt, ruthless, and rude. The fact that we have to fight for

survival and only the fit ones will survive makes humans become too selfish who only seek to

harm others for their personal gain, this translates into state actions in the international system

(North Bergen, 2001).

Finally, realists assume that national interest is a state’s main priority in the undertaking of its

foreign policy on the international stage. They postulate that states are willing to go into full-

scale war to safeguard what they call their ambitions or goals and that these determine state

behaviour. These goals or ambitions could be economic, security, sovereignty, territorial

integrity, or cultural goals and they are crucial to a state’s survival and that any threat to their

national interest may justify a punitive action, i.e. a war against the aggressor.

2.3 Relevance of realism in international relations

Being a dominant theory in the study of international relations, it is helpful to find out if the

above assumptions have made realism a relevant theory in the scope of international relations.

Despite being called out-of-date, the realist theory is still as relevant as ever. This sub-section

sheds light on this matter.

Realism offers the most realistic interpretation of what’s actually taking place in the global

politics arena. It portrays the most accurate view of world politics just as they happen. When we

watch news that the USA has and its NATO allies have attacked Libya, we can understand

through the realist thinking as to why these superpowers have decided to wage a war against

Libya and what interests do they have there. Many events taking place around the world portray

what realism is emphasizing. What is happening today in the UN Security Council is a

manifestation of power politics with the permanent members disagreeing on several critical

issues. Russia and China have on several occasions exercised their veto powers against

intervening in the Syrian civil war. Such bickering is a representation of what exactly realism is

assuming. Still, again, the US and its ally South Korea conduct annual military drills on the

frontiers of North Korea, realism also tells us that it is because of power politics that North

Korea and South Korea are technically still at war despite ending the Korean war in 1953. Still,

7

we can understand through the realist thinking as to why Uganda and Kenya are still in deadlock

over the Migingo island issue, and as to why Tanzania is slowing down the East African

integration process. It is a matter of fact that the world should be portrayed just as it is rather than

what it should be (Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2012). We shouldn’t hide the fact of

the real situation on the ground but rather we should know the truth and acknowledge what’s

taking place around the world today.

Secondly, realism is the only theory to offer precise predictions of the international system. By

envisaging the likely responses by one state against another, we are able to tell what actions a

state will likely take when faced with a particular situation. For example, it tells us that if Iran

accumulates nuclear weapons of mass destruction, global superpowers like the US and its

western allies will confront it or likely attack it. This was the case before the 2003 invasion of

Iraq after Saddam Hussein was suspected of being in possession of deadly weapons. By using the

realist account, scholars predicted USA’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks by Al-

Qaeda. A few months after these attacks, President George W. Bush declared a full war on terror

by sending troops to attack the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the Al-Qaeda bases in

that country. The relevance of realism in international relations is that it gives us an insight of

what is likely to happen in case there’s a shift in the international system. This is important

because we can be able to make correct estimations of the intensity of reactions to a situation in

the international system, actors are also able to understand what consequences are their states

likely to encounter if they take a certain course of action. The ability to predict interstate

behaviours solely lies with the realist ideology.

It also explains why some actions must be taken and why they are necessary. Not everything can

be solved amicably through the liberalist approach of dialogue and diplomacy because this might

prolong the prevailing badness and therefore, urgent action must be taken to prevent worse

consequences. A good example is that the NATO intervention in the 2011 Libyan civil war was

timely to prevent further loss of civilian life after the Libyan leader Gadhafi gave orders of

shoot-to-kill against the protesters. It can also be said that it is necessary that states take

definitive actions in the best interests of its populations. When governments take on the duties to

protect its citizens and defend the enemies, then the state will ensure that security is a top priority

by increasing their military spending. States also pursue economic interests to provide the best

8

livelihood to their citizens, this is why some middle eastern states ruthlessly guard their oil wells

while also ensuring that its price on the global markets remains stable.

2.4 Summary

As we have observed, what makes realism a unique theory is its straightforwardness in

portraying the reality of events as they happen on the international scene. The emphasis here is

that events should be interpreted the way they take place and not merely how we fantasize or

wish them to be. We need to acknowledge that the international system is mainly characterized

by the core realist concepts of power politics and security dilemmas (International

Organisations.org, 2014).

9

CHAPTER THREE: EVALUATION OF THE LIBERAL THEORY

3.1 Introduction

This section discusses the basic tenets upon which the liberal thinking of the international

relations is based. The theory’s relevance to the study of international relations is also critically

examined. This is also helpful in evaluating its enhancement towards understanding international

relations system.

3.2 Core assumptions of the liberal theory

As a traditional theory of international relations, it is important to study the assumptions that

make up the optimist beliefs about international relations. It should be noted that liberalism and

realism fiercely reject each other’s assumptions about international relations but the liberalist

assumptions are primarily based on achieving peace and unity in the international system

First and foremost, liberalists reject the realist concept of power politics as being typical of the

international system and that the agenda of international politics is not necessarily dominated by

military issues (American School of Guatemala, 2015). They believe that states have alternate

ways of cooperating and addressing their concerns harmoniously rather than engaging in endless

power politics. Additionally, idealists believe that through observing the international law, states’

behaviour can be regulated or constrained thereby preventing the power politics games. They

emphasize that international agenda is dominated by the economic and social issues such as

natural resources, global warming, immigration, etc.

Liberalists also emphasize mutual benefits and international cooperation as being vital to the

existence of peace and unity in the international system (Shiraev & Eric, 2014). The increased

interdependence among nations is a positive sign that states look to each other while pursuing

common interests. In their attempts to prove how this is possible, idealists state that international

cooperation can be maintained despite the world anarchy and that instead of spending a lot of

time and resources pursuing short-term interests, states can instead pursue long-term interests to

bring about a permanent solution.

Another concept is the significance of non-state actors such as the international organizations,

individuals and multinational corporations as being able to influence policy decisions in the

10

international system and foster global unity (Shiraev & Eric, 2014). They argue that by serving

as a medium for states to pursue their policies or interests, institutions can bring an end to

conflicts which will allow peace to prevail. They also insist that international organizations

significantly contribute to global development and cooperation among nation-states. It was the

idea of Woodrow Wilson – a forefather of idealism to establish international organizations that

can bring nation states together and solve world problems. Furthermore, liberals assume that the

nation state is not a unitary actor since it is made up of individual bureaucracies, and interest

groups all of which compete against each other to influence a state’s foreign policy. Therefore,

societal actors within a state rival amongst themselves in order to influence the decision-making

process (American School of Guatemala, 2015).

Idealists also believe that diplomacy - as opposed to the use of force - is the most effective

foreign policy tool in resolving state conflicts. Through diplomacy, states can pursue their

national interests and also settle their disputes cordially without flexing their muscles – a

situation that makes violence unlikely. By emphasizing that differences can be resolved through

dialogues, states can also agree to move along the same direction. Diplomacy not only helps to

settle differences among states, but it also fosters long-lasting international teamwork that creates

the right environment for peace and development to flourish. Whereas realists advocate for hard

power through military intervention as a tool for pursuing foreign policies, the liberalists

advocate for soft power through diplomacy or negotiation.

Finally, liberalists also refute the realist concept of national interest as being vital in a state’s

dealings at the international scene and instead they assume that collective or universal interests

are replacing national interest due to the rising force of globalism. They add that this is why

states agree under a regional or an international arrangement to share their resources, cede part of

their sovereignty and adopt policies to eliminate restrictions on human and goods movement

(Van De Haar, 2009). This indicates a shift in the international system where states are no longer

self-centred but willing to accommodate the views from across their borders.

3.3 Relevance of liberalism in international relations

This is an assessment of how liberalism enhances international relations. After examining its

core assumptions, it’s prudent to recognize how the values of liberalism affect the way we

understand international relations and how the theory generally contributes to this area of study.

11

As assumed by liberalism, nation states are embracing regionalism while also acknowledging the

role played by both the IGO’s and the INGO’s in the development process. As we have

observed, international organizations are now acting as the intermediary between states by

serving as a medium where conflictual issues are resolved and also participating in the

maintenance of security by sending peacekeeping forces to conflict areas such as D.R. Congo. In

the same way, institutions are also leading the economic growth efforts around the world by

funding development projects and advocating for the elimination of trade barriers. In addition,

over the last few decades, institutions have been instrumental in promoting transparency in state

dealings, free and fair elections, humanitarian aid and health, social order and justice, human

rights for all, environmental conservation, access to education and other public services, all of

which have enabled them to outperform states.

Diplomacy has proved to be the most effective tool for implementing foreign policies of nation

states more than power politics. Today’s states, whether military or democratic, all maintain a

sizeable team of diplomats to pursue the foreign policy goals. All states maintain representatives

in other states who work in an embassy and heads of states are also visiting each other for

meetings. Diplomacy has presented nation states with the option to avoid conflicts by engaging

in negotiations where differences have been settled amicably. This has brought about relative

peace and unity among nation-states.

Liberalists have also enabled scholars to understand how the globalism concept is making a shift

in the international system. The assumption that universal or collective interests have overtaken

national interests as a priority on the global stage is a true reflection of what’s actually

happening. Many states are abandoning their own plans in favor of collective policies under

regional groupings or intergovernmental organizations. States are even willing to cede part of

their sovereignty to these groupings so as to sustain their influence. This is the reason why

groupings like NATO, OSCE, AU, EU, ASEAN, etc are increasing in influence. Some IGO’s

have gone as far as determining the foreign policies of their member states. Today, globalization

is marked by economic liberalization and opening up of state borders to allow the free movement

of people and their goods which has increased migration and also led to intercultural exchanges

as the world is becoming more of a global village.

12

The role of other non-state actors has also been evident throughout the world. Multinational

corporations are now rendering essential services that were traditionally preserved to the state

such as providing free education, relief aid, etc. The influence of multinational corporations is

now felt more than ever before as they are spreading their presence in many countries and

providing employment, resource and technology transfer among others and this has significantly

contributed to improved livelihoods and also spurred economic growth. Equally, individual non-

state actors have also had a significant influence on the international scene, some acting as power

brokers, others as peace negotiators and still, others as human rights activists. Figures like

Mahatma Gandhi, Boniface Mwangi, the Pope John Paul II, Kofi Annan, and many others, have

all proved a liberal fact that individual actors can wage a considerable influence equal to that of

the state on the international scene.

Since the demise of the cold war in the early 1990’s, the world has witnessed a massive political

shift from the communist or dictatorial governments to democratic governments directly elected

by the common people. More countries are exercising some form of democracy by holding

periodical elections and are being run by regimes directly elected by the citizens, i.e. Uganda,

Burma, Vietnam, etc and this is in line with the liberal values that democracy should replace

dictatorship and monarchy. The era of democracy has brought along other impressive changes

such as free trade replacing protectionism, and collective security replacing the balance of power

concept (American School of Guatemala, 2015).

Interdependence, as advanced by liberalists, has also proved to be very effective as more states

are reaching out to each other in the 21st century. A long time ago, especially before world war I,

states pursued their interests through military force against weaker states for territorial expansion

and resource exploration. But nowadays, interdependence has turned things around where both

the weaker and stronger nations are seeking the assistance of each other, stronger developed

nations are obtaining resources through agreements and weaker developing nations are obtaining

financial assistance from developed nations, for example, China is financing several

infrastructural development projects around Africa and in turn being given access to resources

such as minerals. Such international cooperation makes states unlikely to engage in conflicts.

As Robert Keohane (2012) observed, there has been an increase in moralism which is in line

with the liberal assumption of optimism in human nature. Every day, we are inspired by the

13

actions portraying the common good for mankind particularly by institutions like charity

organizations which sends volunteers and also give out relief aid to those in need, religious

organizations such as the Catholic and Anglican church, and many other non-profitable

organizations like World Vision, Oxfam, etc. Developed countries are also carrying out their

moral obligations of offering aid in terms of human resources, financial aid, medical aid,

technological and military aid to African countries. All this shows that human nature is not really

evil or selfish as portrayed by realists. Another effect that moralism has had on the international

scene according to Keohane (2012) is the increased observance of human rights by states as

advocated by some institutions such as the Human Rights Watch.

3.4 Summary

Liberalism being the oldest theory in international relations was founded at the right time to

address the solutions to the interwar hostilities that ravaged much of the early 20th century and

yet it has been able to perfectly align itself with the massive shift in interpolitics that we are

currently witnessing. From the assumptions, we are certain that the liberalist view is being

sincere on what should be done for the world to move along the same direction. The major

contribution of the liberal theory to the study of international relations is that as scholars, we are

able to comprehend the alternative approaches to power politics portrayed by the realists. Much

of what is going on as highlighted in the previous section is all liberalist ideologies at play.

Therefore, the only solution - to heal the wounds, embrace each other, ensure co-existence and

move on in peace and unity – is to embrace the tenets of liberalism and apply them in the actual

practice of international relations.

14

CHAPTER FOUR: EVALUATION OF THE MARXIST THEORY

4.1 Introduction

In explaining international relations, the Marxist theory sharply challenges the principles of both

traditional theories; liberalism and realism. The Marxist theory explains international relations in

economic and class concepts rather than the power politics and global interests of the other two

theories. This section goes in-depth to examine both the theory’s assumptions and relevance in

this field.

4.2 Core assumptions of the Marxist theory

The following are the basic tenets advanced by Marxists in their interpretation of the

international relations. In this sub-section, an analysis of each assumption is given to shed more

light.

The economy as the major determinant of societal behaviour: Unlike the realists and liberalists

who advance state conflict or cooperation, Marxism contends that economic and material aspects

are the major factors that determine state-to-state interactions (Buecker, 2003). They add that the

economy takes priority in every decision-making process and that it alone determines both the

social, political and economic aspects of a state. Marxists also reveal how the economy outdoes

other societal concerns and that over the years, the elites have taken advantage of the economic

power imbalances to exploit those at the base of the production (International Organizations.org,

2014).

Classism as a unit of analysis: Marxists emphasize that economic exploitation by the bourgeoisie

who own the means of production brings about classism in the society (Nkrumah, 1970). They

believe that those having economic control will use their powers to exploit the worker who is at

the production end and that it’s the bourgeoisie who will benefit most from the product sales due

to their economic superiority. Marxists believe that such exploitation is mainly orchestrated by

the state which uses the economic power to exploit others and they view the state as a tool for the

bourgeoisie who are economically wealthy and powerful to misuse their power and enrich

themselves at the expense of the proletariat. Such imbalances allow for the elevation of class as

the focus of the study (International Organizations.org, 2014). They argue that the bourgeoisie

uses a variety of mechanisms to exploit the working class to their own advantage and these

15

include political or economic institutions, laws or regulation mechanisms. Marxists further

criticize some international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank for their economic

neoliberal policies which they believe doesn’t cater for the working-class interests, i.e. protection

of laborers’ human rights and their working conditions. As Davenport (2011) concurs, capitalism

advocated by liberalists encourages more exploitation by multinational corporations which

produce items in economies that have no regard for human rights and where labour is cheaper.

By doing this, they produce products cheaply which they sell at a higher price thus leading to a

higher profits margin, e.g. Apple Inc. that manufactures its iPhone products in China and then

sells them exorbitantly in European and USA markets.

Marxists also attach great importance to the class concept and also argue that class interests are

dominant and hence make up the state interests. According to Buecker (2003), the dominant

actor in the international system is the class and that the clashes within the international system

are due to class conflicts and not its anarchical nature as advanced by realists. Marxists also

claim that bourgeoisies are in control of the state’s affairs through regulating the economy while

advancing state interests beyond the class borders and that these are the ones who set and pursue

a state’s foreign policies and according to Miliband (1986), an “economic interest might arise

between the existing dominant class” who are in control of the state and therefore, the interest of

the class is the interest of the state. Therefore, in a Marxist analysis, state behaviour reflects the

interests of the ruling class (Block, 1977).

4.3 Relevance of Marxism in international relations.

Unlike the traditional theories of liberalism and realism which just give us the points of view on

international relations, Marxism deepens scholars’ understanding of how things have changed

through the in-depth analysis of interstate relations (Essays, 2013).

Even though Marxism has steadily lost influence on the global scene especially with the demise

of the cold war, it has always been a great resource for understanding the mechanisms of the

complicated international system. Describing the international system in economic terms gives

us an alternate point of view different from the old-fashioned liberal and realist perspectives. The

Marxist assumptions can be true especially in an increasingly free market capitalist society

where the absence of government regulation is characterized by the forces of supply and demand

which determines the prices of the products (Smith, 1880). The current free market economy has

16

brought about an era where some necessity items have become luxurious and hence only

affordable by the rich and this is a true interpretation of Marxism.

The importance of labour movements and workers’ unions can’t be underestimated in the 21st

century as workers continuously demand their equal share of the economy through staging

demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and sit-ins. In the Encyclopaedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

(2005), Marxists are credited for developing a theory of the working-class liberation and were

the leading activists during the working-class industrial revolutions throughout Europe. The

current labour unions are inspired by Marx’s ideologies and have been vocal in demanding for

workers’ rights, better working conditions and an end to workers’ exploitation by politicians.

Some socialist ideologies as enshrined in Karl Marx’s writings still maintain a considerable

stronghold in the international system. A definition on Wikipedia (2016) describes socialism as a

“range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control

of the means of production.” The number of states ascribing to Marxist/Leninist and socialist

beliefs has increased over time and some socialist states include; Tanzania, China, Cuba, Laos,

Vietnam, Angola, North Korea, China, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. In these states, the

means of production, distribution, and exchange are wholly or partly owned or regulated by the

society. Even in capitalist economies like the USA, the government still controls and implements

some general socialist programs such like the welfare, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid

(Online forum, 2010).

Marxism has also been critical of capitalism and its effects as it vehemently opposes the

economic exploitation of free market economy by exposing its flaws that only seek to

“impoverish the working class and thereby create the social conditions for a revolution.”

(Boundless, 2016). By giving the ownership of means of production to private businesses,

capitalism is creating “dependence of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately as a

source of restriction of human freedom” (Boundless, 2016). In this way, Marxism offers the best

alternative interpretation of the international system as opposed to the ever-conflicting realism

and liberalism. In his writings, Walt (1998) stresses that “…where realism and liberalism took

the state system for granted, Marxism offered both a different explanation for international

conflict and a blueprint for fundamentally transforming the existing international order.” This

17

clearly shows how those dissatisfied with both theories can find an alternative version as

assumed by Marxism.

Marxism as a theory has also contributed a lot to the emergence of other theoretical approaches

that explain international relations in a revised format. Being a very old theory, Marxist views

were penned down in the 19th century, and now things are entirely different. The ideologies in

this theory have given way to the rise of other neo-Marxist theories like the dependency theory

and the world systems theory which respectively explain international politics according to the

existing international systems.

4.4 Summary

It would be improper to say that Marxism as a theory has lost relevance in the international

system because some practices we witness in the international system owe their origins in

Marx’s writings. Marxism will still remain relevant as before as long as the liberalism and

realism theories continue to have flaws in their ideologies. By ascribing to Marxist teachings, a

number of states have achieved a considerable growth and development based on

communal/mutual benefit. States have promulgated policies that have ensured fairly distributed

economic gains and this has improved livelihoods. Labour movements and workers’ unions have

also agitated for the proletariats’ rights all of which is an indication of how relevant the theory is

in the international arena. What’s notable is the fact that even states that ascribe to

Marxist/Leninist ideologies have outperformed capitalist states by a larger margin, i.e. China

which presently ranks as the second-biggest economy after the USA (Statistics Times, 2016).

18

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

In the previous three chapters, an evaluation of the ideologies that these theories represent has

enabled us to make a thorough assessment of their relevance in this field. The final section of this

paper provides a general summary of the paper and then the conclusion.

5.2 Summarising the assessment of grand theories

Throughout this paper, it has been emphasized that each theory maintains a considerable

relevance to a certain extent and without these theories, international relations studies would be

invalid. It should be remembered that some of these theories emerged during the times of great

hostilities around the world. Each came up with its own interpretation of what was going on,

predictions were made which equipped scholars with insights to better understand the

international system and the whole decision-making process. Theories of international relations

have always been relevant and effective and will always remain such as long as the international

system is still in place. The good thing is that as scholars, we are able to interpret the actors’

actions based on what these theories assume. This not only gives us an approach from which to

interpret actions and reactions, but it also explains the reasons behind the actions or decisions

taken by those who rule over us.

Without theories, it would practically be impossible to appreciate the role international studies

play in global politics. These theories have been tested over time and they have proved to be

correct. Many global events have been explained based on assumptions forwarded by

international scholars such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA, the North Korea nuclear

weaponry, etc. Each individual theory contributes something significant in the study and practice

of international relations; the liberalism theory offers a perspective on how things should be if

some changes are initiated and also offers an analysis of how things should be rather than how

they are. This shows that liberalists are advocates for changes in the world system like the term

suggests, liberalism is all about the absence of restriction on human life, the absence of conflicts

and the lack of any form of exploitative control over people’s lives. By emphasizing free trade

and wide-spread globalization, liberalists are agitating for a borderless world where the fittest

survives. Liberalists also believe that humanity can live without conflicts if resources are shared

19

so as to achieve the desired goals. All of this tells us that there’s still greater hope for humankind

to overcome the current problems once and for all and that human freedom and peace are by far

the most righteous virtues that should be observed by mankind. Liberalism’s best achievement

was the fall of communism which was interpreted as the fall of bad politics and the rise of good

politics. Since then, more and more states have sought to share their resources with others

through integration, others have embraced democracy and also achieved successes in other areas

like security, human rights, and economic growth.

Liberalism has always succeeded in other areas where other theories have failed like explaining

the rise of non-state actors like international organizations and multinational organizations and

the reason behind their influence on the world scene. The world is opening up more than ever

before and globalism is spreading like wildfire, aided by improved communications and

transport technology and liberalism has the finest approach to explain this turn of events because

it informs us that globalism/universalism is the epitome of human unity and development which

is exactly happening now. On the other side, realism has been very important to the study of

international relations due to its ‘realistic’ interpretation of global events. The fact that realists

maintain a hard stance on the way they view global politics sometimes comes in line with what

states are doing now. Powerful states like USA, China, France and Russia are still flexing their

military muscles as if world war three is about to happen. The same countries seek to expand

their influence around the world through exploiting developing states, i.e. China has been

criticised for exploiting African resources, both mineral, land, water and animal resources and

most saddening is the increased demand for ivory from China which has led to the massive

massacre of elephants and rhinos to near extinction (Pinnock, 2016). These actions can be

interpreted as power politics where powerful states are relentlessly pursuing endless short-term

goals. Realism is also the most suitable theory to explain why wars happen and why states

pursue certain goals – which is due to the varying national interests.

Marxism provides a much better alternative to the two traditional theories by emphasizing the

economy as being the top priority among state concerns. By rejecting the liberal and realist views

that power politics and global interests are the major motives, Marxists have proved that none of

them is as influential as the economy. The same theory also offers a genuine picture of the

society where the rich are getting wealthier while the poor are getting poorer due to the unfair

20

economic policies or imbalances in the production process. It explains why those in charge of the

production process are exploiting the working class and how the proletariat can rise against this

injustice to form a socialist economy which can assure them a fair share of their efforts. Though

realism and liberalism have dominated international studies for so long, Marxism is still much

relevant to tackle the flaws of both capitalism and power politics and it is better at providing

alternative versions where the other two main theories have failed. Therefore, in summary, all

the three grand theories are essential and still relevant to the study of international relations due

to their insightful interpretations of the complex nature of the international system, there’s no

better way to understand global events without them coming into play.

5.3 Conclusion

It’s been worthwhile to go in-depth and explore the extensiveness of the grand theories of

international relations and it’s also very satisfying to know that despite the different approaches

to its study, international relations is still a thought-provoking field of study. These theories are

like airplane wings, they hold together the different areas of the field and they keep nourishing it

with useful social science evidence. The theories have greatly improved this study and there’s no

way international relations can remain relevant without them. It is the duty of scholars to uphold

and preserve these ideologies for the continuous benefit of future scholars.

21

REFERENCES

American Realism, Naturalism and Regionalism 1865-1914. (2001). North Bergen. Retrieved

from:

http://www.northbergen.k12.nj.us/cms/lib05/NJ01000984/Centricity/Domain/590/American_Rea

lism_Notes10.pdf

Block, F. (1977). The ruling class does not rule: Notes on the Marxist theory of the state.

Socialist Revolution, 33(7), 6-28.

Buecker, R. (2003). Karl Marx's Conception of International Relations. Glendon Journal of

International Studies/Revue d'études internationales de Glendon, 3.

Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., ... & True, J.

(2013). Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.

Davenport, A. (2011). Marxism in IR: Condemned to a Realist fate? European Journal of

International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 1, pages 27-48. Retrieved from:

http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/19/1/27.full.pdf+html

Dixit, R. (2013). Origin & Evolution of International Relations. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved

from: http://www.slideshare.net/RAJATDIXIT2/origin-and-evolution-of-international-relations

Essays, UK. (November 2013). An Analysis of Marxism In International Relations Theory

Politics Essay. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/an-anlysis-of-marxism-

in-international-relations-theory-politics-essay.php?cref=1

International relations. (2014). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/international%20relations

Kegley, C. W., & Blanton, S. L. (2015). World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Nelson

Education.

Keohane, R. (2012). Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism. International Relations, Vol. 26,

No. 2, pages 125-138.

22

Liberalism. (2015). American School of Guatemala. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.cag.edu.tr/upload/2015/03/liberalism-lecture-presentation.ppt

List of Countries by Projected GDP. (2016, Oct 21). Statistics Times. Retrieved Dec 2016 from:

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German Ideology (Vol. 1). International Publishers Co. New

York.

Marxism and the Labour Movement. (2005). In Encyclopaedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line.

Retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/new-zealand/marxism-labor.htm

mattbbpl. (2010, August 12). If Socialism is so bad, why is Canada and other socialist countries

booming? (Online forum, msg# 25). Message posted to:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/if-socialism-is-so-bad-why-is-

canada-and-other-soc-27385321/

McElroy, R. W. (2014). Morality and American foreign policy: the role of ethics in international

affairs. Princeton University Press.

Miliband, R. (1983). State Power and Class Interests. New left review. (March‐April), 57-68.

Morgenthau, H., & Nations, P. A. (1948). The struggle for power and peace. Alfred Kopf. Nova

York.

Moseley, A. (2001). Political Realism. In the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on

Dec 10, 2016, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/

Nkrumah, K. (1970). Class struggle in Africa. Zed Books.

Pease, K. K. S. (2012). International Organizations+ Pearson Passport Access Card. Prentice

Hall.

Pinnock, D. (2016, March 03). How China’s taste for wildlife feeds a killing frenzy. Africa

Geographic. Retrieved from: http://africageographic.com/blog/chinas-taste-wildlife-feeds-

killing-frenzy/

23

Realism and Idealism - Wilsonian diplomacy. (2006). In Encyclopaedia of the New American

Nation. Retrieved on Dec 10, 2016, from http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-

W/Realism-and-Idealism-Wilsonian-diplomacy.html

Realism in International Relations. (2014, Sept 06). Internationalrelations.org. [Weblog].

Retrieved from http://internationalrelations.org/realism_in_international_relations/

Shiraev, Eric, B. (2014). International Relations. Oxford University Press. p. 78. New York.

Smith, A. (1880). An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Vol 1.

Socialism. (2016). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 10:18, December 10, 2016,

from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&oldid=754009281

The Marxist Critique of Capitalism. (2016, May 26). Boundless Sociology. Retrieved on 12 Dec.

2016, from: https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-

textbook/economy-16/economic-systems-118/the-marxist-critique-of-capitalism-657-2427/

Van De Haar, E. (2009). Classical liberalism and International Relations Policy: A Journal of

Public Policy and Ideas. 25(1), 35.

Walt, Stephen M. (1998). International relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy.

Washington

Waltz, K. N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.

Wendt, A. E. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International

Organizations. 41(3), 335–370.