Course Title: IR & Current Affairs

BBA VIII
Theories of IR
Positivism
Positivism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the use of empirical evidence and
scientific methods to understand and explain social and political phenomena. In the field of
international relations, positivism is a perspective that emphasizes the role of objective,
observable facts and objective analysis in understanding and explaining international politics.

Positivist approaches to international relations are often associated with the scientific study of
global politics and seek to identify universal laws and patterns that govern international relations.
Positivist approaches to international relations often rely on quantitative data and statistical
analysis and aim to develop theories that can be tested and supported by empirical evidence.

Positivist approaches to international relations have been influential in the development of

international relations theory, and have contributed to the development of a number of important
theoretical frameworks, such as realism and liberalism. However, positivism in international
relations has also been the subject of much criticism, with some scholars arguing that it is too
narrow in its focus on observable facts and that it does not adequately take into account the
complexity and contingency of international politics.

Examples of Positivist Approaches

1. Realism: This approach, particularly in its classical form, emphasizes state behavior
driven by power and security concerns, often analyzed through empirical studies of
historical conflicts and power dynamics.

2. Liberalism: While also a normative theory, many liberal scholars use positivist methods
to study the impact of institutions, trade, and democracy on peace and cooperation.

Realism
In the discipline of International Relations (IR), realism is a school of thought that emphasizes
international relations' competitive and conflictual side. Realism’s roots are often said to be
found in some of humankind’s earliest historical writings, particularly Thucydides’ history of the
Peloponnesian War, which ranged between 431 and 404 BCE. The guiding ideas and the basic
assumptions of realism are rooted in a tradition of thought dating back to the writings of
Thucydides on the Peloponnesian wars, between the Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta.
Thucydides used the war to demonstrate how the logic of power politics (the pursuit of power
and interest) characterized inter-state relations and conflict, rather than cooperation or action
guided by higher moral principles. Thucydides, writing over two thousand years ago, was not a
‘realist’ because IR theory did not exist in named form until the twentieth century. However,
when looking back from a contemporary vantage point, theorists detected many similarities in
the thought patterns and behaviors of the ancient and modern worlds. They then drew on his
writings, and those of others, to lend weight to the idea that there was a timeless theory spanning
all recorded human history. That theory was named ‘realism’.

Thinkers

Although realism came to dominate the relatively young academic discipline of International
Relations after the Second World War, it claims that what it is saying is not new and attributes its
insights to a variety of sources.

The thoughts of Niccolo Machiavelli, a sixteenth-century Italian political thinker, and the
seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes are also invoked to demonstrate how
realism is supposedly founded on age-old wisdom. In his work, The Prince (1532), Machiavelli
stressed that a leader’s primary concern is to promote national security. To successfully perform
this task, the leader needs to be alert and cope effectively with internal as well as external threats
to his rule; he needs to be a lion and a fox. Power (the Lion) and deception (the Fox) are crucial
tools for the conduct of foreign policy. He proposed a series of guides by which states’ leaders
might maximize their power. His advice included the instruction that promises must be broken
when there is an interest to do so and that it is better to be feared than loved. In Machiavelli’s
view, rulers obey the ‘ethics of responsibility’ rather than the conventional religious morality that
guides the average citizen – that is, they should be good when they can, but they must also be
willing to use violence when necessary to guarantee the survival of the state. These are two of
the many reasons why Machiavelli is often accused of being an immoral thinker. The term
‘Machiavellian’ is used in common parlance to denote cynical and unprincipled behavior or used
to describe people who act cunningly and subtly, unscrupulously manipulating situations to their
advantage. There is no doubt that Machiavelli held an extremely dim view of human nature.
Realists continue to argue there is no place for trust or sentiment in politics and point to
Machiavelli’s wisdom in elucidating this point.

Thomas Hobbes, particularly through his seminal work Leviathan (1651), made lasting
contributions to the development of political realism, especially as it relates to international
relations. His views on human nature, the state of nature, and the need for strong sovereign
authority laid a foundation for realist thinking, which emphasizes the importance of power, self-
interest, and the anarchic structure of international politics.

In Hobbes’ view, the state of nature is a pre-political condition where there is no central
authority, and individuals live in constant fear and competition with each other. He described this
condition as a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes), in which life would be
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In this anarchic state, individuals act solely in their own
self-interest to survive, leading to inevitable conflict. This concept closely mirrors the realist
notion that the international system, lacking a central governing authority, is inherently anarchic,
and states must act in their self-interest to ensure survival.

Hobbes’ concept of the security dilemma stems from the constant fear of violence and loss in the
state of nature. Individuals, in seeking to protect themselves, inadvertently threaten others,
leading to a cycle of escalation and conflict. This idea is central to realism in international
relations, where states, acting to enhance their security, often provoke insecurity in other states,
leading to arms races or conflicts. Hobbes held a pessimistic view of human nature, believing
that individuals are driven by selfishness, fear, and the desire for power. He argued that humans
are naturally inclined toward competition, distrust, and violence if left unchecked. This view of
human nature resonates with political realism, which posits that states, like individuals, act out of
a desire to accumulate power and security in an uncertain and competitive international system.
Hobbes argued that to escape the dangers of the state of nature, individuals must consent to a
social contract, giving up certain freedoms in exchange for the protection of a powerful
sovereign authority. This sovereign must have absolute power to maintain order and prevent a
return to the chaos of the state of nature. In the international realm, however, no such
overarching authority exists. This absence of a global sovereign leads to the anarchic structure
that realists argue defines the international system. About Power Hobbes views that the only way
to achieve peace and stability is through the concentration of power in the hands of a strong,
centralized authority. He believed that a powerful sovereign could impose order and prevent
conflict. This parallels the realist belief that power is the primary currency in international
politics, and that strong states are necessary to maintain stability and prevent the system from
descending into chaos.

Hans Morgenthau is often regarded as a foundational figure in modern political realism,

particularly through his influential work, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace (1948). Morgenthau’s theories built upon classical realism while incorporating insights
from contemporary geopolitics and human nature. His views align with those of earlier thinkers
like Thomas Hobbes, especially regarding the nature of power and the behavior of states in an
anarchic international system.

Morgenthau's theory of realism is built on a pessimistic view of human nature, which he sees as
inherently self-interested and power-seeking. He argued that political actions are driven by the
desire for power and dominance, much like Hobbes' view of individuals in the state of nature.
Morgenthau believed that these selfish impulses manifest in the actions of states, leading to
constant competition for power in the international system. For Morgenthau, the primary law
governing politics is that states act to pursue their national interest, defined as power. At the core
of Morgenthau's realism is the concept of national interest. He argued that states act rationally to
protect and maximize their power, which in turn secures their national interest. National interest
is always tied to power, whether it be military, economic, or diplomatic. According to
Morgenthau, the moral and ethical considerations that guide individuals in their personal lives do
not apply in international politics, where survival and power take precedence.

Morgenthau’s realism views the international system as inherently anarchic, he also recognized
the need for prudence and careful management of power politics to prevent unnecessary wars,
yet he acknowledged that conflict is a natural outcome of the anarchic structure of the
international system. He believed that balance of power, where no single state dominates, is
crucial for maintaining peace and stability in this system.
While Morgenthau is often criticized for promoting a cynical, power-driven view of politics, he
did not completely dismiss the role of ethics. He argued that while states must prioritize their
national interest, they should act with a sense of responsibility and recognize the consequences
of their actions. Morgenthau believed in prudence—the idea that statesmen should carefully
weigh the consequences of their decisions to avoid unnecessary harm. However, he insisted that
ethical behavior in international relations must always be subordinate to the realities of power
politics.

Morgenthau’s vision of ethics in politics is a form of political ethics, where the ends justify the
means if the ultimate goal is the survival of the state. He rejected the idealistic view that morality
can be the primary driver of political action, insisting that power is the central fact of
international relations.

Kenneth Waltz is a pivotal figure in international relations theory, particularly known for his
development of structural realism (or neorealism). His seminal work, Theory of International
Politics (1979), profoundly influenced the field by providing a systematic framework for
understanding state behavior and the dynamics of the international system.

In a much-quoted work entitled A Theory of International Politics (1979) Waltz argued that:
traditional realism contained significant deficiencies, notably that it was very ‘agent-centred’,
concentrating primarily on states. States constituted the main agents and units of analysis. Waltz
claimed that any theory of international relations should be able to tell us something about both
the units – states – and the system as a whole. While unit-level theories focused on agents such
as individuals, or in the case of realism, states, system-level theories focused on the overall
structure or system in which action took place. All systems were determined by organizing
principles, specific functions, and the distribution of capabilities. The international order was
unique in that while domestic orders were centralized and hierarchic, the international system
was a realm of coordination and self-help. Moreover, while the units in domestic orders (citizens,
for example) were subjected to law, the units in the international order (states) were at best
interdependent, autonomous entities.

Waltz theorized that the distribution of power, or polarity, in the international system (e.g.,
unipolar, bipolar, multipolar) impacts the stability of international politics: Bipolarity (as seen
during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union) creates a more stable and
predictable system because power is distributed between two dominant states, reducing the
chances of major conflict. Conversely, Multipolarity is more unstable as it increases the chances
of miscalculation, alliances, and shifting power dynamics. Waltz suggested that states seek to
balance power rather than bandwagon with stronger states. This contrasts with earlier realist
ideas that focused more on conquest and expansion as central to state behavior.

Waltz clearly differentiates between states' capabilities (military, economic, etc.) and their
intentions. He argued that states cannot know the true intentions of others, leading to a constant
concern for power and security, a key feature of security dilemmas. This creates an environment
where even peaceful states must arm themselves, as uncertainty drives behavior in an anarchic
system. Waltz’s neorealism critiques classical realism (like that of Hans Morgenthau) for being
too reductionist by focusing on the flaws of human nature. Instead, Waltz's structural realism
views states as rational actors constrained by the anarchic international system. Waltz famously
stated:

"The structures of international politics limit and mold agents’ behavior and actions. Structures
emerge from the coaction of self-interested units"

Classical Realism vs. Neorealism: Thinkers, Contributions, and Comparison

Classical realism is an older tradition in international relations theory that emphasizes human
nature's role in shaping states' actions. It originated in ancient political philosophy and was
further developed by modern thinkers.

Assumptions of Classical Realism:

1. Human Nature is Selfish: Classical realists argue that humans are inherently power-
seeking and driven by selfish motives, which translates into state behavior.

2. Power and Survival: The central concern of states is power and security. States act in
their self-interest to accumulate power and ensure survival.

3. Morality is Secondary: In international politics, moral considerations take a back seat to

pragmatic concerns about power and security. States must act based on what is necessary,
not what is ethically desirable.
 4. Conflict is Inevitable: Due to the selfish nature of humans and states, conflict is a natural
part of international relations.

Key Thinkers and Contributions:

1) Thucydides: In The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides presents a realist

account of the conflict between Athens and Sparta, illustrating how fear, power, and self-
interest drive state behavior.
2) Niccolò Machiavelli: In The Prince, Machiavelli emphasizes the need for rulers to
prioritize power and pragmatism over morality. He argues that a successful ruler must be
willing to act immorally when necessary.
3) Thomas Hobbes: In Leviathan, Hobbes describes the "state of nature" as a brutal,
anarchic condition where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." His view of
human nature as inherently self-interested informed realist views of international politics.
4) Hans Morgenthau: A central figure in modern classical realism, Morgenthau’s Politics
Among Nations (1948) argues that politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human
nature. He views international relations as a constant struggle for power among states.

Neorealism (Structural Realism)

Neorealism, also known as structural realism, emerged in the late 20th century as a response to
classical realism. It focuses less on human nature and more on the international system's
structure in determining state behavior.

Assumptions of Neorealism:

1. Anarchic International System: Neorealism posits that the international system is

anarchic, meaning there is no central authority above states. This anarchy compels states
to act in self-interest.
2. Power and Security as Structural Constraints: States behave based on the structure of
the international system, especially the distribution of power (e.g., unipolar, bipolar,
multipolar systems). The structure dictates state actions more than human nature.
 3. State Rationality: States are rational actors that calculate their moves based on the
relative distribution of power. Their primary goal is survival, and they act in ways to
maintain or increase their security.
4. Defensive Realism: States seek to maintain the status quo and avoid unnecessary conflict
unless they are directly threatened.

Key Thinkers and Contributions:

1) Kenneth Waltz: In Theory of International Politics (1979), Waltz introduced neorealism.

He argues that the anarchic structure of the international system forces states to pursue
power and security, but unlike classical realists, he minimizes the role of human nature in
driving state behavior.
2) John Mearsheimer: In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), Mearsheimer
developed offensive realism, arguing that states are not only concerned with survival but
also with maximizing their power relative to others. He views conflict as inherent in the
international system due to the nature of power competition. Mearsheimer’s theory is
often classified as offensive realism, which differs from the defensive realism espoused
by Waltz. While Waltz's neorealism asserts that states are primarily concerned with
maintaining their security in an anarchic system, Mearsheimer argues that Great powers
are always seeking to maximize their power at the expense of others, not merely seeking
survival. States aim to become regional hegemons because that is the best way to ensure
long-term security.

Comparison of Classical Realism and Neorealism:

Aspect Classical Realism Neo or Structural Realism

Focus Human nature drives state The international system's
behavior. structure drives behavior.
View on Power Power is pursued because Power is pursued as a
 humans (and states) are necessity for survival within
inherently selfish and power- an anarchic system.
hungry.
Main Concern Moral and practical power Security and survival in an
politics based on human anarchic system.
nature.
Level of Analysis System-level analysis
Individual (human nature) (international structure).
and state behavior.
Key Thinkers Thucydides, Machiavelli, Kenneth Waltz, John
Hobbes, Morgenthau Mearsheimer
Conflict Conflict is inevitable due to Conflict arises due to the
human nature. structure of the anarchic
system.

Offensive & Defensive Realism

Offensive realism suggests that in an anarchic international system, states must maximize their
power to ensure survival. Security is scarce, and states are driven to seek dominance over others,
aiming to become regional hegemons. Since states can never fully trust each other’s intentions,
they adopt competitive and expansionist policies, assuming the worst-case scenario. Aggressive
actions, such as conquest, are seen as successful strategies to increase security, as more power
leads to greater deterrence against potential challengers.

In contrast, Defensive realism holds that security is relatively plentiful, and states do not need to
pursue aggressive power maximization. Instead, they seek to maintain the existing balance of
power through more restrained and defensive strategies. The international system encourages
states to act cautiously because aggressive expansion often provokes balancing coalitions and
creates security dilemmas, which can undermine a state’s security. Defensive realists believe that
pursuing moderate behavior helps states avoid unnecessary conflicts and ensures their survival
without overextending their resources.

Liberalism
Liberalism is a defining feature of modern democracy, illustrated by the prevalence of the term
‘liberal democracy’ to describe countries with free and fair elections, rule of law and protected
civil liberties. However, liberalism – when discussed within the realm of IR theory – has evolved
into a distinct entity. Liberalism contains a variety of concepts and arguments about how
institutions, behaviors, and economic connections contain and mitigate the violent power of
states. Compared to realism, it adds more factors to our field of view – especially a consideration
of citizens and international organizations. Most notably, liberalism has been the traditional foil
of realism in IR theory as it offers a more optimistic worldview, grounded in a different reading
of history to that found in realist scholarship.

Thinkers

John Locke (1632-1704) is often regarded as one of the foundational thinkers of classical
liberalism. His ideas laid the groundwork for many liberal political principles, particularly those
related to individual rights, government by consent, and the rule of law. While Locke’s primary
work focused on political philosophy, his influence on international relations (IR) is profound,
particularly in how liberal states approach issues of governance, sovereignty, and human rights.
Locke's emphasis on the importance of individuals in political theory carries over to liberal
theories of international relations, where states are often seen as aggregates of individuals, and
the rights of individuals are extended to states in the international system.

Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1690) is foundational to liberalism. He argues that

individuals have certain inalienable natural rights—life, liberty, and property—that exist in a
state of nature, even before the establishment of government. Governments are created through a
social contract to protect these rights, and if a government fails to do so, it loses its legitimacy,
and the people have the right to overthrow it. In international relations, this translates into the
belief that states, like individuals, must respect certain basic rights, such as sovereignty and self-
determination. Locke's vision of legitimate governance by consent influenced the later
development of ideas about democracy and human rights in liberal IR theory.

Locke's idea that governments drive their authority from the consent of the governed is central to
modern liberal democracy. In the international sphere, this principle translates into the
importance of respecting the sovereignty of states and promoting democratic governance. States
that are governed by the consent of the people are considered legitimate in the liberal
international order, and this legitimacy is often a key determinant of how states interact with one
another. This notion supports the Democratic Peace Theory, which argues that democratic states
are less likely to go to war with each other because they share common values and methods of
resolving disputes peacefully.

Locke maintained that the people's knowledge and agreement to laws must limit political
authority. The foundation of Locke's conception of government is the rule of law. This idea is
carried over into liberal international relations theory, where institutions and international law
are viewed as tools for limiting state conduct and averting wars. International institutions such as
the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, for example, represent Locke's view
that laws, not force, should control relations between states.

Locke was an advocate for religious tolerance, stating that civil authority should not impose
religious conformity. His A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) pushed for the separation of
church and state, which influenced the liberal international order's emphasis on defending human
rights and religious freedoms around the world. Locke's views on tolerance are echoed in modern
liberal international relations theory, where respect for variety and human rights is regarded as
critical to maintaining international peace and cooperation.

Contemporary scholars have continued to explore Locke's relevance to modern international

relations, particularly in the context of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect
(R2P). Locke’s argument that individuals have a right to rebel against governments that violate
their natural rights has been extended to justify intervention in states that fail to protect their
citizens. Some scholars argue that Locke’s philosophy supports the idea that the international
community has a moral obligation to intervene when a state grossly violates human rights, thus
aligning with the liberal internationalist agenda.

Kant’s liberal peace theory, particularly his vision of a federation of free republics in Perpetual
Peace (1795), is also heavily influenced by Locke’s ideas on government by consent and the rule
of law. Immanuel Kant’s contribution to liberalism in International Relations (IR) stems
primarily from his essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795), which outlines the
conditions necessary for achieving lasting peace between states. Kant’s work is foundational for
modern liberal thought, particularly the Democratic Peace Theory, which asserts that
democracies are less likely to go to war with one another. His ideas, based on Enlightenment
principles of reason, morality, and progress, shaped liberalism’s optimistic view of human nature
and international relations.

Kant argued that the establishment of republican governments, where citizens have the power to
vote, would lead to peace. This is because citizens, who bear the costs of war (financially and
through military service), are less likely to support it than authoritarian rulers. Kant believed that
republics are inherently more peaceful because their governments are accountable to the people,
a precursor to modern democratic peace theory.“If the consent of the citizens is required to
decide whether or not war should be declared, nothing is more natural than that they would
hesitate to embark on so dangerous an enterprise.”

Kant also proposed the creation of a voluntary federation of free states, which would not infringe
on the sovereignty of its members but would work together to maintain peace. This concept
inspired later developments in international institutions like the League of Nations and the
United Nations. Kant’s federation would foster cooperation, dialogue, and legal frameworks to
resolve conflicts peacefully. “The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.”
Kant expanded his concept of free states into a broader vision of cosmopolitanism, advocating
for a global order where individuals are seen as citizens of the world rather than just members of
their nations, and promoted a universal morality that transcends national borders. His idea of
universal hospitality suggested that states should treat foreigners peacefully, thus fostering
international cooperation and trade. This concept aligns with modern liberalism’s emphasis on
interdependence and global governance.

Kant’s most enduring legacy in liberal IR theory is the Democratic Peace Theory, which builds
on his argument that republics (or democracies) are less likely to engage in wars with each other.
This theory, further developed by scholars such as Michael Doyle, contends that democratic
states share common values, norms of peaceful conflict resolution, and institutional checks on
executive power, making them less prone to conflict with other democracies.
Robert Keohane is one of the foremost scholars in International Relations (IR) who has
significantly shaped the development of liberal theory, especially through his work on neoliberal
institutionalism. His seminal work, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World
Political Economy (1984), focuses on how states can achieve cooperation in an anarchic
international system without the presence of a hegemonic power. Keohane challenged the realist
perspective that cooperation is nearly impossible without a dominant power enforcing order.
Instead, he argued that international institutions play a crucial role in facilitating cooperation
among states by providing frameworks for reciprocity, reducing transaction costs, and promoting
transparency. Keohane’s approach acknowledges that the international system is anarchic, as
realists claim, but he insists that institutions can mitigate the consequences of anarchy. His
theory emphasizes that while states are self-interested actors, they can rationally cooperate to
achieve mutual benefits when there are long-term incentives, despite the lack of a central
authority to enforce rules.

Along with Joseph Nye, Keohane developed the concept of complex interdependence, which
refers to the multiple channels of interaction (economic, environmental, security, etc.) that link
states and non-state actors across borders. This interdependence creates incentives for states to
cooperate, as the costs of conflict rise significantly when economies and other interests are
intertwined. In their book Power and Interdependence (1977), Keohane and Nye explained how,
in a world of interdependence, military force is not always the most effective tool for achieving
national goals, and economic or institutional collaboration may yield more benefits.

Keohane expanded on the idea of international regimes, which are sets of principles, norms,
rules, and decision-making procedures that govern state behavior in specific areas, such as trade,
arms control, or environmental protection. Regimes help maintain order in areas where global
cooperation is crucial. Keohane argued that states will continue to adhere to these regimes even
in the absence of a hegemon because the benefits of maintaining predictable interactions
outweigh the short-term gains from unilateral defection. Regimes, in this sense, provide a form
of governance even without overarching global authority.

Classical Liberalism
Classical liberalism is based on the idea that human rationality and morality can lead to peace
and cooperation among states, particularly when bolstered by democratic institutions, economic
interdependence, and international organizations.

Core Assumptions:

1. Human Nature: Classical liberals hold an optimistic view of human nature, arguing that
humans are capable of cooperation and reason, which can lead to peaceful interactions.
2. Harmony of Interests: The belief that there is a potential for harmony among states,
with international cooperation benefiting all.
3. Democracy and Free Markets: Classical liberals argue that democratic governance and
free-market economics foster peace, as democratic states are less likely to go to war with
each other, and trade creates interdependence that reduces conflict.
4. International Institutions: Institutions and international organizations are crucial for
promoting cooperation and mitigating conflict.

Key Thinkers and Contributions:

1) Immanuel Kant: Kant's essay Perpetual Peace (1795) laid the foundations for liberal
internationalism, advocating for republican constitutions, international cooperation, and a
"federation of free states" to ensure peace.Kant argued that republican states
(democracies) are more peaceful and that international organizations could facilitate
cooperation.
2) John Locke: Locke’s ideas on individual rights and government legitimacy, particularly
from his work Two Treatises of Government (1689), influenced liberal thought,
advocating for the protection of liberty and private property, which in turn supported
trade and peace among states.

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism adapts classical liberal ideas to contemporary international relations by focusing

on the role of institutions, global governance, and interdependence, arguing that cooperation is
possible even in an anarchic world system.
Core Assumptions:

1. Anarchy Exists, But Cooperation is Possible: Like realism, neoliberalism

acknowledges the anarchic structure of the international system, but believes that
cooperation is possible through institutions and interdependence.
2. Institutions Matter: International institutions (like the United Nations, the World Trade
Organization) can foster cooperation, create norms, reduce transaction costs, and monitor
compliance with international agreements.
3. Complex Interdependence: Neoliberals emphasize the increasing interdependence of
states in economic, environmental, and social issues, which necessitates cooperation
despite the anarchic system.
4. Non-State Actors: Neoliberalism broadens the scope of analysis beyond states to include
non-state actors such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and
NGOs.

Key Thinkers and Contributions:

1) Robert Keohane: Keohane’s book After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the
World Political Economy (1984) was foundational for neoliberal institutionalism. He
argued that cooperation can persist even in an anarchic system without a hegemon, thanks
to international institutions that facilitate communication and reduce the risks of cheating.

2) Joseph Nye: Nye, in his work with Keohane (Power and Interdependence, 1977),
developed the concept of complex interdependence, which highlights how states and
societies are connected through various channels, such as trade, communications, and
environmental issues, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict and increasing
cooperation.

Comparison Between Classical Liberalism and Neoliberalism

Aspect Classical Liberalism Neo-Liberalism

View of Human Nature Optimistic; humans are More cautious; cooperation is
rational and capable of possible but within an
cooperation. anarchic system.
Roles of Institutions Institutions promote peace by Institutions are essential for
facilitating cooperation.
fostering cooperation in
anarchy.
Conflict and Cooperation Believes in the harmony of Acknowledges the possibility
interests and that conflict is of conflict but stresses that
avoidable. institutions mitigate it.
Scope of Analysis Focuses primarily on states Expands the focus to include
and governments. non-state actors and global
institutions.
Influence of Economics Strong belief in free markets Focuses on how economic
and economic and political interdependence
interdependence. affects state behavior.
References

Steans, Jill, Lloyd Pettiford, Thomas Diez, and Imad El-Anis. An Introduction to International
Relations Theory. 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2013.

McGlinchey, Stephen, Rosie Walters, and Christian Scheinpflug, eds. International Relations
Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996),
88-89.

Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York:
Knopf, 1948), 4-5.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1690.

Jennifer Welsh, Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2004), 39-63.

Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, 1795.