Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas: 2nd Edition: By Henry R. Nau, George Washington University

CHAPTER ONE: How to Think About International Relations

Study

In international relations, a story from game theory called the prisoner's dilemma is often used to illustrate the motivations and actions of actors. This prisoner's dilemma presupposes that captives, when faced with the option of cooperating with or squealing on one another, will always choose the latter. This is the best option given the circumstances. Realists use this example to illustrate what they see as basic truths--the international system is anarchic, forcing states to rely on self-help and the balance of power for protection. Because states exist in a security dilemma, they, like the prisoners, cannot trust one another enough to cooperate. Liberals, in contrast, believe that the institutions (formal and informal) can change the incentives that prisoners face and allow them to cooperate. If the prisoners are able to build a relationship in jail, for example, they might be willing to trust one another. They believe that a number of factors, such as technological change, trade, and diplomacy, are able to substantially alter the nature of the prisoner's dilemma, thus making cooperation a reasonable alternative. The identity perspective, meanwhile, is interested in the ideas that define the identities of the prisoners. If, let us say, both prisoners are members of the same gang, then perhaps they would be compelled to cooperate; likewise, states with shared identities might have an incentive to act cooperatively in international affairs. The reverse also holds; if the prisoners or states have greatly diverging identities, the chances for cooperation are slim.

These three perspectives seek to explain and predict behavior in the international system; however, the critical theory perspective (like some variants of the identity perspective) argues that it is difficult to abstract the behavior of states in the way discussed. Instead, historical social and political circumstances are key determinants in the way events unfold.

The perspectives deal with the substantive content of relations between states, while the levels of analysis locate the origin of the cause. By locating the cause at either the systemic, domestic, individual, or foreign policy level, we shift our focus of analysis. Do we look at the distribution of power among states (systemic) or do we look at the preferences of different states (domestic) as the potential explanatory factors for events? Levels of analysis are ways to locate the sources of causal factors.

Study Questions

  1. How does the prisoner's dilemma correspond to international affairs?


  2. What is meant by "shadow of the future"? How do liberals argue it can be extended?


  3. What is polarity? Why is it so important to realists?


  4. Why do constructivists not believe we can isolate causes from effects?


  5. How does the critical theory perspective differ from the other perspectives?