Introduction: Why We Disagree about International Relations

Study

The study of international relations uses perspectives, or ideal-type explanations, to help us describe, explain, and predict world events. The three primary perspectives are realist, which emphasizes power; liberal, which stresses interactions and institutions; and identity, which highlights the importance of ideas. A fourth perspective is called critical theory and, unlike the other perspectives, challenges the idea that we can explain world events apart from the historical context in which they take place.

In addition, scholars of international relations employ levels of analysis to determine the causation of events. The three most common levels of analysis are the individual level, which examines specific decision makers; the domestic level, which looks at statewide explanations, and the systemic level, which examines the structure of and interactions between states. Finally, we view international relations through the window of our moral philosophy. Although ethics and morality are complex and nuanced, we can divide them into three categories. Relativists believe that all truth is relative and that no universal moral standards exist. Universalists argue that some moral principles apply to all people at all times. Pragmatists may or may not believe in universal morality, but they feel that the practice of international affairs demands a practical approach to ethical issues.

Study Questions

1. What are the three perspectives? What different aspects of international affairs does each emphasize?
   
   
   
2. How does critical theory perspective differ from the three other perspectives?
   
   
   
3. What is the difference between rationalist and constructivist explanations? Provide an example for each.
   
   
   
4. Name the three forms of ethical judgment. Which believes in moral absolutes? Which rejects universal morality?