Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
'''International relations''' ('''IR''') is an [[academic]] and [[public policy]] field dealing with the [[foreign policy]] of [[nation-state]]s, including the roles of [[international organization]]s, [[non-governmental organization]]s (NGOs), and [[multinational corporation]]s (MNCs). Because international relations seeks to analyze as well as formulate foreign policy, it can be either [[positive (social sciences)|positive]] and [[normative]]. It draws upon such diverse fields as [[political science]], [[economics]], [[law]], [[philosophy]], [[social studies]], [[sociology]], and other [[social sciences]].
There are many ways of thinking in international relations theory, including [[constructivism]], [[institutionalism]], [[Marxism]], and others. However, two
'''Realism''' makes several key assumptions. It assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no insitution controlling the behavior of states; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them. It also assumes that nation-states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass [[resource]]s, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic.
Line 8:
Recently, realism and liberalism have evolved into neo-realism and neo-liberalism.
Different schools of thought in international relations can predict the same events. The theories are differentiated by the assumptions they make in their reasoning toward predictions. For example, both realists and liberals claim that events as disparate as World War I, the Cold War, and the relatively conflict-free post-Cold War Europe were predicted by their theories. The schools of IR thought differ in the fundamental assumptions they make in predicting state behavior. It is possible that one liberal theorist will predict war while another will predict peace; their disagreement arises from how they interpret events, but their fundamental assumptions are the same. Similarly, it is possible that a realist theorist and a liberal theorist could both predict peace, but their fundamental assumptions as to why that occurs would be different.
==See also==
| |||