Realism And Kenneth Waltz's Theory Of International Relations

1576 Words7 Pages
The first great debates between realists and idealists put the starting point for in-depth study of Theory of International Relations. Since that, theorists adopted different approaches, paradigms, views of International Politics. After failure of idealists, that could not predict the WWII, realistic approach dominated; then, the second great debate occurred between traditionalists, who took historical views to try and solve the dilemmas of the present, and behaviouralists, who preferred statistics, quantitative analysis to solve the problems of the day’s issue. Kenneth Waltz’s book “Theory of International Relations” (1979), attempted to change earlier realistic approach with new methods being used within social sciences as psychology and…show more content…
It supported that the power is important and the international system is anarchic. But the main difference from neo-realism is the support for intergovernmental, transnational organizations. After Cold War and the collapse of Soviet Union many independent states had appeared. New problems came across the states, that are counter-terrorism, economic interdependence between the states. International relations became the vital, and it lead to prosperity of the world. And the prosperity exists within the international cooperation. And the cooperation required not only that it will lead to stabilization and the security of world community, but also as the growth of economic well-being. So that, liberals preferred to economic ties between the states. The national security could be achieved when all states will adopt democracy, and that’s why they prefer to unite all these democratic states to struggle against non-democratic. So then, there will be peace and prosperity. Rationalism stays in the middle of neo-liberalism and neo-realism. They do not predict the future; instead they analyze current issues, and describe the phenomena that we experience. The Rationalism depends on the objective processes and the preferences of many different people with their inherent values, ideals, prejudices, etc. Thus, it was later criticized by reflectivists, that rationalism is not the best approach to understand…show more content…
Bart and Jean Baudrillard. In the view point of post-modernists, international relations-is not only the result and process of political and other actions, but also it’s the product of our knowledge, inherent research funds, the language that is used and depend on the interpretation of the relevant texts.(Torkunov, 2004, p.17). As a result, they do not exist as some independent "objects”, instead, they are “collective subjects”. Postmodernism criticize the fundamentals of knowledge related with the origins and contents of knowledge, truth, values etc., and attracts the ideas of genealogy, deconstruction of texts, semantic structure etc. And in the origin of postmodernism - analysis of the problems of language and discourse of international relations, as well as the origins and foundations of our interpretations of the world is located. So here, it means how we understand the world while we read different kind of approaches, and these understanding could be false if we don’t make researches on the interpretations of the world, which is in the text. Post-modernists try to identify in-depth meaning of the text, paying attention to the position and meaning of every single
Open Document