INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Theories of International Relations: Reflectivist versus Rationalist

Theories of International Relations: Reflectivist versus Rationalist

Introduction

International Relations (IR) is the meticulous study of the relationships between countries in the world political theatre. IR analysts examine the role of the State, along with various inter-governmental, non-governmental, and multinational corporations, and their contributions to a country's overall foreign policy. Foreign policy is the pivotal instrument that shapes the larger framework of a country's political stance and the relationship it fosters with the world in a larger political context. IR draws from numerous other disciplines including social and political sciences, humanitarian studies, philosophy, geography, and economics, to name a few.

Two theories in particular lie on the extreme ends of the spectrum of international relations. These are the Realist and the Liberal Approach. Realists define the international system through anarchy - insisting that no central authority exists. States are autonomous in nature, their sovereignty is sacred, and no structure can exist to form relations between states. The only form of coercion possible between states results from their own consent of such coercion. For realists, the most immediate and significant goal of the State is to survive in a militaristic world where States possess weapons with the intent of expansionism and military conflict. These intentions are not clearly known, but suspected. The liberal perspective contends that the world consists of matured, “liberal democracies” that do not engage in conflict and war, and that democratic peace prevails in international relations. Other theories include institutionalism, constructivism, critical theory, International Society approach, and the English School.

Discussion

The Rationalist Perspective in International Relations

Rationalism, as the name suggests, takes its inspiration from rational and analytical thought across various disciplines. As a theory of international relations, the rationalist approach falls half way between the leftist realism and the rightist liberalism. The rationalist perspective is what Rudyard Kipling called the “no man's land”, serving as a middle ground between two conflicting theories of international relations. The Rationalists maintain that whereas multilateral organizations, for instance the World Trade Organization (WTO), contribute significantly to the status quo and world order, a “world government” in the sense of a multilateral government body, is susceptible to failure. Rationalists stress on international law, claiming that regulatory law enforces order in the world, and can solves disputes between nations without the need to resort to violence.

The Renaissance and the ensuing Cartesian tradition were crucial movements that led to rationalist developments in western modernism. The idea of “objective rationalism” surfaced around this time, and quickly became the most preferred way of understanding the world. Descartes set most of the world on the path of rationalism, following the ontological shift that took place in the cosmology of time, known as Fortuna and virtu (Deuchars, 2004, p.2).

Realism, Rationalism & Liberalism

Rationalists elevate the role of law in maintaining social and political order. Law facilitates the acceptance of international treaties and agreements. Without the highly regulated and strictly enforced law, disputes will consistently prevail. Manipulating the law, however, to further a nation's own political interests is an ...