International Relations

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have noted a tendency for those from the UK and those of us here on the sunny side of the Atlantic to be thoroughly divided by our common language. As a "primer" for this poll, would you be so kind as to provide a 1-2 sentence gloss of these categories. Such an operational definition will get you more clarity.

[drone]

I think it's perfectly fine to have sex with foreign girls, wait, this is about politics, nm....

[JAG]

I studied International Relations at Uni, a fine subject.

I subscribe pretty much to the Liberalist - Idealist - way of thinking, mainly because I think Realism is a compelte pile of donkey crap.

There are parts of the idealist doctrine which I don't like, yet the basic concept is much closer to my view of International Relations.

For those who want a brief - yet ultimately unfulfilling - explanation of the terms ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations

[rory_20_uk]

Thanks for the link. You're right, a waste of time reading it.

To ascribe one way to how all countries view the world throughout the span of history is pointless and wildely inaccurate: some view wars as bad, others actively want them, others want them if the benefits outweigh the risks - and this is only one tiny factor on how internatinal relations are formed.

[JAG]

Thanks for the link. You're right, a waste of time reading it.

To ascribe one way to how all countries view the world throughout the span of history is pointless and wildely inaccurate: some view wars as bad, others actively want them, others want them if the benefits outweigh the risks - and this is only one tiny factor on how internatinal relations are formed.

The theories do very much work on basic principles and the whole global infrastructure, they are complex and do require detailed studying - hence the Uni degree for it - but believe it or not, they are pretty good theories which many people subscribe to. To say these theories make no sense, would be like saying Socialism or Conservatism, in principle will never work because individual countries are different and the history of nations has been so different, etc.

[Fragony]

Realism is old fashioned, I would be closest to the neo-realism of Waltz probably.

[Furunculus]

I have noted a tendency for those from the UK and those of us here on the sunny side of the Atlantic to be thoroughly divided by our common language. As a "primer" for this poll, would you be so kind as to provide a 1-2 sentence gloss of these categories. Such an operational definition will get you more clarity.

good idea, give me an explanation of these hi-fallutin' ideas and i'll give you a response.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry, I'll try and give an overview of what I mean by each...

Realism: States are the only kind of international actor, and act sovereignly on the international scene. They act only to serve their own interests, and believe that any gains they make only acquire meaning relative to those of other states. One's security is another's insecurity, and a balance of power is the best way to maintain peace.
Neorealism: Similar to realism, however acknowledged that states are not the only actors, as economic actors such as multinational coporations also exist, albeit as inferior to states with hard, military power.
English School: Sticks to the basic realist principles that states are the only actors and that they wish to serve their own ends, but also argues that the international scene is not so anarchic as realists suggest. This school of thought believes that while states are selfish actors, they can exist peacefully through means such as diplomacy, internatinal law, and morality, and not just a balance of power.
Liberalism: This is the idealist school of thought, which argues that states can live in harmony if they are brought together by international organisations, and by changes within the states themselves. For example Fukuyama and his belief that liberal democracy is the high point in a state's development, or democratic peace theory (democracies do not go to war).
Neoliberalism: States seek absolute rather than relative gains, and so are brought together through international organisations, and live together peacefully in order to achieve them. For example, embraces the idea of 'complex interdependence', that economic actors cross state borders and give all states a common interest which can only be pursued through consensus.
Marxism: Argues that the whole international system is one based around capital accumulation, serving only certain classes at any given time. Also, Wallerstein's 'world systems theory' argues that resources go from the periphery to the core (with a semi-periphery inbetween), with this first being achieved through colonialism, and now dependence.
Other: Feminist theory, normative theory, whatever.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

English School it is then.

[Ice]

It sounds like the English School would fit my beliefs.

[CountArach]

English School: Sticks to the basic realist principles that states are the only actors and that they wish to serve their own ends, but also argues that the international scene is not so anarchic as realists suggest. This school of thought believes that while states are selfish actors, they can exist peacefully through means such as diplomacy, internatinal law, and morality, and not just a balance of power.
[...]
Marxism: Argues that the whole international system is one based around capital accumulation, serving only certain classes at any given time. Also, Wallerstein's 'world systems theory' argues that resources go from the periphery to the core (with a semi-periphery inbetween), with this first being achieved through colonialism, and now dependence.

A combination of these two sounds close to about what I believe.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A combination of these two sounds close to about what I believe.

Same here.

For nowadays/recent decades anyway. Even realism can be appropriate at times, for example WWII.

[Jolt]

How nice. I also study International Relations. A good thing was that our teacher did his very best to neutrally explain and outline every school of thought and its proponents, without trying to take sides (Other than bashing Bush, but that everyone does).

[Fragony]

Same here.

For nowadays/recent decades anyway. Even realism can be appropriate at times, for example WWII.

I believe it was a response to WW2, an attack on liberalism.

[Scurvy]

Marxism/Neo-Marxism, although some sympathy for Neo-Realism/ English School (although I find the 2 overlap quite a lot)