International Relations

[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)