Essay on International Relations Theories

International politics is the way in which sovereign and free nations interrelate. Global regimes or institutions play different roles in this kind of politics. These roles are well explained by different theories. Some of these theories include; structural realism, strategic realism, and regime theory. This paper will compare and contrast the three theories with the arguments based on the origin, roles and impacts of the international institutions in global politics. The paper will also answer the question of how and why these theories are different or similar to each other. Regime realists gives a better explanation of the institutional dynamics; this is because it believes in the distribution of power across various states and non-state players.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Structural realism

This theory is originated from the writings of Hans Morgenthau classical realism. Classical realism originally argued that the systematization of global politics relied on human nature and was therefore a subject to the ego and feelings of global leaders. Several critiques emerged following the publication of the theory. Structural realism also have the same arguments but if further explains the roles played by international institutions or regimes in the world politics. It is therefore important to understand the difference between classical realism and structural realism. Classical realism tends to explain global politics as a result of human nature and is based on post- Second World War period while structural realism tends to explain the root of international politics based on such assumptions. It is the assumptions that the structural realism theory argues to have been derived from various international sectors that include international regimes. Before getting to the take of this theory on the responsibilities of these institutions in world politics, it is important to understand the meaning of these international or global regimes as brought out in this theory.

This theory considers the structure of international organizations to be as a result of individual actors and intervenes between their activities and political consequences. Structural realism assumes that actors which are the producers and consumers in this case are demonstrated to interact unitarily because the systemic model does not provides for internal political courses. Waltz being the writer of this theory further argues that the international organization is composed of state players of major states and they provide the definition of international politics. According to the theory, business players in the international market from different states with different foreign laws interact and this interaction between these sovereign nations is what creates a definition global politics.

Strategic theory

This theory has various assumptions that relate to the world politics. These assumptions brings out the roles played by international institutions. Some of the assumptions include; study of ends and means which explains the employment of resources in achieving objectives but in this case the resources do not necessarily mean the tangibles but the factors that may be used in decision making, most particularly the degree of political drive that an individual may use in achieving his desires. The other assumption is that of political actors as a central unit of analysis. This theory explains what strategic theorists do and the calculation of individual actor in different levels and social groupings.

Comparison

One major difference between strategic realists, structural realists and regime theorists lies in the need and motivation for authority. For strategic realism theory, we find that the quest for power is much focused on the benefits as opposed to the costs at which it may be achieved. The theory is all about positioning and is against natural realism. According to the theory, when countries enter into escalations, their major aim is the creation of international relations, and not a quest for more power. They believe in cooperation and that when one country or state gets into trouble =, it can get assistance from its allies. Therefore, the bottom-line here is not for countries becoming independently powerful, but much on collaboration for the purposes of being prepared for any possible contingencies (James and Palen 57).

However, for the structural realists, they argue that the nature of human beings has very little to do with the reasons why countries are interested in power or influence. Instead, the establishment of the international relations system forces every country to seek power. This implies that it is only logical or reasonable for every country to look for power so that it can have the capability of defending itself sufficiently in the event that it is attacked by an enemy. In a system or structure like this, countries are compelled to compete if at all they want to survive or come out stronger. The structural realists actually disregard the cultural variance among countries together with the types of regimes since the international structure brings about or giver rise to the same motivations for all the super powers. For these theorists, unlike the strategic theorists, the individual that is the custodian of power does not matter. What matters is the structures, since human nature has very little control over the reasons why these countries seek the powers.

On the other hand, regime theory in the quest for power claim that in the international system, power or authority is distributed across various countries as and the non-stake actors like the intergovernmental bodies, nongovernmental bodies, as well as international corporations, which collaborate on particular matters on the basis of different international regimes. Nevertheless, regimes are the representations of collaboration among various actors in the international framework. It is at times called neorealism, the theory tries to explore the international systems in the form of the power distribution among the actors that are regarded as being the most relevant of specific international system. The theory believes that countries and some other players at rationally. It is assumed that a nation that dominates all the other nations will always try to inspire the development and establishment of regimes, which are consistent with their interests in the development of the required support for their policies without having to force its wish on the others by the use of more costly methods or approaches (Breitmeier, Oran, and Michael 46) For instance, the United States of America has always played a significant role in the alignment of an international economic and fiscal system, which fashions with its values together with interests. Indeed, the hegemon would not allow for the establishment of any regime that contradicts its own interests. In this example, the United States will not allow an economic system that does not encourage free trade.

After the review of the three theories, it is evident that that of regime realists gives a better explanation of the institutional dynamics. This is because it believes in the distribution of power across various states and non-state players. This means that there are several multinational organizations that are formed and them empowered to tackle some issues that may face individual countries. With a superpower that ensures that there is encouragement of free trade and other essential processes, the concept makes countries relate well without any much problems or strains.

Works Cited

James, Paul and Palen, Ronen. Globalization and Economy. London: Sage Publications, 2007. Print.

Breitmeier, Helmut, Oran R. Young, and Michael Zurn. Analyzing International Environmental Regimes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007. Print.