Theorizing International Relations: Humanitarian Interventions

There are several debates that argue about humanitarian interventions from 1990s which were dominated by the struggle of the principles of human rights and sovereignty darlings of the global north and south (Walzer, 2010 p.147). In the north, it was argued that atrocity crimes were as a result of the state failure with the aim of protecting the states human rights. Outside the states, in this case, the government had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries exceptional circumstances. The global south, on the other hand, had a strong opposition concerning the so-called rights because the state sovereignty had fundamental principles of the international system (Walzer, 2010 p.155). Therefore, it automatically brought the question of the rights of humans. On the other hand, the international relations theory is reduced to two theories that construct the humanitarian rights under international relations. This essay will, therefore, argue by use of social-constructivism and neo-realism theories as to why the humanitarian interventions are perceived as Trojan Horse by powerful states.

One of the most promising growth in intellectual developments pertaining the discipline concerned with the theories is related mostly with the practitioners (Hollands, 2003 p.512). To qualify for the discipline there must be a general agreement that agrees on the subject matter through the consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and methodology. There must also be a body that illustrates the use of the two theories to elaborate more on the humanitarian interventions. Neo-Realism theory, in this case, is a way on how Neo-realists think because of the considerations of the structure (Hollands, 2003 p.545).

The definition of structure, in this case, is an ordering principle of the international system. This means that power itself is an end. For instance, the states use force to gain more control thus increasing their ability and influence to secure the national interests. The military force, in this case, is considered as the most apparent element a government has (Brooks, 2013 p.209). For neo-realist power, the accumulation is more significant than of the military resources. Every state has different systems that operate under their power because it gives it the position of an international system. Anarchy, as mentioned above, is a condition of the system. According to Grieco (2009 p.27) who is a realist scholar that focuses on the relative and absolute gains concept, he claimed that so many states enjoy increasing their power for influence. They are also concerned more on how much they may gain control for cooperative endeavors.

Neo-realist also state that the international; cooperation has two barriers: the relative gains and cheating of the actors. The argument in this statement is that despite the fact that the leaders must focus on the states that have military advantage upon the removal of the weapon system, they must also be vigilant for teachers (Griecio, 2009 p.33). In chapter seven of the Globalization of world politics neo-realism and security studies, scholars have stated that a nuanced version reflects the effects of realism to the understanding of the nature of security threats (Oman, 2010 p.45). Therefore, the two theories presented by Grieco and Waltz version of neo-realism is that the defense of non-realism is that international relations depend on whether the states are enemies of friends (Grieco, 2009 p. 42).

International Relations theory is usually interpreted in two contradictory ways (Viotti, Kauppi & Brooks 2012, p.21). The first interpretation is that of experts and practitioners who consider the theory as misleading when it fails to correspond to practical knowledge and when it corresponds the experts regard it redundant. According to the experts and practitioners, the academic justification of the theory should be limited to political judgment study drawn from historical experiences and reflections (Viotti, Kauppi & Brooks et al., 2012 p.56).

On the other hand, the experts and practitioners regard the theory as empirical which has that does not encourage self-reflection in its application (Hopf 2010, p.539). The proponents of the latter approach argue that reduction is not viable. Affirming that theory can be practical knowledge is a contradiction while stating that the theory is empirical is a disregard to the constitutive aspect of theories, the importance of concepts and the different modes of theorizing. As a result, I propose four modes approach of theorizing as compared to the as compared to the twofold approach. The four modes approach includes meta-theoretical, consultative, ontological, empirical and normative.

One of the recent and promising changes in the intellectual development of a discipline is the concern for the theory for both practitioners and students (Moravcsik 2001, p.13). It may be argued that, without such a concern, there is no discipline but an area of inquiry. To be regarded as a discipline, the minimum requirement should include consensus on terminology, subject matter, methodology, and taxonomy (Moravcsik 2001 et al., p.13). There should also be acceptable generalizations subject to verification. However, to confirm if it has taken place or has not taken place is less important and whether it should be done deductively or empirically has little consequence.

Many of the defensive neo-realists hold the position that the use of military force for expansion and conquest should be rejected with the advent of globalization and interdependence. Defensive neo-realists are usually confused with neo-liberals point of view despite the fact that they do not believe in the use of institutions to prevent war (Acharya 2008, p.57). Defensive neo-realists believe in change as compare to the offensive neo-realists. However, they are less optimistic than neo-liberals for because of a number of reasons. One of the reasons is the fact that defensive neo-realists think that conflict is unnecessary only in some situations. Second, leaders cannot be sure that an aggressive approach by the state means an expansionary action aimed at challenging the existing order or altering a security policy. The third reason is the fact that defensive realists have challenged the neo-liberal position, which has made it easier to find a point of convergence for national interests resulting in cooperation and building of institutions. Defensive neo-realists have an issue with cheating by states and noncompliance.

Constructivism

Onuf is credited as the founder of constructivism and its rise. Studies point out to four factors that contributed to the rise of constructivism in the 1990s (Adler 2013, p.112). One of the factors includes the end of the cold war which encouraged debates on matters of national interest. The debates increased national identity and the urge for international and regional order. The end of the cold war resulted in increased transnationalism and recognition of human rights. The success of constructivism is pegged on its ability explain issues of central concern to neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism. As a result, constructivism is regarded a social theory in International politics and not a substantive argument.

An offensive philosopher, Mearshmeier, hints that the practice of relative power is most significant to nations and that state leaders should lobby for security policies as well as increase their power relative to others (Abdelal et al., 2015 p.144)). These leaders should focus on policies that favor the economic growth of a country to be an example to others nations around the globe. Waltz and Mearshmeier are responsible for the decision issued by Bush to participate in the Iraq war. Intervention in this war was not necessary since the containment of Iraq was working effectively, and there was no rational prompt for involvement in the war. The US military compromised its tasks in the Afghanistan, Iraq and the global war on terrorism.

The concept of social theory dwells on the relation between structures and the agents in place. Constructivism is the act of making a critical choice which is associated with the social theory that provides the basis on which certain actors work under fixed options as they try to produce the best output and those constraints. According to Adler, various types of constructivists exist: some prioritize structures while others agents (2013 p.119). In addition, some put their effort on human consciousness and transnationalism while others on politics between states. Holism and idealism are the primary commitments of human consciousness. Idealism prompts that the responsibility of ideas in politics should be taken seriously. This concept does not subdue the aspect of material reality instead it prioritizes idealism as the foundation of material reality. Regarding holism, agents have a vital role to play in constructivism and their relations assist in transforming and constructing those structures.

The ideology of social construction of reality sharpens the perception of legitimate actions. It draws the line between the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequences. The aspect of consequences acknowledges actions to the forestalled benefits and costs (Fierke et al., 2015 p. 247). On the other hand, the logic of appropriateness attributes how the participants follow the rules and they are conscious of their actions. Constructivists analyze how actors apply their operations to make them meaningful.

These constructivists try to define the practices established by the actors to deduce their meanings and the objects they construct. Orsi states that they have two vital views on power; the force power is higher than materials, and it is ideational (2016). Most actors in these states have a direct correlation between the consequences of their action as well as their legitimacy. Furthermore, the impact of power is way more substantial than the ability to alter behavior. Additionally, power recognizes knowledge as a critical player in determining the consequences of an action. According to Hopf, constructivists argue that structures can also have a crucial effect since they make specific types of behavior to be possible and generate particular patterns globally (1998 p.188).

Conclusion

The freedom of sovereignty is the source of actions and makes the various types of behaviors possible. Either way, the idea to explain the discovery of timeless law faces rejection by the constructivists. Hence it is impossible for these laws to exist in international politics. Constructivists even use simulations to structure the trends in world politics as well as use constructivism to evaluate the nations interest in understanding particular strategic behaviors.

References

Acharya, A., 2008. Theoretical perspectives on international relations in Asia. International relations of Asia, pp.57-82.

Adler, E., 2013. Constructivism in international relations: sources, contributions, and debates. Handbook of international relations, 2, pp.112-144.

Abdelal, R., Blyth, M. and Parsons, C. eds., 2015. Constructing the international economy. Cornell University Press. Pp 117-177

Adler, E., 2013. Constructivism in international relations: sources, contributions, and debates. Handbook of international relations, 2, pp.112-144.

Brooks, R. (2013). Chapter 2. A Theory of the Diffusion of Military Power. The Diffusion of Military Power, 201-234. doi:10.1515/9781400835102.18

Grieco, J. M. (2009). The Maastricht Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union and the neo-realist research programmer. Review of International Studies, 21(01), 21-47. doi: 10.1017/s02602105001...