PSIR Optional (Theories of International Relations) by Viraj C Rane

Model Answer

Question #1. Idealism is essentially a variant of liberal internationalism.  10 marks (150 words)

Approach:

• Introduction: Meaning and application of idealism to global politics.
• Body: Traits of idealism in liberal internationalism; Fourteen Points.
• Conclusion: Criticism of idealism; idealism much broader than liberalism.

Idealism (sometimes called ‘utopianism’) is an approach to international politics that stresses the importance of moral values and ideals, rather than power and the pursuit of the national interest, as a guide to foreign policy-making. It follows the older tradition of - ‘idealist’- Plato, and Kant’s belief in the possibility of ‘universal and perpetual peace’.

Idealism believes that it will be possible to eliminate crude power from international relations, substituting research, reason and discussion in place of national armies and navies. Many idealists share the belief of Mazzini that there is no essential incompatibility between nationalism and internationalism.

Idealism is essentially a variant of liberal internationalism:

• It reflects a strong optimism about the prospects for international peace, usually associated with a desire to reform the international system by strengthening international law and embracing cosmopolitan ethics.
• American presidentWoodrow Wilson is widely considered an early advocate of idealism in the 20^th century and codifier of its practical meaning; specific actions cited include the issuing of the famous "Fourteen Points".
• Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, the particular set of viewpoints arising amongst the "institution builders" after World War II. Organizations that came about as a direct result of the war's outcome include the International Monetary Fund(IMF) and the United Nations (UN) among others. 
• They believe that the spread of education and democracy—including increasing democratic control of foreign policy—will empower world public opinion, and make it a powerful force that no government can resist.
• One of the most well-known tenets of modern idealist thinking is democratic peace theory, which holds that states with similar modes of democratic governance do not fight one another.

Criticism:

• In general parlance on international matters, idealism is a term applied to any idea, goal, or practice considered to be impractical. Thus, eradicating nuclear weapons is considered idealistic, as is entrusting international security to the UN, creating an African Union on the model of the EU, or the global eradication of poverty and injustice. This analysis rests on a pessimistic reading of human nature along with an historical judgment on the difficulty of achieving radical change in world affairs through peaceful methods.
• H. Carr’s in his book The Twenty Years’ Crisis, says that idealists underestimated the role of power in international politics and overestimated the role, actual and potential, of law, morality and public opinion.

Conclusion:

Realists have used the term pejoratively to imply deluded moralizing and a lack of empirical rigour. As a consequence, various approaches and bodies of thought—cosmopolitanism, internationalism, liberalism—have frequently been lumped together and labelled idealism, despite considerable differences between and diversity within them. Idealism is not naturally co-extensive with liberalism: idealism is broader and more nebulous than liberalism, and modern liberal theorizing has often disconnected from the idealist impulse.

Question #2. Hegemonic stability theory is losing its relevance. Substantiate your views with examples from global politics of the 21^st century. 15 marks (250 words)

Approach:

• Introduction: HST: Stability through a hegemon will result in prosperity. Kindleberger’s views.
• Body: The components of the theory and its current day application.
• Conclusion: Criticism of Keohane; multipolarity and its importance.

Hegemonic stability theory is the theory, accepted by realists and many neoliberals, that a dominant military and economic power is necessary to ensure the stability and prosperity in a liberal world economy. Charles Kindleberger is the theory's most influential proponent. In the 1973 book The World in Depression: 1929-1939, he argued that the economic chaos between World War I and World War II that led to the Great Depression was partly attributable to the lack of a world leader with a dominant economy. 

The theory has two main components.

• First, it recognizes that a liberal world economy is in constant danger of being subverted by rising nationalism and the spread of protectionism. This was clearly demonstrated by the so-called ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ policies that helped to create the Great Depression of the 1930s.
• A set of ground rules for economic competition are therefore needed, particularly focused on upholding free trade, in order for such an economy to be successful.
• Second, a dominant or hegemonic power is likely to be both willing and able to establish and enforce such rules. Its willingness derives from the fact that, being a hegemon,its interests coincide significantly with those of the system itself. It has a crucial stake in the system: in ensuring the stability of the world economy, the hegemon is attending to its own long-term interests.
• By contrast, smaller, less powerful states are forced to act more narrowly in line with national self-interest.
• To be a hegemon, a state must therefore (1) have sufficient power to enforce the rules of the system, (2) possess the will to use this power, and (3) be committed to a system that brings benefit to the mass of states.

Criticism of this theory:

• Keohane's 1984 book After Hegemonyused insights from the new institutional economics to argue that the international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon, thus rebutting hegemonic stability theory.
• John Ruggie's work on embedded liberalismalso challenged hegemonic stability theory. He argued that the post-WWII international order was not just held together by material power but through "legitimate social purpose" whereby governments created support for the international order through social policies that alleviated the adverse effects of globalization.
• Robert Gilpin's contends that the system naturally goes toward equilibrium with or without a hegemon. And a hegemon will create the system of the world with their own set of preferences, not necessarily in the interest of others.

Examples from 21^st century:

• The decline in hegemony of US is marked with rise of China both economically and militarily. China not only seeks to influence its neighbourhood but also in Africa, Latin America and beyond.
• The rise of EU, ASEAN, India as dominant players in the global politics has not created any instability but has made the world multipolar and less influenced by one or two major powers.
• The GCC and African Union too wield influence in their region and have led to stability in the region.

Conclusion:

It is argued that the Hegemon (USA) was seen to be causing instability in the regions in pursuit of its own interests. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by US has resulted in disorder and instability in the region. It is said that the push by NATO under the pressure of US led to Russian invasion of Ukraine. The contemporary world politics with its multipolarity will not only make the world more co-operative but also protect the interest of developing and small nations states from the unilateral sanctions of the hegemon.