What is the essence of a structural approach to International Relations ?

Résumé du document

Structuralism is a theory that can be applied to many different topics and can be used at different levels. At the national system one structural approach can be the Marxist one that sees the state divided into classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat. However the structural approach can also be used with international relations (IR); it then takes a complete different approach compared to Marxism even though at the base there is always the same underlying fact: it is the structure that determines the agency's behaviour (and not the inverse as in most other IR theories; e.g. realism). But what exactly is meant by a structural approach to IR? What are its consequences for the understanding of IR? How does that influence the way international relations; as an academic research field should be conducted?

Extraits

[...] There is a certain harmony of interest between the centre of the Centre and the centre of the Periphery the cP acquires advantages by exploiting its own society, therefore it is more closely linked to the centre of the centre rather than to its own periphery in terms of interests . That also implies that the periphery of the Periphery is the worst off. However, pP has no way to change that because it is itself being dominated by cP within a structural system, internal to the country. [...]

[...] That is the reason why, now, the peripheries consider it normal to maintain the structure and thus fulfil the requirements of their roles. Neo-colonialism, by the means of international organisations impose the core's values on the periphery, urging it to match the core's desire and goals. That is why the periphery countries demand highly processed goods (but also cultural goods and services), they copy the core's doing (to try to become closer to it) because they are led to believe that it would be the best outcome for them. [...]

[...] That is not an agency but a structured based fact. It is structurally based because for every structural system, institutions (e.g. international organisations) are in place to maintain the structure stable. The hegemonic power rule these institutions, therefore the rules (of trade, communication, politics) are made in order to maintain the role of every unit of the system fixed. However, even if the hegemonic power is the one that is leading the there is a harmony of interest between the hegemonic power and the rest of the core (i.e. [...]

[...] That makes that theory a rather pessimistic one because it sees IR as fixed within the system and only a radical change with a great upsurge of a huge numbers of agents could change it. Bibliography Doran, Charles F. Systems in crisis, New imperatives of high politics at century's end. Cambridge university press: Cambridge Galtung, Joahn. “Structural theory of imperialism”. Journal of peace Research. Vol.8 No Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace and Peace research.” In Journal of peace Research Vol.6 No Gill, Stephen and Law, David. The global political economy; perspectives, problems and policies. [...]

[...] Then the system can be overturned. That is the reason why the structural approach is often linked to Marxism and seen as an extension of it. Structuralism is very different from other mainstream IR theories (i.e. Realism and Liberal Internationalism), both from where the theory has been build up but also how it sees IR. The structural theory encompasses the whole world instead of focusing on Europe or at least on the Western world. The structural theory sees the world as one single entity. [...]