Only by knowing the internal, domestic politics of States one can understand how they behave in International Politics

Résumé du document

International relations have always been characterized by wars, peace and alliances. The question that theorists wonder is why interactions between States sometimes degenerated into conflicts which change relations between them. There are three main theories in international relations which attempt to understand the behavior of states in international politics: realism, institutionalism and the state-society approach. State is defined by M. Weber as ‘a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory' (Gerth and Wright Mills, 1946).

The three theories share a number of assumptions about the way states interact in international politics. They all consider that States are the main actors in an anarchic system (although they do not have all the same conception of what is anarchy). These states are rationalist and egoist, following their own interests. Finally, all the theories include the idea that there are generalizable and positive causal explanations to international outcomes. On the other hand, these theories differ on many points, especially about the importance of domestic politics.

Hence, one may wonder if knowing the internal politics is sufficient to understand how states behave in international politics. We will demonstrate that none of the three main theories consider that this sufficient and that we cannot disregard external environment to understand international behaviors, although it is obvious that the State-society approach attaches much more importance to this factor than realists and institutionalists.

Extraits

[...] According to Mearsheimer, realists do not take into consideration cultural differences among states in order to understand international politics (2006). States compete for power to survive (defensive realists) or to conquer (offensive realists) because they cannot be sure of the incentives of other states. Realists consider this assumption is necessarily true, ‘regardless of economic system, form of government' (Morgenthau).This uncertainty generates fear and change in the balance of power may occur because of it. For example, Thucydides explains that the Peloponnesian war was a consequence of change in the balance of power: the Athenian power was growing and this created fear in Sparta (1954, p.25). [...]

[...] (2006), The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans want from our Leaders but Don't get, Chicago, pp. 174-200. - Thucydides (1954), The Peloponnesian War, translated by Warner, R., Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 24-25. - Walt, S. (Winter 1998-1999), ties that in The National Interest, No 54, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.comw.org/pda/swalt.pdf - Waltz, K. (2001), Man, the State and War: a theoretical analysis, Columbia University Press, New York. [...]

[...] - Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (2000), Power and Interdependence, 3rd ed., Longman, pp. 1-19. - Mearsheimer, J. J. (2006), “Structural Realism”, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S., eds, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford. - Moravcsik, A. (1997), “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, in International Organization, Vol No Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp.513-533; 541-547. - Page B. and Bouton M. [...]

[...] Only by knowing the internal, domestic politics of States one can understand how they behave in International Politics International relations have always been characterized by wars, peace and alliances. The question that theorists wonder is why interactions between States sometimes degenerated into conflicts which change relations between them. There are three main theories in international relations which attempt to understand the behavior of states in international politics: realism, institutionalism and the state-society approach. State is defined by M. Weber as human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory' (Gerth and Wright Mills, 1946). [...]

[...] Bibliography - Gerth H. H. and Wright Mills C., eds. (1946), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 77-78. - Gourevitch, P. A. (1977), “International Trade, Domestic Coalitions, and Liberty: Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873-1896”, in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol No MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp. 281-313. - Grieco, J.M. (1988), “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation”, in International Organization 42:3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 485-507. [...]