, ,

International EncyclopediaDisiplin Hubungan Internasional menurut kamus terbaru International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences ed William A. DarityINTERNATIONAL RELATIONSInternational relations (IR) is the study of relationshipsamong the actors of international politics. Such actorsinclude nation-states, international organizations, nongovernmentalorganizations, and multinational corporations.The field is also sometimes called internationalpolitics, international studies, or international affairs. In theUnited States, IR is a branch of political science, while itis considered its own interdisciplinary field in theEuropean and British academy. What makes IR uniquefrom other forms of political analysis is that internationalpolitics is characterized by anarchy—or the absence of anyauthority superior to the nation-state. Sovereign states arethus the primary, though not the sole, important actors inthe international system, because historically states are theorganizations with the legitimate authority to use forcewithin their geographically recognized areas.APPROACHES TO IR THEORYIR theorists do not all share the same epistemology (ways ofknowing) or methodology (analyzing what they know) forapproaching the puzzles of world politics. There are generallythree epistemological perspectives in the field of IR. Aplurality of IR scholars are positivists, and assert that theonly way to know something about the world is toapproach it scientifically, by producing models that approximatethe reality of international politics. These models aretested with facts in order to predict the future behavior ofinternational actors. Interpretivists disagree with thisapproach, in that they do not aim to predict the behavior ofinternational actors, but to interpret and understand themotives behind that behavior. Interpretivists see a world ofintersubjective understandings and ideas to be interpretedrather than used for prediction. Post-positivists think thatboth interpretation and causal analysis is inappropriate, andthat the theories and models developed by IR theoristscould instead be used to control global populations. Postpositivistsseek to emancipate oppressed groups by deconstructingthe relationships and concepts taken for grantedin world politics to reveal how they are not “natural” butforms of power and discipline.Epistemology influences the methodology variousscholars use. For instance, most (but not all) positivists usequantitative, statistical techniques to test their models,whereas interpretivists and post-positivists use qualitativetechniques (such as discourse analysis or process tracing)to illustrate their arguments.There are several theoretical approaches in IR, as wellas substantive subfields of study, as noted below.Realism Realist IR theorists argue that the condition ofanarchy in international politics results in one motivationfor state action—survival. Because power helps statesensure their own survival, state interests are defined interms of power. This means that cooperation among stateswill be rare, and plans to overcome such tension will ultimatelyfail. Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau(1946), John Herz, Raymond Aron, and E. H. Carr conceptualizedpower in a variety of ways—both materially(the military, the economy, geography) and strategically(diplomacy, prestige). While much of the defining literatureof classical realism was produced in the immediatedecades after World War II (1939–1945), later scholarssuch as Anthony Lang, Richard Ned Lebow, and MichaelC. Williams (2004) resurrected the critical nature of classicalrealist work.Liberalism Liberalism assumes that while states operatewithin anarchy and are primarily self-interested, this selfinterestleads to cooperation rather than conflict.Institutional liberalism posits that international organizations andregimes facilitate cooperation by reducinguncertainty among states and increasing transparency.Economic or commercial liberalism asserts that open tradingsystems make cooperation more likely because thebenefits of trade outweigh the costs of going to war.Political liberalism assesses the likelihood of cooperationor conflict based upon the nature of a country’s politicalsystem. Political liberalism has developed into a separateresearch program known as democratic peace theory, whichposits that democratic countries are less likely to go to warwith one another because of the structural and culturalnature of democratic decision-making. Liberalism is oftentermed idealism, but this label is inaccurate in that all IRperspectives focus upon certain ideals over others. Yet liberalismis an admittedly more optimistic view of internationalpolitics than most other perspectives.English School (Grotian or International Society) TheEnglish school has been a viable approach to the study ofIR theory since the late 1950s and early 1960s.Representatives of this school include Herbert Butterfield,Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, R. J. Vincent, Martin Wight,and more recently Barry Buzan, Timothy Dunne, RobertJackson, Nicholas Wheeler, and Barak Mendelsohn. Thename English school refers to the location where many ofthe founders of the school first congregated—the LondonSchool of Economics. These scholars acknowledge therole that material forces play in international politics, butalso how rules, principles, and ideas augment these materialforces. Thus, while states cannot escape anarchy intheir calculations with other states, certain “rules” ofmembership govern state relations. Therefore, internationalpolitics resembles an anarchical society where sovereigntyas a principle is usually respected because statesvalue order to ensure their survival (see Bull 2002).Constructivism Constructivism is a sociological approachto social relations, rather than a specific theory of internationalpolitics. IR constructivists see the relations and patternsof nation-states and nonstate actors as sociallyconstructed, or made up of intersubjectively shared ideas.Constructivists explore the manner in which identities,discourse, and rules shape and are shaped by states. Theyclaim that states seek to do more than survive in a conditionof anarchy; states also seek to socialize with othernation-states. Because ideas are intersubjectively sharedamong states, ideas can change and thus so can the interestsof nation-states. This does not mean, however, thatconstructivists deny the importance of conflict. IR constructivistsinclude such mainstream scholars as AlexanderWendt, Martha Finnemore, and Michael Barnett, as wellas critical theorists such as Nicholas Onuf (1989) andFriedrich Kratochwil (1989).Neorealism and NeoliberalismNeorealism (sometimestermed structural realism)and neoliberalism both representattempts to develop classical realism and liberalisminto scientific theories of international politi
cs to makethem more amenable to causal analysis. The defining publications—for neorealism, Theory of International Politics(1979) by Kenneth Waltz; for neoliberalism, Power andInterdependence (1977) by Robert Keohane and JosephNye—both attempted to develop systemic analyses ofinternational politics. Both neorealists and neoliberalsargue that states are units that act rationally to survive ina realm of anarchy, and such a universal motive producesregular behavior that can be predicted through hypothesistesting and theoretical development similar to that foundin the physical sciences. The principal disagreementbetween the two approaches is whether states are concernedwith relative gains (i.e., how a state performs relativeto other states) or absolute gains.Foreign Policy AnalysisForeign policy analysis seeks to understand the ways inwhich foreign policies are enactedby individuals or small groups of decision makers.International politics, from this perspective, is groundedin decisions made by leaders and elites. This subfield of IRborrows heavily from other disciplines in social science—most notably psychology. Much of this work views elitesas having, for various reasons, imperfect rational capabilities,and thus attempts to make intelligible how individualsinterpret incoming information and produce decisionsthat result in varied and sometimes disastrous outcomes.Although much foreign policy analysis focuses on individuals,it also accommodates the influence of domesticpolitical entities (such as parties and coalitions) andbureaucracies on the foreign policy decisions made byelites. Scholars who have shaped this approach includeRichard Snyder, James Rosenau, Harold and MargaretSprout, Margaret Hermann, Charles Hermann, RichardHerrmann, Stephen Walker, and Martha Cottam.CRITICAL THEORYCritical theorists seek to challenge the core concepts and“commonsense” or prevailing wisdoms of mainstream IRapproaches. Such theorists posit that mainstreamapproaches are “problem-solving theories” that throughpredictive analysis seek to form solutions to the mostprevalent puzzles of international politics. Critical theory,on the other hand, is meant to develop an understandingof how theories and assumptions in IR are formed in thefirst place—and to reveal how some of these assumptions(like the “permanence” of nation-states) might instead beresponsible for much of the suffering that occurs in internationalpolitics. Several forms of critical theory are discussedbelow.Poststructuralism Poststructuralism draws on the socialtheory of philosophers like Jacques Derrida and MichelFoucault to reveal how forces and power operate in subtleways. Poststructuralists problematize even the idea thathistory is connected in any meaningful way. Notable IRpost-structuralists include Richard Ashley, DavidCampbell, and James Der Derian.Neo-Marxist and Gramscian Theory World-systems theoryand dependency theory are forms of what is known asneo-Marxist IR. Such perspectives focus less upon statesand more upon the forces of capital and production in theinternational economic system. Gramscian perspectives(derived from the work of early twentieth-century ItalianMarxist Antonio Gramsci), defined by Robert Cox (1981)and Stephen Gill, have focused upon the ways in whichsocial relationships work in conjunction with marketforces to produce certain processes and patterns evident inthe international economy. It is not enough, Gramscianscholars posit, for the forces of capital to create theinequality that exists in international politics. It is alsonecessary for individuals and groups to believe in the marketitself—and thus such internalization (ideas plus materials)makes change much more difficult and inequalitymore permanent.Feminism Feminist IR is a subset of feminist social theory.As a form of critical theory, it challenges the mainstreamassumptions of IR. For instance, feminist IR scholars suchas J. Ann Tickner (1992), Spike Peterson, ElizabethHutchings, Christine Sylvester, and Cynthia Enloe haveexplored the masculine assumptions (war, aggressivebehavior, etc.) that underpin how the nation-state is conceptualizedin IR theory.SUBFIELDS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSAll these perspectives, to varying degrees, encompassimportant subfields in IR. Security studies, also known asinternational security, focuses on threats to states and thestate system that stem from the environment, health (suchas pandemics like HIV-AIDS), nuclear weapons, andtransnational terrorist organizations. Certain scholars inthis subfield use formal modeling and game theory tounderstand the strategic patterns of state behavior. Civilsociety studies focuses upon the manner in which nongovernmentalorganizations influence the state system.Another normative turn in IR theory has producedvibrant work on international ethics. Much of this workfocuses upon phenomena such as humanitarian intervention,human rights doctrines, just war theory, genocideand ethnic conflict, and economic deprivation. The fieldof international political economy examines the relationshipsbetween nation-states and the international market,as well as how multinational corporations use the globaleconomy to further their material goals. And internationallaw remains an important subfield of interest for IR scholars.For instance, many constructivists and English schooltheorists have used the development of international lawsto demonstrate their arguments regarding the presence ofidentity communities or an international society.BIBLIOGRAPHYBull, Hedley. [1977] 2002. The Anarchical Society: A Study ofOrder in World Politics. 3rd ed. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Cox, Robert. 1981. Social Forces, States, and World Orders:Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journalof International Studies 10 (2): 126–155.Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye Jr. [1977] 2000. Powerand Interdependence. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions on theConditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in InternationalRelations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.Morgenthau, Hans. [1946] 1978. Politics Among Nations: TheStruggle for Power and Peace. 6th ed. New York: Knopf.Onuf, Nicholas 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule inSocial Theory and International Relations. Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.Tickner, J. Ann 1992. Gender in International Relations: FeministPerspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Williams, Michael C. 2004. The Realist Tradition and the Limitsof International Relations. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.Brent J. SteeleBuy from Amazon.co.uk

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]