IR Theory
In international relations theory, realists generally follow the rational choice or national actor with the assumption that states and their leaders make policy on the basis of calculated self-interest. They follow a utilitarian and pragmatic philosophy in which "decision makers set goals, evaluate their relative importance, calculate the costs and benefits of each possible course of action, then choose the one with the highest benefits and lowest costs" (Goldstein and Pevehouse 127). Individual leaders will have their unique personalities, experiences and psychological makeups, and some will be more averse to risk than others, but essentially they all follow a rational model of policymaking. American presidents are generally skilled politicians as well or they would never have achieved such high office in this first place, and this means that their rational calculations will always include public opinion, the needs of their electoral coalitions and the wishes of various interest groups. On the other hand, IR theorists must necessarily raise the question "to what extent are national leaders (or citizens) able to make rational decisions in the national interest" (Goldstein and Pevehouse 129). Some leaders may have health issues that affect their physical and mental capacity and ability to make decisions, such as Woodrow Wilson after his stroke in October 1919 or Franklin Roosevelt and his severe health problems during the last year of his life. Others might be suffering from some severe psychopathology such as paranoia, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder or borderline personality disturbances. On the foreign policy stage during the 20th Century, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson have been strong candidates for possible psychiatric impairment. All people in high office are likely to have well-developed ideas about history, politics and ideology, and will also have all the normal human tendencies toward wishful thinking, filtering out unfavorable or unwanted information, and making judgments based on emotions rather than reason. In some cases, however, such as Hitler, Wilson, Nixon and Johnson, physical and psychological disability could have severely damaged their rational decision making over time.
When Woodrow Wilson had his stroke in October 1919, the U.S. Senate was considering the Versailles Treaty and whether the United States would join the League of Nations. For Wilson, no other issue of his generation was as vital, for he was convinced that another world war would break out in twenty years if the U.S. did not participate in the new international organization. When the Senate rejected the treaty, all future presidents from Franklin Roosevelt onward derived the lesson that the failure of the U.S. To support the postwar peace settlement did make the Second World War inevitable. Yet at this crucial juncture, Wilson was not only bedridden but at times close to death, and he was never able to walk again. His wife, Edith Galt Wilson, and personal physician Dr. Cary T. Grayson, concealed the true extent of his incapacity from Congress and the public. Had Wilson been in good health, he might have been able to obtain ratification of the Versailles Treaty with some reservations, but in this condition, hardly able to speak, write or move, "his capacities became compromised by the interaction of his physical illness, his prior personality, and his social and political environment" (McDermott 46). Many bureaucracies could function on their own, basically on automatic pilot, but this was not true of the State Department and foreign affairs in general, which "needed more executive leadership and decision making than they received" (McDermott 47). Instead, Edith Wilson and Dr. Grayson were running the White House, with the intention of protecting the health and public image of the president. They did not even show him all of the documents and information that a healthy and active chief executive would be expected to study and absorb, and they also forged his signature on legislation, memoranda and executive orders, to avoid overtaxing his strength....
International Relations Realism in International Relations In the study of politics, the subject of international relations inevitably surfaces, mainly because politics do not only deal with national or domestic affairs, but also international concerns and issues. In the field of international relations, there are two prevailing paradigms: realism and liberalism. Although the focus of this discussion would be on realism, it can be best understood by also identifying and distinguishing it from
War: Vietnam The concept of 'Realism' has been one of the most important and dominating theories that has come into force, especially after the World War II. The theory has not only been responsible for guiding international relations but has also been the predominant force behind the formulations of foreign policies. (Theories of International Relations) For most of its history, Vietnam has been under the domination of foreign rule, most
U.S. And Int'l. Relations International Relations Theories and the Role of the U.S. In the Middle East A Short Analysis of U.S. Culture Theories and Interventions intervention in the Middle East has had very divergent consequences for both Iraq and the United States, with the lasting outcome being undetermined as of yet. The two countries are polar opposites in many ways, including vastly different cultures, different work ethics, and different histories. The divide
Rationalist Theories of International Relations Despite the name, rationalist theories of international relations are anything but, limited as they are by both an almost childlike understanding of human behavior and a catastrophic lack of imagination. Rationalist theories of international relations, like the Objectivism which developed in the same post-World War II period, rely on a number of assumptions which have since been shown to be empirically false. Rationalism assumes that the
Realist, Liberalist and Critical Theory The field of International Relations (often abbreviated IR) is devoted to the study of how the system of states could be made to work more effectively to enhance the power of law, peacefully manage interstate affairs, preserve order and minimize the prospects of war (An Overview of the Field of International Relations 1). From the start, IR has been a policy-oriented discipline. There is no agreed-upon
This basically means that the criticism to feminist political theories resembles more the substance of other IR theories. 6. First off, we should discuss the differences between system level theories and state level theories. What are the benefits to studying international relations at the state level? What are the drawbacks? In its most basic formulation, state level theories of international politics refer to those ideas which place the country at the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now