Cold War Origins and IR Theory Schools Compared

The Origins of the Cold War

The Cold War represents a distinctive period in world history for two reasons. First, it was not a war in the conventional sense of armed military conflict, but rather a battle of ideologies and technological advancements — a race to establish the world's technological leader. Second, the Cold War is important because of the players it engaged. On one side stood the United States of America, striving to consolidate its position as the world's new leading power. On the other stood the Soviet Union, which worked equally hard to maintain its own dominance.

Another interesting characteristic of the Cold War concerns the emergence of the conflict itself. In conventional wars, an invasion, a pretext, or a direct attack triggers the outbreak of hostilities. Identifying the true origins of the Cold War and the party responsible for starting it is a far more difficult task. Given the conflicting evidence, reputable scholars have reached conflicting conclusions, meaning that no answer to the question of who started the Cold War can be entirely comprehensive. Within the current context, however, the relevance of such a question is limited, mattering primarily within the academic field.

Three broad explanations have been proposed. The first holds that the Cold War was caused by the Soviet Union, which sought to expand its influence globally and export communist ideology. The second argues that the United States initiated the conflict by recognizing the Soviet threat and moving to contain it — the atomic bomb is often interpreted as a direct statement aimed at the USSR. The third explanation attributes the Cold War to a series of misunderstandings between the USA and the USSR. A fourth and least popular explanation points to the necessity of determining Germany's role in the post-Hitler era (Greenfield History Site).

In order to assess whether one agrees with the maxim that "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept," it is first necessary to understand it fully. Sometime between 460 BC and 395 BC, the Greek historian Thucydides wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War. The work is extraordinarily complex, and numerous historical studies from that time through the present have referenced the way Thucydides understands and presents politics and history.

Power and the Weak in International Politics

In the fifth chapter of the book, known as the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides states his view of international politics. He argues that "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." In essence, this means that interstate relations are governed by the relative power of each global player. If one country is more powerful than another, it possesses a greater capacity to implement the policies it finds most advantageous. The weaker country, constrained by its limited power, cannot implement policies that best serve its own interests and must comply with whatever the more powerful state decides. As Alexander Kemos explains, to Thucydides, "international relations allow the mighty to do as they please and force the weak to suffer as they must."

In terms of a personal position, this view tends to be persuasive. International policymaking has consistently been shaped by more powerful states. When Germany was a rising force, Jewish populations were persecuted across the globe. When the Roman Empire expanded, Christians were persecuted. Today, as the United States consolidates its leading position, values such as globalization and a war on terrorism are promoted without the support of smaller countries, which are compelled to abandon local commerce in favor of multinational corporations or to permit U.S. troops to be stationed on their territories.

Many of the views forwarded in both distant and recent history are shaped by the school of thought to which their authors belong. Two important schools of international relations are the realist school and the transnationalist school. The following points outline some of the most notable differences between them.

First, political realism, often referred to synonymously as power politics, holds that countries compete for economic and military power and stability, caring relatively little for ideological battles or ethical disputes. Transnationalists, by contrast, believe that individuals and states place greater emphasis on morality and that moral considerations genuinely guide international politics.

Realist vs. Transnationalist Schools of IR

Second, closely linked to each school's conception of national interests is its underlying view of human nature. Realists believe that human nature does not incline people toward the well-being of others; rather, each state and each individual is driven by self-interest. Realists are therefore pessimistic. Transnationalists, on the other hand, are more optimistic and argue that human nature is generally cooperative and supportive of broader development — that people naturally foster mutual aid and reciprocal welfare.

Third, realists argue that cooperation is not a central feature of national approaches to international politics and that countries fundamentally compete against each other. Transnationalists, by contrast, advocate cooperation as the primary mechanism for international growth and call on the international community to reduce competitive efforts (Canestaro).

A comparative analysis of the transnationalist and realist schools of thought has already been conducted above. To summarize: transnationalists are more optimistic and believe that national values revolve around overall global well-being and cooperation, while realists are more pessimistic and argue that each country strives to meet its individual goals of economic prosperity and military stability. Adherents of class system theory in international relations hold views that conflict with both transnationalists and realists. According to this theory, international relations are not primarily governed by either conflict or cooperation, but by capitalist structures that seek to accumulate as much capital as possible. This idea was first seeded by Marxist theory but subsequently expanded and developed new dimensions. According to class system theory, one class will emerge as the most powerful and will ensure that its demands and interests are protected at both national and international levels (Hobson, 2000).

Realist, Transnationalist, and Class System Theory Compared

At the present moment, the class system theory appears to be the most adequate model for explaining and predicting international relations. Capital accumulation has historically ensured that the interests of its owners are protected. It is nevertheless possible for this model to lose its relevance in coming years due to the scarcity of natural resources and the growing threat of climate change. In that context, the transnationalist model would likely prove more adequate for guiding international relations.

Feminist theories in international relations are distinguished by their focus on the individual and on emotions. In terms of international relations, they strive to identify and explain the individual role of various groups or persons in world politics. Additionally, they seek to map the dual relationship between gender and politics — that is, both the ways in which men and women shape international politics and the ways in which international relations affect men and women differently. Gender is a central theme, and the most relevant example is the longstanding assumption that politics is a domain best handled by men, who are considered less emotional. Feminist IR theories have been, and continue to be, the subject of significant criticism. Two of the most important arguments against them are presented below.

First, feminist theories tend to place women at the center of discussions of discrimination without adequately acknowledging their privileges — for example, their historical exemption from military service. Second, feminist theories tend to be personal and subjective and are not always grounded in clear technical or empirical evidence. As Christine Sylvester (1994, p. 142) observes, constructions in feminist theories that are "literary and subjective signal […] the abandonment of science, the abandonment of theory building for a free-for-all of personal expression."

A direct comparison between feminist IR theory and other international relations theories is generally difficult because the two operate on entirely different premises. While other IR theories address politics in its structural essence, feminist studies place individuals at the core of global relations. This means that the criticisms directed at feminist political theories actually resemble, in substance, the subject matter of other IR theories themselves.