Neo-realists – neo-liberals The debate to date
Structure of the international system shapes all foreign policy choices – the lack of a common power or central authority to enforce rules and maintain order in the system is a key determinant in the choices states make ‘survival is the goal of each state Neo-liberals focus on international interdependence, globalization and regimes set up to manage these interactions an anarchical world
The state is the key actor in international relations Competition defines the relationship between states Yes the state is a key actor but there are other significant actors Cooperation between states is possible The ‘state’
Military resources remain a tool of statecraft But power is also the combined capabilities of a state; this is what gives a state a place/position in the international system and this will in turn shape a state’s behaviour; the focus will be relative power, security and survival Regimes and institutions ( UN, IMF…) do not offset the constrainng effects of anarchy on co-operation More concerned with economic welfare, internaitonal political economy issues, environment Intentions and preferences are important Institutions are the focus of attention as the mediators and the means to achieve co-operation between states and they can contribute to governance in an anarchic system ‘power’
Culture, traditions, identity are minimised as factors in shaping IR (USSR, Yugoslavia) Promotion of ‘peace through trade’ - this is how lives will be improved business and markets over human rights, environment, social justice What do they leave out?
Neo-Realists • Power • Conflict • Politics of survival
Neo-Liberalists • Impact of economic interdependence on state behaviour • Potential effects of institutions and regimes on domestic politics