introduction to international relations essay

International Relations: Theory, Policy, and Governance Essay

Introduction, the relationship of theory to actual policy, the ir theories that explain human behavior, the structure of the us government as reflected in the constitution.

Policy-makers in nations worldwide are responsible for overseeing decision-making in various sectors amid the influence of complex issues such as the human rights agenda, democratic values, environmental concerns, and the growing powers of private organizations. As a result, they adopt particular strategies and frameworks to guide their decision-making and help limit negative outcomes. Apart from individuals’ levels of intelligence and vast experience in global politics, international relations (IR) theories play a major role in guiding the way forward in case of conflicting opinions and dilemmas. Therefore, IR theories are strongly associated with actual policies because they assist decision-makers in identifying the phenomena they are dealing with, influence the choice of objectives, and allow them to anticipate potential outcomes. However, they do not exhibit a 1/1 correspondence with real policies since all of them can apply and are plausible in most situations including in the structure of US governance as reflected in the constitution.

Theoretical concepts are pivotal to policy formulation because they enable decision-makers to organize their ideas and settle on solutions that maximize benefits. Therefore, theories are the stepping stone to actualizing particular developments and soliciting support from like-minded individuals (Walt, 1998). According to Mingst et al. (2018), a theory describes a collection of ideas that aim to explain particular phenomena and establish a relationship between a set of concepts. That being said, individuals depend on theories to make decisions regarding most of their activities. In other words, a leader must strategize before deciding to send out military forces and weigh the rationality of their choice based on the outcomes. Hence, people construct and apply theoretical concepts without knowing because of their ability to organize factors and offer justifications.

Several global events are associated with the theories that explain them but in some occasions, there might not be a 1/1 correspondence between concepts and actual occurrences. To put it in another way, theoretical ideas offer guidelines and tend to explain why things happen the way they do. Nevertheless, theories have weaknesses in that they do not always predict factual outcomes and instead forecast highly probable results. Mingst et al. (2018) suggest that theories are conceptual frameworks that explain unique variations of incidents across time and space and seek to find a connection between causation and outcomes. However, no scientific genre considers theories to be factual, proven, or settled, meaning that they rarely exhibit 1/1 correspondence. Similarly, Keohane (2020) explains that theories rely on empirical laws fabricated through continuous observations of social factors and individual relations. Therefore, scholars measure the reliability of theories based on their strengths and weaknesses and by how strongly they are supported by particular events, which is highly variable.

The establishment and implementation of actual policies are guided by reason and evidence-based decision-making according to the foreseeable outcomes. As a result, there are some instances when leaders in the same faction have disagreed on the best way forward, with others openly opposing their political beliefs and standing (Doyle, 2018). For example, during Trump’s administration, the Supreme Court, comprised of a conservative majority at the time, ruled against the government’s decision to throw out a program that protected immigrants from deportation (Hurley, 2020). Thus, in some cases, external factors come into play and obligate leaders to go against what is expected. Therefore, theory and actual policies have a dynamic relationship that depends on various factors. In that sense, they do not offer definite guidelines that individuals must adhere to and respect (Walt, 1998). Hence, individuals’ knowledge in a field, rationality, and personal and cultural beliefs can influence their decision-making and preferences because, on some occasions, their understanding of the world may not align with their political standing.

Theories attempt to explain abstract concepts that do not exhibit definite outcomes. As a result, it is difficult to select a particular theory to describe human behavior best because the result of situations depends on variable factors. Therefore, the existence of various IR theories indicates that more than one might be plausible in similar or different events. For example, the case of Russia’s attacks on Syria in 2015 after it had agreed with the US and Saudi Arabia to reach a peaceful solution proves that different IR theories can accommodate a scenario (Mingst et al., 2018). Realists might argue that Russia sought to weaken US allies in the region and defend its interests in the Middle East while liberalists might point to the economic downturns in the nation as a probable cause. That is to say that the attacks were intended to turn attention away from their suffering and bad governance. Finally, constructivists might argue that Russia acted according to its identity so that it maintains its position as a great power among others (Keohane, 2020). Thus, IR scholars can use these ideologies to attempt to explain Russia’s move.

The interplay of several factors in determining occurrences can justify the applicability of multiple theories to explain phenomena. For example, the principles that guide liberal, realistic, and constructivist theories can all explain US foreign policy in other nations, more specifically in the Middle East. Realism assumes that states are unitary rational actors that pursue their interests and intend to maximize their power (Griffiths, 2021). Therefore, some scholars might suggest that US ventures in the region are aimed at reinforcing its military capacity and enhancing its powers overseas to ensure its security. On the other hand, liberalists will argue that the US strives to establish a democratic environment in the Middle East and positive economic developments. Constructivists would propose that US engagement in the area is unavoidable due to factors such as globalization, more efficient transport, international businesses, and increased social interactions (Doyle, 2018). Hence, different theoretical approaches apply to similar situations depending on the potential and expected outcomes.

In addition, the anarchist nature of global states necessitates the adoption of various approaches to ensure security and sustain sovereignty. Nations worldwide establish rules and regulations to govern their people and determine the government’s responsibilities. However, there are no laws to dictate state interactions, meaning that nations must work within themselves to ensure their stability and continuous growth (Mingst et al., 2018). Hence a realist perspective on international relations is reasonable in circumstances where other powerful countries threaten one’s sovereignty. Similarly, globalization, the spread of information, and the continuous interactions of individuals support adopting both liberalist and constructivist approaches in associating with other nations because sharing interests and collaborating prevents individuals from focusing on indifferences (Keohane, 2020). Most scholars adopt these theories to explain the extended periods of peace experienced between nations that depend on each other in various areas including trade, economic developments, infrastructural developments, and championing democracy. Hence, different IR theories can be applied in different scenarios and be used to explain various phenomena depending on their attributes and expected results.

The US Constitution gives federal and state governments the power to preside over their jurisdictions and oversee that everyone acts according to its stipulations. However, the US government structure adopts both a realist and liberal theory of human behavior because some of its policies are aimed at power sharing and balancing power, while some decisions, particularly those involving the military and warfare are inclined toward securing the nation’s interests (Ashworth & Swatuk, 2019). Federalism is a governance system guided by liberal concepts because it prioritizes the well-being of citizens. The more perfect union of 1787 is infused with a liberal spirit as it advocates for justice, domestic tranquility, general welfare, liberty, defense, and posterity (Doyle, 2018). As a result, the US governance system pays attention to everyone’s well-being. Moreover, the governance structure allows individuals to leverage the powers of the state against the federal government and vice versa. Hence, the system facilitates adherence to human rights issues by championing equality and enables decision-makers to acknowledge the implications of their actions on the general population and oversee social and economic advancement.

Nevertheless, the structure of the US government also creates room for realistic approaches to dealing with issues, especially in the case of national security and warfare. For example, the 1973 War Powers Resolution law was established to check the president’s ability to deploy military forces overseas. The legislation proposes that the US Congress must consent to the decision before it is made official. Therefore, the statute gives the US government the power to retaliate using force and its military resources against any nation that harms its citizens or allies (Hayes, 2018). Particularly, adhering to the concepts of realism in some instances is critical and beneficial to nations because of the anarchy state of the global political environment. The US government and the constitution acknowledge that sometimes it might be necessary to use force against external threats due to indifferences. Thus, their inclinations toward realism when it comes to critical issues assure their safety by obligating other nations to respect their wishes.

According to a biblical perspective, different theoretical concepts should be applied to govern international relations and establish a peaceful environment. For instance, the word of God warns his people against war because it facilitates human suffering and strife. However, it takes a realist stance in Ecclesiastes 3:8 as the verse suggests that there is a time to love, hate, go to war, and strive for peace. In addition, Exodus 15:3 proclaims that the Lord is a man of war. Thus, these verses explain that sometimes conflicts are necessary to protect specific values (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Similarly, the Bible urges individuals to refrain from war because God is against these vices. Proverbs 6:17-18 proclaims that God hates hands that shed the blood of innocent people, a heart that plans evil, and feet that run towards wickedness. Therefore, the Bible upholds peaceful approaches to international relations as supported by liberal views but condones realistic ideologies of using force and military power to oversee the greater good. Similarly, it is reasonable to adopt strategies and theoretical concepts that promise the best outcomes.

Policy-makers and decision-makers consider several factors before they decide to embark on particular initiatives. As a result, their decisions are guided by several factors, most of which constitute theoretical concepts addressing causation and the potential results of initiatives. Thus, international relations theories offer a framework to enable individuals in authoritative positions to make better decisions by evaluating associated factors and their effects on results. Hence, theories guide policy development but do not offer definite laws. That being said, it is common for individuals to go against their beliefs and the theoretical principles that guide their positions. The United States has a reliable system of governance because it incorporates both idealist and realist approaches in decision-making as stipulated by the Constitution. Although the Bible supports peaceful co-existence, it proposes that there is a time for war. Therefore, different international theories can guide interactions between nations depending on involved factors and expected outcomes.

Ashworth, L. M., & Swatuk, L. A. (2019). Masculinity and the Fear of Emasculation in international

relations theory. In M. Zalewski & J. L. Parpart (Eds.), The “man” question in international relations (pp. 73-92). Routledge.

Doyle, M. W. (2018). New thinking in international relations theory . Routledge.

English Standard Version Bible . (2001). ESV Online. Web.

Griffiths, M. (2021). Realism, idealism, and international politics: A reinterpretation . Routledge.

Hayes, M. T. (2018). Congress and War Powers: Symbolism and nondecisions in the struggle for influence . In Congress & the Presidency 45 (2), 185-207. Routledge. Web.

Hurley, L. (2020). U.S. Supreme Court throws out challenge to Trump Census Immigrant Plan . Reuters. Web.

Keohane, R. O. (2020). International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory . Routledge

Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2018). Essentials of international relations . WW Norton & Company.

Walt, S. M. (1998). International relations: One world, many theories . Foreign Policy , 29-46. Web.

• The UAE National Security: Impact of Growing US-China and US-Russia Tensions
• Saudi Decision to Support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan
• The Realpolitik Nature of the Chinese Initiative
• Realist and Liberal Theories of International Relations
• Constructivist Critique of Realist Theories
• The United Nations Security Council's Challenges
• Public Health Amidst Porous Boarders
• The United States as a Hegemonic Country
• Discussion of State Security Enforcement
• Formulating a Future Foreign Policy for the US
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 30). International Relations: Theory, Policy, and Governance. https://ivypanda.com/essays/international-relations-theory-policy-and-governance/

"International Relations: Theory, Policy, and Governance." IvyPanda , 30 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/international-relations-theory-policy-and-governance/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'International Relations: Theory, Policy, and Governance'. 30 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "International Relations: Theory, Policy, and Governance." March 30, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/international-relations-theory-policy-and-governance/.

1. IvyPanda . "International Relations: Theory, Policy, and Governance." March 30, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/international-relations-theory-policy-and-governance/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "International Relations: Theory, Policy, and Governance." March 30, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/international-relations-theory-policy-and-governance/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment