For the better part of the past half-century the two most prominent theoretical approaches to the study of international relations have been realism and liberalism. Realism, viewing the state as a unitary and rational actor, argues that states pursue their own interests in an anarchic international environment. The ability to accomplish their goals, however, is curbed by the fact that other states are similarly engaged in the pursuit of their own interests. Ultimately realists view the potential struggles generated over conflicting interests to be determined by the distribution of power in the international system. Generally speaking, "stronger" states will prevail while weaker states do not (Morgenthau 1948, Waltz 1979).
Alternatively, liberal scholars tend to disagree with the realist assumptions that the state is a unitary and rational actor, instead proposing that we can improve our understanding of state behavior by examining the interests of domestic political actors, looking at the incentives and constraints established by the domestic political institutions within the state, focusing on legal and moral aspects of international behavior, etc. Whereas realist arguments view the state as having one national interest, liberal views may interpret the so-called "national interest" as simply the reflection of the dominant political coalition in the state, or as the end result of values and norms associated with domestic political institutions and structures (Trubowitz 1998, Russett and Oneal 2001).
While the debate has cooled somewhat in recent years, Ferrell and Robinson (2009) have offered a rather unique take on the issue.
Keep reading for more…
Michael Flynn is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Kansas State University. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Binghamton University in 2013. His research focuses on the political economy of foreign policy with a specific focus on security cooperation and military deployments.
