Nation States Descriptions Are States Still Relevant?

Nation States

Descriptions

Are states still relevant?

Realist, cooperative, liberal and critical theories of international relations

The realist theory of international politics views states as 'black box' actors. The possibly competing interests of citizens and bureaucrats within the state are ignored. Realism holds that "at its most fundamental level, the national interest is generic and easy to define: all states seek to preserve their political autonomy and their territorial integrity. Once these two interests have been secured, however, national interests may take different forms. Some states may have an interest in securing more resources or land; other states may wish to expand their own political or economic systems into other areas; some states may merely wish to be left alone" (Ferraro 2011). Another synonym for realism is 'rationalism.' States are assumed to be able to rationally pursue their own interests in the international community.

Of course, realists understand that the world does not always behave according to rational notions of behavior. Rather, realists contend that given the multiplicity of influences upon state behavior, focusing upon self-interest is the only really viable way to predict or understand how states act in a meaningful fashion. Only by studying externally observed facts can conclusions be reached, the rest is surmise. However, critics contend that the virtue of the philosophy is also its deficit: it is overly simplistic in explaining state behavior, and the influence of non-states upon the international community. It also tends to over-emphasize the virtues of having states as the main international 'unit' of interaction. Because of the demand for observable behavior as a mode of realist analysis, its theorists focus on formally-recognized states.

Without states, realists believe the world is an anarchical environment. "All states have to rely upon their own resources to secure their interests, enforce whatever agreements they may have entered into with other states, or to maintain a desirable domestic and international order. There is no authority over the nation-state, nor, for the realist, should there be" (Ferraro 2011). According to realists, although irrationality may exist in the world, they "seek to paint a picture of foreign policy which presents the rational essence to be found in experience, without the contingent deviations from rationality which are also found in experience" (Morgenthau 2011). The world must be examined by state units, without 'contingent' irrational forces.

Realist philosophies can, in general, be divided into two camps -- realist and neorealist. Classical realists believed that because of the inherent aggressiveness of states, and their 'rational' search to be the most powerful entity on the map, it was best to have a balance of power amongst competing state units. Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau looked with nostalgia back on pre-World War I Europe, where power was 'balanced' between united state actors. In contrast, neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz believed that because weaker states, in the anarchic state system, tended to tie themselves to stronger states, as during the Cold War, this idea of multipolarity was effectively a fiction, and bipolarity was both more stable and inevitable (Walt 1998).

In contrast, cooperative or constructivist political theory views cooperation between state actors as possible, if mutual interests can be fostered. These theorists state that "economic interdependence would discourage states from using force against each other because warfare would threaten each side's prosperity" (Walt 1998). A good example of this philosophy can be seen in Thomas Friedman's idea that 'the world is flat,' or that the sharing of information and global interdependence creates enough common ground to encourage states to put old rivalries to the side. Cooperative theories stress the ability of international agencies to facilitate collaboration. The "theory argued that international institutions such as the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund could help overcome selfish state behavior, mainly by encouraging states to forego immediate gains for the greater benefits of enduring cooperation" (Walt 1998). Another form of cooperative theory is institutionalism, or the idea that institutions, such as the European Community, or the United Nations, can effectively cease the anarchic, perpetual state of conflict that realist philosophers believe is inevitable in international relations. "To take one example, the United Nations Charter is an Institutionalist response to the fact of state power...Norms of sovereign identity and equality seek to create a fictional world in which power is equalized; prohibitions on the use of force seek to shape reality to approximate this fiction" (Slaughter 1995: 726-727).

Liberal theories of international relations similarly take an optimistic view of the progress that is possible if members of the world community work together. Liberalism has been associated with the fostering of democracy as a universal value, rather than upon focusing on stability between state actors like realists. Woodrow Wilson, and his attempt to create the League of Nations at the end of World War I is often said to embody this philosophy. Because of its associations with Wilson, liberalism has come under attack in recent years for its assumption that there is a universal 'good' system of government for all state actors. Liberalism focuses much more on the needs and interests of actors within the state, effectively denying the 'black box' rationalist assumption. "Where Realists assume 'autonomous' national decision-makers, Liberals examine the 'nature of domestic representation . . . [as] the decisive link between societal demands and state policy.' Where Realists model patterns of strategic interaction based on fixed state preferences, Liberals seek first to establish the nature and strength of those preferences as a function of the interests and purposes of domestic and transnational actors" (Slaughter 1995: 729). The focus of the international system, according to liberals, is to serve individual and group interests, not state interests. Rather than viewing nation-states as inherently antagonists, all human beings are seen as possessing certain common interests, such as a desire for peace.