These days, traditional international relations,
or IR theory, doesn't seem to offer much to students,
scholars, or analysts trying to make sense of
what's actually happening in the world. The events
of the past ten years, along with the current
state of global affairs, have pushed way beyond
the old school framework that once explained
how nations interact. Sure, political leaders
still lean on bits and pieces of traditional
IR when they talk about national or global security.
But the actions that follow often look very different.
Instead of staying true to those older theories,
today's policies tend to focus on expanding power
and influence, whether through economic pressure,
corporate reach, or military strength. This episode
takes a closer look at how traditional IR theory
struggles to keep up with the world we're living
in now. and it uses real -world examples to show
just how far the gap has grown between old ideas
and modern -day strategies. Welcome back to Diplomacy
and Discourse channel. I'm your host AR, and
today we're diving deep into the evolving world
of international relations in episode 14. As
global conflicts shift, alliances like NATO expand,
and humanitarian crises become more complex,
we have to ask, Are the traditional theories
of IR, like realism and liberalism, still helping
us understand the world? Or are we in need of
a new framework altogether? From Machiavelli's
cunning to COVID -19's chaos, this episode explores
how historic theories are being tested in real
time, and how new paradigms like constructivism,
critical theory, and post -colonialism are pushing
the boundaries of how we think about diplomacy,
sovereignty, and power. Let's break it all down,
past, present, and what lies ahead. Even though
the major conflicts of the 20th century helped
shape our understanding of international relations
and global institutions, the past few years have
introduced challenges that those older frameworks
just aren't built to handle. The world has changed
fast. and with it, the way we view and use IR
theory. Today, big corporations and military
powers seem more focused on using force and securing
strategic advantages than on engaging with traditional
academic theories. As a result, many students,
scholars, and analysts find that the classic
ideas of IR no longer offer clear answers to
today's complex global problems. From shifting
alliances to the breakdown of long -standing
treaties, recent events have exposed how outdated
some of our core assumptions about global politics
really are. Now we're going to dive into that
mismatch, showing how traditional IR theory often
falls short when applied to modern realities,
and using real -world examples to highlight just
how much the field needs to evolve. This raises
some big questions within academic circles. Are
traditional IR theories still useful when the
behavior of states and even the conflicts between
close allies seem to completely ignore the foundations
and institutions that once anchored international
affairs? What are we actually teaching our students?
What kind of sources and references are we relying
on to support these theories? And how do we even
evaluate them? Are we judging their value based
on academic tradition? Or are we using real -world
analysis that reflects today's realities? These
questions point to a deeper issue, whether the
discipline is adapting fast enough to keep up
with a world that's clearly moving on. IR theory
gives us the foundation to understand how the
world works. They help us get into the minds
of nations and their leaders, offering a range
of perspectives that make sense of global events,
political decisions, and diplomatic moves. These
theories don't just explain things. They also
spark important questions and debates about both
current issues and moments from the past. For
many students and scholars, what draws them in
is the chance to dig into real -world case studies.
The big, often messy, global events that first
sparked their interest in international relations.
IR theory helps make sense of those events, acting
as both a guide and a launch pad for deeper exploration.
In his influential work, Towards a Global International
Relations, Amitav Akayra, 2017, argues that the
field of international relations is gaining prominence
on a global scale. He highlights how IR classrooms
in Western academic institutions are increasingly
filled with students from diverse cultures and
regional backgrounds. While this diversity brings
a range of valuable perspectives, it can also
create gaps in understanding. According to Akira,
students often carry worldviews shaped by their
native, local, or continental experiences, which
may not always align with or fully capture the
complexities of global events and conflicts.
As a result, their interpretations can sometimes
fall short in explaining international dynamics
with the nuance those issues demand. One of the
foundational pillars of international relations
theory is realism. At its core, realism focuses
on competition, conflict, and the constant struggle
for power. It sees the world as a place where
disputes and rivalries are not just possible,
but inevitable. Realist thinkers often turn to
history for their case studies, believing that
the patterns of the past will repeat themselves.
Because human nature doesn't really change. In
this view, ego tends to outweigh altruism, and
mistrust between states is the default. War rather
than peace is seen as the norm. To underscore
this perspective, realists often point out that
in the last 3 ,000 years of recorded history,
only about 300 years have been free of war between
nations, a sobering statistic that reflects their
belief in the perspective of conflict as a defining
feature of international relations. Niccolo Machiavelli
strongly aligned with this realist perspective,
arguing that human nature often undermines safety,
stability, and even the survival of the state.
During the 15th and early 16th centuries, leaders
of city -states, often powerful patriarchs, played
a dominant role in shaping political affairs.
In his famous work, The Prince, 1532, Machiavelli
laid out his vision of leadership rooted in pragmatism
and power. He argued that a ruler's top priority
should be the security of the state, even if
it meant resorting to manipulation, force, or
deception. For Machiavelli, the ends justified
the means. He championed a kind of personal responsibility
that prioritized political survival and strategic
gain over moral or societal norms. In essence,
leaders should be willing to do whatever it takes.
even if it's ruthless or morally questionable,
to achieve and protect their goals. Now let's
shift to liberalism, one of the most dominant
and widely discussed schools of thought in modern
international relations. You'll often hear the
term liberal democracy tossed around in political
debates, academic discussions, and media analysis.
It's a relatively modern concept. shaped largely
by the events of the 20th century and rooted
in the idea of promoting democratic governance,
free and fair elections, individual rights, rule
of law, and constitutional order. In many ways,
liberalism stands in direct contrast to realism.
While realism sees conflict and power struggles
as inevitable, liberalism offers a more hopeful,
even idealistic, view of world politics. It assumes
that cooperation, mutual respect, and the protection
of civil liberties can overcome humanity's darker
instincts, like the hunger for dominance, territorial
expansion, and war. The third major theory in
international relations is constructivism. which
gained momentum in the early 1990s, especially
after the limitations of realism and liberalism
became more apparent. While those earlier theories
emphasized power struggles, self -interest, and
institutional imbalances, constructivism took
a different path. It emerged in response to transformative
global events like the end of the Cold War, the
fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of
communism. None of which were sparked by formal
state initiatives. Instead, these changes were
driven by people, ordinary citizens who rejected
authoritarian regimes and demanded something
new. As Nicholas Onuf explains in World of Our
Making, 2012, constructivism sees the world as
shaped by society itself, not just by governments,
elites, or international bodies. According to
this view, It's people, whether they're heads
of state, activists, or everyday citizens, who
influence policies, inspire change, and reshape
the course of international relations. Another
important perspective in international relations
is critical theory. As the name implies, this
approach challenges the core ideas behind modern
systems of governance, economics, taxation, and
trade. arguing that many of these structures
actually contribute to the oppression and control
of everyday people. At its heart, critical theory
seeks to expose these power imbalances and offer
a path toward emancipation, civil liberties,
and true freedom. Though widely applied today,
its roots go back centuries to the ideas of philosophers
like Karl Marx and Immanuel Kant. Both thinkers
were central to the Enlightenment. promoting
the concept of universalism, an early form of
what we might now call globalism. This vision
imagines a world of shared ideas, peaceful cooperation,
and inclusive governance, where diverse societies
can coexist and thrive together under common
principles of justice and equality. While idealistic,
critical theory provides a powerful lens through
which to question existing systems, and imagine
a more just global order. Post -colonial theory
is another key approach in international relations,
emerging in the 20th century as the great empires
of the world began to fall apart. The collapse
of colonial rule, accelerated by two world wars
and growing national resistance, left behind
a global landscape shaped by the aftermath of
empire. In this new reality, powerful nations,
especially the United States, stepped into leadership
roles, often reshaping international systems
to reflect their own interests and values. Postcolonial
theory challenges this shift by analyzing global
events through the eyes of formerly colonized
and less powerful states. It focuses on the long
-term effects of imperialism, raising critical
questions about sovereignty, national identity,
the abuse of human rights, and the marginalization
of certain nations in global politics. At its
core, post -colonial theory urges scholars and
policymakers to reconsider whose voices are being
heard and whose are being silenced in the story
of international relations. In the 21st century,
international relations theory has continued
to evolve. sometimes in ways that make the older,
classical theories feel outdated or disconnected
from today's global challenges. Postmodern and
cosmopolitan approaches have gained traction,
often promoting idealistic visions of global
peace, equality, and universal freedom. These
theories don't just analyze states. They champion
a world where every individual, regardless of
nationality or background, has a voice. and a
place. As Alex Dietzow explains in Global Justice
and Climate Governance, Bridging Theory and Practice,
2019, this perspective is rooted in cosmopolitanism,
which shifts the focus from the power of the
state to the moral responsibilities of the individual.
In this view, human dignity and ethics take center
stage, pushing for a more inclusive and just
global society where traditional boundaries whether
cultural, political, or geographic, hold less
sway over how justice is understood and pursued.
This theory envisions a form of global social
justice that applies to all people, regardless
of their nationality, citizenship, or social
status, aiming to create a truly universal and
inclusive international order. World War I marked
a turning point in human history, not only as
the deadliest conflict the world has seen up
to that point, but also as the catalyst for a
new vision of global cooperation. In the wake
of unimaginable destruction, there was a shared
desire among world leaders to prevent such devastation
from ever happening again. U .S. President Woodrow
Wilson introduced his famous 14 points. a blueprint
for peace that emphasized diplomacy, self -determination,
and collective security. One of the most influential
outcomes of this vision was the creation of the
League of Nations, a precursor to what would
later become the United Nations, designed to
promote dialogue among nations and maintain international
peace. Following the even more catastrophic Second
World War, the international community took more
definitive steps towards institutionalizing peace
and cooperation. The founding of the United Nations,
the drafting of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the creation of the International
Court of Justice, and the establishment of major
alliances like NATO and the European Union reflected
a shared commitment to multilateralism. The post
-war era saw a surge in global governance mechanisms.
international law agreements, and cooperative
frameworks like the Council of Europe. Yet, despite
these promising developments, conflict did not
vanish. Instead, the world quickly entered the
tense standoff of the Cold War, a period that
deeply influenced the field of international
relations, reinforcing realist theories that
emphasized power politics, security dilemmas,
and state interests, over idealistic cooperation.
The United Nations was envisioned as a global
forum where nations could come together to confront
common challenges, regardless of their differences,
and work collaboratively towards shared solutions.
NATO, on the other hand, was established to protect
the freedom and security of its members through
a combination of political dialogue, military
readiness, and democratic values. However, the
end of the Cold War brought unexpected challenges
and opportunities. International institutions
found themselves navigating a rapidly shifting
geopolitical landscape. Powerful states, in particular,
adapted quickly to this new reality, pursuing
strategic objectives that included expanding
their influence, reshaping foreign societies,
and asserting dominance through both hard and
soft power. This era gave rise to new economic
initiatives, as well as global partnerships and
competitive diplomacy that continue to shape
international relations today. As the 20th century
came to a close and the 21st began, a new set
of challenges emerged on the global stage, reshaping
the priorities of both nation -states and international
institutions. However, these two forces often
found themselves at odds, particularly given
the influence of the permanent five members of
the U .N. Security Council. Crises like the Rwandan
genocide, the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and
later the COVID -19 pandemic exposed major flaws
in the effectiveness of global institutions.
These events revealed a hard truth. Despite decades
of international cooperation, and a theoretical
framework of IR, states still act according to
their own interests, and those national agendas
often override international commitments. Scholars
like Peter Kratenstein, Robert Kehonen, and Stephen
Krasner argue that such dynamics reflect deeper
patterns of strategic behavior in their 1999
work, International Organization and the Study
of World Politics. They emphasized how agenda
setting, uncertainty, and strategic manipulation
continue to shape global politics, even within
liberal institutional frameworks. In recent years,
we've seen growing confusion and division surrounding
the relevance and application of international
relations theories, particularly when it comes
to controversial global events. One notable example
was the 1999 Kosovo crisis, which coincided with
NATO's 50th anniversary. Instead of presenting
a moment of unity, the crisis exposed deep fractures
within the Alliance. On March 23, 1999, NATO
launched an air campaign against Belgrade, aiming
to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovo -Albanian
population. While many justified the intervention
as a moral and humanitarian act, the operation
sparked intense debate among member states and
international observers, especially due to the
lack of a formal UN Security Council resolution
authorizing the use of force. As J .J. Holst
noted in Keeping a Fractured Peace, 1994, such
interventions highlight the ongoing tension between
the principles of sovereignty, and the right
to intervene. Supporters of the NATO action maintained
it was a necessary and humane response to atrocities.
However, critics like Adam Roberts, in his 1999
article, NATO's humanitarian war over Kosovo,
argued that without proper UN approval, the operation
challenged international legal norms, raising
questions about the legitimacy of so -called
humanitarian wars. When it comes to the ongoing
integration of aspiring countries into NATO,
several key factors must be taken into account.
Most notably security, democratic governance,
political stability, and adherence to the rule
of law. As a geopolitical alliance, NATO is not
just a military pact. It's also rooted in the
promotion of democratic values. Upholding these
principles is essential. not only for the internal
stability of new member states, but also for
the broader security of the region and the international
community. Failing to do so can open the door
to a host of challenges, including political
instability, organized crime, corruption, and
trafficking, all of which can undermine collective
security. These concerns continue to spark debates
and reveal the limitations of traditional IR
theories. which often struggle to address the
complex interplay between normative values and
strategic interests in today's international
landscape. NATO member states must be seen as
strategic assets, not liabilities. Membership
should not simply serve as an extension of a
modern -day containment policy reminiscent of
George F. Kennan's Cold War doctrine. now repurposed
for today's greater power rivalries or the ongoing
war in Ukraine. Rather, NATO allies must embody
strength, stability, and democratic integrity.
They need to be vigilant, resilient, and fully
prepared to face evolving global threats, including
unconventional ones like pandemics. The COVID
-19 crisis served as a wake -up call revealing
that security is no longer confined to traditional
military threats, but extends to public health,
cyber defense, and social cohesion. The pandemic
exposed significant cracks in the foundation
of international cooperation. Collective security
institutions, including NATO, struggled to respond
effectively. Instead of rallying around a unified
strategy, Member states turned inward, prioritizing
national interests over collective responsibility.
Terms like sovereignty, citizenship, and my country,
my people dominated political discourse, sidelining
the ideals of European solidarity and global
cooperation. This shift weakened trust and undercut
the vision of a shared, interconnected security
community. one that transcends borders in moments
of global crisis. These challenges must be addressed
head -on. NATO's role now includes confronting
new global threats while reinforcing its democratic
foundations. The Alliance must be deliberate
and strategic in admitting new members, focusing
on states that are politically stable, democratically
robust, and ready to contribute meaningfully
to collective security. As NATO Secretary -General
Jan Stoltenberg emphasized during the Munich
Security Conference on February 18, 2022, quote,
standing together in NATO, we will continue to
keep the peace and protect our democratic way
of life, as we have done for more than 70 years,
end quote. His words echoed the urgency of maintaining
unity through shared democratic values. These
developments also force us to revisit foundational
questions in the study of international relations.
How should we evaluate the theories we teach?
What academic sources still hold explanatory
power? And should our assessments be grounded
in theoretical tradition or in real -world analytical
relevance? As we've explored today, The international
stage is more fragmented and unpredictable than
ever. And yet the desire for cooperation, peace,
and shared values remains strong. Theories of
international relations aren't just academic
concepts. They are lens through which we interpret
war, peace, and the decisions shaping our future.
From Kosovo to COVID, from realism to cosmopolitanism,
the question remains. What should we teach? How
do we assess? And what kind of world are we preparing
the next generation to inherit? Thank you for
tuning in to Diplomacy and Discourse. Don't forget
to subscribe, leave a comment, and share your
thoughts. You can always reach us at diplomacyanddiscourse
at gmail .com. Until next time, keep questioning,
keep learning, and keep engaging.