Course info

Summary of the course 
International Relations emerged as a distinct academic discipline in the early twentieth century as scholars sought systematic explanations for war, peace, and global order. Over time, IR developed competing frameworks, the first of which is the levels of analysis debate—individual, state, and international levels—each offering a different explanation for why states act the way they do. The individual level stresses leadership psychology and human behaviour, the state level focuses on domestic politics and regime characteristics, while the systemic level highlights anarchy, power distribution, and structural constraints. As globalisation intensified, IR expanded beyond state-centric concerns to incorporate non-state actors, transnational forces, and global challenges, making the discipline increasingly interdisciplinary in scope.
Rationalist theories dominate the second unit, beginning with Realism, which views world politics as a struggle for power under conditions of anarchy. Classical realism attributes this to human nature, while structural (neorealist) approaches explain conflict through the distribution of power in the international system. Neoclassical realism combines systemic pressures with domestic factors, whereas subaltern realism—based on Global South experiences—highlights internal insecurity, state-building challenges, and postcolonial contexts. In contrast, Liberalism presents a more optimistic understanding of international relations. Democratic Peace Theory argues that democracies are unlikely to fight each other, while Capitalist Peace and Institutional Peace emphasise economic openness and institutions as pathways to stability. The idea of Complex Interdependence further challenges realist assumptions by proposing that multiple channels of interaction and economic ties can reduce the utility of military force and reshape global politics.
The third unit introduces reflectivist and critical approaches that rethink the very foundations of IR. Social Constructivism argues that international politics is shaped by ideas, norms, and identities rather than only material power. Alexander Wendt’s claim that “anarchy is what states make of it” illustrates how shared meanings can transform the behaviour of states. The English School takes a historico-sociological approach by proposing that states form not only an international system but also an international society governed by norms, diplomacy, and shared institutions. Marxist theories of IR shift the focus to global capitalism and structural inequality. Dependency theory and world-systems theory explain how the Global South remains locked in exploitative economic relations, while Gramsci’s concept of hegemony highlights the ideological and cultural dimensions through which dominant powers maintain global leadership.
The final unit explores alternative perspectives that challenge mainstream IR theories. Feminist approaches, influenced by scholars such as Ann Tickner and Cynthia Enloe, reveal how traditional IR overlooks gendered power structures and the everyday experiences of women. By bringing attention to issues like militarisation, care work, and the politics of representation, feminist theory broadens our understanding of security and power. Critical Theory, shaped by thinkers like Andrew Linklater, critiques existing global structures and imagines more inclusive, emancipatory forms of political community. Normative IR theory, represented by scholars such as Molly Cochran, emphasises the ethical dimensions of international politics and interrogates the moral responsibilities of states and institutions. Collectively, these approaches inform ongoing debates on the future of IR theory, where the discipline increasingly confronts pluralism, fragmentation, and the need to address new global challenges such as technological disruption, environmental crises, and shifting power dynamics.