International relations is far behind other social sciences in the development of theories. It is quite natural as this discipline is of recent origin. Notwithstanding this limitation, some remarkable developments have already taken place in the sphere of theory of international politics building. The works of William Fox, Stanley Hoffmann, Klaus Knorr, Sydney Verba, Horace Harrison, James Rosenau, Morton Kaplan, J.W. Burton, Hans J. Morgenthau, J. David Singer etc., have endeavored to develop a theoretical perspective of this discipline. Efforts to propound a general theory of international relations are inspired by a number of factors.
First of all, they are impressed and encouraged by the achievement of the natural sciences in precision and predictability A theory is very useful in bringing about an order in a mass of data. It may work as a guide to action in international life. It is a crucial tool for understanding that gives meaning to mass of phenomena. It would make international relations a real policy science that would be of great help to statesmen and decision makers. It is also useful for further creative research. Thus, the significance of theoretical speculation and perspective in international relations cannot be ignored.
Meaning of Approach and Theory of International Politics:
The word theory itself is full of ambiguity and confusion. The word theory derives from the Greek which mean to look at. It is often used as a synonym for a though conjecture or idea. Some people mean by theory an interpretation or a point of view, whereas others would view it as the consummation of explanation. However, mostly people agree that the chief function of theory is explanation. But the problem especially in international politics is that there is no clear agreement on the question as to what should be explained and what can be explained For scholars never agree on the nature or scope theory of international politics.
For example, some authors identify international relations as the interaction of foreign policies. Thus their criterion of collecting data for study would be determined by this consideration. This is a matter of approach. But when this approach is employed in the study of foreign policy, a kind of a theory emerges as an explanation of foreign policy as it is made and executed in each country. A theory coming out of this way may be known merely as a theory of foreign policy and, therefore, only a partial theory of international relations by an outsider But one who views international politics as the interaction of foreign policies would regard this theory of foreign policy as a theory of international politics. In this way, the nature of the theory is determined by the approach and the two are not easily separable. Because any theory of international relations is largely in accordance with the particular view about international politics and that is essentially a matter of approach.
The terms approach and theory represent two different steps in the study of international politics, the former can be understood only in the context of the latter. For although scholars give their theories clearly, their approach can be known by a critical analysis of their theories. If there is a difference in theories it is owing to the divergence of approach behind those theories But for a scholar or researcher approach comes first and theory is the outcome of the study undertaken with a particular approach or viewpoint.
Definitions of Theory of International Relations:
Both traditional and modern behavioral scholars have given their definitions of theory of international relations. Stanley Hoffmann, a scholar of the former school, has defined contemporary theory of international relations as a systematic study of observable phenomena that tries to discover the principal variables, to explain behavior, and to reveal the characteristic types of relations among national units. But Hoffmann points out that within the general limits of the scope of international relations theory one should also incorporate the works of normative thinkers and of policy scientists.
The former scholars with a philosophical orientation deal mainly with the evaluation of political reality and with the generation of prescriptions or remedies leading toward a better political life. The latter in the style of engineers attempt to go beyond description and explanation and endeavor to make policy (applied theory) which will serve the interest of a given political entity.
J. David Singer, a scientifically oriented scholar, has given a brief definition. Theory is a body of internally consistent empirical generalizations of descriptive, predictive, and explanatory power. For Singer, these generalizations should best be expressed in the form of hypotheses and propositions that are testable, verifiable, falsifiable and quantifiable. The traditional and behavioral definitions encroach upon each other. Both agree that the generalizations must be empirically derived, logically sound, and have the capability to describe, explain and predict. It may be noted, however, that Singer denies a theoretical role to prescription. He argues that normative or prescriptive thinkers and policy scientists may well benefit from scientific theory, but that their prescriptive maxims are not part of theory.
Categories of Approaches and Theories:
In international relations a number of approaches and theories have been developed in the twentieth century. The same can be grouped under three broad categories as under:
The Traditional School
The traditional or classical approach is based primarily on philosophy, history, ethics and law. It holds that general propositions cannot be accorded more than tentative and inconclusive status. Most of the traditionalists believe that international relations is the study of patterns of action and reaction among sovereign states as represented by their governing elites.It focused attention on the activities of the diplomats and soldiers who carry out the foreign policies of their respective national governments. For this school, international relations is nothing but diplomacy and strategy and cooperation and conflict. In simple words it is the study of peace and war.
It is assumed by the traditionalists that a number of factors or variables affect the behavior of diplomats and soldiers as executors of state policy. These variables are: The climate conditions, geographic location, and population density, literacy rates, historical and cultural traditions, economic conditions and commercial interests, religious and ideological maxims of a given nation state as well as the capricious quirks of national leaders and their supportive elites. But an effort to find the reasons behind the actions of a given government to a hierarchical order among these variables is a futile activity at best, it can produce only subtle hypotheses. Therefore, the traditionalists regard the observed behavior of governments as most significant, which they explain in terms of concepts such as the balance of power the pursuit of national interest, the quest for world order, and the diplomacy of prudence.
Both idea list and realist theories come under this category. But the realist theories pre dominate in traditional school. The chief contributors to this school are Raymond Aron, Stanley Hoffmann, Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr and Arnold Wolfers. Representative of this school is the realistic theory propounded by Hans Morgenthau. The same will be subsequently discussed in detail.
In short, the traditionalists have presented some general propositions about international politics that serve to explain and, to a limited degree, predict the responses of foreign policy elites in crisis situations. Traditionalists generally regard international relations to be a sub field of political science and philosophy, but a sub field with characteristics that give it a separate status. Unlike political science which they believe is mainly the study of the governance of established theory of international politics communities, traditionalists regard international relations as the study of the nearly anarchic relations existent among sovereign political political entities. In this Way, whereas traditionalists view entities as the analysis of order in the distribution of political goods in relatively stabilized and advanced political systems, they treat international relations as the study of disorder in a nearly primitive and in egalitarian international system.
The Scientific or Behavioral School:
It is on the question of the identity of the discipline that the scientific or behavioral school of thought first denounced the traditionalists for the scientists generally consider international relations to be too broad and complex a field to be embraced by political science or any other single discipline. Most advocates of the scientific approach believe international relations to be an interdisciplinary field and to rely not only on political science and history, but also on other social and natural sciences. It should be clarified that both the traditionalist and the scientific schools are to some extent inter disciplinary. The distinction between the two , explain Couloumbis and Wolfe, lies primarily in the effort of the latter to overcome the alleged imprecision of the former by employing quantitative techniques and model building. According to the scientifically oriented scholars, international relations has reached a traditionalist plateau, and a new set of methodological tools must now be employed if the heights of theory are to be ascended
The traditionalist theories have been criticized by scientists on the ground that they were too vague and inclusive to furnish useful explanation of international political behavior, or too impressionistic and flexible to withstand the rigorous scientific test of verification. Scientific scholars believe in the empirical method, inductive reasoning, and comprehensive testing of hypotheses explicit rules that must always be confirmed by repeated observation and testing. Scientific scholars emphasized the need for operationalization of concepts by the precise measurement of variables. Operationalization is a process by which one uses detailed rules for definition and coding to turn relevant facts into data which is quantifiable and, therefore, measurable. This paves the way for other independent observers to repeat the observations and check their accuracy.
According to their criteria, scientists believe that time has not yet come to advance general theories of international relations. There are various variables that affect the behavior of the international system that it is not feasible to put them together scientifically. Therefore, most scientists concentrate on intermediate level projects that link and relate a few selected variables at a time. Step by step they expect to achieve a consistent set of partial or middle range theories that will stand the test of empirical verification.
Some scientific scholars have constructed conceptual frameworks and partial models of the international system. Others such as Deutschs, Kaplan and Rosenau, have given tentative hypotheses that provide sweeping analogues of political behavior in an international environment, but for the most part their colleagues. J. David Singer and Melvin Small and Ole Holst have concentrated on middle range or narrower, more tangible projects despite occasional criticism that they are indulging in insignificant studies.
So far , the scientific school has produced more promise than performance, to quote Singer, and more process analysis than substantive experimentation. Its main achievement is in the sphere of methodology. The application if the scientific method to international relations has brought to the field, say Coulombs and Wolfe not only concepts and sophisticated research tools from other social sciences, but also a body of pre theory that lends itself to testing and verification procedures. Although the scientists have thus far offered the political science community few fully substantiated theoretical propositions, the promise of their endeavors is worth a waiting, for its fulfillment will mean that theorists in international relations will be able to predict accurately and, by implication, to control the behavior of actors on the international scene.
Post Behavioral School:
The controversy between traditionalists and behaviorists waned in the 19705. In the 19805 both schools of thought have ceased putting arguments such as politics cannot be studied scientifically or that political science without quantification and value freedom is not very useful. The trend was towards eclectically oriented studies which was also known as post behavioral orientation. It combined elements of the scientific approach with clear value objectives such as the control of nuclear weapons, the substitution of peaceful methods for war for dispute settlement, the control of population,the protection of environment, the eradication of poverty, disease and human alienation and quest for just international economic order.
Professor Rummel’s study can be cited as a fine example of the latest post behavioral eclectic approach. In his study Rummel, a known follower of the behavioral scientific orientation, using well developed statistical methods to process his data, presented evidence confirming some of the earliest nineteenth century liberal theory hypotheses regarding the causes of war. Contrary to early behaviorists, Rummel stated in his article that he saw nothing incompatible between proposing normative or even ideologically oriented hypotheses provided they are subjected to scientific testing designed to verify or falsify these hypotheses.
The late seventies and eighties saw the emergence of at least two new schools of thought within the post behavioral approach involving scholars who have been challenging earlier paradigms of international relations. These two schools emphasized global dependency and interdependence respectively. The inter dependency school deals with world order. Both groups of scholars have questioned the studies of traditionalists as well as behaviorists as they concentrate only on nation states, their governments, their capabilities, and their interactions diplomacy, non military competition, and military conflict. In this way, they view the world in la state eccentric fashion and ignore non state actors and entities. They have oversimplified the complexity of the international situation and badly distorted reality. World order theorists have pointed out the increasing role of non state actors, such as multi national corporations, regional and global international organizations, and terrorist organizations and movements. Any analysis that ignores these new actors will be insufficient and incomplete.
Dependency theorists taking inspiration from Marxist premises argue that class is a much better unit of analysis than state that an understanding of the international political economy and the dependencies of the poor peripheries on the rich centers of economic power explains more clearly the global phenomena than has been in the past. In this way, both dependency and inter dependency world order theorists strive for the growth of a well organized world community regulating itself with effective global institutions that have the capacity to contain the power of national governments. In a way these schools are contemporary incarnations of the idealism. It will be pertinent to discuss in some detail major theories of international relations as follows
The devastating First World War in 1914 stimulated the quest for knowledge that could address contemporary world problems in general and war in particular. A theoretical perspective with sustainable generalizations about the conditions under which war might be avoided and peace maintained was urgently needed. For that purpose a theory was required that could foresee incoming wars reliably and that could suggest policymakers the ways to prevent their outbreak.
The diplomatic historical perspective prevailed in the years after the First World War. Marxist Leninist theory after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia also made a place for itself. But dominant theory between the two world wars in the Western Word was political idealism. Its main advocates were Condorcet, Woodrow Wilson, Butterflied and Bertrand Russell. According to idealist theory the society and state are the out come of evolution. This process of evolution is leading us towards the perfection from imperfection. At this stage peace and justice can be established in the society. Through the establishment of a family of nations, war, violence and immorality can be curbed.
Idealism emerged in the eighteenth century and is regarded as the major source of inspiration behind the American and French Revolutions. Condorcet’s work of 1795 had everything which is considered as the essential basis of idealism in international relations. He was for a world order sans war, Sans inequality and sans tyranny. The world of, this kind would be marked by constant progress in human welfare brought about by the use of reason, education and science. The theoretical premise of this is the result of the liberal out look of the Condorcet type Idealism envisions the future international society based on the idea of reformed international system free from power politics,immorality and violence. The idealist theory promises to bring about a better world with the help of morality, education and international organization. The idealists are of the opinion that political conflict in the past were not for power but between inconsistent principles and ideals. Idealists present different viewpoints about world politics.
Kegley, Jr. and Wittkopf observe: What transformed their movement into a cohesive paradigm among Western scholars were the assumptions about reality they shared and the homogeneity of the conclusions their perspective elicited According to them, idealists projected a world view usually resting upon the following axioms:
- (1). Human nature is essentially good and capable of altruism, mutual aid and collaboration
- (2). The fundamental instinct of humans for the welfare of others makes progress possible
- (3). Bad human behavior is the product not of evil people but of evil institutions and structural arrangements that create incentives for people to act selfishly and to harm others including making war
- (4). Wars represent the worst feature of the international system
- (5). War is not inevitable and can be eliminated by doing away with the institutional arrangements that encourage it
- (6). War is an international problem that requires global rather than national efforts to eliminate it and therefore
- (7). International society has to reorganize itself to eliminate the institutions that make war likely
To be clear, not all idealists subscribe to each of these tenets with equal emphasis. Many of them would probably disagree with some of them. Nevertheless, these tenets jointly explain the basic assumptions articulated in one way or another by the statesmen and theorists whose orientation toward world affairs captivated the discussion of world politics in the interwar period. This discussion embraced ideals like moralism, optimism and internationalism.
Suggestions for Reform:
The idealists offered the following remedies for solving international problems.
1 . Moral nations should act according to moral principles in their international behavior, eschew all kinds of traditional power politics, and follow policies of non partisanship. Behaving this way may gradually minimize the bad effects of power politics.
2. Attempts should be made to create supranational institutions to replace the competitive and war prone system of territorial states. Setting up of the League of Nations and an insistence on international cooperation in social matters as approaches to peace were symptomatic of idealists institutional solutions to the problem of war. Many idealists went further in suggesting that power politics could only be abolished by instituting a world government. Thus in the ultimate analysis this theory aspires for the ideal of world federation or one world.
3. The legal control of war was also suggested. It called for new transnational norms to check the initiation of war and, should it occur, its destructiveness. The Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928, which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy, represent the high point of legal approach. They also advocated more faithful adherence to international law.
4. Another way suggested by idealists was to eliminate weapons The attempts towards global disarmament and arms control (the Washington naval conference of the 19205, for example) were symbolic of this path to peace.
5. The efforts should be made to see that the totalitarian forces cease to exist, as the idealists believe that the struggles so far have been between democratic and totalitarian states. Totalitarianism is one of the main causes of war and it must be eliminated.
6. Some idealists saw the way to peace and welfare in the restructuring of the international monetary system and in the elimination of barriers of international trade. Still others saw in the principle of Self determination the possibility to red raw the world’s political map under the conviction that a world so arranged would be a peaceful world.
Idealist theory can be criticized on many counts. Most of the assumptions on which it is based are only partially correct. Though full of ideals and norms, yet it is far from reality. No wonder it is dubbed as imaginary, impracticable and thus utopian. Suggestions given by it to reform the international situation are difficult to be implemented. For example, at international level nations seldom bother to follow moral precepts nor do they strictly adhere to international law and treaties. Despite several serious attempts towards disarmament no spectacular achievement has been made in this field. It is impossible to eliminate totalitarianism altogether. World government or world federation is nowhere in sight. Kegley and Wittkopf rightly remarked “Much of the idealist program for reform was never tried, and even less of it was ever achieved.” Thus idealists have enriched the thoughts of man, their ideas command respect but the same cannot be realized or executed in international relations.
Criticism apart, the theory has its importance insofar as no science, at least no social science can exist without a normative aspect. It was also realized about international politics by writers like Reinhold Niebuhr, Herbert Butterflied and E.H Carr. The theory offers solutions to many international problems. If they cannot be followed the fault lies not in the theory but in nations and their leaders who are unable or constrained to put them into practice.
The realist approach unlike the idealist approach regards power politics as the be all and end all of international relations of all the approaches, the one that was widely debated by the students and scholars was the power or realist approach. The theory of realism is an old theory which was in existence even in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and revived after the Second World War. The credit of being the first noted realist of twentieth century is usually given to NJ. Spykman who sometime in late thirties insisted in his book, America’s Strategy in World Politics, that the “preservation and improvement of its power position in relation to other states” must be the primary objective of a state. The contribution of reviving the theory in a more coherent way after the Second World War goes to Hans J. Morgenthau. He is regarded as the most persuasive advocate of this theory in the post war era. Among the other principal prophets of this world view were E.H. Carr (1939) from the United Kingdom, and those writing in the United States including Morgenthau (1948), Kenneth W. Thompson (1958, 1960), Reinhold Niebuhr (1947), George . Kennan (1954 and 1967) and later Herny A. Kissinger (1957 and 1964). Scholars like Harold Lasswell, Quincy Wright, Martin Wight, George Schwarzenberger, Raymond .Aron, Stanley Hoffmann and Arnold Wolfers have either supported or critically analyzed this theory.
Meaning and Explanation:
In international relations realism does not mean either the Platonic doctrine which attributes reality to abstract ideas, or the political doctrine of expediency with which Machiavelli is so often associated or the philosophic doctrine of empiricism given by John Locke. Its meaning revolves around security and power factors. These notions are the outcome of individual’s belief that others are always trying to destroy him and hence he must be constantly ready to kill others in order to protect himself The realists assume that rivalry, strife and struggle for power continue among nations in some form or the other and it cannot be controlled by international law or government. Therefore, the main job of diplomacy and statesmanship is to check the contest for power and the means to be adopted for it is new balance of power. As struggle for power is a permanent phenomenon realism is indifferent to the question of relationship between means and ends in international politics.
The realist theory explains international politics in terms of the concept of interest defined in terms of power interest guides the statesman more than anything else and that it is useless to try and understand his actions in terms of his motives or his ideology. In fact, ideology is only a cloak for power politics. Statesmen think and act only in terms of national interest.
Realists put the moral significance of politics in a different way. To them, morality means weighing the consequences of political action. They do not believe in an ethics which lays down abstract universal principles and judge all actions by its conformity with such principles. Most realists express awareness of other standard of judgement, viz the moral or legal, but argue that both history and experience prove that it has paid only to follow the political standard, namely national interest, moderated by legal and moral considerations. Thus, they give first place to the political standard, that is, judging by the consequences of political action.
Tenets and Assumptions:
Kegley and Wittkopf sum up what many realists want to convey in the form of the following assumptions and tenets :
- (1). A reading of history teaches that humanity is by nature sinful and wicked
- (2). Of all of man’s evil ways, no sin is more prevalent or more dangerous than his instinctive lust for power, his desire to dominate his fellowmen
- (3). If this inexorable inevitable human characteristic is acknowledged, realism dismissal of the possibility of progress in the sense of ever hoping to eradicate the instinct for power
- (4). Under such conditions, international politics is a struggle for power, a war of all against all
- (5). The primary obligation of every state in this environment the goal to which all other national objectives should be subordinate is to promote the national self interest, defined in terms of the acquisition of power
- (6). national self interest is best served by doing anything necessary to ensure self preservation
- (7). the fundamental characteristic of international politics requires each state to trust no other, but above all never to entrust self protection to international organization or to international law
- (8). the national interest necessitates self promotion, especially through the acquisition of military capabilities sufficient to deter attack by potential enemies
- (9). the capacity for self defense might also be augmented by acquiring allies, provided they are not relied upon for protection, and
- (10). if all states search for power, peace and stability will result through the operation of a balance of power propelled by self interest and lubricated by fluid alliance systems.
Political realism seemed relevant in the world where suspicion of the motives of others was the rule and where prospects for peace were not bright. The development of super power rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union and its expansion at global level in the name of cold war between East and West blocs, the proliferation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, the seemingly continuous turmoil around the world all these symptoms testify the realist theory. To many, the opinion that, in a threatening international environment, foreign policy takes precedence over domestic problems and policies was also relevant. Thus in the post Second World War period the picture of the world depicted by the political realists obsessed the minds of many scholars.
Six Principles Of Morgenthau’s Realism:
Morgenthau in his famous book Politics Among Nations has developed Realist theory in the form of six principles of political realism. The same are explained in brief as under:
1. Objective Laws of Human Nature. Political realism believes that politics is governed by the objective laws that have their roots in human nature. The laws by which man moves in social world are eternal. He cannot get rid of those laws because they are eternal and permanent. Man is a mixture of good and bad, selfishness and altruism, loving and quarrelsome traits and possessive and sacrificial qualities. His is the story of struggle for survival Human nature has not changed and it explains constancy and repetitious nature of political conduct. The complexity of international politics can best be understood only with the help of these objective laws. If one desires to appraise the nature of foreign policy it can be done only when one examines the activities of the statesmen, who always act in a manner that safeguard their country’s interests.
2. Interest in terms of power, Concept of interest is defined in terms of power. National interests are the motivating force of a state’s activity in the sphere of international politics. The state meets these interests with the help of power. That is why every nation wants to acquire more and more power. In this way, international politics is a struggle for power. The theory of realism does not bother about what is desirable or immoral. It cares only for the national interests which are desirable under the concrete circumstances, time and place.
In other words, this theory preaches that states should not be led by ideologies ethics or motives, as they do not govern the field of international politics. In short, the main function of a state and its state and its to protect national interests with the help of power.
3. Interests are dynamic. The meaning attached to interest and power is not static and fixed once for all. National interests are changed and shaped by the circumstances. If the circumstances make the state a powerful one, its national interests become different from what they had been when the state was a weaker one. Not only interests are dynamic, but the power position of most countries also varies with time. The content and manner of the use of power are themselves determined by political and cultural Circumstances.
4. Universal mural principles inapplicable. Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulations. They must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. Prudence is the supreme virtue in politics, and political ethics judges action ultimately by its political consequences. An individual may sacrifice his interests to safeguard the abstract or moral value but the state cannot and should not sacrifice its interests. On the contrary, the states generally sacrifice the abstract or moral laws for the sake of national interest.
5. Moral Aspirations of Nations. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the nation. This theory considers the nations as actors of international relations which strive to pursue and achieve their national interest with the help of power. The actions of the states can only be interpreted with this principle. The moral laws that govern the universe do not apply to states. Realism seeks to distinguish between truth and idolatry. Each state is tempted to identify its particular aspirations and actions in terms of universal moral principles.
6. The autonomy of political sphere. Realism declares the autonomy of political Sphere. The difference between political realism and other schools of thought is real and profound. A political realist thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as an economist thinks in terms of utility, a lawyer in terms of conformity of conduct with legal rules and a moralist of such conformity with moral principles. He is exclusively concerned about the relevance of a particular policy to the national power. Although this theory is aware of thoughts which are other than political, it regards and puts them subordinate to political science.
Inspite of its wide acceptability, the realist theory suffers from many weaknesses and limitations. It has been criticized by many scholars on the ground that it is an incomplete theory. The content and manner of the use of power are themselves determined by political and cultural Circumstances. Benno Wasserman said that no scientific progress can be made in the study of international politics so long as Morgenthau’s realist theory continues to have influence. Robert Tucker criticized Morgenthau’s theory because it is inconsistent both with itself and with reality.
According to Hoffmann this theory is full of anomalies and ambiguities and ignores the discussion of ends. Sprout objects to Morgenthau’s theory because it neglects the objectives of national policy. Quincy Wright criticizes this theory for not having considered the impact of values on national policy. Aron objects to this theory for having ignored the relation between ideologies and policies. Thus various arguments against this theory can be summed up as under:
Not the only motivation. Man is seldom motivated only by power consideration. There are other drives and urges, like the drive for participation and community. Man is not merely a political being interested only in the control of actions of others. Realism suffers from the same defect as utopianism. If utopianism wrongly assumes that conditions for permanent harmony already exist, realism erroneously assumes the permanence of power politics.
2. Leads to continuous war:
Morgenthau believes that all nations seek power and persistently struggle for it. This generalization would mean that the states should be in a continuous state of war. The peace era is just a deviation from it. Morgenthau, in order to prove his hypotheses, looks into the reality, while he should have done just the opposite.
3. The element of ‘should’ :
When Morgenthau states that all states seek power, he actually means that all states should seek power. The element of ‘should’ takes Morgenthau’s theory away from realism and near to idealism or to a position where it is not a dependable description of either the human nature or of the reality of international politics. The element of should converts this theory into a normative theory. That is why “Tucker” and Waltz have found it difficult to accept this theory as realist.
4. Wrong Concept of human nature:
Morgenthau’s concept of human nature is beset by a number of difficulties. First, he takes a very deterministic and pessimistic view about the human nature. Second in a general sense human nature is responsible for all human actions. Therefore, to say that international behavior comes out of human nature does not mean anything ills version of human nature is unscientific because science consists of theories or hypotheses whose truth or validity has to be established by critical experiment or testing. But this theory is based not on such hypotheses but on what Benno Wesserman calls absolute and unverifiable essentially law.
5. Full of Contradictions:
If this theory is taken seriously, man’s fate will be a perpetual war. Morgenthau contradicts his own views when he revives his faith in the honesty of man by saying that there is the possibility of establishing peace through diplomacy. The high hopes he has pinned on diplomacy are unrealistic. He suggests that the foreign policy must be shaped by the statesman on the basis of national interest and the political scene, viewed by Other nations. These are contradictory ideals totally divorced from logical relationship between themselves. Morgenthau believes that diplomacy can be successfully carried out by able statesmen. These able statesmen are rare. They cannot be produced by education or by anything else. Only the will of God can produce some able statesmen in society. Here he becomes somewhat religious which again is in contradiction with his theory of realism.
6. Objective interest questionable:
The idea of an objective national interest is also debatable. It makes sense only in the earlier periods in which the survival of the units of international politics is rarely at stake and in which units pursue limited ends with limited means. But it the present world society’s survival is always at stake. As such the concept of national interest is of no use in this unstable period because various courses of action can be suggested as valid choice for survival in such circumstances the concept of national interest becomes subjective. Thus in the making of national policies there is greater emphasis on subjective elements of survival than objective factors because it is impossible to examine the objective factors.
7. Ignores non political relations:
Kapian rightly observed that Morgenthau’s conception of power would hardly exclude any relationship (not even the relationship in families and business) that does not involve power and is not political. But there are certain non political relationship and activities. Thus the international sports events, circulation of books and other leading matter, private letters and telegrams etc are not political activities. However, Morgenthau does not suggest any criterion by which political activities may be detached from nonpolitical activities.
8. One sided theory:
This theory over emphasizes one single factor to power. That is why Hoffmann calls it power monism that does not account for all politics. According to this theory the world is a static field in which power remains the perpetual goal of every nation for all times and places. Actually, international relations change their character from time to time, the static qualities of this theory lead to confusion. As such it is quite logical to assume that Morgenthau’s theory can be stated not for all times and places, but instead for different parts of the world and for different historical periods. Moreover, power is, after all an instrument, and therefore, it should not be given a key position and sole importance.
9. Politics not autonomous:
Morgenthau reiterates the autonomy of political sphere. But he is not clear in his mind as to what type of an autonomy he had been talking about. Political Sphere cannot be fully autonomous. A man is economic, religious, moral and political man at the same time. All these fields and aspects of life are interrelated. Aristotle, long ago, had suggested that the study of politics should integrate all the facets of human nature. Behaviorist in the modern age also believes in interdisciplinary approach. No single aspect should be over emphasized and no single discipline can work in isolation.
10. Raise new questions:
According to Kegley and Wittlcopf this theory raises many more questions than it could answer For example were alliances a force for peace or a factor for destabilization. Was the United Nations merely another stage for the push and show that was believed to characterize world politics or a tool for reforming national instincts for pure self advantage. Did arms contribute to security or encourage costly arms races that ultimately counter the efforts for security. Were the Cold War and the policies that sustained it a blessing or a curse. Did an ideological contest serve or undermine the national interest.
11. locks methodology:
Above questions are empirical ones. They can be answered only through empirical methods. Political realism fails in this respect. Having a distinctive perspective on international affairs but lacking in methodology for resolving competing claims, the realist theory lacked criteria for determining which data would count as significant information and which rules would be followed in interpreting the data.
But inspite of all this criticism, realist theory is pioneer toward the development of international theory. Morgenthau’s theory is the starting point for providing us theoretical orientation to the study of international politics. Morgenthau can be regarded as a great theoretician and a forerunner in the field of international politics in post War period. No doubt it is a partial theory of international relations yet it interpreted the outcome of Second World War which had given a serious jolt to the idealist theory. Its importance and relevance lies in the fact that much of the world continues to think about international politics in terms of this viewpoint. Its intellectual contributions cannot be ignored. On the one hand its deficiencies and limitations and on the other emergence of new behavioral theories in the sixties made this theory obsolete.
The concept of systems is considered useful for both theoretical and practical analysis. Political scientists like David Easton, Gabriel Almond and Morton Kaplan have developed the Systems Theory or General Systems Theory. Easton and Almond propounded this theory in the sphere of national politics and Kaplan and McClellan in the field of international politics. It includes general system theory and the concept of international Systems, subsystems and subordinate state system, past or present. Prominent scholar of international systems, James Roseau, has suggested that systemic research be pursued not only in terms of local, national and international systems that is, actors and their relational pattern as a focal point but also in terms of issue areas.
Before its application by political scientists, the Systems Theory was developed in biology, physics, anthropology, sociology and ecological studies. Later on, it was applied to behavioral and social sciences. It is a significant development of the behavioral sciences today. The general conception of an international system, and of international systems also became a part of many studies in international relations especially undertaken by Morton Kaplan, Karl Deutsch, Raymond Aron and McClellan.
The theory assumes the existence of an international system at the global level. Aron explains,there has never been an international system including the whole of the planet, but the postwar period, when for the first time humanity is living One and the same history, has witnessed the emergence of a kind of global system. But at the same time it must be admitted that such a system suffers from great heterogeneity and is perhaps too loose to be properly designated a system. An international system, in the words of Hoffmann, is a pattern of relations between the basic units of world politics, which is characterized by the scope of the objectives pursued by these units and of the tasks performed among them, as well as by the means used in order to achieve those goals and perform those tasks
Actors on international scene, according to Kaplan, are of two types, National actors or supranational actors. National actors are the nation states like the Soviet Union, USA, India etc. The supra national actors are such international actors as the NATO, Warsaw Pact, the UNO etc.
This theory also assumes that a theory of international politics normally cannot be expected to predict individual actions because the interaction problem is too complex and because there are too many free variables. It can be expected, however, to predict characteristic or model behavior within a particular kind of international system. Thus, this theory analyses international behavior of a state from an empirical investigation of political facts, classified and arranged in appropriate categories.
Kaplan’s Six Models:
Mortan Kaplan is the main propounder of the system theory, it was he who has most comprehensive and successful characterization of international politics in the frame of reference of system analysis. international system, according to him, can be divided into six models on the basis of functions and stability. Kaplan defines a system of action as a set of variables so related in contradistinction to its environment, that desirable behavioral regularities characterize the internal relationship of the variables to each other and the external relationship of the set of individual variables to combinations of external variables. All models of Kaplan are based on this definition of a system of action. His six models are :
- The balance of power system,
- The loose bipolar system,
- The tight bipolar system,
- The universal system,
- The hierarchical system in its directive and non directive forms, and
- The unit veto system.
Each system has its separate rules and principles of operation. These models serve as useful framework for the classification and analysis of regularities of international behavior pattern of states in proper levels in order to formulate a coherent body of timeless propositions.
in a situation where too many actors influence international relations, it becomes difficult to strike a perfect balance of power position and a loose bipolar system develops. The universal international system grows when the universal actor, like the UN, takes over many of the functions of powerful units in a loose bipolar system. In such a system the universal actor becomes powerful enough to prevent war among nations, but national actors retain their individuality. In the hierarchical international system, the universal actor becomes too powerful and the international community becomes a sort of world state.
The unit veto system develops as a result of weapons development. When too many national states develop a highly destructive capacity, they create a system of one level actors, each of whom possesses a sort of veto power by virtue of his devastating capability. In a loose bipolar system, a few nations possess such destructive weapons in a tight bipolar system only two nations possess such destructive weapons and immense economic power. The non aligned nations become irrelevant in this condition.
A system has an identity over time. Its description can be given in its successive states. The state of a system designates a description of the variables of a system. Proper examination of all variables will ensure the formulation of predictable laws of the particular system. Moreover, systems may operate under larger systems or they may also have their own subsystems. Haas has described twenty international subsystems, ten in Europe (divided chronologically from 1649 to 1963), six in Asia (covering the years 1689 to 1964), and five in Hawaii (between 1738 and 1898). Rosencrance has given a complete volume on nine European subsystems, over the period 1740 to 1960, in one of the well known studies of international systems. Brecher has looked at Southern Asia as a subordinate state system, and Binder has taken a similar approach to the Middle East as a subordinate international system.
Kaplan’s system theory has been severely criticized by many authors. His typology of international relations into six systems has been arbitrary and one can minimize or maximize such categories in another analytical framework. Out of his six models, only first two were in actual Operation. The balance of power existed mostly in, the eighteenth and nineteenth century and the loose bipolar system became workable in the late fifties and sixties of this century. Now again there is multi polar world. The other four systems never worked at any time in history. He simply predicts the future possibility which is a most tough task in a theoretical analysis. Thus this theory is inoperative and impracticable.
According to Kapian the loose bipolar system was to be converted into tight bipolar system in which there would be no non aligned nations. But we witnessed in previous decades that non aligned nations became more and more stable when many new nations started following non aligned policy. There is no possibility of the transformation of loose bipolar system into tight bipolar system in foreseeable future.
It is an inadequate theory as it ignores many concepts which are necessary for the completeness of the system theory. Kaplan never explained the forces and factors that determine the behavior of states.
Hoffmann criticizes it as a huge misstep in the right direction the direction of systematic empirical analysis. He observes that this theory endeavors to make universal scientific laws of international political behavior at the expense of our understanding of the field of political science. What one can aspire utmost in this discipline is a statement of trends. Too much discussion on methodology and building of models are activities in futility.
The systems theory does not predict what will actually happen, but it only forecasts what would happen if certain conditions develop, which rarely, if ever, develop exactly as envisaged. The hypotheses cannot be tested correctly on the basis of empirical observation. Therefore, the models appear to be too far away from reality to be testable. They are based on postulates about the behavior of the included variable, which are either too arbitrary or too general the choice here is between perversion and platitude. Besides, this theory neglects the domestic determinants of the national actors and Kaplan’s model ignores the forces of change operating within or across the actors.
Inspite of severe criticism, Kaplan will always be remembered for his contribution to international relations in the form of a high systematic and comprehensive theory. Through a fairly comprehensive explanation of historical illustrations, Kaplan believes that this perspective will provide a useful guide to the development of a general international theory.
Decision Making Theory:
This theory was developed especially in the sphere of foreign policy making. It concentrates on the persons who shape international events rather than on the international situation as such. The makers of foreign policies are examined and national policies and international situation are viewed from this perspective. This theory was initiated in 1954 by Snyder, Bruck and Sapin. it examines international politics through the analysis of the complex determinants of state behavior.
Meaning and Explanation:
The decision making approach lay emphasis on the question as to how and why a nation acts in international politics. As the state of knowledge about international politics is not perfect, the choice of decision making as a focus is wise. A good way to study is where decisions are made because much of the process of international politics revolves there.
The best way to understand international politics lies in knowing the processes in which the official decision maker , makes his final choice of a policy out of a series of alternatives. It seeks to identify some of the important variables psychological (individual) and sociological group or organizational what determine national responses to concrete situations. It synthesizes insights and conceptual guides from sociology and social psychology.
Decision making is a process which results in the selection from a socially defined, limited number of problematical, alternative projects of one project to bring about the particular future State of affairs envisaged by the decision makers. it results in certain actions and sequence of activities. Final choice involves valuation and evaluation in terms of a frame of reference. Priorities are given to alternative projects. The action of decision makers can be described in terms of three basic determinants sphere of Competence communication and information and motivation.
The foreign policy is examined and the following, factors are studied:
- Purpose of the foreign policy
- Decision makers
- Principles of decision making
- Process of decision making and policy planning
- Means of decision making and policy planning
- Internal situations of the state, and
- External factors.
This approach assumes that activities are more or less explicitly motivated and behavior is not at random. It is based on the assumption that the analysis of international politics should be centered, in part, on the behavior of those where action is the action of the state viz the decision makers. It conceives of state action as resulting from the way the identifiable official decision makers define the situation of action. It seeks to determine why decision is made at all and why a particular decision is made rather than some other.
It considers all the elements and factors that enter into the consideration of a decision maker such as the internal setting, external setting and the decision making process. This official decision maker takes action in the name of the state. Therefore his definition of the situation, his expectations, perception, his personality and final choice as well as the various agencies and processes involved in decision making.
This approach too has many deficiencies. First, Hoffmann is doubtful if politics is over really made of conscious movers and choices, that cancan be examined in terms of neat categories. Yet it is the chief assumption of this theory. Second its neglects all those things that am not tho more addition of separate decisions made by various units. It ma ho correct for foreign policy analysis, but it is too weak fort the rest of International Relations. Third, this theory gives only post hoc explanations and historical reconstruction of particular decisions. Its conceptual elements fail to make predictions of future foreign policy making it has been proved useful only in analyzing past major decisions and not in developing a general international theory. But exponents of this theory like Snyder hope that the analysis of past occurrences will be the stepping stone towards the building of a predictive theory.
Fourth, this theory is based on the principle of in determination and fails to suggest which one of the numerous elements that go into the many sides of the box is really relevant. Fifth, the theory goes ahead with a value free approach, inasmuch as it merely endeavors to analyze the various decisions taken in the realm of foreign affairs without caring for as to which decisions are right and which are wrong. Sixth, whatever the circumstances, the focus of decision making is often obscure as the man in authority
may delegate most of his foreign policy powers to a subordinate or, especially in a weak government, a subordinate may actively take the initiative, a line of action that may be legitimized by the legal authority. Seventh, causes may sometimes dominate, and man may be compelled to make a certain decision because otherwise he would face personal risks he dare not take.
In the end, it can be said that this theory has contributed a great deal to the understanding of the process of foreign policy making, which all other theories have ignored. This theory successfully analyses deeper roots of behavior pattern of states in fact, it is a great improvement on institutional approach instead of simply describing interaction of states it provides an explanation of diverse patterns of interaction.
Though Karl Marx has written extensively throughout his life and produced numerous works that recognized turn as a great philosopher and theorist or the modern tunes. yet he has not put forward any theory at international relation as Morgenthau, Kaplan, Snyder etc., did, Thus he is not a theorist of international relations in the sense Morgenthau, Kaplan, Snyder etc., There is mention in his various works, here and there of wars between states, proletarian internationalism, world change, world revolution etc., His utterances about world politics and struggles between states lie scattered m his different works and hence there is no basic text or treatise on international relations by Marx.
However, later on, his followers like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and many other scholars and leaders endeavored to update his views according to changing world scenario and explained the phenomenon of international relations with the help of principles founded by Marx. For example, Lenin through his Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism attempted to present a coherent theory of international politics. Scattered views of Marx on international politics and subsequent attempts by his followers towards theorization have been grouped together to be known as Marxian or Marxist theory of international relations. Despite the constraint mentioned above in subsequent paragraphs this theory is being explained.
Basic Assumptions and Tenets:
These can be described in brief as follows :
1. Economic factors play decisive role in international relations. They have been the root cause of many struggles and wars at international level in the past.
2. Class instead of Nation states is the basic unit in international relations. The national interest is first of all the interest of master class which changes with rise and fall of classes.
3. Capitalism culminates into imperialism. That divides the world into imperial powers and colonies in haves and have nots
4. Wars break out when capitalist nations clash with each other to build their colonies in different parts of the world to serve as markets for their product.
5. Proletariat or working classes do not belong to any other particular nation they unite at global level to fight out exploitation. Proletarial internationalism would lead towards world revolution.
6. With the passage of time, imperialism, which is the highest stage of capitalism, world suffer from three contradictions. First, there would be contradictions and conflicts among capitalists for occupying more and more colonies resulting in world wars among them. Second, class conflict between capitalists and workers. Working class would demand more rights and facilities. Third, struggle between imperialists and the people of colonies. Colonial people fight for their independence. These thee contradictions would lead the world to the brink of revolution causing imperialism to collapse.
7. The goal is not balance of power or equilibrium but international disequilibrium in order to achieve the goal of changing the world to establish world socialism.
8. Lasting peace can only be established after world revolution. With world revolution imperialism would collapse, there would be no classes and no states. In such a classless and stateless society there will be no irritant left for struggles and wars. Such a society will be an ideal world.
9. It may take a long time for world revolution to be successful at global level. In the meantime the principles of national self determination and peaceful coexistence will continue to occupy an important place.
Four Seminal Theories:
Arum Bose firmly believes that there is a Marxian analytical framework for analyzing situations of international political conflicts, which serves as a guide to action to work out Marxist strategies According to him this framework comprises of four seminal theories about international politics in modern era which con ta in ideas that overlap to some extent and which may be regarded as off shoots of the primal theory of proletarian internationalism. The four Marxian theories described by Bose are as follows
This term was coined by Lenin in his Preliminary Theses on the national and colonial questions, submitted to the Communist International in 1920. But the basic ideas were formulated by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the Communist Manifesto and adopted by the First International in 1847. These ideas are :
- The world poletariat have a common interest, independent of all nationality.
- Working men have no country, since the poletariat of each country must first acquire political supremacy must first constitute itself the nation it is itself national.
- United action (by the proletariat) is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat
- In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will come to an end.
According to Lenin, imperialism is the final stage of capitalism. This famous dictum became the basis of his critique of capitalist imperialism as a world system, his prediction of a successful October Revolution, his reformulation and amplification of the Marxian theory of national self determination, and of the Marxian theory of proletarian internationalism. In Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin defined imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism and listed its five basic features:
- The concentration of production and capital develops to such a high stage that it creates monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
- Bank capital merges with industrial capital and this results in the creation of finance capital a capital of the financial oligarchy.
- The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance,
- The resulting formation of international monopolistic capitalist , association share the world among themselves, and
- As the final culminating point, the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
The main ideas of anti imperialism theory are:
(i) Capital has become international and monopolistic, but
(ii) Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism, hence
(iii) The proletarian socialist revolution is possible first not only in several countries of Europe, or at least the civilized countries, as visualized in a somewhat Euro centric vision of the proletarian revolution in the Communist Manifesto but even in one capitalist country, taken singly, which
(iv) would form the nucleus, the base, the hegemony, of the world socialist revolution, attracting to its cause the oppressed Classes of other countries, raising revolts against capitalism, and engaging in the event of necessity in inter nationalist defensive and offensive wars against exploiting classes and states in other countries. In reexamining the theory of proletarian internationalist in the context of imperialism of his times, Lenin thus made major new departures in the Marxian understanding of the nature of the national and colonial questions.
National self declination:
The Communist Manifesto stresses a specific Marxian “class” approach to the national question, according to which classes which attain political supremacy constitute the nation. In each country the working class must acquire political supremacy (later defined by Lenin as the dictatorship of the proletariat), must constitute itself the nation. Thus the goal of national self determination was to be realized through proletarian self determination within each nation.
This very basic tenet of the Marxian theory on the national question, makes the Marxian understanding fundamentally different from any non Marxian theory on the national question. Taking hint from rethinking by Marx especially on the Irish demand for separation from the UK, which Marx had at first opposed), and on the basis of his own analysis of the new, imperialist stage of capitalism Lenin arrived at an assessment of the arousing of national antagonism instead of their subduing as visualized in the Communist Manifesto, in the days of imperialism and the world socialist revolution in this extension of the Marxian theory on the national question which was now explicitly and emphatically linked with the colonial question Lenin made three mortification, viz.
(i). A distinction was made between the Oppressed nations, and the Oppressor nations,
(ii). The oppressed nations were identified as the victims of imperialism as national revolutionary reserves or allies of the proletariat in the world socialist revolution.
(iii). The recognition of the right of the oppressed nations to self determination was now explicitly interpreted to mean not only the right of the oppressed nations to secede freely but the desirability of secession to remove “distrust” and prejudices among the oppressed nations. However all three modifications were still within the framework of the overall programmatic aim of a united states of the world and not of Europe alone as the state form of national federation and national freedom which is associated with socialism until the complete victory of Communism bring about the total disappearance of the state in later developments, the Soviet voluntary confederation, first of the USSR, and then (by implication) of the Warsaw Pact powers seems to have served as means of transition to the socialist voluntary confederalism of the future. Bose observes, All this means that although the assessment of the declining importance of the national factor was demeaned Lenin’s theory of imperialism and the national and colonial question amplified rather than contradicted the Marxian theory of proletarian internationalism
Peaceful Coexistence of States:
As Marxian theory reiterated by Lenin during the first world war capitalism means war and the task of the socialist states is to raise revolts against capitalism, it is not evident how a theory of peaceful coexistence of states coincides with the Marxian theory of proletarian internationalism. But once this theory was enlarged by a theory of anti imperialism, of inter imperialist contradictions, and the uneven development of imperialism, propositions about the chances of peaceful coexistence of socialist and capitalist states had to be sorted out. For the law of uneven development of imperialism meant:
(i). The proletarian socialist revolution could be victorious first in several countries, or even in one country
(iii). It had to survive capitalist encirclement by relying on inter imperialist contradictions over and above its internal and external support from the world proletariat and its “reserves”, and
(iii). The best method to accomplish this was to try to work out relations of “peaceful eta existence” between socialist states and at least some, if not all the capitalist states. On the other hand, the Marxian theory of national self determination had as corollaries
(IV). The possibility of peaceful co-existence of peoples, and national freedom and equality within a voluntary union of socialist states, and
(ii). The possibility of peaceful co-existence between the socialist states, and the liberated national, sovereign states of the “oppressed nations” after their secession from the imperialist states of the “oppressor nations”, whether or not they become socialist in the process of their national liberation, or even if their political independence is a mere cover for economic financial and military dependency upon the imperialist states.
Four Model Strategies:
The above seminal Marxian theories are integrated by Arun Bose in different ways to work out Marxist strategies in international politics, represented by the foreign policies of modern communist states. These four distinct “model” strategies, seem to represent the basic, logical thrust behind the foreign policy experiments adopted by modern Communist states. These strategies are :
- “Transnational” or “cosmopolitan”,
- The “non-aligned”,
- “The Soviet-centric” and
- The “Sino-centric”.
The last two strategies are definitely geared to the notions that the ”genuine”, “reliable” nucleus or base or ”protector” of the world socialist revolution is the Soviet Union or Communist China respectively. The other two “models strategies” carry no such ”country” labels. The “transnational” or ” cosmopolitan” model strategy clearly rejects the idea of “socialism in one country”, and leaves no scope for idealizing the role of socialism in any one country, or group of countries as the base of the world revolution. The non-aligned model strategy also is strictly “poly-eccentric”, insisting that socialism in each country is fighting for socialism only in one’s own country For want of space these strategies are not being discussed in detail nor is it necessary either.
Marxian theory of international relations can be denounced as unscientific impracticable unscientific inconsistent and utopian. Its shortcomings can be described in brief as follows: ,
i. All the four seminal theories presented by Arun Bose remained in embroynic state. The propositions or these theories could not Find any further development theoretically nor realize pracncaily in all these years. Therein lies the failure of these theories.
2. The main theory of proletariat internationalism proved wrong as proletariat of different states actually thought in terms of their nationality and national interest. During different wars and struggles working men worked for the victory of their own country setting at naught Marxian dictum working men have no country. It seems that proletariat of the world have ignored Marx’s call for “united action” at global level for their emancipation.
3. Lenin’s theory of imperialism is historically wrong because historical facts contradict Lenin’s famous saying: “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” imperialism existed even before the advent of capitalism e.g. Roman and Greek empires in ancient period.
4. According to tie theory of imperialism every capitalist country must grow into imperialist country. However in reality, many capitalist countries e. g. Switzerland. Canada, Australia etc. did not indulge in empire building.
5. Economic factors are not the exclusive factors accounting for imperialism and wars. Empires were built and wars were taught on several other non economic reasons such as religious, cultural, political, military, personal ambitions of rulers etc.
6. Nation states remained the basic unit of analysis in international relations despite Marxists insistence on class as its basic unit.
7. Imperialism collapsed after the Second World War but not the capitalism as predicted by Marxist theory. Contrarily, in many countries capitalism gained strength after that. Moreover, after decolonization imperialism again raised its ugly head under the garb of nee colonialism, economic imperialism and Red imperialism. In other words, old and overt imperialism re emerged covertly.
8. With the failure of proletariat internationalism world revolution became a far cry. It has been relegated to the realm of impossibility.
9. Marxian theory of national self determination is also fraught with contradictions. It could not be practiced even by socialist countries themselves. For example, the Soviet Union’s hold over East European countries for many decades and the unwilling Republics and nationalities within the Soviet Union made this a futile theory.
10.Peaceful coexistence at times proved successful and at other times futile. The long Sino-Soviet and Soviet American rivalry belied this theory.
11. Marxian theory also suffers from subjectivity and inconsistency. What Marx propounded was later on modified and revised by Lenin whose theories were, in their turn, reformed , by Stalin. After Stalin a process of DE-stabilization took over. Later on, Gorbachev restructured everything that his predecessors built assiduously. The same thing happened in China after Mao. Tito, Castro, Ho Chi-Minh have also interpreted Marxian theory in relation to the situation obtaining in their countries.
Notwithstanding the above criticism, the theory is adored by Marxists in the words of Bose, this theory is first of all a guide to action , based on the dictum that in action man discovers the truth. Consequently, all Marxian analysis of international relations are meant to change international relations, since the basic purpose is not merely to interpret what exists but to change the world. Such analyses lead to predictions and strategies about the future, which have been tested or are yet to be tested by intents. However, it will be agreed by many a scholar that this theory has failed to serve as an objective guide to action, it has failed to change the world and make valid predictions.