INTRODUCTION-

The origin of IR can be traced from ancient times in the writings of Kautilya of India and Thucydides of
Greece. During the middle ages, such reflections can be noted in the works of a Roman like Dante. However, in
modern times, enormous literature whether “realistic” or “utopian” has appeared in writings of great jurists like
Bentham, philosophers like Rousseau, diplomats like Machiavelli,historians like E.H.Carr, leading statesman like
Woodow wilson and in addition to these prominent theorists like Quincy Wright and H.J. Morgenthau.
Traditional core of IR focuses on states and the relations of states in terms of war and peace.However,
contemporary IR is concerned not only with political relations between states but also with a host of other subjects:
economic interdependence,human rights,transnational corporations, international organizations, the
environment,development and so forth.For this reason, some scholars also prefer the label “International studies”.
Today, IR as a system and as an academic discipline has evolved with multi-dimensional character since the last
century.Thus IR appeared as a structured and comprehensive academic discipline after the First world war; and as a
separate branch of study, the subject was offered in European and American universities from the 1920s. The striking
point is the rapid development of the subject after the second world war with a view to present it in the form of a
conceptualized study so as to understand and explain international political reality in a scientific way as far as
possible.The fundamental aim of the theorists is to lay down some definite and concrete rules of international political
behavior through “theorisation” which would help to analyze different aspects of the discipline.

MEANING OF IR-
The term 'International' was used for the first time by Jeremy Bentham in the later part of the eighteenth century
with regard to the laws of nations. Consequently, the term international relations was used to define the official
relations between the sovereign states. However some scholars even included the economic, social and cultural
relations amongst the states also within the purview of the subject. Thus the definition of IR has evolved with the
global developments and its highly dynamic nature and scope of relations among nations, together make the task of
defining it quite difficult.

DEFINITION OF IR-

1) Morgenthau and others viewed the core of IR to be international politics and the subject matter of IR to be
the struggle for power among sovereign nations.
Padelford and Lincoln also opine that : IR as study of relationship between states,interactions of state
policies within changing patterns of power relationships
2) But IR means more and, Palmer and Perkins pointed out, IR is related to not just politics of the international
community centered around diplomacy and state interactions but “totality of relations among peoples and
groups in the world society”.
They conceptualized IR as much more than relations among nation-states and international
organizations and groups. It includes a variety of transitional relationships, both above and below the state.
3) Wright contended that IR include - “relations between many entities of uncertain sovereignties”
4) Mathiesen - IR embraces all kinds of relations traversing state boundaries which include all
economic,legal,political,private and official.
5) Jackson and Sorensen: They reflect that “at one extreme the scholarly focus is exclusively on states and
inter-state relations, but at another extreme IR includes almost everything that has to do with human relations
across the world. Therefore, “IR seeks to understand how people are provided or not provided, with the basic
values of security, freedom, order, justice and welfare”.
6) Frederick S. Dunn: IR may be looked upon as the actual relations that take place across national boundaries
or as a body of knowledge which we have of those relations at any given time.It is considered to be a
comprehensive definition because it does not limit the subject to official relations between states and
governments.
7) Hartman- ‘International Relations is a field of study focussed upon the process by which states adjust their
national interests to those of other states’.
 All these definitions clearly reveal the existence of diversities among scholars regarding the
meaning,nature,scope of IR. Some scholars define it as a system of interactions among nations which involve the use
of power or threat of use of power. Several others seek to define it as a study of all relations among nations. Hartman
makes the dynamic nature of international relations as the basis for defining it. Hence, the IR scholars came out of a
power-centric or state-centric approach and moved to a people-centric approach by recognizing the presence of other
actors as well.
Therefore, summing up the above viewpoints, it may be ascertained that IR is a vast field encompassing the
relationships among states in all their dimensions, including interactions with various political and non-political
groups along with the study of international history, international law, international society and international political
economy and area studies.

Fig : EVOLUTION OF THE DISCIPLINE OF IR

NATURE OF IR-

IR occupies a prominent and predominant place in the day to day worldly affairs.From the birth of IR, It has
been facing both the uncertainty regarding its boundaries and long controversy(1920s-60s) to identify the distinctive
character of IR as autonomous academic discipline. Earlier, it was considered as a part of history, law and political
theory. Even after the intellectual development started and the discipline was successful , some still considered it as a
subdivision of the greater field of Political Science and emphasized the need to study political phenomena at the global
level.
The nature of international relations is dynamic. International relations is a thorough analysis of what is
happening in world politics. For example- The post-World War II period saw a huge shift in world politics. World
politics was divided into two poles, such as NATO led by the USA and the Warsaw Pact led by the USSR. The
collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led to a kind of single polarity in world politics.International Relations as an
academic discipline discusses the changing pattern of the contemporary world.
International Relations is also highly interdisciplinary in nature, drawing on theoretical and methodological
traditions from fields as diverse as History, Law, Political Science, Geography, Sociology, and increasingly
Anthropology, Gender Studies, and Postcolonial and Decolonial Studies.However, after the end of the Second World
War , Political Science has tended to have the greatest influence on the discipline of International Relations. This
tended to narrow the range of acceptable approaches to the study of IR and also led to an excessive focus on US
foreign policy. However, very recently, both inside and outside the United States, scholars have started to pay much
more attention to how and why IR has neglected non-Western histories and experiences, and have begun to rectify this
(Tickner and Wæver 2009). In doing so, they have increasingly moved the field away from Eurocentric approaches to
world politics and begun to take seriously the project of developing a Global IR. Zimmern (a British academician and
the first Professor of International Politics) defined the field not as a single subject or discipline but as a "bundle of
subjects...viewed from a common angle".

Even though IR has to be treated as a 'bundle of subject' yet, more often controversy unfolds between the
discipline of Political Science and IR. It is truly very difficult to compartmentalize both Political Science and IR. For a
more matured and holistic study, both have to work hand-in-hand. IR is more concerned with trans-territorial affairs
and external relations of the states and the politics of power bargaining at the international level. Individuals with
foreign policies of states, bilateral and multilateral trans-national non-state actors, Conflict and cooperation, questions
of engagements, interactions, international peace and security become the main concern of IR. Whereas, Political
science involves concern with politics within the State.Interactions between IR and other social science disciplines
have increased over the years,but the former’s ‘dependence’ on the latter has been considerably minimized, thus
helping it to emerge as an autonomous discipline with a distinct set of theories,methodology and subject matter.
It is not possible to study domestic politics totally disregarding international politics, as international
agreements and even international organizations might affect the national economic and political policies of the State.
Similarly, IR is also touched by domestic politics. The ruling government or regime, the bureaucrats, the political
parties and public opinion come to have an impact on the external relations of the State. For example, the IMF, World
Bank and WTO known as the Triad in international political economy, with their policies of Structural Adjustment
Programmes (SAPs) affect the economic and financial policies of the countries, which take loans from them. On the
other hand, to analyze the foreign policy trend of any state, one has to study the internal functioning of the political
system, including the study of political institutions, political parties and interest groups and public opinion.

The Approaches to the Study of IR: Theories and Methodologies

It is believed that there are four major theoretical traditions in the discipline of IR: liberalism, realism, International
society, and IPE. In addition, there is a more diverse group of alternative approaches which have gained prominence in
recent years. The most important of these is social constructivism. Methodologies in IR can be broadly classified into
four types: traditional or classical, behavioural, positivist, and post-positivist.
As Goldstein observes that both descriptive and theoretical knowledge are required for systematic analysis of the
subject matter of IR.Equally important is the use of methods in developing and testing various theories. Whether one
builds theories from facts or predicts facts from theories, one can utilize them to the learning of IR in myriad ways.

Scholars like Abdul A. Said' observed that five categories of theories have emerged to examine the unexplored
terrain of international relations:
1. Theory of theory: how 'scientific' the discipline of IR can become.
2. Systems analysis: This refers to the development of hypotheses about the international system. The two primary
foci are the state as a responding unit within the international system and the configuration of the international system
on the whole.
3. Action theories: the analysis of the ways states and their decision makers conduct foreign policy including
decision-making capabilities, institutions and the interaction of the political system and national society.
4. Interaction theory: which attempts to generalize about the 'patterns' of interactions and the internal behavior of the
interacting units like the theory of balance of power, world equilibrium, gaming, challenge and response",
international processes involving competition, cooperation, bargaining and conflict.
5. Newer research techniques: borrowed from other disciplines; content analysis borrowed from the study of
communications, psychometrics useful in measuring such attitudes as friendship' or "hostility' among states, game
theory and the like,

Several alternative approaches have also developed into the study of contemporary IR.
1. Post-modernist theories propounded by Richard Ashley , R.B.J. Walker, James Derian and others.
2. Critical theories advocated by Andrew Linklater , Robert Cox and others.
3. Historical sociology propounded by Michael Mann, Charles Tilly, Theda Skocpol.
4. Feminist theories advocated by J. Ann Tickner , Cynthis Enloe and Christine Sylvester Despite

SCOPE OF IR-

International Relation is a dynamic discipline. With the world fast changing in the face of globalization, along
with the threats of fundamentalism, ethnicity and terrorism, ebbing state system, crisis in sovereignty of states, human
rights, newer international regimes, the discipline has been forced to move beyond its traditional themes and
incorporate a 'new agenda' in its study.
 Like many other social science disciplines, IR has no definite boundary, and contemporary IR covers a very
broad area of study. Initially, the discipline devoted itself to the study of diplomatic history, foreign policies of states,
international law, and international organizations. Since the outbreak of the Second World War and in the years
following it, the world was not only engulfed in a Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union but it also
witnessed the birth of many new states due to rapid decolonization, which led to an expansion of the scope of IR. As a
result, new theories, and newer methodologies to study IR emerged. As in the 1960s and 1970s, when behaviouralism
made a pathway into the study of IR, motives and behaviors of states as well as political leaders came to be studied. It
is quite an extensive discipline embracing diplomatic history, international politics. international organization,
international law, area studies, behavior of states and their mutual relations, international trade and foreign policy. Its
scope is still expanding and will expand in future too.
According to Jackson and Sorensen, traditional IR was concerned solely with the development and change of
sovereign statehood in the context of the larger system or society of states which might help in explaining the
questions of war and peace. However, they assert that contemporary IR is concerned not only with political relations
between states but also with a host of other subjects such as economic interdependence, human rights, transnational
corporations, international organizations, the environment, gender inequalities, development, terrorism, and so forth.
Baylis and Smith in their effort to include the upcoming agenda in IR tried to incorporate several “new
themes”. They looked not only into the historical context the international main society and world history till the end
of Cold War and discussed theories in IR, including the new approaches to IR Cold War era, but also theory in the post
focussed chiefly on international security in the post-Cold war era, international political economy in the age of
globalization, international regimes, diplomacy, the UN and international organizations, actors, transnational
environmental issues, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, conflicts in IR, cultural humanitarian intervention in world
politics, integration, global regionalism and trade and finance, poverty, development and hunger,human rights, and
gender issues.

In contemporary times, the scope of study of international relations broadly covers the following
areas/subjects-
1) Nation-states and their relations: Nation states are the primary actors in IR. The study of inter-state
relations would remain the primary area and constitute basic subject matter in IR.
2) National Power : The concept of power is a core concept in the study of IR. Morgenthau holds that
International Politics can be understood only if viewed as “ Interest defined in terms of power”.
3) Non-state actors: The importance of non-state actors in the study of IR has been increasing Over the years.
Non-state actors like the multinational corporations (MNC), international non-governmental organizations
(INGO), and the inter-governmental organizations (IGO) exert considerable influence in today's international
relations.
4) International political economy (IPE): International political economy is the study of international relations
with the help of economic activities and analyses. With the onset of globalization from the mid-1980s, a
renewed interest in IPE has developed among scholars.
5) International security: Security has always remained the primary concern of nation states. The concern for
security had led to war and peace in the past, and would continue to promote these in the future. Studies on
war and peace and strategic studies in IR are also related to international security.
6) Foreign policies of important powers: Foreign policies of major and medium powers constitute an important
subject-matter of IR because these powers are the driving force in international relations. In contemporary IR,
analyses of foreign policies of the US, China, Russia, Japan and India may be useful as these states have
become major actors in recent times.
7) Globalization: This primarily refers to economic activities which have a serious impact on political and
social spheres.
8) International environment: Environmental issues have now assumed greater significance in the study of IR
than ever before because industrialization and technological progress have enhanced concerns for
environmental safety all over the world.A stable and peaceful international order is dependent on
environmental issues in today's world.
9) International terrorism: Terrorist activities involving citizens of more than one country and having
transnational impacts constitute international terrorism, an important area of study in IR It is also referred to as
'cross border' terrorism. International peace and security are closely related to this issue.
 10) Area and regional studies: Sometimes it becomes rather difficult to study international political, security. or
economic issues from a broader perspective. So area studies have become popular nowadays. Under it, such
issues concerning different areas of the world are taken up separately for analysis.
However,it’s scope is not limited but extends with relations in conflict and cooperation, general and diplomatic
History,International laws, systems and organizations, geopolitics, conflict management and conflict resolution,War
and peace, Ideologies, nationalism,colonialism and imperialism,national interests and character, Military-strategic
factors,alliance and groupings,arms control and disarmament, demographic factors, economic factors, and lastly, New
agendas of IR.
Criticism-
The expanding scope of international relations lead to the view, and also to the controversy. that the discipline is
becoming increasingly unmanageable, and that it lacks a clear conceptual framework. But this view is born out of
pessimism about the discipline, and is not acceptable. Today, the subject has a definite and useful theoretical
framework to support research in different areas. The broad scope may actually be helpful for it, because the varied
subject matter may lead to more research and analyses, as well as greater specialization within the discipline. The
broad scope of political science, physics or history, for that matter, has enriched these disciplines and helped them to
grow further. There is little rationale therefore to worry about the expanding scope of IR; it will help the discipline to
mature into a well-defined and enriched branch of modern social science.

EVOLUTION-

IR as an evolving academic subject has developed through distinct phases and characterized by specific debates
between groups of scholars. At most times during the 20th century there has been a dominant way of thinking about
IR and a major challenge to that way of thinking. The discipline of international relations (IR), like all the social
sciences, used ‘theories’ to provide a conceptual framework that would help to properly analyze different aspects of
the discipline. It had also strengthened the claim of IR as an autonomous discipline .
There are a great many different theories in IR which leads to many contrasting and conflicting
views advocated by differing schools of thought within IR. The merits and faults of each school of thought
have been contested in what are known as the ‘Great Debates’.The debates were triggered by historical and
contemporary developments in the real world. Essentially, the great debates are about what the study of IR
is or should be and define their positions on the way they view the world.These real world events pitted
conflicting ideologies about world politics against each other. The Great Debates did help clarify the
differing assumptions scholars make in their theories and despite the attention they received, however,
nothing was ever resolved.

Evolution of IR can be traced through the “Four Great Debates”-

1) Utopian Liberalism/idealism and Realism
2) Traditional Approaches and Behaviouralism
3) Neo-liberalism/neo-Realism and neo-Marxism
4) Positivism and post-Positivist Alternatives.

FIRST GREAT DEBATE- IDEALISM v/s REALISM

The first Great Debate, begun on the eve of World War II, supposedly unfolded between the idealists, dominant
from the founding of the discipline in the early 20th century, and the realists, who triumphed in the decade after 1945.
This debate focuses on the goal and subject matter of IR.Coming out of a tradition of formal-legal theory and
progressive politics, idealists focused on the potential role of institutions in improving the human condition, mitigating
conflict between states and maintaining peace & cooperation among nation-states.Their focus was on the ills of the
international system and “what ought to be done” to avoid wars. World War 1 left deep psychological and political
scars which provoked a sequence of reactions, mainly on the part of Woodrow Wilson and other idealists. Wilson’s 14
point address to the US Congress in 1918 is an expression of the sentiments of idealist exposition.Some of the key
proponents were Alfred Zimmer, Norman Angell, James T. Shotwell and Woodrow Wilson. The basic assumptions,
running throughout their liberal writings, was that human beings were rational and, when they apply reason to
international relations, they can set up organizations for the benefit of all. Public opinion is a constructive force( for
example-removing secret diplomacy in dealings between states).Therefore, emphasis was laid on outlawing war,
disarmament, modernization,interdependence, international law and international organizations(league of nations)
during this phase of evolution of liberal thinking.They adopted a legalistic-moralistic approach and were highly
descriptive and prescriptive. In short, liberal ideas dominated in the first phase of academic IR. These ideas had some
success in the 1920s.However,The optimism and ideals of the liberal thinkers therefore, got a rude shock with the
outbreak of the Second World War (WWII). The impact was Contrary to Wilson's hope to spread democracy, Fascism
and Nazism grew in Italy and Germany and coupled with this was the rise of authoritarianism in Central and Eastern
Europe. The League of Nations proved to be too weak an international organization to control aggressive states.Severe
economic crisis of the 1930s again forced the states to follow zealously the policy of protectionism rather than
interdependence.

Liberal idealism was not a good intellectual guide to IR in the 1930s and academic IR began to speak the
classical realist language of Thucydides,Machiavelli and Hobbes in which the grammar and vocabulary of power was
central.This caused many to look for a more pragmatic approach to international affairs which came in the form of
“Realism” as advocated by E.H. Carr and other main proponents were George F. Kennan, Hans J. Morgenthau
,Reinhold Niebuhr,Kenneth W. Thompson.They strongly criticize “Idealism” as nothing but “utopianism” which
ignores the realities of human nature and politics. IR discourse was occupied with the critique of liberal idealism and
Realism is generally accepted as being the polar opposite of idealism.The key assumptions of realist paradigm are
that the law of politics is rooted in human nature which is self-seeking,self-interested and power-loving and therefore
states as the principal actors are also guided by their own interests of securing power i.e through
resources,military,territory,security and wealth. Therefore, International politics is a struggle for
power(Morgenthau).Realists also believed in a cyclical view of history i.e contrary to the optimistic liberal view that
qualitative change for the better is possible, realism stresses continuity and repetition.To the realists, conflict of
interest is inevitable, which results in an anarchical international system. Hence, classical realists had a pessimistic
view of human nature with a notion of power politics between states which exist in an international anarchy.This
realist analysis appeared to capture the essentials of European politics in the 1930s and the world politics in the 1940s
far better than liberal optimism.
CONCLUSION-
The first major debate was clearly won by Realist thinkers.Realism became the dominant way of thinking
about IR not only among scholars but also among politicians and diplomats. Morgenthau’s summary of realism in his
1948 book became the standard introduction to IR in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet it is important to emphasize that
liberalism did not disappear. Many liberals rejected the deeply pessimistic realist idea that humans were “plain bad”
and they had many counter-arguments to that effect.Although realism had won the first debate, the victory was never
truly consolidated and was soon challenged by neoliberal institutionalism and ultimately constructivism. The debate
rages on even to this day that there were substantial overlaps in the thinking of the so-called idealists and early realists
and even with the final Great Debate below.
This debate in IR indicates the coming of age as a science. Presaging the behavioral revolution of the
second debate, the dividing line might be drawn more clearly between ‘idealists’ who focused on international
organizations and ‘realists’ who broadened the field to study international ‘politics’. Therefore,this first Great Debate
as the clash of alternative paradigms did not end, but rather is a continuing thread in the history of the discipline.
SECOND DEBATE- TRADITIONALISM V/S BEHAVIOURALISM

The second Great Debate, reaching its height during the late 1960s, is usually cast as a battle between
traditionalists and behaviorists or ‘scientists’.The debate was mainly focusing on growing discontent with the
Language and Methodology of IR. The debate was reflective of the wider behavioural revolution that was
occurring in the social sciences. The main emphasis was on application of scientific methods of study.
First generation of IR scholars were trained as historians,academic lawyers,former diplomats and
journalists. They brought a humanistic and historical approach to the study of IR. This approach is rooted in
philosophy,history,political science,international law, and is characterized “above all by explicit reliance
upon the exercise of judgment”(Hedley Bull).Therefore,traditional methodology revolved around
historical,philosophical,moral or legal questions; It was based on knowledge and experience,rather than on
hypotheses that could be tested. The goal was to understand and theorize about IR. The traditional approach
is a holistic one that accepts the complexity of the human world,sees IR as part of the human world,
understands moral dilemmas in foreign policies,and appreciates basic values such as security,order,freedom
and justice. Hedley Bull who sought to defend what he termed the “classical approach,”
After the Second world war, the academic discipline of IR expanded rapidly and a new generation of
IR scholars emerged who were trained in political science, economics or other social sciences, mathematics
and the natural sciences, rather than diplomatic history and philosophy. The ideas of these new IR scholars
was summarized under term “Behavioralism”. It is not a new IR theory; but a new method of studying IR.
The behavioral method wanted a systematic study of IR based on “scientism”,i.e use of appropriate
scientific methods to study the subject.There main task is to collect empirical data about IR, which is used
for measurement,classification,generalization and ultimately validation of hypotheses with verifiable
theories..They were concerned more with explanatory rather than normative approach of traditionalists.The
goal here was on theorizing about theory rather than theorizing about IR. Therefore, they analyzed the
behavior & policies of all actors within the system and tried to replace subjective belief with verifiable
knowledge i.e focused on scientific and value-free study in IR. The main proponents were-Quincy Wright,
Morton Kaplan, Charles McClelland,Karl Deutsch. The methodologies of theorists like Morton Kaplan and
Karl Deutsch repudiated the moralism and legalism of the traditional approaches. Kaplan conceived the
international system as an "analytical entity" for explaining the behavior of international actors and the
"regulative", "integrative" or "disintegrative" consequences of their policies. Said states that "what has been
the ideological commitment of the traditional theorists became a devalued hypothesis to analyze causation in
the real political world" for these theorists in IR.
CONCLUSION-
Both the methodological approaches to IR are clearly very different. One was strictly ‘humanist’ in
approach and theorist is always ‘inside’ the subject whereas the other is ‘scientific’ in approach and theorist
stands ‘outside’ the subject. Some scholars attempted to reconcile these approaches: they seek to be
historically conscious about IR as a sphere of human relations while also trying to come up with
explanations and not merely understand World politics.
The second Great Debate was “inconclusive”as it was neither won by the behaviorists nor by the
traditionalists and, gradually the controversies petered out. Yet Behaviouralism did have a lasting effect in
IR.That was largely because of the domination of the discipline after the second world war by US scholars,
who supported the quantitative,scientific ambitions of behaviouralism. Ultimately, this paved the way to new
formulations of both realism and liberalism, both of which were highly influenced by the behaviouralist
methodologies. The new formulations- neo-realism and neo-liberalism again fermented the renewal of the
first major debate under new historical and methodological conditions.

THIRD DEBATE- NEO-NEO DEBATE

During the 1970s, a new debate sparked off between neo-liberalism and neo-realism on one hand and
neo-Marxism on the other.This 'neo-neo' debate came to constitute the third Great Debate of IR.
Having won the first major debate, realism remained the dominant theoretical approach in IR. However,
during the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s a good deal of IR concerned trade and investment,travel and communication
between the liberal democracies of the west have provided the basis for a new attempt by liberals to formulate an
alternative approach i.r “Neo-liberalsim”, to realist thinking that would avoid utopian excesses of earlier liberalism.
The chief proponents of the neo-liberal approach were E. Haas, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. The basic
assumptions - Neoliberals share old liberal ideas about the possibility of progress and change,but they repudiate
idealism. They tried to formulate theories and apply new methods which are scientific. In short, the debate between
liberalism and realism continued, but it was now colored by the post-1945 international setting and behavioralist
methodological persuasion.
Among several strands of neo-liberalism, the most prominent, which tried to face the realist challenge, was
generally known as ‘pluralism’ or multiplicity of actors.Pluralism actually thrives on sociological,institutional and
interdependence liberalism. The neo-liberalists rejected the singular simplicities of the realist approach which
considered states to be the only significant actors in international relations. This new school of liberal thought put a
much greater emphasis on the plurality of actors and their activities in international relations.Non-state actors like
individuals, institutions,organizations are also significant actors in IR(such as European Union (EU), Association of
SouthEast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the African Union (AU) multinational corporations (MNCS), International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank, several international non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross others).These actors and
organizations operate between the domestic and the international spheres, thereby transcending states and making the
boundaries irrelevant to Some extent i.e expanding cross-border activities(sociological and institutional liberalism).
The other idea which the neo-liberals put forward is the concept of complex interdependence, which is
dramatically different from that of the realists. They argue that, besides the political relations of governments, there
are other forms of connections between societies including transnational links between the business corporations.
Here, military force is not given much importance. Hence, an "absence of hierarchy among issues” is found and
military power is no longer useful as an instrument of foreign policy as the other actors; besides, the states do not have
violent conflict on their international agenda. Therefore, it can be said that the neo-liberals put forward Non-military
paradigms of international relations as there was a shift from hard power to soft power. and continuously argued for
peaceful and cooperative relations. Therefore, “integration” or “cooperation” and “interdependence” is possible
because of the plurality of actors.
Impact- Therefore,These different strands of neoliberalism are mutually supportive in providing an overall consistent
argument for more peaceful and cooperative IR. They consequently stand as a challenge to the realist analysis of IR. In
the 1970s, there was a general feeling among IR scholars that neoliberalism was on the way to becoming the dominant
theoretical approach in the discipline. But a reformulation of realism once again tipped the balance towards realism.
The pluralists' arguments soon caught the attention of Kenneth Waltz who renewed realism in its new
form-Neo-Realism-and revived the debate between the realists and the liberals. This stream of neo-realism tried to
build upon the principles of classical realists like Morgenthau. Main proponents like Kenneth Waltz's path breaking
work ‘Theory of International Politics’ (1979)laid the essential basis of the neo-realists' debate. His work was inspired
by the scientific ambitions of behaviouralism. He thus departs sharply from classical realism in showing virtually no
interest in the ethics of statecraft or the moral dilemmas of foreign policy— concerns that are strongly evident in the
realist writings of Morgenthau. His theory led to the emergence of a new school of thought-structural realism.
He focused on the “structure” of the international system and the “consequences” of that structure in the
international system . For the neo-realists, basic assumptions -First, Waltz notes that the international system is
anarchy;there is no worldwide government to safeguard interest of states.Second, States do not differ in the tasks they
face, only in their capabilities i.e power. Structure of a system changes with changes in distribution of capabilities. In
other words, International change occurs when great powers rise and fall and Balance of power shifts accordingly.
For example-The international system,after the second world war was moving from a bipolar system to a multi-polar
system. Waltz, therefore, emphasized patterned relationships among actors in a system that is anarchical. For him,
states were power-seeking and security-conscious not because of human nature viewed as 'plain bad' by classical
realists, but because the structure of the international system compels them to do so.
Neorealists do not deny all possibilities for cooperation among states. But they do maintain that cooperating states
will always strive to maximize their relative power and preserve their autonomy. Therefore, the neo-realists were
successful in putting the neo-liberals on the defensive in the 1980s. Armed conflict between the liberal democracies
was certainly not on the agenda; but there were ‘trade wars’ and other disputes between the Western democracies
which appeared to confirm the neorealist hypothesis about competition between self-interested countries that were
fundamentally concerned about their ‘power position’ relative to each other.
IMPACT- DEEP STRUCTURE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
During the 1980s, scholars of two schools of thought came closer to synthesize ideas of neo-liberals and neo-realists.
Main proponents-Robert Keohane attempted to formulate a synthesis of neorealism and neoliberalism coming from
the neoliberal side. Barry Buzan with Charles Jones and Richard Little made a similar attempt coming from the
neorealist side and introduced the concept of “Deep Structure”. The Basic assumption is that the political structure
encompasses anarchy as well as hierarchy and it includes not only power and institutions but also rules and norms.
Some neorealists and neoliberals came close to sharing a common analytical starting point by retaining the core
elements of Waltz's structural realism but broadening it by looking into the international system as being based on
anarchy but still including patterns of cooperation. In methodological terms, there was even more common ground
between neorealists and neoliberals. Both strongly supported the scientific project launched by the behaviouralists
As indicated earlier, the debate between neorealism and neoliberalism can be seen as a continuation of the first
major debate in IR. But unlike the earlier debate this one resulted in most neoliberals accepting most of the neorealist
assumptions as starting points for analysis. However, there is still no complete synthesis between the two traditions.
Some neorealists and neoliberals are far from reconciling with each other and keep arguing exclusively in favor of
their side of the debate. The debate is therefore a continuing one.

The academic IR debates presented so far are mainly concerned with international politics. Economic
affairs play a secondary role. The decades after world wars was a period of decolonization and ‘new’ countries gained
their political independence.Many of the ‘new’ states are weak in economic terms and are at the bottom of the global
economic hierarchy and constitute a ‘Third [now developing] World’.Around this time, “Neo-Marxism” emerged as
an attempt to theorize about economic underdevelopment in developing countries.This became the basis for a third
major debate in IR about international wealth and international poverty—i.e., about International Political Economy
(IPE). The third debate takes the shape of a neo-Marxist critique of the capitalist world economy, concerning the
relationship between economics and politics in international relations.
Neo-Marxism is an attempt to analyze the situation of developing countries by applying the tools of analysis
first developed by Karl Marx. he argued that the bourgeoisie or capitalist class used its economic power to exploit and
oppress the proletariat, or working class. NeoMarxists extend that analysis to developing countries by arguing that the
global capitalist economy controlled by the wealthy capitalist states is used to impoverish the world’s poor
countries.The main proponents are Andre Gunder Frank (1967), Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) and others who
formed the School of International Political Economy (IPE).Their fundamental contributions were in providing
powerful insights into the origin and development of the international system which is roughly divided into the
dominant North and the dependent South. They identified the causes of most developing countries' persistent
underdevelopment in the patterns of dominance and dependence. Two strands of structural theorists need attention: the
World System Theory and the Dependency Theory. ‘Dependence’ is a core concept for neo-Marxists. A
core-periphery bifurcation of the world was developed by the dependency theorists who took their cue from Lenin's
work Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. It is a “Chain of dependency” which symbolizes the "relative
economic strength of rich countries ,which form the core of the world economy, and the poorer ones on the periphery,
with the Soviet Union occupying the semi-periphery".
The Basic assumption that is reflected in the works of these structural Marxists is that the striking feature of the world
system is the transfer of wealth,human and natural resources from the peripheral countries to the core countries. The
result is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.They claim that unequal exchange and appropriation of
economic surplus by the few at the expense of the many are inherent in Capitalism(a hierarchy based on the
exploitation of the poor by the rich).As long as the capitalist system exists there will be underdevelopment in the Third
World. In short, there core idea was to discuss inequality and oppression of periphery and semi-periphery countries
through economics in IR.

Marxist theory of Materialism- Core countries(Haves)- economically

● Production is the most important
human activity.
● Base - Means and relations of
production
● Superstructure-education,culture,re
ligion,politics,media
● Base shapes the superstructure and
superstructure maintains the base.
developed,stable political system,well developed
education,predominantly industrial,advanced
military,financially powerful,high wages, income
and profit.
Periphery countries(Have-nots)-economically
underdeveloped,unstable political
system,predominantly agricultural and rural,low
levels of advancements in Science &
tech,education,low wages,profit and income
Semi Periphery countries-industrial
developed,stable political system but don’t have
enough power to come into core,Middle income
countries,weak laws and labor to attract FDI.

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY: ENGLISH SCHOOL

The behaviouralist challenge was most strongly felt among IR scholars in the United States. The neorealist and
neoliberal acceptance of that challenge also came predominantly from the American academic community. In the
1970s and 1980s the IR agenda was preoccupied with the neoliberalism/neorealism debate. In the 1990s, after the end
of the cold war,American predominance in the discipline became less pronounced, and this made way for assertion by
IR scholars of Europe and other places of the globe.It rejected any firm distinction between a strict realist and a strict
liberal view of international relations.This school of thought that emerged around this time in the United Kingdom
came to be referred to as "the English School" with its emphasis on society of states or international society.The
chief proponents of this school were E.H. Carr. C.A.W. Manning, F.S. Northedge, Adam Watson, R.J. Vincent, James
Mayall, Robert Jackson, and newer scholars like Timothy Dunne and Nicholas Wheeler.It is to note that several of its
leading figures were not from the United Kingdom; rather, they were from Australia, Canada, and South Africa. Two
leading International Society theorists of the twentieth century are Martin Wight and Hedley Bull. The International
Society theorists' basic assumption was to provide an alternative set of premises which are neither Hobbesian nor
utopian. In fact, they tried to arrive at non-Hobbesian conclusions from Hobbesian premises. They did acknowledge
the realists' emphasis on power & national interest(realist element) and world politics as an "anarchical society" but,
at the same time, they do contend that under conditions of anarchy, states act within a system of rules, procedures and
international law(liberal element). They are not trying to explain international relations scientifically; rather, they are
trying to understand it and interpret it. International Society theorists thus take a broader historical, legal, and
philosophical approach to international relations. States are important, but so are human beings. Therefore, the core
element in their thought is that there is a presence of a world of sovereign states where both power and law are
present. Power and national interest do matter, but norms and institutions also have great significance.

CONCLUSION-
In short, the third major debate further complicates the discipline of IR because it shifts the subject away
from political and military issues and towards economic and social issues, and because it introduces the distinct socio
economic problems of developing countries.Yet both realist and liberal traditions have specific views on IPE, and
those views have been attacked by neo-Marxism. And all three perspectives are in rather sharp disagreement with each
other. The debate was focused on North–South relations at first, but it has long since expanded to include IPE issues in
all areas of international relations. There was no clear winner in the third debate and it is “inconclusive”.Wæver (1996,
p162) remarked about the third debate, ‘it is seen as a debate not to be won, but a pluralism to live with’.
The challenge posed by the International Society approach does not count as a new major debate. It
should rather be seen as an extension of the first debate and a repudiation of the seeming behaviouralist triumph in the
second debate. International Society scholars emphasize the simultaneous presence in international society of both
realist and liberal elements. There is conflict and there is cooperation; there are states and there are
individuals.International Society theorists argue for a humanist approach that recognizes the simultaneous presence of
all these elements, and the need for holistic and historical study of the problems and dilemmas that arise in that
complex situation.
However, with the end of the Cold War and the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, the dominant paradigms
in IR seemed unable to explain the prevailing situations. Therefore, new reflective critical ideas started gaining
ground, which was a departure from the mainstream liberal, realist and orthodox Marxist thinking in IR. New debates
have, therefore, arisen in IR methodological issues((i.e., how to approach the study of IR) ) as well as substantial
issues(which issues should be considered the most important ones for IR to study).
FOURTH DEBATE- POSITIVISM v/s POSTPOSITIVISM

This sense of dissatisfaction in the mid 1980s with the comforting notion of an inter paradigm(neo-neo)
debate led to what many have called the fourth great debate in IR, between what can broadly be called positivism
and post-positivism.(Note that this debate is somewhat confusingly also referred to as the ‘third debate’ by
some IR theorists). There are many ways to characterize the ‘fourth debate’.
Steve Smith has argued that the differing positions have largely ignored each other meaning that it
makes little sense to talk of 'debates' between rival theoretical frameworks.Therefore, Steve Smith, while
considering the present theoretical perspectives in IR, puts IR theories into categories-
1) On Methodological divide of theory : Positivism and Post Positivism
2) On Ontological divide of theory : Foundational and Anti-Foundational
3) On the basis of Purpose of theory : Rationalism and Reflectivism
4) On the basis of Characteristics of theory :Explanatory and Constitutive
Among these most important is the Methodological divide.

POSITIVISM AND POST POSITIVISM

Positivist methodology in IR carries the legacy of behaviouralism, in more sophisticated ways.This method
relies on a precise,empirical approach based on logically related hypotheses that can be tested through scientific
techniques by using statistical analysis.The main proponents are Auguste Comte and David Hume.The basic
assumptions are-empirical evidence obtained through the senses is the only firm foundation for knowledge,there are
no differences in the logic of inquiry across sciences,the research should aim to explain and predict,Science must be
value-free and it should be judged only by logic.In positivism studies the role of the researcher is limited to data
collection and interpretation in an objective way. In other words, the researcher is an objective analyst and she
distances herself from personal values in conducting the study.
Postpositivists methodology draws inspiration from the critique of behavioural and positivist
approaches.It refers to the theories of international relations which epistemologically reject positivism. It is a
very big umbrella that shelters several approaches like critical,feminist,postmodern,constructivist and
normative approaches. The Basic assumptions are-It seeks to build a unified logic of inference for both
quantitative and qualitative inquiry. It does not claim to provide universal answers but seeks to ask questions
instead.They also believe that power has Ideational element.A key difference is that while Positivists
theories analyze the causality behind international phenomena, Postpositivists endeavors deconstruct the
mainstream understanding of said events.Postpositivist theories do not attempt to be scientific or a social
science. Instead, they attempt in-depth analysis of cases in order to "understand" international political
phenomena by asking relevant questions of identity,representation,emancipation of belief structures to
determine in what ways the status-quo promotes certain power relations.Hence, they emphasize pluralism
and solidarity.

The long diagonal axis (upper left to lower right) became the main debate in the 1980s, while the remaining
narrow intra-rationalist debate between neorealists and neoliberals (short arrow) became the other
constitutive element of the fourth debate.
There is much significance of the fourth debate in the discipline of IR, as it addresses the issue of its
relevance both for the discipline itself on the epistemological, ontological and methodological levels, and for the
discipline conceived as a normative enterprise that affects international relations.

CONCLUSION-
The “Great Debates” show that IR is a lively discipline and has a lot to offer today also.It is “an integral
element of the intellectual and social structures of the discipline as they have shaped both the history of the
discipline and the contemporary theoretical landscape
It is to be noted that No single theoretical approach has clearly won the day in IR. The main theoretical traditions and
alternative approaches that we have outlined are all actively employed in the discipline today.
IR is a interdisciplinary,iconoclastic and of recent origin.It developed from normative theory to casual
theory,from idealism to realism,from realism to behaviouralism and scienticism,neoliberalism to neo-marxism to
post-positivism and so on. Though it is neither well-organized nor fully scientific nor having a complete conceptual
framework yet it has developed itself from an allied branch of political science and history to an autonomous
discipline.

TRENDS AND ANALYSIS

Smith argues that present day IR is, therefore, characterized by three principal trends-
Continuing dominance of the three theories-Realism, Liberalism and Modern World System theory-constituting
the rationalist position and epitomized by the 'neo-neo' debate.
Emergence of non-positivistic theories marking the reflectivist position. Development of an approach that
seeks a rapprochement between the rationalist and reflectivist positions and is epitomized by the social
constructivist position,

Positivism epitomized in this essay by Realism, Neorealism,Liberalism and Neoliberalism-recognizes the existence of
“rationalism”.Post-positivism is represented by (Marxism and) Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Feminism and
Postcolonialism —reflects a characteristic of “reflectivism”.Approaches such as the English School and
(conventional) Constructivism are dealt with as middle paths, since the former is a synthesis of different theories , and
the latter is characterized by a positivist epistemology “mismatched” with a post-positivist ontology.