4 Great debates of IR:

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

DATE 1920s- 1950s 1960s- 1990s onwards
1930s 1970s
Unit of Individual Theocratic State level Society level
analysis/st level model
udy
called Classical Neo-
debate debate
approach traditionali Behavioral Positivism, Post-positivism,
sm , scientific, functionali post-
scientism, sm, functionalism,
revolution structurali post-structural
sm ism huu
THEORIES Classical Behavioral Neo Constructivism,
realism approach Realism & post
and and Neo modernism,
classical system liberalism critical theory &
idealism approach feminism
Critical theory is only used when talking about capitalism and
feminism is avoided and only used when feminism topic is
there.

● 1st great debate: Historical interpretation of international

relations on basis of analysis of individual conduct as was
 witnessed in the past. Human behavior/conduct in history
is made and future behavior of humans/leaders is
analyzed and concluded. In short human history by being
made the base the future of human conduct is analyzed.
● 2nd great debate: It never reached analysis level. Before
analysis can be done the theoretical models should be
studied/discussed under which IR is to be analyzed, after
which analysis should be proceeded towards. If history is
being made the base then IR will never evolve as a
scientific discipline. Hence proper behavioral approach,
scientific approaches and conducts should be brought
which should be used properly for research purpose so as
to develop theory which can then be made the basis.
● 3rd great debate: State level should be made the base and
analyzed I.e. state politics, state relations and so on. Just
history and scientific approaches are not enough. The
nature of subject is such that alone with history and
scientific approach analysis can't be done. First all schools
of thought should agree that who is the most significant
actor in the world. This approach is called positivism. The
schools of thoughts determined that states were the most
significant actors at international level. Secondly it was
said to determine an agree upon as to how the state
functions and under which environment they function and
in which structure they exist and function. This is called
functionalism and structuralism. Here it was decided that
 states structure exists in international anarchic state and
functions as an international anarchic state. This now can
be used to determine relationships between states.
● 4th great debate: Society level includes international
society. Here the decisions taken in 3rd great debate were
challenged and was said that anarchy cannot be made a
constant assumption. Similarly, state cannot be made a
constant assumption and the only significant factor. The
society at multiple dynamics need to be studied and also
the non-state actors need to be analyzed and their
influence analyzed.
THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATION: (Most Dominant
theory)
Realism: Realism is a.k.a realpolitik or power politics model of
IR. This model revolves around:
I. Power politics
I. Power
II. Military
III. Might is right
IV. Security
And basically, in international relations explains:
V. Power influence
VI. Power relations
VII. Maximization of power
As to how states for its existence maximize its powers and
achieve its interests. Hence where ever power politics, might is
right, security dilemma, national interest, arms raise, national
interest, military are mentioned it will be power politics theory
or realism. The essential elements/primary features/core
concepts of realism are (3S):

● Statism: Realism says that in international relations state

is a primary, unitary and rationale actor. Everything begins
with state and finishes with state. States cannot be divided
into bits and peace. Pakistani’s make Pakistan and
Pakistan makes Pakistani’s. In global politics state
dominates and state is composition of its people both in
and across the border. State does not operate on
emotionality and operates on rationality. It calculates its
interest and needs as it is self-centered.
● Survival: Since states are rationale actors, they know they
have to operate in the anarchic structure due to the
principle of survival of fittest and cannot rely on alliances.
Hence it knows it needs to maximize power.
● Self-Help: The survival feeling is there because states look
at each other with an eye of lack of trust because state is
rational actor. This will give rise to security dilemma i.e.
security of 1 lead to insecurity of other. This will prevent
the state from relying on anyone else and would rely on
 self help which is achieved through maximization of
power.
In short statism for survival through self-help which demands
maximization of power. Hence, we say politics is the pursuit
of power for the attainment of national interest.
Everyone does power politics however the orientation of
power politics varies:

● Offensive Realists: Power for hegemony and maximalist

approach.
● Defensive Realists: Power for survival and minimal
approach.
The power politics will always be in comparative domain. In
other words, it will be situational. Power politics Infront of a
hegemon will be defensive and with subordinates will be
offensive. India in reference to Pakistan will be offensive
whereas in terms of China it will be defensive. Pakistan in terms
of India will be defensive whereas in terms of Afghanistan
offensive. Hence situation will determine which side you choose.
One actor in one situation will be offensive whereas in another
situation will be defensive.
1. Classical Realism: If you want to make an individual
responsible use this theory. It assumes that humans are
egoistic by nature meaning that the defining trait of
human personality is based on egoism on basis of which
human behaves. Egoism means human is selfish, immoral
and competitive. Man is driven by selfish pursuits
irrespective of how low the human stoops and how
competitive he becomes. They work on the concept of
might is right. In international politics human conduct can
be explained through his egoistic nature meaning his
selfish, immoral and competitive nature. In short it
assumes imperfect human being. The key principles
according to Hans Morgenthau in his book politics among
nations are:
● States used to, are and will continue to increase their
power meaning power politics was, is and will be
there. Those who govern the state have been, are and
will be doing power politics. People were, are and will
be inclined towards its state increasing its power.
● The power is increased so that 1 states leadership and
its population preserve themselves. This is known as
self-preservation. It is different from self-defense.
When A attacks B and B retaliates it will be called
self-defense. A state does not increase its power so
that they cannot have the capability of self-defense
rather have the capability to prevent other states
from attacking them due to fear and due to the
principle of self-preservation.
 ● Self-preservation is important because there is lack of
moral behavior and is replaced by egoistic nature and
national interest. It is dominated by selfish pursuits.
● The example of their being no moral behavior is that
of history of war since wars were not fought on
morality basis rather were fought on egoistic nature
and pursuit of national interests.
● To stop wars international law came into being but
international law cannot stop wars and international
law failed completely.
● This is because law is successful when there is
someone to enforce the law but at international level
there is no international sovereign. UN is not real
according to realism theory. Since it is not being
enforced it is a homeopathic law.
● Hence to preserve themselves they have to increase
their power.
In short it says power for self-preservation because of lack of
moral behavior evident in the history of war which occurred
because of failure of international law which failed due to
absence of any enforcing authority. Hence any rationale state
bent towards its survival is left with only 1 choice i.e. to
maximize its power. Hence politics is the pursuit of power for
the attainment of national interest.
2. Neo Realism: If you want to make the state responsible use
this theory. This theory assumes that the states exist in an
international anarchic structure by nature. In the world
there is no authority over and above the state. State is
sovereign hence no authority is present over and above
meaning no supra sovereign. There is no entity to conduct
the affairs of the states. To top it off the states are unequal
in capabilities I.e. some are stronger and some are weaker,
some are rich and some are poor, some military more
some less. Since there is anarchy and unequal capabilities
all the states look at each other with an eye of suspicion
and hence there is a lack of trust and leads them into a
whirl pool of security dilemma. If India attacks Pakistan
there will be no global sovereign that will come to help us
hence, we cannot rely on them and in order to deter them
we cannot put the responsibility on the international
community and instead must bring our capabilities equal
to them and if not then based on self-help must use
balance of power. In short it assumes an imperfect
international anarchic structure or state anarchic
structure. Since it talks about international structure it is
a.k.a structural realism as it talks about global structure.
Kenneth Waltz in his book theory of international politics
tells us as to why a state acts like it is and the key
principles are:
 ● In the world at every time there is a power structure,
hierarchy and rating will be present. E.g. nowadays US is
most powerful state followed by China and Russia which
are followed by Germany, UK and so on the least
powerful being Gulululu.
● This shows a power structure and no matter what
happens there will be lack of trust and anarchy.
● This anarchy is there because the state to state
capabilities vary. Some have more and some have less.
Some states have more military capability and others
less. Some have more trade capability others have less.
● Since capabilities cannot be equal there will be unequal
distribution of power. Some will have more and others
will have less.
● Depending on the distribution of power there will be
polarity. Polarity is the number of power centers in the
globe. It maybe:
i. Uni-polar
ii. Bi-polar
iii. Multi-polar
● Every state’s behavior in that polarity will be to protect its
national interest. State will decide which power center to
side with so as to fill the gap in the difference capabilities.
In short, a power structure will exist in the globe in which
anarchy would be integral part because of different capabilities
of the state resulting in unequal distribution of power. The way
the power is distributed it would make a unique polar structure
which would make the states behave in a way that would
protect their national interest.
Pakistan siding with US instead of USSR (Case study)
Post 9/11 (Case study)
Divergence between classical and neo-realism:
Classical Realism Neo Realism
1st great debate 2nd great debate
Individual State
traditionalism Structuralism and
functionalism
Comparisons between classical and neo-realism:
Survival of the fittest and might is right principle applied here
but in classical realism it is at the level of individual and at neo-
realism it is at level of state. Since these principles are the
individual if classical realism and state if neo-realism needs
power so that one individual if classical realism or state if neo-
realism can achieve its national interest. National interest are
those interests which are mandatory for survival. Hence politics
is the struggle for pursuit of power for the attainment of
national interest. Both realism theories assume that the interest
of the population is the interest of the state whereas the
interest of the state are the interest of the population hence
both theories align national interest with human interest. E.g.
Man needs security, welfare, law and order, justice and peace.
That is also what states need. This is where the 2 theories
converge. State requires it because of international anarchic
structure where as humans require it because of their own
egoistic nature and for survival of fittest attain national interest
through power politics.
Critique on Realism: The liberal school critiques on realism and
its main idea is the critique of realism. Power politics is a
vicious cycle and the structure of the world is anarchic in nature
due to lack of trust leading to a security dilemma which leads to
one state becoming secure and another state becoming
insecure which will lead to the other state increasing its power
leading to balance of power and then again, this cycle will
continue. Liberals argue that this anarchic environment cannot
be resolved through power maximization and instead will be
resolved through peace and diplomacy and try to over come the
trust deficit through democracy, trade, treaties, agreement and
so on. This is also the rationale of liberal school of thought.
3. Feminism: Should not be applied generally and should be
restricted mainly to topics related to Feminism. Feminist
theory is not an international relations theory. It is a
theory of gender study which has been incorporated into
IR so as to explain the role of gender in international
politics and the influence of gender. Feminism is also a
critique on power politics. They state that gender is not
merely a biological construct but a social construct as well.
The difference between the 2 is because of power division
in international relations. This power difference is also
 present in global politics and shapes it. Feminists argue
that the whole world is divided into 2 extreme power
poles:
● High power end/pole/realm: This is the world of politics
and economy.
● Low power end/pole/realm: This is the world of domestic
work.
The difference between these 2 poles is the power gap and is
dominated by patriarchic norms i.e. male is dominant.
Because of these patriarchic norm’s male is settled in high
power pole whereas women are limited to low power end.
Male as a gender is aggressive, irrational and power
oriented. In short, they have realist traits. Women on the
other hand are conciliatory, rational and cooperative. In
short, they have liberal traits. Those that have liberal traits
are in low power end and those who have realist traits are in
high power end. Hence the realist traits are reflected in the
global politics and there is power politics. If you want the
world to move from realism to liberalism then you must
mainstream females so that they come into global politics
and slowly and gradually change the global politics and
economy from realist to liberalist. This is common for all
feminist theories. However, they vary in how they should be
mainstreamed.
● Difference feminism: We agree that there is difference
between men and women but even if we agree this
 difference even then the minimum opportunities that
they deserve is not given to them i.e. the minimum
representation which should be ensured through special
quotas.
● Liberal feminism: There is no difference between man
and woman. In terms of competence they are not equal
and can be equal if the opportunities given for men is
also given to women. If given they can manage global
politics.
● Postmodern feminism: Women are not weak instead are
shown and manifested as weak due to which it is
engraved in the minds at societal level. Stop doing this
and women will be mainstreamed.
Idealism: Idealism is also known as cooperation politics model
of International relations. It assumes that peace in the world is
possible and that what realism says that lack of trust feeling,
anarchy and security dilemma cannot be overcome are wrong
and peace is possible, prosperity and cooperation is also
possible if all the states cooperate through multilateralism it
will lead to peace and prosperity. This broader thought is
known as idealist perspective. There are 2 theories in idealism
i.e.
1. Classical Idealism: It stands in direct opposition to concept
of classical realism. Classical realism assumed human
egoism i.e. human is selfish, egoistic and competitive. On
the other hand, idealism talks about human altruism.
Human altruism is defined as humans are good by nature,
they are cooperative and are morale and trust worthy by
nature. Both schools of thoughts opposed each other
hence this was variant of a thought meaning classical
theories at assumption level are variant of a thought. Why
is it called idealism at classical level? At classical level this
theory assumes human altruism. Is human altruism an
eutopia or a reality? It assumes that man is Treated as
Mean rather than End i.e. in politics human is treated as
mean than end meaning global politics is not for humans
but for states capabilities. That is it revolves around
interest and power rather than human beings. Meaning
those resources that should be directed towards the
human beings such as towards their education, health,
wellbeing and so on is directed towards power and
interests. This leads to decrease in resources within a
state. This decrease in resources within a state leads to the
human being becoming immoral. Hence due to limitation
of resources the human turns from being good to immoral
due to global politics system. Hence state focus should be
from capabilities towards institutions i.e. instead of
increasing nuclear weapons they should increase human
institutions. So that end goal is human development.
Because of this reason there are things like poverty, crime,
illiteracy and so on. In short, if the focus from the goal is
diverted. If the focus is re oriented to the people it will
bring enlightenment and this will increase the feeling that
 war never was the solution leading to development of
rationality leading to global consensus and mutual
cooperation leading to peace and prosperity. Till this is not
done there won’t be any possibility of peace, prosperity
and cooperation. Its principles are suggested by John Locke
2. Neo-liberalism: It stands in direct opposition to the concept
of Neo-realism. Neo realism assumed there was an
international anarchic structure i.e. an environment of lack
of trust shaped by unequal capabilities of the state and
absence of a global sovereign. Neo liberalism on the other
hand, as suggested in the 3rd great debate approach
positivism meaning there was consensus between the
school of thoughts hence it also assumed international
anarchic structure as opposed to global peace. So, in short
both schools agreed that international anarchic structure
is present and states have to operate in this international
anarchic structure. Since both agreed to the same thing
this was positive of a thought hence neo theories at
assumption level are positive of a thought. Why is it called
neo-liberalism? It assumes international anarchic structure
and all that neo realism suggested but to overcome it you
will need to build consensus, promote majority consensus,
promote institutions and liberal orientation. Power politics
is a narrow perspective and wont work hence liberal
perspective will have to prevail. In short it is called
liberalism because it accepts the reality of the world being
an international anarchic structure but suggests ways to
over come it through trade, consensus, dialogue,
democracy and so on. This is called Wilsonianism. There is
international anarchic structure and to over come it states
follow power politics but this does not solve the problem
rather pushes the world into a global vicious cycle of
politics. To avoid this vicious cycle, you need liberal
approach. By liberal approach we mean that power politics
should be finished and multi-lateral forums, agreements
and so on should be made like UN, ASEAN and so on and
bring the states into economic interdependency through
trade because when trade increases an interdependency
will be developed and hence the states to achieve its
national interest will move towards these institutions and
all and will start moving towards peace and prosperity and
cooperation. According to realism politics is the struggle
for pursuit of power for the attainment of national
interest. Here politics is defined as struggle for pursuit of
cooperation for the attainment of common interests.
Individual level common interest is human development
and at state level it is cooperation. Its principles are
defined by Immanuel Kant in his Kantian perpetual peace
triangle. Perpetual means long lasting and ever increasing.
Emmanuel Kant model suggests how peace can
perpetuate. When all these in the triangle occur together
only then liberal model can work and peace can
perpetuate. In the model according to Emanuel Kant there
were 3 types of liberalism:
● Liberal institutionalism or institutional liberalism:
States together to solve their problems should make
multi-lateral institutions i.e. multilateralism. In short
in stead of solving problems individually they should
be solved through cooperation in multi-lateral
institutions that are effective and if not there should
be made.
● Liberal internationalism or republic liberalism or
democratic peace theory: Within states or among
states or between states democratic values should be
 promoted along with majority consensus, dialogue,
opinion of minority class should be promoted also
meaning that within state and at international level
also democratic norms should be promoted and until
they are not promoted hegemonic, territorial,
expansionist and so on mentality will be present.
● Liberal commercialism or interdependence liberalism
or economic liberalism: States should increase free
trade, economic inter dependency, e commerce and
liberal economy should be increased through the
borders meaning through economy increase inter
dependence.
Only when these 3 occur simultaneously will peace perpetuate.
If even one is missing peace won’t perpetuate. E.g. UN was
made but within UN there is Veto power which is dictatorial
power not democratic power. Similarly, economic
interdependency was not increased. Europe became an
economic community leading to formation to EU which resulted
in opening of borders and free trade and all leading to peace.
EU is the biggest example of perpetual peace triangle. Hence
they introduced reform program for liberals. They included:
● Security solutions: To solve the security problems they
state that security and peace are not the national interests
of any individual state but a common interest of all state
hence when problem arises they should solve it collectively
through collective security as stated in UN charter Chapter
VII which is defined as an act of aggression against one
would be considered an act of aggression against all
subject to collective action against the other. Meaning if
one state is attacked it would mean all the states are
attacked and they would get together to attack the state
that attacked.
● Legislative solution: At international level there was said
that there is international anarchic structure and
legislative making is not possible as there is no law-making
authority and enforcing authority. Hence, they say that we
 agree all but all the states should sit and make laws such
as Pacta Sunt Servanda which states pacts needs to be
served in good faith and under their spirit more legislation
should be made. Since state is considered an absolute
authority then when 2 states sit and make an agreement
there will be moral authority on the states as the
agreement was done through free will and consent.
● Judicial solution: If dispute arises it should be solved
through multilateral judicial forums through an impartial
body hence if not present, they need to be made.
● Arms race solution: Arms control and disarmament should
be done and agreement should be made how much to
submit and what not to submit and what to submit. In
short move the world towards de weaponization.
Political solution: Political disputes should be solved through
right of self determination instead of doing power politics.
Hence according to liberal model, the solution in Kashmir
problem should be solved by asking the Kashmiri’s as to what
should be done as stated in UN charter. However, problem
arises because India does not want to accept it through
liberal mindset and instead is choosing to do power politics.
In short solution is through liberalism but mentality is
realism.
However, there are challenges to this cooperation
 ● Free riding: A platform for cooperation in which some
states through any means do not contribute to it but
gain benefit through it. Meaning structure is made such
that some states are contributors called free riding
states and are always free riders as compared to those
who receive the benefit. UN peace keeping missions are
contributed through by either troops (Pakistan) or
financial contributor (US) however the peace keeping
missions happen through UN security council whose
majority members are non-member states. Hence to
make them effective the UNSC should consist of
members should be members who contribute.
● Game theory: It is an economy theory used in IR. It has 2
components:
⮚ Zero sum game: realistic angle. Relative gains. Since
states operate on realistic angle, they go to
international forums so as to increase their benefits.
VETO is a zero-sum game. Executive powers are zero
sum.
⮚ Win-Win game: Liberal angle. Absolute gain.
Everybody gets equal i.e. everything or nothing.
● Prisoner’s dilemma: In diplomacy there is prisoner’s
dilemma in the minds of the states. Pakistan argues
we wont sign NPT until India signs it. China does not
 sign Kyoto protocol until US does it and vice versa.
This leads to security dilemma. Hence cooperation’s
will never be possible.
Hence in short, these 3 things would create barriers in
cooperation that would lead to the failure of cooperation i.e.
accommodation of free riders, zero sum mentality and
prisoner’s dilemma.
Difference between the 2:
Classical idealism Neo Liberalism
Individual State
1st great debate 3rd great debate
Human altruistic nature International anarchic
structure
Traditionalism Positivism, functionalism and
structuralism
Treated as Mean then end Power politics is the problem
(problem)
Forced to display immoral Leads to vicious cycle
side (effect)
State focus capabilities (focus) Need of liberal approach
Re orientation institutions Institutionalization and trade
(requirement)
Human development (end Cooperation
goal)
Only way to peace and Only way to peace and
prosperity (objective) prosperity (objective)

Neo-Neo Debate: Basically, it is the comparison between Neo

realism and Neo liberalism.
Neo Realism Neo Liberalism
Assumption International International
anarchic structure anarchic structure
Assumption Cooperation’s Cooperation’s
leads to loss of leads to mutual
power hence benefit and at the
maximize power to end of the day
maximize national there will be gains
interest and no
compromise
Focus of study High politics (war, Low politics
security, power and (Human rights,
so on) economy and so
on)
Foreign policy Dominated by Interdependence
approach national security and globalization
debate (arms race,
security and so on
 will dominate)
Foreign policy tool Egoistic maximizers Dialogue for
cooperation
Role of institutions Either don’t join Necessary foreign
because you will policy element
compromise your
national security
and if need be
joined only those
where you gain
relatively more e.g.
US in UN has VETO
power
Role of institutions Only join those More and more
where national institutions
security is not at
stake
Why war? Not addressed Failure of
international
system and
cooperative
designs
Globalization Not discussed at all Globalization
if discussed they maximizer
consider it as tool
 for power
Domestic policies Over emphasized Under Emphasized
(national security, (covid-19 global
nationalism, warming and so
national defense on.
and so on)

4. Constructivism: One of the 3 most dominant theories along

with neo realism and neo liberalism. Neo realism is a thesis
and Neo liberalism are anti-thesis. They are completely
opposite to each other. Meaning there is a need for
compromise between the 2. Hence that compromise was
provided by constructivism. Since Neo realism and Neo
liberalism was state level theory this was also state level
theory. Hence it is mostly also called 3 theoretical
paradigms with neo realism being 1st and neo liberalism
being 2nd. Neo realism states anarchy cannot be replaced
where as neo liberalism suggests anarchy can be replaced.
Hence constructivism states that neither anarchy nor
cooperation explains the reality of the world. The only
thing that explains reality known as construct. Construct
are the state ideals, believes, values, norms and
experiences. For China our ideals are Pak China zindabad,
experiences great hence construct is positive hence we do
cooperation with Beijing. Our ideas about India are
completely opposite hence Delhi feels to us as anarchy.
 Where constructs are positive cooperation will be there
and where negative there will be anarchy. Hence anarchy
and cooperation are not the cause but effect. The main
thesis is neither cooperation nor anarchy only reality and
that is construct. 2nd is anarchy is the result of practices. If
cooperation is practiced it can lead to cooperation. 3rd is
anarchy is also what we make out of it. Meaning no
matter what the practices the acts will be figured out as
the opposite. 4th is identities are not determined by
international structure rather it is produced by interaction
and institutions.
Pakistan being a state will interact with other states and hence
for that will form an international system. Constructivism
argues that an international system of a state is shaped by
iterative loop of state constructs. When Pakistan came into
being there were certain ideals as to what it will do and what
won’t do. Based on those ideals foreign policy was made and an
international system was shaped. This international system was
followed by certain realities and experiences. If they match our
ideals, they will become reinforced. If not, our ideals will be
revised. This loop will continue.
5. Post Modernism: It is a literature theory not IR theory just
like feminism is a gender studies theory under the aspect
of feminism. It is used to explain in international relations
a major aspect known as media. Medium used are arts,
culture, movie, dramas and so on. Post modernism theory
argues that media in any form can never be free but is
instead a tool for the powerful to use them for their
agenda and to shape the global structure so as to let the
powerful govern the world according to their interest by
showing false information as reality. It will always be
biased. It is close to theory of constructivism.
Constructivism suggests construct where as this makes the
situation for the formation of construct. Media has a
tendency to over simplify and over generalize everything
and never discuss anything deep rooted and show double
side of the picture. Like US media did in case of Iran saying
they had weapons of mass destruction, in case of USSR
saying they are evil and nowadays in case of China saying
they are using their economy to do theft. How its done is
that they show a picture which is consumed by the masses
which will be believed as a reality and build our opinion
but their wont be any opinion of ourself and only the
opinion which the powerful wants us to believe. This will
lead to a formation of construct and hence either anarchy
or cooperation. Media shows one thing as reality however
there is no single objective reality and there will be
difference of opinion and difference of facts. Everything
has 2 meaning 1 that which media wants to show and the
other which media hides. Hence the population if doesn’t
want to play in the hands of the powerful do double
reading instead of following them blindly. That is look at
everything that media shows with an eye of suspicion and
 do your own critical thinking. Basically, deconstruct what is
being showed and think of what can be possible. Only after
that can you analyze the situation and interests and solve
issues. West showed Islam as a real threat and lead to
islamophobia. They shaped their interest on that and
made everyone believe through media.
6. Critical theory: When there was cold war it was an
ideological war between capitalism and communism.
Capitalism won and communism lost. One group of
scholars arose who used to find faults in capitalism stating
capitalism is exploitative and emancipation from it is
needed. However, when asked which system should it be
replaced with, they suggested a system which had the
same features as communism but never showed
themselves as communist. Such scholars are called critical
theorists and this theory is known as critical theory. Hence
in short, they will ask for emancipation from dominant
social order which is capitalism.
Marxism: Marxism states that the whole worlds problem is
class exploitation and the solution is class less society. Karl
Marx said that the worlds biggest problem is class exploitation.
Class difference is basically the manifestation of economic
indifference in the society and when that class difference gets
involved with exploitation it is called class exploitation. He
stated that there are only 2 classes in the world i.e. exploiter
and exploited class. The exploiter is known as bourgeoisie and
the exploited was known as proletariats. Exploiter class are
those who own the means of production of wealth where as
proletariat own the modes of production i.e. skill. When the
time comes for revenue the bourgeoise gets richer whereas the
proletariat stays the same and is given minimum wage. In short
Karl Marx stated that Bourgeoisie will own 80% and proletariat
20%. When this realization dawns upon the proletariats upon
them the proletariat will revolt and demand for his rights in
which case he will be replaced with even cheaper labor. This
will result in increase of class exploitation ultimately resulting in
material dialecticism meaning materialism. Karl Marx suggests
if you want to avoid this and finish this there is only one
solution i.e. you create a classless society i.e. every person
should earn according to their skill and state should take
ownership of everyone and give them resources according to
their skill and no one should own private property.
Neo Marxism: The super structure of the society is shaped by
economic structure. Meaning just like the economic structure of
the society is the same will be the society. Society is basically
composed and shaped of 5 social institutions:

● Family: Love and belonging need.

 ● Religion:

● Education: Impart those skills in humans on basis of

which they can earn their livelihood.
● Economy: That social institution where the skills
earned through education is applied here so as to
earn money
● Politics: Social institution to maintain law and order
and freedom.
Every one of this social institution fulfills the needs. If all 5 are
combined this whole is the super structure of the society. Neo
Marxism states that the whole societies super structure will
become like that of its economic structure. Agriculture is
economy meaning where there is agriculture there will be more
joint family system, religious norms (being close to nature will
bring them closer to God), basic skills will be there such as
breeding skills, farming skills and so on and in politics there will
be land lords, feudal lords. Hence agriculture determined the
family, religion, education and politics and shaped the
economy. If industrial in nature split family, liberal class in
religion, auditing accounts engineering in education and in
politics industrialists hence affecting the economic structure.
Neo Marxist state that nowadays the whole world is capitalism
and it is exploitative in nature hence we see exploitation in the
whole world and in every element of the society there is
exploitation. Since capitalism i.e. the economic structure is
exploitative hence the whole society structure is exploitative.
Who teaches values? Either family or religion. Who teaches
standard of values? Religion and family. Who teaches the
difference between right and wrong? Religion and family.
Nation state had said that keep religion out of politics and
political system out of politics. Primary assumption of
capitalism is that standard of right and wrong and values,
religion and family should be disassociated from market. Can
economy be disassociated from religion? If done can super
structure of society be fulfilled?
Critical theorists argue that the global dominant social system
is capitalism and dominant global political system is nation
state system. Capitalisms theoretic model is nation state system
as suggested in evolution of international society. They argue
that the theories that dominant social order stand on is not a
theory i.e. nation state system and capitalism is not a theory
because theories are unbiased, a politic and universally
acceptable. These theories are biased for the west and reflect
western political thoughts and are not acceptable to all. They
argue that religion, value and politics should be removed from
politics and economy. However, they cannot be separated
because it is an integral part of society that forms the super
structure. They argue that west wants to remove religion and
family because they know their system is biased, immoral,
exploitative and only favors a small class. However, they do not
let the exploited class know about their exploitation because
they have a power tool known as media which affects the mass
by forming their opinion. However, nothing is ever permanent
and is limited to time space coverage and if awareness rises
then through collectiveness, they can get emancipation and
instead of it can get a system that is favorable for all i.e.
egalitarian values (believing in or based on the principle that all
people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities)
should be in it.
In short critical theorists want to replace capitalism and want
emancipation from it by keeping neo Marxism ideals as its basis
and wants to replace with a system that is close to Marxism. It
is a.k.a Frankfurt school of thought.
Scientific revolution (2nd great debate): If you keep on reading
IR from conditionality perspective it will never become a formal
academic discipline until a proper scientific approach is applied.
Proper data should be collected and analyzed through scientific
methods and informed assumptions should be given instead of
giving stereotypical assumptions such as all media is biased,
international anarchic structure and so on.
1. Behavioral approach: On the basis of historical,
situational, behavioral data try to predict future
possible behavior of an actor in some certain situation
and try to adjust some policy options according to the
situation. Can America’s situational behavior predict
their future behavior? Can we not say America would
never establish cordial relations with Pakistan and
 would only do it when needed? Hence Pakistan needs
to establish it with states that are all weather friends.
This approach failed because might be nature of
politics may be different in the past compared to now
even though situation might be same. The behavior of
the actors might be different. Human variability,
situational viability and so on are there hence cannot
be relied on.
2. System approach: International relations operates in
a global system which will at every time have certain
rules, poles and units. E.g. if we want to analyze
Pakistan and India’s relations based on Kashmir issue.
However, it is not based on 1 to 1 issue. There are
multiple poles. One is china other USA. The dominant
pole is USA and India is aligned with USA where as
Pakistan is aligned with China which has a conflict
with India. Hence here there are 2 poles China and
USA. There are also multiple state actors like MNC’s.
Civil societies, IO and so on. All are pro Indians.
Hence, they state there are at every time certain
poles, elements and rules in the system. Hence to
analyze the relation analyze it simultaneously keeping
in mind these things and you will get the future. This
also failed badly because it was over complicated.