The central claims of realism—regarding anarchy, state actors, rationality, and the utility of military force—have been challenged on a variety of grounds.
Liberals dispute the realist notion that narrow self-interest is more rational than mutually beneficial cooperation.
Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can emerge through the building of norms, regimes, and institutions.
Collective goods are benefits received by all members of a group regardless of their individual contribution. Shared norms and rules are important in getting members to pay for collective goods.
International regimes—convergent expectations of state leaders about the rules for issue areas in IR—help provide stability in the absence of a world government.
Hegemonic stability theory suggests that the holding of predominant power by one state lends stability to international relations and helps create regimes.
In a collective security arrangement, a group of states agrees to respond together to aggression by any participating state; the UN and other IGOs perform this function.
Feminist scholars of IR agree that gender is important in understanding IR but diverge into several strands regarding their conception of the role of gender.
Difference feminists argue that real (not arbitrary) differences between men and women exist. Men think about social relations more often in terms of autonomy (as do realists), but women think in terms of connection.
Difference feminists argue that men are more warlike on average than women. Although individual women participants (such as state leaders) may not reflect this difference, the participation of large numbers of women would change the character of the international system, making it more peaceful.
Liberal feminists disagree that women have substantially different capabilities or tendencies as participants in IR. They argue that women are equivalent to men in virtually all IR roles. As evidence, liberal feminists point to historical and present-day women leaders and women soldiers.
Postmodern critics reject the entire framework and language of realism, with its unitary state actors. Postmodernists argue that no simple categories can capture the multiple realities experienced by participants in IR.
Postmodern feminists seek to uncover gender-related subtexts implicit in realist discourse, including sexual themes connected with the concept of power.
Constructivists reject realist assumptions about state interests, tracing those interests in part to international rules and norms.
Peace studies programs are interdisciplinary and seek to broaden the study of international security to include social and economic factors ignored by realism.
Peace studies acknowledges a normative bias—that peace is good and war is bad—and a willingness to put theory into practice by participating in politics.
Mediation and other forms of conflict resolution are alternative means of exerting leverage on participants in bargaining. Increasingly these means are succeeding in settling conflicts without (or with no further) use of violence.
For scholars in peace studies, militarism in many cultures contributes to states’ propensity to resort to force in international bargaining.
Positive peace implies not just the absence of war but addressing conditions that scholars in peace studies connect with violence—especially injustice and poverty.
Peace movements try to influence state foreign policies regarding military force; such movements are of great interest in peace studies.
Nonviolence—the renunciation of force—can be an effective means of leverage, especially for poor or oppressed people with few other means available.
