International Relations Theory in Policy Debate

1. International Relations Theory in Policy Debate Houston Urban Debate League

2. Discussion Overview • Why discuss IR? • Depth and sophistication of debate • Creative argumentation • Goal: Better understand leading schools of thought and areas of contention in international relations theory • Three Theories: Realism (Neo-Realism); Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism); Constructivism

3. Realism (Neo-Realism) • Nature of the International System: Anarchy • For the realist, anarchy signifies that there is no supranational authority that is able to provide security • Disclaimer: International anarchy in this sense does not necessarily imply disorder or conflict. • Rather, it is a framework for interpreting other “players” actions. • Differs from anarchy advocated in counterplans and kritiks. Anarchist philosophy seeks to end state coercion while realists are distinctly statist.

4. Realism (Neo-Realism) • Primary Actors: States (“unit-level” politics) • Because of anarchy at the international level, states revert to “state of nature” and act in their own self-interest (think Machiavelli, Hobbes). • Neo-realists (also called Structural Realists) examine how non-state structures influence decisions, but still place states at the center.

5. Realism (Neo-Realism) • Key Interest: Survival (Classical Realism) Security (Neo-Realism) • Because there is no guarantor of security at the international level, states pursue survival. • Classical Realists viewed states as inherently aggressive, checked only by other powers • Neo-realists argue that states are merely interested in existence (post-WWII security dilemma furthers this). • Relative gains problems create zero-sum international order where states might forego perceived gains if other states make greater gains. This discourages cooperation.

6. Realism (Neo-Realism) • Debate Applications • Hegemony • What international system is most stable: hegemonic, unipolar, bipolar, multipolar? • Can troop reduction lead to relative gains for the United States by balancing against more meaningful threats? Does this make the topic bi-directional? • Balance of Power, Balance of Threat, Securitization • Does deterrence apply to counter-insurgency strategy (Afghanistan, Iraq) and asymmetric warfare (counter-terrorism)?

7. Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) • Nature of the International System: Anarchy • For the liberalist, anarchy signifies that there is no supranational authority that is able to enforce agreements. • While liberalism and realism share the assumption of international anarchy, neoliberals criticize realists for underestimating opportunities for cooperation within that system. • Question becomes how to create an international system that encourages cooperation.

8. Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) • Primary Actors: Pluralist System (states at the center, but also corporations, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), law and protocol) • States cooperate with non-state entities when in their personal interest. • Because there is no international enforcement mechanism to ensure states follow through on agreements, cheating becomes the central concern. • Leads to desire to create “sticky” institutions that hold states to cooperative agreements.

9. Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) • Key Interest: Preferences (Utility determined by the state) • Unlike realism, where states worry about relative gains and would forego cooperation under certain situations, institutionalists seek absolute gains. • Argue that even in situations where partners make relatively greater gains, cooperation on common interests creates “sticky” alliances. • Game Theory describes methods states use to determine when cooperation is in their best interests (prisoner’s dilemma is most common).

10. Liberalism (Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) • Debate Applications • Cases/Counterplans: • Alliances/Coalition Building • United Nations • International Law • Economic Interests/International Corporations • Problem of changing preferences and shifting alliances (especially true with democratic systems in wartime)

11. Constructivism • Nature of the International System: Socially Constructed/Contingent • Unlike realism and liberalism, whose causal epistemology draws from positivist (scientific) and structuralist (empirical) traditions, constructivism is post-positivist, deconstructing the ontological assumptions of other IR theories. • “Anarchy is what states make of it…” –Alexander Wendt

12. Constructivism • Key Actors: Shared Ideas (technically, states are still the key actors, but ideas underlie state paradigms about the international system) • Theory developed as a possible explanation for the failure of dominant theories to predict major international events (e.g. fall of the Soviet Union) • Identities and Interests are constructed by cultural norms and shared philosophies. • While the primary function of constructivism is as a critique of leading IR theories, does it advocate anything (for the purposes of policy debate)?

13. Constructivism • Key Interests: Define/Determine Core Ideas; Cooperate to redefine International System • This element of constructivism has been criticized for • Being no more than a post-positivist variant of neo-liberalism due to its agreement that social agency shapes state preferences. • Not being truly post-modern due to its rational discourse about how ideas can address and solve “external” problems.

14. Constructivism • Debate Applications: • Security Kritik • Link: Power/Threats are socially constructed • Impacts: • Pre-Fiat: • Ontology: threat discourse causes violence • Epistemology: the human element (can’t know if threats are real or percieved. • Post-Fiat: Violence, Military Escalation, Environmental Degradation, Economic Collapse • Alternatives: • Typically, rejection (voting aff precludes end of threat construct) • CP Alt: Use Neo-Liberal Institutionalist construct to redefine values