Great Debate in International Relations PDF

Preview

Summary

in this paper we will explain three great debates in international relations...

Description

Great Debate in International Relations So many phenomena that occur in the study of international relations are not only used as learning about the history of standing and the development of this study itself but also can be used as a solution to solve a problem without a war. In the dynamics of international relations so many events accompanied the development of the study. World War I, World War II, Cold War, 20 years of crisis are some examples of important events that were part of the formation of international relations studies. After the end of these wars there were so many perspectives that moved the science of international relations in the 20th century. Then with the many perspectives that emerged, Great Debates also emerged which consisted of three major debates. Many people think that debates are always about disagreements that end in negative ways. But the Great Debates in international relations is actually a debate concerning what international relations are about how international relations can be explained. Great Debates is more debated by practitioners and scientists (Dugis, 2015). There are three major debates in international relations, namely realism vs. liberalism, traditionalism vs. positivism, and neoliberalism vs. neoMarxism (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013: 45). This can occur because of differences in perspective. But here will first discuss two major debates, namely, realism vs. liberalism and traditionalism vs. positivism. The first is realism vs. liberalism where realists are the dominant theories in international relations. The basic assumption of realists is a feeling of pessimism about the human ability to control the world, the belief that basically international relations are conflictual in nature which are finally resolved by means of war. Realism focuses more on international relations as a power where the power is used to achieve power which ultimately leads to war. For realists the responsibility to maintain a balance of military power between great powers is a big responsibility for statesmen (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013). Where realists consider the state to be the main actor in world politics. Liberalism is considered to emerge as an opponent of realist theory which always considers pessimism towards humans. The basic assumption of liberals is where they always look positively towards humans. Humans are described by liberals as rational beings who always work together to solve various international problems (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013). Liberalism is considered as the beginning of the establishment of world peace organizations (Dugis, 2015). Liberalism does

not regard actors as the only main actors in international politics, they also consider other actors to have equal opportunities in determining their interests. Liberal arguments for more cooperative international relations are divided into 4 distinct streams: sociological liberalism, interdependent liberalism, institutional liberalism and republican liberalism. So basically the debate between realism and liberalism is about axiology and ontology (Dugis, 2015). Next is the debate between traditionalism vs. positivism that occurred in the 1950s and 1970s. The traditionalist view uses values and norms in studying and understanding international relations. The traditionalists better understand international relations as an interaction between humans and of course this cannot be measured using numbers because the aspects of international relations are so complex. The adherents of the traditionalist paradigm state that the object of the study of international relations is essentially human / person. Traditionalism refers more to history while positvism refers more to science (Dugis, 2015). In data collection, traditionalism uses more methods such as in-depth interviews, literature studies, and participatory observation. Positivism has a different view from the traditionalism, where the positivism states that the nature of the basic knowledge is to analyze thoroughly about the existing problems accompanied by the existence of adequate data rather than talking about good and bad about problems or phenomena that are happening. Positivism also seeks to formulate scientific law on international relations (Jackson and Sorensen 1999, 61). If necessary, international relations researchers need a test of experimentation in every study conducted so that concrete results are obtained and the scientific weight is strong (Subagyo, 2015). The essence of the debate between traditionalism and positivism is because of the different methodologies used in examining international relations themselves. So that from some of the descriptions above it can be concluded that Great Debates in international relations is a milestone for international relations itself in developing further sciences. Even though there are so many differences of opinion that on average lead to the way of war, but these differences can actually be a reference for this study in the face of the future. Realism that makes us aware of the importance of protection against national security. Liberalism which is the cause of the formation of a world peace organization. Traditionalism teaches us to always pay attention to the values and norms in interacting and Positivism which gives a view to reviewing studies using data collection so that we more deeply understand the studies we are studying.

Reference: Dugis, Vincensio, 2015. IR’s main perspective, Great Debates, dalam Kuliah Pengantar Hubungan Internasional, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial & Ilmu Politik, Universitas Airlangga, pada 16 November 2015 Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. 2013. Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press....