1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES: PLURALISM OR LIBERALISM
Dr. MARGARITA SESELGYTE
Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Vilnius university, 2010

2. PLURALISM (liberalism)
Non-state actors are important entities
State is not a unitary actor
State is not necessarily a rational actor
The agenda of international politics is much more extensive than national security issues
Conflicts are irrational
In the six decade the number of the states was increasing their legitimacy also however state was not the most important actor of international relations as it used to be.
The same was happening to the military power. It became more difficult to use it. Nuclear weapons although very destructive by their nature actually played an appeasing role. Nuclear states were very hesitant to get involved in military conflicts with other nuclear states or their allies.
Bipolar structure of international system was supporting this trend.
The paradigm of pluralism originated during the 1970s by writers such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, as they sought to establish an alternative to traditional realism.
Through works such as, 'Transnational Relations and World Politics,' and, 'Power and Interdependence,' Keohane and Nye explained their concepts of transnationalism, multiple access channels and complex interdependence which expanded theoretical pluralism. Their analyses, which studies in these books conclude that through studying foreign policy, decision-making showed that the premise of the unitary nature of the state had now become untenable.
The pluralist image consists of a different set of assumptions.
1. Non-state actors are important entities in international relations that cannot be ignored. International organizations can be independent actors in their own right, they are more than simply arenas were national states compete. They have their own decision makers, bureaucrats, and other associated groups have considerable influence in such areas as agenda setting – determining which issues are most important politically.
Similarly other nongovernmental actors such as multinational corporations, cannot be dismissed merely as being of only marginal importance, given an increasingly interdependent world economy. Indeed, in some cased they are even capable in circumventing the authority of the state.
2. The state is not a unitary actor. It is rather composed of individual bureaucracies, interest groups, and individuals that attempt to Formulate and influence foreign policies. There is no clear distinction between foreign and internal policies. Competition, coalition building , conflict and compromise among these factors are the stuff of politics. This is not only in terms of interactions within the state; equally important, it is the transnational dimensions of state and non-state actors that operate across national borders.
3. Pluralists challenge the utility of the realist assumption that the state is a rational actor. This logically follows the image of the state of not being unitary. Policy is a result of bargaining, particular policies might be proposed in order to raise the prestige of organization, individual and are rational from their point of view, but irrational from the point of you of the state. The result of consensus is usually lowest common denominator solution rather than the most rational decision. Misperceptions on the part of decision makers is a result of incomplete information, bias, stress, and uncertainty about the cause and effect.
4. The agenda of international politics is extensive. Foreign affairs agendas have expanded and diversified over recent decades such that economic and social issues are often at the forefront of foreign policy debates
5. Conflicts are irrational and are usually the results of miscommunication. Better communication between states may prevent them. Misperception is often critical in explaining the outbreak of wars.
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior.
Unlike realism where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political (high politics), but also economic (low politics) whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals.
Thus, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of American films leading to the popularity of American culture and creating a market for American exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-operation and interdependence - thus peace can be achieved.

3. PLURALISM AN IMAGE OF A ‘LATTICEWORK’ OR ‘COBWEB’
Non-state actors
Interdependence
Overlay
Transactions
Instead of visualizing international relations as states and their interactions in an anarchic environment,
some scholars argue that a cobweb image depicts a much more complex system composed not simply of states with geographic and political boundaries.
Also included would be the interactions and behavior of non-state actors such as multinational corporations, terrorist groups, international banks and international organizations. The cobweb image would also cover such transactions as migration, tourism, communications and trade flows.

4. TRANSNATIONALISM
Transnationalism caused by modernization changed the nature of international relations
No clear distinction between domestic and foreign policies
Economic and foreign policies becoming blurred
Transnationalism by pluralists is understood as the processes whereby international relations conducted by governments have been supplemented by relations among private individual groups, and societies that can and do have important consequences for the course of events.
Contrary to realists who state that main patterns of behavior in international relations remain the same, pluralist argue that the nature of international relations has significantly changed over the years. Modernization describes and explains those changes. Modern technological development and industrialization cause easier communication, mass consumption etc., which affect the international relations. Level of transaction increases, distinction between domestic and foreign policies and economic and foreign policies become blurred

5. DECISION MAKING Decision makers influence Foreign Policy agenda
Individual experiences and group thinking also matters
Unitary decision does not necessarily mean consistent implementation of the policy
Transnational coalitions of ‘like – minded’
Perceiving state as not unitary actor pluralists tend to believe that sometimes agenda of states foreign policy is initiated by those who participate in decision making. Bureaucracy, social groups, public opinion also matters.
Non-governmental factors and relations between countries (trade, family ties, shared values, mass media, migration, cultural exchanged) may also be important. Richard C. Snyder 1950 proposed a decision-making framework consisting of numerous factors. It was up to the scholar to test them empirically by means of case studies. The relative importance of one factor or another would vary depending on the case.
The study of individuals and small groups and their role in international relations or foreign policy brought discipline very close to psychology or social psychology. Has focused on how life experience influence an individual’s foreign policy behavior and orientation. Analysis of groupthinking which develops over the years.
Pluralists emphasize organizational process and bureaucratic politics. Perception of what is optimal or best course of action often vary from one bureaucratic actor to another reflecting organizational biases. Moreover policy involves both decisions and actions. Even if the decisions are unitary and the state speaks with one voice, if consequent actions are fragmented or otherwise inconsistent, then how unitary is the state after all?
Trans-governmental coalitions Organizations, whether private or governmental, may well transcend the boundaries of states, forming coalitions with their foreign counterparts. Such transnational actors may even be working at cross-purposes with governmental leaders in their home states who possess the formal authority to make binding decisions. E.g. British Foreign Office may see a given issue similarly to its American counterpart. Different views might be shared by Defense Departments of Both states.

6. INTEGRATION
Cooperation is necessary to address complex problems of modern international system
Positive sum game or win – win scenario
Principle of spill over
Interdependence prevents conflicts
International regimes encourage mutual trust
One of the pluralists David Mitrany (functionalist theory) was interested in investigating the possibility of how transnational ties might lead to international integration, the reduction of extreme nationalism and hence increase the chances for stable international peace.
Modern society might be characterized as a collection of technical problems that can be resolved by experts as opposed to politicians. This is true within states as well as between states. He believed that the proliferation of common problems logically requires collaborative responses from states.
Mitrany believed that successful collaboration in one particular technical field or functional area would lead to further collaboration in other related fields. Economic unification would contribute to political unification.
Instead of zero – sum game interdependency means positive – sum game (win – win scenario).
Studies of European integration Ernst Haas has developed a theory about the political – economic communities, deeply integrated, shift of sovereignty towards a new center. Spill – over from one area to another. Neo-functionalism.
The core concept is interdependence (the same as balance of power to realists).
Interdependence prevents from conflicts. Managing interdependent relations may even involve construction of sets of rules, procedures, and associated institutions or international organizations to govern interactions in these issue areas – so-called international regimes – encourages trust in each other.

7. SYSTEM AND CHANGE Pluralists are rather individualists than holists
Believe in the gradual transformation of world politics
Emphasize feedback system
1. Pluralists seldom us a concept of system. They describe system in three different ways:
Sum of FP of states.
Sum of interactions among states and non-state actors.
Sum of interactions plus other elements such as ideas, values, financial flows etc.
2. Their approach is rather individualistic than holistic.
3. However pluralists place greater emphasis on a change than realists. Although they do not talk either about fundamental transformation of World politics, they argue that there are observable trends of shift of the state sovereignty to international institutions. Pluralists devote more attention to feedback system. Actors monitoring responses to the actions adjust respectively their future policies.

8. LIBERALISM Idealism Democratic Peace theory Republican liberalism
Neoliberalism
Sociological liberalism
Institutional liberalism
Interdependence liberalism
Many different strands of liberalism have emerged; some include commercial liberalism, liberal institutionalism, idealism, and regime theory.
Sociological liberalism – transnational relations among various internal groups of the state
Interdependence liberalism – (trading states) David Mitrany and integration theories.
Institutional liberalism – international institutions help to promote cooperation between states.
Republican liberalism – liberal democracies are more prone to peace and are more law – abiding than other political systems.

9. IDEALISM Philosophical theory
Ultimate nature of reality is based on the mind an ideas
Philosophy of perception
Plato, Kant
Woodrow Wilson
Laid foundations to the Liberalism in International Relations
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on the mind or ideas. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism, in which the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence.
Epistemological idealists (such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction). In literature, idealism means the thoughts or the ideas of the writer.
In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism as opposed to dualism and pluralism. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.
Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the school of platonism.
In the American study of international relations, idealism usually refers to the school of thought personified in American diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson, such that it is sometimes referred to as Wilsonianism, or Wilsonian Idealism. Idealism holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II. It particularly emphasized the ideal of American exceptionalism.

10. INSTITUTIONAL LIBERALISM OR LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM
States are not main actors of international relations
International institutions can increase and aid cooperation between states
European Union, economic agreements (ASEAN), NAFTA
Nevertheless bad states should be dealt with
Related to the Democratic peace theory
Institutionalism
Institutionalism in international relations comprises a group of differing theories on international relations (IR). Functionalist and neofunctionalist approaches, regime theory, and state cartel theory have in common their focus on the structures of the international system, but they substantially differ in the way they precede.
Institutional liberalism or liberal institutionalism is modern theory of international relations which claims that international institutions such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union can increase and aid cooperation between states. The theory can be compared to idealism, the international relations theory which emerged after the First World War when the League of Nations was founded
Liberal institutionalism suggests that with the right factors, the international system provides opportunities for cooperation and interaction. Examples include the successful integration of Europe through the European Union or regional blocs and economic agreements such as ASEAN or the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Ramifications of this view are that if states cannot cooperate, they ought to be curbed, whether through economic sanctions or military action. For example, before the invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom in 2003, the governments' claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction could be seen as claims that Iraq is a bad state that needs to be curbed rather than an outright danger to American or European security. Thus, the invasion could be seen as curbing a bad state under liberal institutionalism.
A variant is Neo-liberal institutionalism (USA) which shifts back to a state-centric approach, but allows for pluralism through identifying and recognizing different actors, processes and structures.Neo-liberal institutionalism holds a view to promote a more peaceful world order through international organizations or IGOs; for example, through the United Nations (UN).
Other – political science and more:
New institutionalism: a social theory that focuses on developing a sociological view of institutions, the way they interact and the effects of institutions on society.
Institutional economics Economic school that approaches economic issues from a macro sociological point of view. Main early figures in this movement were Thorstein Veblen and John Rogers Commons.
New institutional economics: an economic school that analyzes social norms, organizational arrangements etc.
Historical institutionalism: a social science method of inquiry that uses institutions as subject of study in order to find, measure and trace patterns and sequences of social, political, economic behavior and change across time and space.
Institutionalism in political parties: an approach that sees political parties as having some capacities for adaptation, but also sees them as being "prisoners of their own history as an institution".
Institutionalism in international relations: a group of differing theories on international relations, which have in common their focus on the social and organizational orders, mechanisms and structures of the international system.

11. NEO-LIBERALISM
Market driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics
Nation – states are concerned with absolute gains
Main methodological tool – game theory
Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane, John Mearshimer, Richard Ned Lebow
Neoliberalism is a market-driven[1] approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics (aka capitalism) that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.
The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.[2
Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector,[3] under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of the nation.[4] The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's[5] "Washington Consensus", a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank).
In the study of international relations, neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. This theory is often mistaken with neoliberal economic ideology, although both use some common methodological tools, such as game theory.

12. SOCIOLOGICAL LIBERALISM
Critique of realism
See international relations as relations between people, groups and organizations in different countries
Peaceful human society is possible if there is closer cooperation between those groups
Can be managed
Sociological liberalism is an international relations theory. It is critical of realist theory which it sees as too state-centric. Sociological liberals see international relations in terms of relationships between people, groups and organisations in different countries. Many sociological liberals believe that increased transnational relations could help create new forms of human society.
Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2006) Introduction to International Relations: theories and approaches. Oxford: OUP, 3rd edition, p100

13. INTEGRATION THEORIES Federalism Functionalism Neofunctionalism
Body of literature that seeks to explain the process by which sovereign states join together either formally or informally to create larger political actors.
Federalism (top-down) – Function follows form
Theory of integration. It holds that the core of the integrative process is the establishment of political structures and that social, economic, and cultural integration will follow.
Functionalism (bottom – up) – Form follows function
A theory of integration that holds that the core of the integrative process must start in the nonpolitical areas of the social and economic realms. As integration spreads through those areas, it will make national political institutions increasingly irrelevant.
Neofunctionalism
A theory of integration that seeks to create integrated political communities by deliberately choosing social and economic areas to be integrated in the expectation that this process will spill over into other areas.

14. DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY (also Liberal peace theory and Republican liberalism)
Theory related to the research on relationship between the democracy and peace
Conflicts and wars are rare to democracies
Systematic violence is in general less common within democracies
Philosphical ideas about the peace and democracy were circulating since Immanuel Kant: majority of people would never vote to go to war unless in self defence (1795) people do not want to see their children being killed
Kant foreshadowed the theory in his essay Perpetual Peace written in 1795,
Not have been scientifically evaluated untill 1960.
Melvin Small and J. David Singer in 1976 found the absense of wars between democratic states
Bremer (1992), Maoz & Abdolani (1989) found the correlation between democracy and peacefulness – moved the theory to mainstream of political science
The real sources of democratic peace theory might be found in W. Wilson, American vision. The American president desired to create a system that would keep future wars from happening, as well as promoting an American vision of democracy and peace.
Republican liberalism is an international relations theory which claims that liberal democracies are more peaceful than other states. This is explained as a result of the existence of similar domestic political cultures, common moral values, economic cooperation and interdependence.[1]

15. Criticism of the Democratic Peace Theory: theoretical criticism
Distinction between democracy and non – democracy – matter of interpretation
Rosato (2003) – democracies are not peaceful to each other because they are democracies but rather because they are similar
There are other factors that relate to the peacefulness: economic welfare, democratic norms, participation in international organizations
No consensus on why democracy should be capable of pacifying world politics
Valid only after 1945
It is not easy to make a clear cut distinction between democracy and non- democracy ( there are middle cases) – young democracies, democracies in transition, not consolidated democracies. Can this theory be applied for them also?
Pecefullness is applied to the democracies older than 3 years – countries in transition are especially likely to get involved in wars, institutional weaknesses, surrounded by non-democracies
Probability that disputes between states will be resolved peacefully is positively affetced by the degree of democracy exhibited by the lesser democratic states involved in each dispute
Other factors: democratic norms, economic welfare, democratic political structures
Germany was considered a democratic state by Western opinion leaders at the end of the 19 century, but after the dispute with USA, GB and Frabce – was recognized as authocratic state (though there was no actual reigme change).
Sometimes authoritarian regimes are considered better than democracies if they are stable
Economic Peace Theory – both World wars were faught by economically advanced countries
Participation in IOs – a joke of Iranian commediant “western states are blaming us for avoiding to join Western family – but it is not true. Above all we want to join the nuclear family of the West.
Democracies were involved in more colonial and imperialistic wars than other states during

16. Criticism of the Democratic Peace Theory: practical criticism
Democratic crusade?
Universal applicability of democracy?
Preference of stable/ friendly authoritarian regimes
Some fear that DP theory may be used to justify war against non – democracies in order to bring a lasting peace in a democratic cruscade.
Some point that DP theory has been used to justify the 2003 Iraq War – but actually this justification started only after the war
Some argue that ideologies are unemittingly aggressive. The preference for peace over war is an entirely instrumental decision (depends on the constelation of other factors). State that becomes more concerned with security by definition becomes less pre-occupied with beliefs and principles.
Remain many parts of world where Western values and the whole process of economic modernization associated with them are regarded as culturally allien, a threat to indigenous values and social cohesion
Research not for a long time – thought peace is a much older phenomenon – some regions were more peaceful throughout the history than the rest

17. Democratic Peace Theory is supported by the USA
Bill Clinton: Ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of the democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other
George W. Bush: And the reason why I’m so strong on democracy is democracies don’t go to war with each other. And the reason why is the people of most societies don’t like war, and they understand what war means… I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace. And that’s why I’m such a strong believer that the way forward in the Middle East, the broader Middle East, is to promote democracy
1. USA – both

18. And the EU
Chris Patten: Inevitable because the EU was formed partly to protect liberal values, so it is hardly surprising that we should think it appropriate to speak out. But it is also sensible for strategic reasons. Free societies tend not to fight one another or to be bad neighbors.
EU Security Strategy: The best protection for our security is a world of well = governed democratic states
Former commissioner on external relations

19. NEO – NEO DEBATE One of the main debates of IR theory
Neo-liberalism takes key concepts from both pluralism and neo – realism
Neo – liberalism and neo – realism got closer together than with liberalism or realism
Main difference: neo liberalism – absolute gains, neo realism – relative gains
In 1979, Kenneth Waltz, a neo-realist, introduced a new approach, through his book, 'Theory of International Politics,' which looked at international relations in a more structural and methodological perspective, while keeping to the same state-centric view of traditional realists such as Hans Morgenthau.
Neo-liberalism being the most modern of the three paradigms, established in the 1980s, takes key concepts from both pluralism and neo-realism but goes further and incorporates the ability of cooperation occurring in an anarchical international system.
During the 1960s and 1970s, changes to the world structure started occurring as the role of non-state actors, for example the European Economic Community and multinational companies, had greater significance. In, 'Transnational Relations and World Politics,' Keohane and Nye argue that a 'definition of politics in terms of state behaviour alone may lead us to ignore important non-governmental actors that allocate view.' It is clear that from a pluralistic view, states as well as non-state actors all contribute to world politics and it is this fundamental assumption, which clearly challenges and distinguishes itself from realism
Furthermore, states are not seen as the single most important actors in international politics, as they often can not regulate all other cross-border transactions. Nye argues, 'A good deal of intersocietal intercourse takes place without governmental control...states are by no means the only actors in world politics.' This emphasises the pluralist theory that states do not act in a unitary fashion, rather the state is fragmented and, 'composed of competing individuals, interest groups and bureaucracies,' which shape state policy. Transnational co-operation was needed to respond to common problems and co-operation in one sector would inevitably lead to co-operation in other sectors and as a result, 'the effects of transnational relations are becoming more important and pervasive.'
' therefore a new theory called complex interdependence was introduced to run as an alternative to realism
This theory has three key assumptions the first was introduced, being that the state is not a unitary actor but there are multiple channels of access between societies. In, 'Power and Interdependence,' Keohane and Nye argue that these channels include, 'informal ties between governmental elites; informal ties among non-governmental elites and transnational elites and transnational organizations.‘
The second feature of the theory is that though military force is an important issue; from a pluralistic perspective it does not dominate the agenda. The paradigm allows for a multiple of issues to arise in international relations compared to the neo-realist concept, where it emphasises the military and security issues which dominate international politics. Pluralists have a low salience of force and believe that actors have different influences on different issue areas. Therefore pluralists argue that military power is not the only factor indicating how powerful a state is.
The final assumption considers the fact that there is no hierarchy of issues; therefore any issue area might be at the top of the international agenda at any one time. This emphasises the second assumption of complex interdependence that, 'military security does not consistently dominate the agenda,' furthermore, with the complicated interactions between various sub-state actors, the boundary between domestic and foreign politics becomes obscure, such that traditionally low political issues, for example the environment and the economy take greater significance in the domain of international politics.
Therefore, he repositioned himself to neo-liberalism, moving away from his previous pluralistic concerns of interdependence and transnational relations. The debate between the two came to be known as the neo-neo debate since there appeared to be a convergence between the two positions. The foundation of neo-liberalism is that states need to develop strategies and forums for co-operation over a whole set of new issues and areas and this has been facilitated by the fact that regimes, treaties and institutions have multiplied over the past two to three decades. Thus the pluralists of the 1970s such as Keohane and Nye have become the neo-liberals of today and in the process have become quite close to the neo-realists.
Neo-liberalism's acceptance of anarchic principles, states becoming the principal actors and the adherence to the importance of rational choice further highlights the close intellectual position with neo-realists. Nevertheless, despite this neo-liberals are trying to distinguish themselves from neo-realists when including the notion of co-operation. Neo-liberals have concerned themselves with analysing the extent of co-operation possible under conditions of anarchy and the conclusions that the two sides reach are radically different. Neo-realists claim that under anarchy, conflict and the struggle for power are enduring characteristics of international politics, and that because of this, co-operation between states is at best precarious and at worst non-existent. Neo-liberals agree that achieving co-operation is difficult in international relations but disagree with neo-realists pessimism of it not being able to occur effectively in an anarchical system. In Keohane's book, 'After Hegemony,' he claims that, 'Cooperation requires that the actions of separate individuals or organizations be brought into conformity with one another through a process of negotiation.' Neo-liberalism goes further and claims that co-operation could be increased through establishment of international regimes and the exchange of information. They see regimes as the mediator and the means to achieve cooperation in the international system. According to neo-liberals, institutions can exert casual force on international relations, shaping state preference and locking states into cooperative arrangements.
The neo-liberal view is that though there is an anarchic system in place; institutions have the ability to, 'encourage multilateralism and cooperation as a means of securing national interests.' However, they do concede that cooperation may be difficult to achieve in areas where leaders perceive to have no mutual interests. Thus, there is a difference of opinion between neo-liberals and neo-realists on the notion of international regimes. The former believes that regimes can only persist so long as states have mutual interests, while the latter argues that only with a hegemon in place, can a regime work effectively.
Neo liberalism – absolute gains for the state. Neo realists – relative gains.

20. GREAT DEBATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY
Realism vs Idealism
Behaviouralism in international relations theory
Inter-paradigm Debate
Postivism vs. Post - positivism
In international relations theory, the Great Debates refer to several disagreements between international relations scholars.[1] Ashworth describes how the discipline of international relations have been heavily influenced by historical narratives and that "no single idea has been more influential" than the notion that there was a debate between utopian and realist thinking
The "First Great Debate" also known as the "Realist-Idealist Great Debate"[3] was a dispute between idealists and realists which took place in the 1930s and 1940s.[4] Realist scholars emphasized the anarchical nature of international politics and the need for state survival. Idealists emphasized the possibility of international institutions such as the League of Nations. However, some have argued that defining the debate between realism and idealism in terms of a great debate is a misleading caricature and so described the "great debate" as a myth
The Second Great Debate was a dispute between "scientific IR" scholars who sought to refine scientific methods of inquiry in international relations theory and those who insisted on a more historicist/interpretative approach to international relations theory. The debate is termed "realists versus behaviourists" or "traditionalism versus scientism, Behaviouralism in international relations theory is an approach to international relations theory which believes in the unity of science, the idea that the social sciences are not fundamentally different from the natural sciences
Inter paradigm debate in international relations theory Sometimes the inter-paradigm debate is considered to be a great debate. The inter-paradigm debate was a debate between liberalism, realism and radical international relations theories.[7] The debate is also described as being between realism, institutionalism and structuralism.[8]
Further information: Positivism in international relations theory and Post-positivism in international relations theory
The Fourth Great Debate is a debate between positivists and post-positivists. Confusingly, it is often described in literature as "The Third Great Debate" by those who reject the description of the Inter-paradigm debate as a Great Debate.[9] This debate is concerned with the underlying epistemology of international relations scholarship and is also described as a debate between "rationalists" and "reflectivists". The debate was started by Robert Keohane in a International Studies Association debate in 1988 and can be considered an epistemological debate rather than a ontological one

21. CRITIQUE OF PLURALISM Downplay role of anarchy and security dilemma
Lack of a unified consistent theory
Too much rely on voluntarism
Pluralists tend to downplay the role of anarchy and security dilemma. By emphasizing misperception and the role of bureaucratic politics, there is a danger in thinking that all conflicts result from essentially irrational reasons. Not all the states are rational.
The lack of single consistent theory – tend to concentrate on very detailed issues and case studies.
Heavy reliance on the assumption of voluntarism or effective free will. Sometime one might get an impression that international harmony might be achieved if only leaders really wanted it. Bad leaders are causes of war.

22. RESEARCH AGENDA Democracy and peace Security communities
International institutions
Integration of states
Pool of sovereignty
1. With the end of the Cold War some traditional issues on pluralists research agenda have been endowed with a new urgency: how democracy leads to peace, extent to which democracy has to be consolidated in order to lead to peace, concepts of security communities, international institutions (core questions regarding the emergence, change, and effects of institutions), integration of the states, pool of sovereignty

23. QUESTIONS