Mai Theeries R Rite

International relations is a uniquely interesting field of academia due to its holistic approach to the world.  Various schools of thought attempt to formulate ideas as to why the world exists, behaves, and is shaped the way it is.  Determining which school of thought to use within real world policy can be an arduous task.

Realism, liberalism, and constructivism all provide different explanations as to how our world interacts.  Policies governments enact can be interpreted as being based upon a specific school of thought.  For example, enacting a missile defense system in eastern Europe could be seen as realist since nations can't be sure what Russia's intentions are in the reason.  A missile defense system could deter the potential risk of Russian aggression and would be in our nation's national security interest to enact this system.  The example can be used as the basis of another question: are theories the basis of policies or do theories emerge from policies?

I believe that both options provide some level of truth.  Sticking with realism, since we can't ever be entirely sure what the intentions of another nation are, policies are sometimes enacted in a precautionary manner.  Something that has the chance of improving relations, fiscal status, etc., is better off than the risk of the inverse.  I think this shows that there can be some level of theory as the basis of policy.  Whether one theory is better/used more than others can be dependent on the situation, who's enacting what policy, or the more likely answer, it's indeterminable.  Policy does require some detachment from theory due to the importance of falsifiable action that can be required.  Theories can cause policy paralysis as different schools of thought argue over the "best course of action" based upon their beliefs. One school of thought being "more accurate" than the others doesn't necessarily disprove other theories.  Theories are based upon the compilation of historical events and a specific trend of principle that can be isolated within that period of time.  That being said, history is currently occurring and is constantly changing, theories that are strong now could be disproved, weaken, or even be eliminated.  A main example of this is the introduction of nuclear weapons.  In a previous post I explained how the introduction of mutually assured destruction radically altered IR theory.  Nation-states now had to interact with the knowledge that states were capable of virtually eliminating their existence with the atomic bomb.  This allowed for various facets of realism to arise and strengthened and weakened other theories.

In the end, determining one theory over the other is a endless process with potentially no end in sight.  Learning about these theories and their real world relevance is what's important is our understanding of them.