Which International Relations Theory Are You Affiliated to?

A system of many possible political organization structures bound to rules which, in their turn, are designed by the very act of linguistic interpretation of the world and historical institutionalization of speech acts. This interpretation my generate structures like anarchy (which may be interpreted under one of the three traditions of political philosophy) or direct political society organizations such as heteronomy.

A historically formulated system of discourses of reality often serving interests of placing socially and politically oriented dichotomies, which in turn define standards of good/bad, truth/false, positive/negative while strengthening the former and weakening the latter.

An anarchic system of interdependent politically sovereign units, bound to cooperate due to the intricate economic and political situation designed by the particularities of the very same interdependency forged under several institutional arrangements.

An anarchical society bound by the shared interest in standards of life, truth and property derivative of the fundamental rights. System which is often bound by diplomacy, institutions, international law, political commitments and cosmopolitanism.

An anarchic system of self-help strategies, balancing and arrangements of polarity and hegemonies. All of which defined by the distribution of capabilities, mainly relying on military power and political influence.

An anarchic system of exploitation bound to the economic system of capitalism which perpetuates the conditions of center and periphery through the concentration of productive resources in the hands of the most developed economies, while the least advanced economies are left providing raw materials for the latter.

Any political unit, the State being the most important, which can perform and commit to the established political arrangement bound to the rules of the system.

The market.

Political unites capable of exercising military force both inside and outside their territories and spheres of influence. In the contemporary world, those are the modern States.

Political unites which can be bound to commitments established by the pursuit of the basic necessities of exercising and preserving life, truth and property. In the contemporary world, those are the modern States.

Political unites capable of exercising the rights, duties and responsibilities created by institutional arrangements they themselves produce. In the contemporary world, those are the modern States, but International Organization may assume similar roles.

Any agent capable of performing discourses on reality.

Cooperation through institutional arrangements.

Cooperation through a shared system of beliefs and commitments on their behalf.

Rulemaking, symbolic interactionism.

Exploitation from developed countries towards the underdeveloped ones.

Discourse on practices.

Balancing, alliance formation, buck-passing, bandwagining.

Conflict of political discourses in the international arena leading to interpretations of threat, defense and securitization.

A constructed set of political behavior made possible through the interpretation of threat by others only possible in a Hobbesian anarchy.

An ancient political instrument eliminated by economic interdependency.

An instrument for perpetuation of hegemonic states status-quo and the only resource underdeveloped countries may have to free them from exploitation.

A political instrument made obsolete by the understanding, observance and protection of the fundamental rights.

The main political instrument of power for the achievement of state interest.

None really, but whenever they come into play they only reproduce the current balance of power.

They design instruments of commitment between States leading them to behave in certain ways so as to achieve the goals established by its purpose.

The ultimate representation of the system of rules and political organization of the international system where the exercise of speech acts can be witnessed producing rules.

Systems of commitments with the preservation of all the fundamental rights at the very core.

They are an instrument to maintain the situation of exploitation of center towards periphery without leading the center to resort to war, conquest or colonization.

Arenas of discourse, often propagating central discourses of the main political actors while forcing the dissident voices into illegitimacy.

There is only Economic Power.

No such thing as Soft Power is really what matter in the I.S. States actually make decisions and interact based in Hard Power, hence they balance.

Power has been subjected to the proper fitting into the structures of commitments based in fundamental rights. States which comply are more often treated through Soft Power while those who do not are often confronted with acts of Hard Power.

They are used as necessity arises. Depending on the current interpretation of anarchy or the arrangement of the international political society, one may have more relevance than the other.

Hard Power has, contemporarily and constantly reduced its relevance in the international arena. With the interdependency provided by mutipolarity, the agendas of Soft Power have become more effective towards State’s interests.

The contemporary discourse about the International System privileges States which rely more on Hard Power. Sovereignty has been historically constructed with such interests in mind and with hegemonies’ interests in mind. This may change with the rise in centrality of Soft Power discourses.