« Back to home

My International Relations Belief Framework

Working through a course on “International Security Studies”, I got absorbed in some reading about methods of analyzing international relations. I dove into a rabbit hole and am now able to put my own beliefs and worldview on this into concrete terms.

The Framework of my International Relations Beliefs

As humans, at our base, we are self-interested, and prioritize our own survival and security. All of us are “realists” if we are stripped to our underwear and placed in nature. Regardless of how we have changed and evolved to 2025, we must never get complacent about the day we may be stripped again. Every nation must remain prepared to be stripped and abandoned at any time.

But being prepared for that day, we need not fear that day. States prepared for anarchy, and openly strong, but willing to cooperate, can build trust over time through economic engagement. They must anticipate challenges in this “liberalist” system, and thus build international institutions that help facilitate and maintain that trust. This cooperation is a tide that raises all participants, but increases security only so long as all maintain the ability to swim alone if necessary.

With an unshakable independent ability to provide physiological security, and further economic safety through international cooperation, humankind has space to achieve a higher-order purpose: societal actualization. This actualization builds upon individual cultures and identities to create shared cultures and identities. The shared identities do not replace individual ones, but augment. The identity of a state becomes defined by its interactions with other states, in a “constructivist” way, but the free exchange of ideas and security remains dependent upon the international institutions and underlying independent self-interest.

A pyrimad depicting this framework in a manner similar to Maslow's hierarchy.

The United States Today, Within the Framework

That framework explained, where are we today? Throughout my life the United States has been surrounded by friends. We have shared identities and cultures built to so many places across the World. In most ways we are in the actualization phase.

However, some of the foundation is crumbling. This is almost certainly not a problem unique to today, and so the crumbling is not a crisis. Still, we should address it. We have lost some ability to stand alone in a worst-case scenario: not in physical security but in supply-chain security.6 We have built international institutions for cooperation, but we must maintain and invest in them more, and we must not let ourselves be shaken in efforts to bring others into them.

We also foresee significant problems for the foundation within coming decades and centuries. We must continue now to address those problems from both realist and liberal perspectives.

As we go back to repair the foundations we must also move forward, building on top of the pyramid. We must find out what human-kind is capable of when we go together. We must get so much closer. We must find out what comes after that: what is beyond the pyramid.

Notable Challenges and Problems

  • It is difficult to achieve all of this, it requires significant time to climb the pyramid and small things can knock societies back down it. For instance, as states seek to maintain their independent ability to guarantee survival, it is easy to accidentally broadcast a preparation for offensive conflict. This is reflected in some of Putin’s arguments against parties in the West. 4

  • The realism is primarily “defensive realism”, and dealing with “offensive realists” uninterested in participating presents a challenge. This may happen easily if parties can find no common self-interests for a time. 2

  • There are many with concerns around creating shared cultural identities, skeptical that the goal is to “replace” individual and smaller-group identities, instead of augmenting existing culture with additional culture.

  • Concerns exist over misuse of international institutions to impose the will of the most powerful. These institutions have the most success when self-interests line up, and cooperation is built around self-interest. If the structure of the institution is primarily created around lining up self-interests, though, then the ability to coerce beyond that is diminished.

Side-note

A common system for analyzing international relations is the realist, liberal, constructivist system. 1

  • Realism – the international system is fundamentally anarchic as there is no authority to enforce rules, and therefore states must prioritize their own survival and security. States are constantly struggling for material power and security. States are driven by their own self interests.

  • Liberalism – international organizations are critical as they can create and enforce rules, build longer-term cooperation, and reduce conflict as they decrease uncertainty between states. Deep economic ties can form which further reduce conflict.

  • Constructivism – state interests and identities, and international relationships, are built through shared norms, ideas, and culture. State identity is built through interactions with other states.

Relevant References

  1. Wikipedia – International Relations Theory – provides background on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory
  2. Wikipedia – International Relations Theory, Neorealism – explains defensive and offensive realism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory#Neorealism
  3. Nirmal Tauseef & Steven Legacy - International Relations Theory and Practice – academic paper, describes a need to combine thinking about each approach: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386341651_International_Relations_Theory_and_Practice_Revisiting_Realism_Liberalism_and_Constructivism_in_a_Changing_World
  4. John Mearsheimer – Why NATO Expansion Was the Principal Cause of the Ukraine War – only one viewpoint on Russia’s war, but has several references explaining Putin’s realist views: https://indepthnews.net/why-nato-expansion-was-the-principal-cause-of-the-ukraine-war/
  5. John Baker – Maslow, Needs, and War – another look at applying Maslow’s Hierarchy to international relations: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA560680.pdf
  6. Aspen Institute – Supply Chain Weaknesses are a Threat to National Security – one overview of how supply chain threats can significantly impact national security: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/supply-chain-weaknesses-are-a-threat-to-national-security/
  7. Kenneth Waltz – Man, the State, and War – sounds like it advances a three level model similar to mine, but reversed, probably going on my “to read” list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man,_the_State,_and_War

Significant thanks to Google’s Gemini for criticism and research.