Members of Group 9B :

• Alvin Adi Mahardika 070912055

• Fatrakul Yusa 070912067

• Krisna Purwa Adi W. 070912102

• Meutia Sabrina 070912080

• M. Hafiz A 070912092

Jurusan Ilmu Hubungan Internasional ‘09

Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik
Universitas Airlangga Surabaya
WHEN & WHERE WAS IR ESTABLISHED ????...

The story of IR’s evolution became a study is started by a series of “great

debates”. There are three great debates since IR became academic subject in the last 1st
World War. The first debate is debate between ‘utopian liberalist’ and ‘realist’ ; second is
debate between ‘traditionalist’ against ‘ behavioralist’ ; and the last is debate between
‘neorealism/neoliberalism’ against ‘neo-marxism’.
The first, IR has been developing as a subject or study around the 1st World War.
In a traditional theory of IR, IR just focused on explaining why the war happened and
striving for the attainment of peace. But now, IR’s mindset has develop through many
phases characterized by many debates between many groups of scientist.
There are four essential theories or concepts in IR : Realism, Liberalism,
International society, and International political economy (EPI). In the development of
IR, there are so many events happened.
Now, let’s read the following ‘series of events’ relate to the development of IR.

• 1648 : The history of international relations is often traced back to the Peace of
Westphalia of 1648, where the modern state system was developed. Prior to this,
the European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely
hierarchical religious order. Westphalia encouraged the rise of the independent
nation-state, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies.
• 1914-1918 : The first World War cause many people died, therefore public want
this tragedy not happen again and they want break out from the shadows of
violence. This pressure motivate the establishment of Nation League or have been
known as “Liga Bangsa-bangsa” to ‘secure guarantees for mutually beneficial
political independence and integration of large and small areas’ (Vasquez 1996:
40), to control states that want power, ending the war and achieve peace more or
less permanent . This is being the first of the IR’s development as study which
focus its study on how to effort a peace in that time.
 • 1939-1945 : The second World War. IR is used as struggle for power and for
survival.
• 1940s-1990s : The Cold War was the conflict between the capitalism nations and
communist nations (competition between US and Soviet Union) following World
War II. The Cold War was firmly expressed through propaganda, military
coalitions, weapon development, espionage, industrial advances as well as
technological development. Such activites successfully hightened further
competition and tension between the warring parties. The end of Cold War
indicated by the collapse of Soviet Union’s regime. Since that time, world is
fulled with hope of peacefulness in society.
• 1960s-1970s : The development of IR become more complex due to the
involvement of IGOs ( Inter-Government Organization) and INGOs ( Inter Non –
Governmental Organization).
• 1980s - ….. : IR become a study of foreign affairs and global issues among states
within the international system and also become a study of interaction
international actors whose attitude can influence a nation-state policy.

Beside that “series of events”, the development also influence by “Great Debate”.
There are three Great debate which role in the formation of IR become a study.

 The “ Great Debates”

• 1st : Debate between ‘utopian liberalist’ and ‘realist’.

UTOPIAN LIBERALISM REALIS ANSWER

Focus : Focus :
Int’l law FIRST DEBATE
Political power
Int’l organization Security
Interdependence Agression
Cooperation Conflicts
Peace War
 . The debate between utopian liberalist (1920) against realist (1930-1950) to
make two opposing positions in the first major debate on the IR. The first
debate clearly won by Carr, Morgentau and other realist thinkers. Realism
became the dominant way of thinking of international relations not only
among the scientist but also among the politicians and diplomats. Conclusion
Morgentau of realism in the book of the year 1948 became the standard
introductory IR in 1950-1960. However, it is important emphasize that
liberalism does not disappear. Many liberals claim that realism is a better
guide for international relations in the 1930s and 1940s, but they see this as an
extreme period of history and not normal. Although realism won the first
debate there is still competition theories in these disciplines which refused to
accept defeat is permanent.

• 2nd : Debate between ‘traditionalist’ against ‘ behavioralist’.

TRADITIONALIST BEHAVIORALIST ANSWER

Focus Focus
SECOND DEBATE
UNDERSTANDING EXPLAINING
Norma & nilai Hipotesis
assessment Data collection
historical knowledge Scientific knowledge

The second debate refers to the differences in methodology. Traditional approach

is a holistic approach that accept the complexity of the human world, to see
international relations as part of the human world, and seeks to understand the
way of humanity to get it. Involvement was imaginatively into the role of citizens,
seek to understand the moral dilemma in its foreign policy, and to appreciate the
basic values that arise, such as security, order, freedom and justice. IR, in this
view, is the subject of broad humanity; this can never be a truly scientific or
technical subject technically.
 Another approach, behavioralist, does not provide a place for morality or ethics in
IR studies, since it involves values, and values can not be studied objectively, that
is, scientifically.
The behavioralist not win the second major debate, as well as the traditionalist.
But behavioralism do something more lasting impact on IR. It was largely due to
the dominance of the discipline after World War II by the U.S’s Scientist the
largest majority support quantitative, scientific ambitions of behavioralism.

• 3rd : Debate between ‘neorealism/neoliberalism’ against ‘neo-marxism’.

NEO-MARXISME
THIRD DEBATE
Focus
Realism / Neoliberalism Capitalist world sytem
Liberalism / Neoliberalism dependence
Backwardness

Historical accounts of the third debate tend to be more ambiguous than the
previous debates. But it’s commonly described as on inter-paradigm debate that
took place in early 1980s among realist, pluralist, and structuralist (Banks,1985 ;
Maghoori,1982)
The third debate is according to Waever, seen as a debate not to be won, but a
pluralism to live with (Waever,1996:155). In other word, claim about
the ascendancy of neorealim didn’t mean that adherents of liberal (pluralist) or
Marxist (globalist) approach stopped contributing to the discourse of IR, and
some have even questioned whether the three paradigms were ever in competition
with one another.
4th : Now, the fourth debate are continuing in IR. This debate has led to various
criticisms of the tradition established by alternative approaches, sometimes known
as pospositivis (Smith et al 1996).
In short, there is a new debate in IR is expressed methodological issues ( how to
approach the study IR) and important issues ( issues that should be considered
most important for IR to be studied).

Tradisi yang telah mapan

Realism / neorealism FOURTH DEBATESuara – suara Baru

Liberalism / neoliberalism
Int’l society Metodologi post-positivis
International political economy Post-positivis issues
(EPI)
 CONCLUSION / OPINION
Now, the evolution IR became a Study has developed each step by step passed
many ‘series of events’ several years ago. Besides that ‘series of events’, the
history and development of IR cannot separated from the ‘Great debates’. As we
know the great debates have influenced the theory of IR.
• 1st debate between ‘utopian liberalist’ and ‘realist’
• 2nd debate between ‘traditionalist’ against ‘ behavioralist’
• 3rd debate between ‘neorealism/neoliberalism’ against ‘neo-marxism’
• 4th debate about ‘pospositivism approach’

Though there are many theories related to IR, there will be no “the most
important” theory because every theory has strength and weakness each other
because every theory is made by different people. So, we just consider which
theory is match with our mindset / ideology .
 SOURCE
• Jackson, R., &. Sorensen, G. (1999) Introduction to International Relations, Oxford
University Press.
• George, Susan, “A Short History of Neoliberalism,” paper Conference on Economic
Sovereignty in a Globalizing World, March 24-26,1999,
www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/histneol.htm
• Wight, Colin (2002) “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in
Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons [eds.],Handbook of International
Relations, SAGE.
• Gaddis, John Lewis (1996) “History, Science, and the Study of International
Relations” in Ngaire Woods (ed.,) Explaining InternationalRelations Since 1945,
Oxford University Press.
• Perwita, Banyu & Mochamad, Yanyan (2005). Pengantar Ilmu Hubungan
Internasional. Bandung : PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.