Approach * Approach refers to selection of criteria for selecting, studying, explaining and understanding an issue or problem * Itrelates to looking at the issue/problem from a particular angle and explaining the phenomena from the same angle * However, different scholars have chosen different criteria and different angle for understanding and explaining a problem/issue, thus resulted in different approaches.Classical Approach + Also called traditional approach * Concerned with descriptive analysis of IR + Main objective is to report and analyze current international events, issues and problems and then to speculate on these + The worth and value of a work is judged by the reputation of the ‘scholar, the authenticity and reliability of the judgment, evidence for extensive research, the clarity and the eloquence of the facts * emphasizes the studying of such disciplines as diplomatic history, international law, and philosophy in order to develop a better insights and understanding of the events, issues and problems * Traditionalists are strongly distrustful of behaviorist approaches that focuses on strict scientific standards and methods such as formulating hypothesis, data collection and the use of statistical analysis for concluding resultsScientific Approach * Become popular in the 20" century after WWI + Assumes that IR involve people and thus can be understood, analyzed, explained and predicted just like other science discipline + Applies scientific method in analyzing and explaining human behaviour + Aims to develop theories and general principles to help in understanding international phenomena and predicting events. * Concerned with the method than the substance/subject matter while the traditional approach takes the converse viewThe Realist Approach * Aset of ideas that focuses on security and power factors + Assumes that the international system is anarchical and based on fear, conflicts, insecurity and competing goals * Astate has to protect itself from a potentially aggressive neighbour by seeking power * Thus, there is a continuous contest between states for power and the struggle to increase their power * The power is needed to further one’s national interests (sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence etc.) * This struggle for power can neither be controlled nor given up * To increase one's power is the ultimate aim with all states * Realism tries to describe politics rationally than morallyRealists Approach cont. + Supported by Hobbes, Machiavelli, Morgenthau, Kissinger * Peace in the world can be maintained only by a balance of power between the most powerful states * Morgenthau: ‘International politics like all politics is a struggle for power. Whatever, the ultimate aims of international politics, power is the ultimate aim’ + Further Morgenthau emphasized That Politics can not be understood in terms of religious or moral terms but in terms of power which helps in promoting national interests + Interests are not fixed but molded by environment. * The observance of moral principles changes for individual and state. The state is not bound to follow the moral principles as set for individuals.Criticism of Realism * The theory focus on power and struggle for power but its difficult to define power which is a very complex term. * Its difficult to measure power of a state objectively and accurately. Thus struggle for power becomes even more complex and difficult. + The theory assumes that men and state's action are motivated by seeking power. But this is not the situation on international level and had it been, there would have been an unending race for power and armaments. The states cooperate with each other and conduct peaceful relations with each other. * State's action are not solely governed by seeking power. The states also work for promotion of ideology, business activity, sports, promotion of culture and exchange etc.Criticism of Realism + The states also perform many activities and invest in them although there is no power derived from such activities e.g. international sport events, conferences and seminars, film festivals and awards etc. * The balance of power is not a reliable method for maintaining peace. Unipolar world exist at present * Military power has a declining importance in todays world. The military spending is on decrease. Arms control and disarmament is followed by many states. * Realism is a conservative and against moral principles. It terms human nature as wicked and flawed which is not right.The Idealist Approach + Opposite of realist approach * Main supporters: Condorcet, Kant, Rousseau, Wilson + Regards realist approach as in a dying phase * Believes that states are like individual. Human being is not always bad as the realist believes. They believe that goodness lies in man. He lives in groups following some norms, rules and regulations. + Similarly, states are not as bad, struggling to get power or troublesome as hold by the realist, rather failed state are the ones that portray bad behaviours. Autocratic states are always bad and go for war * States follow certain values and rules based on mutual cooperation and goals. This interaction among state would result in international institution like (League of Nations, United Nation Organization and other regional organization such as SAARC, EU, ASEAN etc )The Idealist Approach * It's the future of international society * Believes that the power politics, violence and immorality will be reformed * The world would become a safe and better place to live free from power struggle * This would be achieve through education and international organizations, international law, science and reason + Idealists visualize a world free from war, tyranny, immorality and conflict * Personal and national interest would be replaced by interest of humanity and mankindThe Idealist Approach * The idealist also perceives a world government to be finally achieve * The idealist approach is more ideal and far from reality * The realist approach is closer to actual truth