Que 1.

Explain the difference between Idealist Theory of International Relations and Realistic Theory
of International Relations in detail.

Ans:-

International relations, the study of the relations of states with each other and with international
organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups).
It is related to a number of other academic disciplines, including political
science, geography, history, economics, law, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. Hans Morgenthau
made landmark contributions to international relations theory and the study of international law.
His Politics among Nations, first published in 1948, went through five editions during his lifetime.
International relations includes states and their interactions non-state actors, international political
economy, international security, international environment, mobilization, terrorism and military studies.
Therefore, it is said that international relation as a branch of social science is concerned with relations
among nations and other issues like non-state actors, international political economy, international
security, foreign policies of major powers, globalization, international terrorism, international
environment and area studies. 

Idealist Theory of International Relations

Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner. Start with the idea and
ends with thing. It is based on Idealist. They want to build a world which is free from immorality
violence and power politics. Man is good by nature (JJ Rousseau). Faith in International
organization and world state. It is given more important to ideology. Not to give importance to
National Interest. Reality is found in the mind of man. Idealist theory is also known as Absolute
theory/Metaphysical theory. Idealism is a philosophical doctrine which holds the view that
ideas are the only reality. Hence, for the idealists, there is no external reality and that the world is
consist of ideas. For this reasons, the idealists argue that material things do not really exist. In
fact, for the idealists, material things are not real because they are mutable and destructible.
This is because whatever that is mutable and destructible keeps on changing, and whatever that
keeps on changing cannot be considered real. Only ideas, therefore, are real for the idealists
because ideas do not change- they are immutable and indestructible. Idealism is normally
contrasted with realism, a philosophical doctrine which holds the view that material objects are
independent of the human mind; thus, they exist on their own. For the realists, therefore, material
object are real. Contrary to the contention of the realists, the idealist’s association reality with
the “mind” rather than with material things. Hence, the mind for the idealists is the essence of
reality and that ideas are the only permanent reality. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato was
the well-known figure in idealism. As is well known, Plato believed that the physical world is
not real. As we can see, because the physical world constantly changes, one cannot really tell
what it really is. In his seminal work titled The Republic, Plato introduced the two kinds of
world namely, the world of forms of Ideas and The world of matter. According to Plato, any
material object that exists in the world of matter is just a copy of the object that exists in the
world of forms.

Example –
Take for example a tree. For Plato, the tree that we experience in the world of matter is not real
because it is mutable, destructible, and changeable. The real “tree” is the one that exists in the
world of form that is the tree that exists on the level of idea. Indeed, our conception of any
material objects, for example a tree, is the “Form” of those material objects. In other words, the
idea of a tree is, for Plato, the “Form” of that tree. For Plato, that is the “real” tree. 
On the other hand talking about Realistic Theory, it is totally opposite to Idealistic Theory
in the following manner-
Realistic Theory of International Relations
Realism in philosophy refers to the view that the reality of any material objects exists in the
external world independently of the human mind. Put differently, realism holds that what one
perceives is real and is out there existing in concrete reality. Contrary to nominalism, which
holds that universals do not exist independently from particulars, realism holds that both
universal and particular exist independently from each other. In metaphysics, the term
“particulars” refers to concrete, spatiotemporal entities or objects, such as a tree or a book. Often
times, the term “individuals” is used interchangeable with “particulars”. One of the most
distinctive characteristics of “particulars” is that they cannot be in more than one place at the
same time. The term “universal” refers to the properties or characteristics possessed by a
particular, concrete spatiotemporal object, such as colour or hardness. Scholars in philosophy
believed that it was Aristotle who first popularised realism when he opposed Plato’s
idealism and argued that the real exists in the sensible world which can be known through
experience. As we can see, it was Aristotle who provided the fundamental structure of the
development of realism and its penetration in other disciplines, such as in arts and politics.  
Example 1 –
The maple tree that I see with my naked eyes is existing in concert reality and is not just an
abstract concept produced by the mind as the idealist would have us believe. Hence, the fact that
the maple tree exists in the external world and has properties of its own such as hardness and
thickness that maple tree in independent of anyone’s perception – it is therefore “real”.
Difference between Idealist Theory of International Relations and Realistic Theory of
International Relations
The debate between realism and idealism can be characterised by two extreme and

opposite ontological views on international relations, which results from different

considerations and actions in relation to how States relate in international society. Still,

they are not mutually exclusive.

The debate between realism and idealism continues to mark the discipline of International Relations.
On the one hand, realism argues that international politics is a struggle for power and a quest for
survival, which results in a condition of permanent conflict between States without any possibility of
evolution or progress. On the other hand, idealism considers it possible to build a world of peaceful
coexistence, prosperity and well-being, achieved through cooperation and based on values and
aspirations shared by humans.
Idealists, whose thinking is linked to the ideas of liberal

internationalist, consider that despite the international system being anarchic there is a

communitarian consciousness, the possibility of progress in the international system,

achieved through cooperation and progress towards a lasting peace, prosperity and social

well-being, based on values and aspirations shared by humans. In contrast, realists have

a negative opinion of human nature and consider international anarchy as being

characterised by a struggle for State survival and vying national interests, where the

conquest of power is of vital importance given the ever-present possibility of conflict.

These ontological visions are not reconcilable, and can coexist in constant tension with

each other.

Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal

or perfect manner. Realism, on the other hand, tends toward a more pragmatic and actual view of

a situation. The two concepts can, in layman’s terms, be deemed different in perspectives; with

idealism focusing on ‘what could be’, and realism focusing on ‘what actually is.’

These commonly accepted definitions of the words are rooted in the philosophical uses of the

terms. In philosophy, when discussing the issues of perception, idealism is a theory that states

that our reality is shaped by our thoughts and ideas. Realism, on the other hand, deals with

the fact that reality has an absolute existence independent from our thoughts, ideas and even

consciousness.

Using the classic test of whether the glass is half empty or half full as an example, we see that

idealists tend to be positive thinkers – i.e. those who see the glass as being half full. Realists

may not hold the opposite or negative point of view, but they do view a situation through less

hopeful eyes. Realists are stereotypically seen as people who are very rational, who think

carefully, and weight their options before making a choice. In this sense, realists make safer and

more practical choices when compared to idealists, who may be willing to make more risky

decisions.

Idealistic emphasise the importance of universal bodies such as the League and the UN is galvanising
and organising world public opinion. On the other hand realism argues that unsavoury actions like war
are necessary tools of statecraft in an imperfect world and leaders must use them when it is in the
national interest. Idealistic believe it is possible to eliminate crude power from international relations,
through research, reasons and discussion in place of National armies and navies whereas realists believe
that this theory most closely describes the image of world politics held by practitioners of statecraft.
Thus to conclude, Realists and idealists disagreed totally over the capacity of human society, and
especially international politics, to eliminate the vagaries of existence in an anarchic state system.

Que 2. Explain in detail the difference between Decision Making Theory and Game
Theory?

Ans- Decision-Making:
Definition:
“Decision-making is usually defined as a process or sequence of activities involving stages of
problem recognition, search for information, definition of alternatives and the selection of an
actor of one from two or more alternatives consistent with the ranked preferences”.

Decision making theory is a theory of how rational individuals should behave under risk and
uncertainty. It uses a set of axioms about how rational individuals behave which has been widely
challenged on both empirical and theoretical ground.

Nature:
1. In one of his writings Herbert Simon has said that decision or decision making “is a
matter of compromise”. The compromise becomes inevitable on another ground. The
policy maker must see that the policy is not divorced from real situation and the real
situation chiefly relates to the declared policy of the management or government organ.
2. There must be rationality in decision making process. We have just now pointed out that
compromise and decision making both is linked with each other. The policy maker makes
compromises on the ground that this policy/decision will be a realistic one. Similarly,
while a decision is being made the decision maker must demonstrate utmost rationality.
3. An important characteristic of decision-making is that it is never a product of a single
man. It does not originate from a single brain; it is always the product of several men or
 brains who work together. In any governmental organisation several bureaucrats or
officers work together and after considering all the aspects a decision is taken.
4. Decision-making does not relate to one issue or question but to a number of issues.

DETERMINANTS

The actions of the decision-makers are also determined by three determinants:

1. Spheres of competence

2. Communication and information

3. Motivation

However, there are also certain limitations to decision-making and decision outcome. The
limitations can arise from outside the decisional system and limitations arising from the nature
and functioning of the decisional system.

FACTORS

The foreign policy is examined and the following factors are studied:

1. Purpose of the foreign policy;

2. Decision-makers;

3. Principles of decision-making;

4. Process of decision-making and policy planning

5. Means of decision-making and policy planning

6. Internal situations of the state, and

7. External factors

There are external and internal factors which also influence process of decision-making. The
internal factors include the role of public opinion, socio-economic conditions of the people,
geographical and demographic factors and others. Among the external factors the important ones
are the actions, reactions and counteraction of other states as a result of the decisions taken by
the people established in authority there.
Game Theory:-

Game theory is based on an abstract form of reasoning arising from a combination of

mathematics and logic. As a branch of pure mathematics the theory of games sets forth
mathematical postulates from which mathematical conclusions are derived. Nearly all game
theorists agree that the theory with which they deal is addressed to what is rationally correct
behaviour in situations in which actors engage in interaction in the form of a game with specific
strategies, goals and preferred outcomes. Here the actors are trying to win or maximize gain or
minimize loss. For centuries kings and military officers have played war games (not actual wars)
as a practice of strategies. Game theory in modern time is also applied other social sciences, not
only in psychology and economics.

The key differences between Decision-making Theory and Game-Theory are as follows.

The emphasis of Decision-making Theory is on devising a conceptual framework that could

help us in the reconstruction of the situation as defined by decision-makers. Whereas, Game-
Theory is based on an abstract form of reasoning arising from a combination of mathematics and
logics. It provides a number of advantages for the analysis of International Relations. It requires
that a conflict situation or decision process be examined from the point of the ‘Utilities' and
‘Disadvantages’. One of the identification of “crucial structures” in the political realm where
changes takes place, where decisions are made, and where actions are initiated and carried out
and is a systematic analysis behaviour which leads to action is Decision-making theory. The
decision-making approach lays emphasis on the question as to how and why a nation acts in
international politics in a particular way not the other. It is a “process which results in the
selection from a socially defined, limited number of problematic, alternative projects of one
project to bring about the particular future state of affairs envisaged by the decision-makers
unlike the game theory. Game theory postulates a setting in which both sides make rational
calculation of their own self-interest. It says that if a problem is perfectly understood than it can
be represented by a mathematical model.

Decision-making theory assumes that activities of a state are more or less explicitly motivated
and behaviour is not at random whereas Game theory is mathematical and deductive in form and
understanding. Decision-making theory conceives of state action as resulting from the way the
indefinable official decision-makers define the situation of action. It considers all the elements
and factors that enter into the considerations of a decision-maker such as the internal setting,
external setting and the decision-making. While Game-theory offers a way for laboratory testing
of real life situations and solutions are derived from deductive reasoning.

Decision theory studies individual decision-making in situations in which an individual’s choice

neither affects nor is affected by other individuals’ choices; while game theory studies
decision-making in situations where individuals’ choices do affect each other. Decision theory
asks questions like: what does it mean to choose rationally? How should we make choices
when the consequences of our actions are uncertain? Buying insurance and deciding which job to
take are examples of the kind of decisions studied by this discipline. Game theory instead applies
to all decisions that have a strategic component. The choices of an oligopolistic, voting
strategies, military tactical problems, deterrence, but also common phenomena such as
threatening, promising, conflict and cooperation are its subject matter. In a strategic situation, the
goal is not just to choose rationally, but to choose in such a way that a mutual solution is
achieved, so that choices ‘coordinate’ in the right way. The formal methods developed by game
theory do not require that the subject making a choice be an intentional agent: coordinated
interaction between animals or computers can be successfully modelled as well.

 Game Theory - Analyze cooperative & competitive behavior

 Decision Theory - Describe how decisions are made (or should be made)

Probably the most obvious differences are related to what group is advancing each theory:
 Game Theory - Economists
 Decision Theory -Psychologists
In brief:

 Decision theory is the study of how an agent can maximize its expected utility
in situations where there are no other agents making choices. The sorts of
problems studied in a principles of microeconomics course are the sorts of
problems that decision theory is concerned with.
 Game theory is the study of how agents can maximize their expected utility in
situations where multiple agents make choices, and the payoff function of each
 agent depends on what all of the other agents do. The prisoner's dilemma is the
prototypical example of a game theoretic problem.

For Example: The use of decision support systems in firms, in order to improve planning as
well as ad-hoc decision making recently has experienced a remarkable upsurge.

The formal foundation of such systems usually has been, and in many cases still is, mathematical
decision theory: A single decision maker has to optimize a set of instrument variables subject to
a set of partly stochastic conditions. These conditions partly stem from the specific
organizational setting of the firm, partly they are simplifications of market conditions, legal
constraints, labour market constraints and the like. The important point is that they can be
considered as analogues to laws of nature determining the optimal choice of the decision maker.

Contrary to this view game theory offers more sophisticated models: In a decision making
process there are several decision makers involved, each of them with its own strategy. Instead
of a single optimal choice of instruments, sets of equilibrium constellations depending on the
equilibrium concepts chosen are the result of the theoretical investigation of the situation.