CLASSICAL REALISM, LIBERALISM, MARXISM: REVISITING THE MAINSTREAM APPROACHES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

Zulfa Ruhama

Abstract


Artikel ini membandingkan karakter mendasar dari tiga paradigma arus utama (mainstream) dalam kajian hubungan internasional, yaitu realisme klasik, liberalisme, dan marxisme. Perspektif dunia dalam realisme diibaratkan sebagai tatanan bola billiard, bahwa negara bangsa menjadi aktor utama. Negara mencoba untuk memenuhi kepentingannya menggunakan power yang dimiliki. Power sebagai sebuah kapabilitas negara untuk bertindak. Setiap negara adalah berdaulat (sovereignty) dan dapat menentukan arah kebijakannya sendiri (self-determination) sehingga realisme menganggap bahwa negara adalah sebuah entitas tertinggi dalam sistem internasional. Tatanan dunia menurut Perspektif Liberalisme diibaratkan sebagai jejaring laba-laba. Liberalisme memiliki pandangan yang positif pada sifat manusia, dan yakin dengan sifat tersebut akan terjalin kerja sama yang baik sehingga tercapailah perdamaian dunia. Aktor hubungan internasional bagi Liberalisme tidak hanya negara, tetapi juga aktor-aktor lain dalam kerja sama transnasional seperti organisasi internasional, perusahaan multinasional, dan lain-lain. Marxisme memandang tata dunia saat ini seperti seekor gurita. Dalam pandangan kaum Marxis, sistem internasional merupakan sistem kapitalis yang selalu mengejar akumulasi modal. Kesetaraan dan kebebasan merupakan hal yang dijunjung tinggi, negara dikendalikan oleh kepentingan kaum borjuis selaku pemilik modal. Marxis juga meyakini bahwa suatu saat revolusi politik akan mampu menghapuskan sistem kapitalis dan akan digantikan oleh sistem sosialis. Melalui upaya perbandingan dan analisis ketiga pendekatan klasik ini, penulis berargumen bahwa realisme klasik merupakan perspektif penting yang paling dibutuhkan dalam kajian hubungan internasional.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Banks, M. 1985. 'The Inter-Paradigm Debate', in Margot Light and A. J. R. Groom, eds. International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory. London: Pinter.

Brauch, HG. 2004. From a Hobbesian Security to a Grotian Survival Dilemma. In 40th Anniversary Conference of IPRA, Peace and Conflict in a Time of Globalization, Sopron, Hungary, pp. 5 – 9, viewed 11 April 2015, http://hexagon-series.org/pdf/Sopron_Survival%20Dilemma.pdf

Bromley, S & Smith, JM. 2004. ‘Transforming International Order’, in Brown, W., Bromley, S., & Athreye, S. (Eds.). Ordering the international: history, change and transformation. London: Pluto Press. pp. 523 – 568

Brown, W 2004, ‘Characterizing International Order’, in Brown, W., Bromley, S., & Athreye, S. (Eds.), Ordering the International: History, Change and Transformation. London: Pluto Press. pp. 483 – 520

Burton, JW. 1968. Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, B. 1996. The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?. in Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 47 – 65.

Carr, EH. 1946. The Twenty Years Crisis. London: Macmillan.

Cortright, D. 2008. Peace: A history of movements and ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Devetak R, George J, Weber M. 2011. ‘Marxism and Critical Theory’. in Devetak, R., Burke, A., & George, J. (Eds.) An Introduction to International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.63 – 75.

Donnelly, J. 2000. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donnelly, J. 2008. ‘The Ethics of Realism’, in Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 150 – 162.

Griffiths, M. 1992. Realism, Idealism and International Politics: A Reinterpretation. London: Routledge.

Guzzini, S. 2013. Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold. London: Routledge.

Hollis, M & Smith, S. 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. London: Clarendon Press.

Hunt, EK. 2002. Property and Prophets: The evolution of economic institutions and ideologies. New York: ME Sharpe.

Ion, D. 2012. Kant and International Relations Theory: cosmopolitan community building. London: Routledge.

Jackson, RH, Jackson, R & Sørensen, G. 2012. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jørgensen, EK. 2010. International Relations Theory: A New Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lapid, Y. 1989. ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 33, pp. 235 – 254, viewed 20 April 2015, from http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/Lapid3rdDebateInternTheoryPostPositivistEra.pdf

Lebow, RN. 2013. ‘Classical Realism’. in Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (Eds.). International Relations Theories. New York: Oxford University Press.

Little, R. 1996. The Growing Relevance of Pluralism?. in Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 66 – 86.

Maoz, Z & Russett, B. 1993. ‘Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986’. American Political Science Review, vol. 87, no.3, pp. 624 – 638, viewed 11 April 2015,http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/PS671/MaozRussett_1993APSR.pdf

Neufeld, MA. 1995. The Restructuring of International Relations Theory, Vol. 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nicholson, M. 1998. ‘Realism and utopianism revisited, in Booth’. K., Cox, M., & Dunne, T. (Eds.). (1998). The Eighty Years' Crisis: International Relations 1919 – 1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 65 – 82

Oneal, JR & Russet, BM. 1997. ‘The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950 – 1985’. International Studies Quarterly, vol 41, no.2, pp. 267 – 294, viewed 10 April 2015, fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2478.00042/abstract

Razeen, S. 2002. Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual History. CITY: Routledge.

Rengger, J. 2008. ‘The Ethics of Marxism’. in Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenau, JN. 1980. The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. London: Frances Pinter.

Rupert, M. 2013. ‘Marxism’. in Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (Eds.), International Relations Theories. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Russet, B 2013, ‘Liberalism’, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (Eds.). International Relations Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Russett, B & Oneal, JR. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton.

Shapcott, R. 2008. ‘Critical Theory’. in Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 163 – 184

Sørensen, G. 1998. ‘IR theory after the Cold War’. in K Booth’, K., Cox, M., & Dunne, T. (Eds.). (1998). The Eighty Years' Crisis: International Relations 1919-1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 83 – 100.

Tesche, B. 2008. ‘Marxism’. in Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 163 – 184.

Van de Haar, E. 2009. Classical Liberalism and International Relations Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wæver, O. 1996. ‘The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate.’ in Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. pp. 149 – 86.

Wohlforth, WC. 2008. ‘Realism’. in Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 131 – 149.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Zulfa Ruhama

 

 

Transnasionalhas been indexed and abstracted by:

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.