Raymond Aron and Sociological Approach to International Relations

1. Raymond Aron et la conception sociologique des relations internationales (Raymond Aron, sociologue influencé par Clausewitz, questionne l'existence d'une théorie générale des relations internationales en raison des objectifs contradictoires des États : la guerre ou la paix. Dans "Paix et guerre entre les nations" (1962), il affirme que les relations internationales oscillent entre ces deux extrêmes et que leur étude est sociologique.)

2.1. Aron's doubt about general theories (Aron, influenced by Clausewitz, doubts the existence of a general theory of international relations due to the contradictory objectives of states: war or peace.)

2.2. Aron's sociological approach (Aron believes that the study of international relations is sociological.)

2.3. Aron's identification of three objectives of foreign policy (Aron identifies three objectives of foreign policy: power, glory, and ideas, illustrated by territorial wars like the Falklands War (1982) and the ideological confrontation East-West.)

2.4. Aron's analysis of war in terms of power relations (Aron analyzes war in terms of power relations between states, evaluated according to the configuration: multipolar or bipolar, homogeneous or heterogeneous systems.)

2.5. Aron's assessment of bipolar and homogeneous systems (Aron considers a bipolar and homogeneous international system to be more stable than a multipolar and heterogeneous system, as demonstrated by the stability of 19th-century Europe compared to the instability of the Cold War.)

3. Critiques of the realist approach

3.1. Realism as a bellicose doctrine (Realism, often criticized for its cynicism and defeatist approach to international relations, is perceived as a bellicose doctrine, but realists tend towards prudence and isolationism.)

3.2. Realism as a statocentric doctrine (Critics argue that realism overestimates the importance of the state-nation and neglects other actors like NGOs and multinational corporations, but realists acknowledge these actors and consider them less autonomous due to a lack of sovereignty.)

3.3. Uncertainty of the concept of national interest (Critics point out the ambiguity of the concept of national interest, a central but vague concept that can justify opposing policies, such as De Gaulle and Monnet's divergent visions on the EU.)

3.4. Limited focus on military aspects (The main criticism of the realist school is its limited focus on military aspects of international relations, while Grotius, in the 17th century, emphasized the importance of economics and commerce for state power and advocated for treaties promoting peace and freedom of navigation, a precursor to neo-realism.)

4. The emergence of neo-realism

4.1. Neo-realism as a response to doctrinal criticisms and historical changes (Neo-realism, promoted by Kenneth Waltz, emerges in response to criticisms of realism and historical changes in the 1970s, including the American crisis of conscience and the international détente.)

5. Features of neo-realism

5.1. Maintaining core realist principles (Kenneth Waltz, founder of neo-realism, reaffirms the importance of the state as the central actor in international relations and the universality of sovereignty, while acknowledging the influence of other actors.)

5.2. Novel aspects of neo-realist thought (Waltz challenges the notion of balance of power, arguing that states seek security rather than equilibrium through power. He supports stability in a bipolar international system, as demonstrated during the Cold War, and favors a system with few major powers.)

6. Liberal approaches to international relations

6.1. Emergence of liberalism (Liberalism, which emerged in response to realism, is rooted in Enlightenment values such as democracy and human rights and emphasizes individual freedom.)

7. Differences between realism and liberalism (Realists view individual power as a source of conflict, while liberals see it as a driver of equilibrium and progress via competition. Realists advocate for state intervention, while liberals advocate for regulations that ensure equal competition and reflect the general interest.)