International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

atory theory. The criterion “type of explanation and notion of causality” will 
therefore be used in the structured learning process to explore different un-
derstandings of “knowledge” that lie at the hearts of different theories of IR.
3.2.
Approach to “levels of analysis” 
As has been mentioned above, “levels of analysis” is not a philosophy of sci-
ence criterion in the strictest sense. Let me briefly explain why I will none-
theless integrate it to the criteria for our structured learning process.
Usually, this concept is introduced as the level of analysis problem. The 
problem is where (in terms of levels) we should focus our study of Interna-
tional Relations. As an analytical concept, “levels of analysis” originated 
with Waltz (1959) and Singer (1961). In his study on war, Waltz (1959) uses 
the term “images of the world” or “images of international relations”. The 
first image is the individual; analyzing international conflict at the individual 
level means explaining the outcome of international politics as a result of 
human behavior. The second image is the state level, where international 
conflict is explained by the internal structure of states. The third image is an 
explanation of international politics at the system level, where structural fea-
tures of the international system account for international conflict.

---

117 
More generally, the concept operates on the assumption that we can study 
international relations at the level of the international system (systemic level), 
the level of the state (state-level or domestic level) or the individual level.
System-level analysis explains the outcomes of international politics by 
referring to the systemic level. Explanations of outcomes in international pol-
itics are “systemic”. Domestic or state-level analysis means that states and 
their internal processes (e.g. the “type” of political system, the powerful in-
terest groups within the state that shape its foreign policy) count most when 
explaining outcomes in international politics. Explanations of outcomes in in-
ternational politics are “domestic”. Individual-level analysis focuses on indi-
vidual human actors. This can be done by analyzing complex processes of 
decision-making, explanations such as “human nature” or “organizational 
behavior” of individuals in organizational settings, or the specific world 
views or beliefs of single foreign policy decision-makers. Explanations of 
outcomes in international politics are “individual”. In fact, these three level 
of analysis result in three different types of theory building in IR. 
From what we learned in Units 2 and 3, you will easily be able to con-
clude that the levels of analysis problem reflects the idea of modern positivist 
science that reality can be separated analytically into spheres or levels in or-
der to gain better knowledge about the objects of inquiry. As such, this con-
cept belongs to reductionism. 
However, discussing theories of IR in terms of how they approach the 
positivist concept of “levels of analysis” will result in important insights on 
the idea of science that underlie a particular theory of IR. We will see that 
some IR theories categorically reject the notion of “levels of analysis” be-
cause of their different position on science altogether. We will study the rea-
sons given for their rejection and, in so doing, will learn more deeply about 
each theory’s understanding of science and valid knowledge. 
4.
General approach to IR as a science and to the practice 
of international politics 
By way of summarizing, we will make a final statement about the general 
approach to the scientific study of IR and to the practice of international poli-
tics that is inherent in the theoretical approach at the end of each chapter on a 
theory. This statement will be primarily related to three aspects: 
First, we will ask about the philosophy of science at the heart of the theo-
retical construction. Second, we will ask about the normative perspective of 

---

118 
the theory. By its very nature, any social theory has a normative perspective 
(implicit or explicit): what should the “ideal” international system look like? 
We will try to identify the kind of normative perspective or ethics that the 
different theoretical approaches entail. In addition, we will learn more about 
the theories by asking about each one’s particular view of change in interna-
tional relations. Is there “progress” in the development of the international 
system? How does change in international politics occur?
These questions are also closely related to the third criterion: we will ask 
about the particular perspective on the study of international relations in 
terms of how the theorist/researcher/scientist relates to the “object” of 
study/research/theorizing. What position does he or she hold as to how theory 
of IR and the practice of international politics are linked to each other?