In spite of the natural sciences, International relations

Nevertheless, prediction is also useful in times when peace is prevailing. States do not interact only over political issues. Modern societies and countries do not seek to conquer land and expand their territorial area anymore, but they deal mostly with their economic growth, the prosperity of the individual and environmental issues. Therefore, a prediction about future economic investments of a state that will bear profit is very useful for a state nowadays. For example, there will be a need for oil for many years in the future for all countries, so all states should try to have good relations with the countries that produce it. A statement of Michael Nicholson suits here: “States that have the capacity to foresee crisis or fertile grounds can improve their economy react in a way that the repercussions of the crisis will minimize and prevent instability and social unrest”. 

Prediction is a way that things can be controlled and stabilized. In the area of International Relations prediction is of too much importance because it is reflected not on individuals but mostly to large numbers of people. Furthermore, each leader that appears to be charismatic and can predict things becomes more influential on the masses of people and he has the ability to lead, protect and make his country better in many ways. Nevertheless, prediction is not a very easy procedure in International Relations because a lot of factors react and set several limitations.        

 Limits Of Prediction In International Relations

Prediction in International Relations has been an issue for long discussions. The hardest dispute is whether prediction is valid or not for such a kind of science and the factors that contribute for this disputes are several problems that appear during the whole process.

Positivism is trying to reduce the value of any kind of science which is not included in natural sciences. The same behavior prevails over the disputes between positivists and scientists of International Relations. One of the most typical examples that positivists use for the last decade is the failure of the analysts and theoreticians to predict the failure of Communism in the U.S.S.R. and in Eastern Europe, something that was a great failure indeed. Positivists support that the term “science” in the expression “social sciences” is something completely unrelated to the real essence of the term and it is not able of predicting anything in its field. Furthermore, they argue that social scientists and analysts are incapable of attending to what is happening on their field of research.

As Michael Nicholson claims over this issue: ‘it was indeed a major blow for the credibility of the theoreticians and the analysts since it proved to be a process  that dated years ago and remained undetected until the day that the “iron curtain” fell over’. On the other hand, the social scientists had only access to what they were given by the formal Soviet government that was looking after keeping its major problems hidden. So as a laboratory experiment can not be completed if there are main substances that are missing, the same happened in this case. Major pieces of the “Soviet collapse puzzle” were missing of the scene so the final picture was not possible to be seen.

Another attempt that is made for the reduction of the value of the social sciences is the fact that prediction in this field is mostly inaccurate. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that social sciences have to deal with human behavior which differs from individual to individual, from time to time and from case to case. With all these unrelated factors having their role in the procedure of prediction, especially in International Relations then it is very natural the final result to be usually inaccurate. If someone attempted to apply rules and natural laws at the level of human reaction, based on the past, then, despite the fact that he would be inaccurate, future behavior would be expected to happen exactly as it had happened in the past. Additionally, Keith Webb supports that ‘if nature was the same everywhere and for all time, then the future would be like the past’.

Prediction comes out mostly of the principle of continuity and that is based on observations of the past. If there are certain indications of something that has happened continuously in the past at the same way then there will be an expectation for it to happen again in the future in the same way. For example if a bus passes by a bus station every fifteen minutes then the prediction should be that it will pass by the same bys station fifteen minutes after its last passing. At this exact point comes the human behavior to play its role. The reason is that the bus-driver is a human being and several factors could affect the prediction to be accurate.

In International Relations things become more complicated because every situation is depended on the reaction of the political leaders which are all human. And, as we saw before, if a reaction of a single person can change a prediction and affect it to become a false one, we can easily assume that a situation that involves the reaction of many people will be a much more unpredictable one. It is not like the natural sciences that the subject has no opinion or the capability of decision making. In International Relations every individual has a stronger role to play and the effects of his behavior can change things tremendously.

The last limitation of prediction that should be mentioned is what is called “the Oedipus Effect” which is clearly explained by Keith Webb: ‘Human beings are conscious and reactive creatures. Because of this a prediction made about some state in the future will affect their behavior in that they will attempt either to prevent that state occurring, or to bring that state about. The prediction becomes a factor in the creation or prevention of a particular future.’ A good contemporary example is the theory that Samuel P. Huntington presented in its book ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the Worlds Order’ about the clash of civilizations that would happen based on religions (e.g. Muslims against the West etc). Some scholars support nowadays that the last conflicts and wars (Gulf war, U.S.A.’s invasion in Iraq) are the beginning of Huntington’s prediction because they are affected by his theory. Of course it is well known that these events were made by the U.S.A. to make sure its predominance on the world’s order and to secure their interests in the Middle-East that oil is being produced.

Conclusion

Prediction is undoubtedly a pain in the field of social sciences, therefore for the study of International Relations. It has several limitations that make it not a trustful tool. Nevertheless its importance is not less than in any other science because it is very important for the development and the progress of the whole system. Despite its difficulties, social scientists should continue the attempts of making it a more accurate thing.

For the time being, the political leaders, academics and any other person that is involved in the field of International Relations should keep making predictions so that the international system will continue to function properly, Nevertheless, it is of much importance that they are aware of the limitations that prediction in social sciences has. In this way they would not make false predictions which possibly could lead them to act wrongly in the situations that they face. It would be much safer to study every case carefully and through their predictions produce several expectations for things to happen and manage their reactions accordingly.

References

1. R.J. Rummel, Understanding Conflict and War vol. 4: War, Power, Peace; International Relations, University of Hawaii, available at  http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WPP.CHAP2.HTM

   

2.  Michael Nicholson, Prediction in International Relations; Some Conceptual Issues, Electronic Review of World Politics, 2000, available at http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/research/erwp/nicholson.htm

3.  Keith Webb, Prediction Uncertainty and Control in International Relations, Graduate School of International Relations, the University of Kent at Canterbury, Prepared for the ECPR Workshop on 'Prediction in International Relations'” Joint Sessions, Bordeaux, May 1995, available at  http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/research/kentpapers/webb1.html        

 

         

Course: IREL 560 – Political Philosophy and Epistemology of International Relations

Course Coordinators: Dr. Keith Webb and Dr. Mirbagheri Farid

Title: The Limits of Prediction in International Relations  

Scheme: MA in International Relations

 

---