Three Traditions of International Theory

The normative tradition of realism is the international relation (sociological terminology) as a condition of international disorder; the normative tradition of rationalism is the international relations as the terms of the international community (the term of the scoopostic term); the normative tradition of revolutionism A state considered international harmony or a single utopia (ethical and normative terms). Realism takes precedence over national interest and security, not ideology, moral problems, social reconstruction.

This article begins with a brief overview of three traditional or mainstream international relations (IR) theory, followed by a feminist IR review. From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, feminist scholars began to challenge mainstream IR assumptions and arguments. Therefore, the research project has expanded and deepened our understanding of international relations, especially foreign policy. The next section discusses women, gender, and foreign policy. In particular, this section will review discussion of literature on gender disparity, including policy preferences including foreign policy. In the next section we will discuss women's participation and representation, paying attention to the increase in the number of women in legislation and enforcement status, but the number of men in the government is still beyond that of women. As a woman, especially as a legislator or executive, explore whether or not it will affect foreign policy issues and how to do it

Foreign policy analysis and international relations scholars are working in a different analysis tradition. The former regards individuals as the basis of international relations theory, the latter is easier to derive from the system level. More precisely, foreign policy analysts often use social psychology role theory, and international relativists are more firmly based on constitutional principles borrowed from sociology. There are geographical differences: the former scholar group is more common in the US but the latter is often located in other parts of Europe and the world. Both groups used analytical methods and evidence criteria appropriate to their traditions. Some people think international relations theory can not be a diplomatic theory.