States, Differing levels of analysis

Before I begin I'd like to agree with Gabe on the fact that the usual jargon of academics makes this reading difficult and frustrating, which is unnecessary.

This reading also proves to me why I have issues with IR theory at times. Each theory seeks to add a theoretical framework to the discussion of International Relations. However, I agree with Moravcsik that there doesn't need to be a war about who's theoretical framework explains more or is "better". Instead each theory adds a component that is necessary to discuss and analyze world events and world issues. Moravcsik's liberal viewpoint is more along the lines of a "domestic level of analysis" while realism and institutionalism take a more systemic perspective. When Moravcsik says that the liberal viewpoint should be a more integral part of IR discussions, I agree.