The key thing to keep in mind about normative debate is that normative theories do not necessarily prescribe one course of action - what they do is set the terms of debate.  To illustrate what I mean by this - there were realists who favored the war in Iraq and realists who opposed the war in Iraq.  So to say that realist theory tells us whether we should have to go to war in Iraq is incorrect.  However, realist theory does say that certain factors are legitimate to consider while other factors are illegitimate.  Realist theory, for example, says that the human rights situation or promoting democracy in Iraq are irrelevant at best and serious distractions at worst.  So to argue to go to war in Iraq to improve the human rights situation in Iraq is from the realist situation illegitimate.  All realists would agree on this.  What is legitimate to consider from realist theory is whether US national interests in the region are improved or impaired; e.g. does this action reduce or enhance the risk of a terrorist attack on the US? Does it eliminate the possibility that an adversary might gain access to WMD? Does it ease US access to oil?  All of these questions, are from the standpoint of realist theory, legitimate questions to ask about the war in Iraq.  So realist theory limits the debate to questions such as these - but it does not necessarily prescribe the outcome of this debate. 

II. Ontological Assumptions About the Nature of World Politics:

A.    Epistemological Assumptions: How Do We Ascertain the "truth"? Does one "truth" exist?  Epistemological questions in philosophy concern how we know things about the world.  Natural Science, Realist Theory, Marxist Theory and Liberal Theory begin from a common epistemological framework called "logical positivism" - meaning that we can derive objective information about the world from our observations and methodologies as the "scientific method."  They might debate about what types of evidence to look for but they all agree that the process of acquiring "truth" can be an objective one (assuming that we adopt the "correct" measures of objective reality) Other theories (e.g. deconstructivists, some constructivists, and some variants of feminist theory) argue that the subjective biases of all people distort the observation process so one must ascertain the "truth" (or "truths") by other means (e.g. "deconstructing" the political language of policy-makers).

B. Agent-Structure Problem: To explain this question it is useful to contrast the similar disciplines of sociology and psychology and their different approaches to explaining the phenomenon of violent crime. Sociology tends to look at the actions of any individual as the product of larger "structural" societal forces (e.g. socio-economic conditions, social norms, etc) while psychology tends to look at the actions of an individual as a product of the individual himself (the "agent") and the internal dynamics (or perhaps immediate family background) of that agent.  But, in fact, both approaches have some element of the truth and to make it even more complicated both influence each other.  The more "socio-path" individuals commit individual violent crimes the more they alter the structural elements such as the economic well-being of the community and social norms. On the other hand, the better the economic conditions, the fewer individuals may become socio-paths.  Similar debates can be found in International Relations.  Some theories emphasize structural factors in the world as a whole (bipolarity v. multi-polarity, global capitalism, the existence of nuclear weapons, patriarchy) while others emphasize the actions of individual "agents" (e.g. liberal democratic states seeking to engage increase in nation-building).  Take the debate over the importance of the individual diplomat or leader. How important are individuals in history?  Do individuals matter or is history a product of structural factors where individuals have little effect?  For example, what is the impact of Hitler on world history? Would WW II have occurred without Hitler because of hyper-inflation and the wide-spread German resentment of the Versailles Treaty? There are even debates within theories on this point (let alone between theories) Structural Realists and Classical Realists disagree on this point.  Structural realists (Kenneth Waltz) believe that forces such as the polarity of the world, the balance of power, and the geographic location of a particular country are so powerful that individuals more or less do not matter.  Classical Realists like Machiavelli and Henry Kissinger would beg to differ arguing that the individual qualities of the "Prince" can have a major effect. 

C. Nature of Man

1. Is human nature "good" "evil" or "self-interested?" 

2. Are there gender differences in behavior? If so, are these gender differences a product of learned gender roles or are they the product of biological "essential" differences between men and women?

3. Is human nature universal?  How profound are cultural differences?  Are some cultures more in-tune with basic human nature or is human nature a product of a particular culture?

D. View of History Can you define any general trends to history? Is history a linear progression towards a more positive future? Cyclical - where nothing fundamental changes but "who is on top" and what puts them on top? Entropic? i.e. a descent into a more negative future?

E. Nature of World Order? 

1. Key Actors? States? Civilization? (e.g. Muslim Caliphate), Non-Governmental Organizations or NGO's (e.g. MNCs, Amnesty International, Green Peace, etc)?  Inter-governmental Organizations or IGOs (UN? WTO? EU? NATO? OPEC)? Transnational Social Movements? (TSMs) that are loose alliances of NGOs across countries and/or groups of people who identify with a particular group

2. Predominant form of Collective Identity? What is the primary identity of a particular group of people? National Identity (e.g. Iraqi); Tribal Identity? Ethnic Identity? Religious Identity? Gender? There is often a close link between key actors and predominate form of collective identity.

3. Key Level of Analysis and Key Causal Factors? For example, do you look at the systemic level of analysis for factors such as polarity or globalization or do you look at the level of culture or ideology within different countries?

4. Tacit or Formal Rules that Regulate the Actions of Key Actors? If so, what are these?

E.    When produces cooperation? What produces conflict?  In the last category, we really put together all the previous ontological assumptions.  In particular, we will examine theories of the causes of war.

IV.              Values: Normative Theories.  A normative theory starts with certain empirical assumptions about the world but then adds value judgments.  One obvious one concerns the moral attitude towards use of violence (e.g. for self defense).  Pacifists believe that violence and war are never morally justified.  Realists and "Just War" Liberals disagree.  Marxists and Liberal Capitalists disagree over whether or not globalization and free trade are desirable policies or not.

V.                 Critique: Utility & Problems:  All theories have internal contradictions and problems both in their empirical and normative applications.  When examining theories you want to evaluate them in the following ways:

1. the validity of their assumptions.  All theories make certain assumptions with respect to the nature of the ontological world and how we acquire knowledge about that world.  You want to evaluate the validity of those assumptions. 

2. the clarity and  conceptual "baggage" of definitions.  A common problem is discourse is that people do not properly define their terms. Or worse yet, they use the same term different ways.  A famous critique of realist theory argue that realists used the term "balance of power" to mean very different and mutually-exclusive phenomena.  Sometimes they used it to describe a structural force of nature (like gravity) that ultimately states will develop alliances to form a balance.  Sometimes they used it to characterize the relative power between two alliances or countries. Sometimes they used to describe a normative goal that should guide a state's alliance and military policy - as in "pursue a balance or power."  The point is that using the same term in logically contradictory ways weakens the theory.  So look for clarity or lack of clarity in definitions. Also, look for the contextual baggage that accompanies the use of particular words.  Feminists point out that much IR is filled with language that is gender-biased and in no sense objective.  Incidentally, I use the term "empirical" to characterize one type of theories.  But my use of that word also has epistemological baggage. By empirical I mean an understanding of the world that separates "facts" from "values."  First, not everyone agrees that it is possible to separate facts and values.  Secondly, "empiricism" is a term closely associated with logical positivism.  It meant that there is an objective reality that can be ascertained through our empirical senses.  This assumption itself may be false.

3. their internal logical consistency: Are there non sequitors or logical fallacies even within their own internal logic? Remember, here the concern is NOT with the external validity of their conclusions but, taking the theory in its own terms, does it make internal sense?

4. their external validity i.e. their descriptive, explanatory, and predictive utility:  Empirical theories are supposed to help us make sense of the world.  One theory is "better" than another theory to the extent that it is better at describing, explaining, and predicting the world (or certain sets of phenomena in the world).  Another way to think of it is to view theory as all about solving puzzles or providing meaning.  One important thing to realize is that no theory explains everything or solves all puzzles.  In physics, Einstein looked (in vein) his whole life for one grand theory that would unite all the forces.  He never found it.  It may be the case that you come to the conclusion that you have to use different IR theories to explain different phenomena.  Another way to look at this is to view theories as paradigms realizing that in explaining some puzzles they actually obfuscate other puzzles.  Also, some theories might have high predictive utility but very little descriptive or explanatory utility.  Theories must also tell a story about the world not just make predictions about the world.

5. their normative utility: Finally, a normative theory about politics must provide guidance to individuals, groups, societies, governmental policy-makers as they make decisions.  The more that a theory relies on structural factors (e.g. polarity) the less useful it will be for guiding policy (as it is difficult for one state to influence the polarity of the system). That does not mean that that theory is a bad theory in empirical terms just that it has low normative utility.  One critique of Deconstructionist Theories and many Constructivist Theories is that they may have high descriptive and explanatory utility but they provide little or no normative guidance to individuals or policy-makers.  Keep in mind that a theory can have normative utility even if it does not tell what action a state should pursue in a particular situation - so long as it provides guidance on how to frame the moral debate.  Realists disagree about whether the War in Iraq was a good policy for the US to pursue.  Some Realists say that it was necessary because Saddam had a record of threatening an important geo-political region of the world vital for US economic interests.  He had initiated wars against Iran and Kuwait and, at one point, potentially threatened Saudi Arabia.  It would not be in American national interests to have one hegemonic state seize control of one-third of the World's oil.  Also, Saddam Hussein had an interest in WMD (even if we exaggerated the extent of this program).  It was not in American interest to wait until he might acquire those weapons.  Other realists might argue that Saddam could have been contained by standard deterrence in the unlikely event that he was able to acquire nuclear weapons.  To these realists the first Gulf War made sense to keep him from controlling oil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  But the second Gulf War was counter-productive to American interests.  It diverted finite troops, intelligence assets, and money from the real threat from Al Qaeda  It has eroded the quality of the US Army and Marines to respond to a future threat elsewhere. Finally, it put an tremendous burden on  the US economy.  But note what the realists are NOT debating about: human rights operations or promoting democracy in Iraq.  For realists, it is illegitimate to debate about moral issues.  So Realist theory does have normative utility because it frames the debate.