Introduction to International Relations

Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

International Relations

Objectives
After going through this unit, you should be able to understand
 What is international relations?
 Is there a difference between International relations and international politics?
 Evolution and Approaches/Theories of International relations
 Concepts of International Relations

Introduction
The study of relations among nations has fascinated scholars for several centuries. However,
international relations as an academic discipline unlike other social science discipline is a
recent origin or can say as the youngest of all the social sciences that emerged aftermath of
the First World War. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, international relations
have grown rapidly. Today nation-states have become far too interdependent and
interconnected due to globalisation in the forms of technology, communications and even
culture across nations; and relations among them whether political or those related to trade
and commerce, have developed into an essential area of knowledge.

The scope of international relations is the complex relations existing among the sovereign
states of the world. Its scope is still expanding as international relations draws upon from
diverse fields such as economics, philosophy, geography, sociology, etc, and focus on diverse
range of issues ranging from globalisation, state sovereignty, economic development,
ecological sustainability, terrorism, human security and so on.

The great Greek Philosopher Aristotle said that man by nature is a social animal. Being a
social animal, man can’t live in isolation. His basic nature and his basic needs make him to
satisfy his numerous needs in association with others. Moreover no man is self sufficient
even in his daily needs and therefore, he has to depend upon his fellow man for existences.
Just as no individual can live in isolation, no state can afford to live in isolation. Like the
individual no state is self sufficient. Naturally, it has to cultivate relations between states.
These relations are the subject matter of International Politics.

Meaning and Definitions of International Relations

o Hans Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 1985)
‘the core of international relations to be international politics and the subject matter of
international politics to be struggle for power among sovereign nations’.
o Charles Schleicher (Introduction to International Relations, 1955) ‘all inter-state
relations are included in international politics, through all the inter-state relations are
not political’.
o Palmer and Perkins (International Relations: The World Community in Transition,
1969) ‘International relations is related to not just politics of international community
on diplomacy and relations among states and other political units, it means the totality
of the relations among people’s and groups in the world society’.
 Introduction to International Relations
Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

o Joseph Frankel (International Relations in a Changing World, 1979) ‘this new

discipline is more than a combination of the studies of the foreign affairs of the
various countries and of international history as it includes also the study of
international society as a whole and of its institutions and processes. It is increasingly
concerned not only with the states and their interactions but also with the web of
trans-national politics’.
o According to Quincy Wright (The Study of International Relations, 1955)
‘International Relations is the relations between groups of major importance in the life
of the world at any period of history and particularly relations among territorially
organized nation states which today are of such importance. We will also use the term
to designate the studies of discipline, describing, explaining or assisting in the context
of these relations. With the assistance of these definitions it can be understood that
nations try to protect their incompatiable interest by means of power’.

Thus, it may be observed that there has been a tremendous effort on the part of the
International relations scholars to come out a state centric thinking and also recognizing the
presence of other actors as well. Therefore we can say that IR includes a vast field that focus
on the relationship among states in all their dimensions, including interactions with various
other political and non-political groups along with the study of international history,
international law, international society and international political economy.

Difference between International Relations and International Politics

International relations attempts to explain the interactions of states in the global interstate
system, and it also attempts to explain the interactions of others whose behaviour originates
within one country and is targeted toward members of other countries. In short, the study of
international relations is an attempt to explain behaviour that occurs across the boundaries of
states, the broader relationships of which such behaviour is a part, and the institutions
(private, state, nongovernmental, and intergovernmental) that oversee those interactions.
Whereas, international politics is the way in which sovereign states interact with each other.
Studying International Politics brings a focus on power, authority, citizenship, conflict and
cooperation in the world around us.

In short, international relations encompasses a broad spectrum of the international arena

while international politics is only a component of International Relations and, therefore,
much narrower. Secondly, international relations is concern with relations or foreign affairs
of nations while international politics deals only with the political relations of states and
focuses on how states collectively respond to the emerging global issues.

Evolution and Approaches of International Relations (IR)

The origin of IR can be traced back to the writings of political philosophers such as
Thucydides a Greek historian who wrote the History of the Peloponessian War and is also
cited as forerunner of Realpolitik, along with Chanayak’s Arthashastra and Niccolo
Machiavelli’s The Prince. However, IR as an academic discipline is the resulted of the First
 Introduction to International Relations
Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

World War that have caused massive destruction and unparalleled devastation of almost
every country involved, with millions of lives lost. It is from this traumatic experience
inspired the leaders and academicians to study IR as a separate discipline.

After the World War I, IR was introduced as an

academic discipline this gave birth to the liberal-
Main features of Idealism
idealist approach, which is often collectively
 Human nature is essentially good
referred to as idealism. As its major concern is and capable of good deeds in
with international organisation or institutions and international relations.
with international law, it is also named as legal-  Bad human behaviour is the
institutional approach. Their focus was on the ills product of bad environment and
bad institutions.
of international system and “what ought to be  War represents the worst feature of
done” to avoid major disasters in the future and to relations.
save the future generations from the plague of  Global efforts are needed to end
wars. Therefore, emphasis was laid on outlawing war, violence and tyranny from
international relations.
wars, disarmament, international law and
 International institutions
international organisations during the first phase of committed to preserve international
evolution. The chief exponents were Alferd peace, international law and order
Zimmern, Norman Angell, James T. Shootwell and should be developed for securing
peace, prosperity and development.
Woodrow Wilson. In particular, Wilson’s “14
points” delivered before US congress in 1918
articulated the ideas that expressed the ideas of
idealist elements and pledge for making the world
safe for democracy and creation of international organisation for promotion of peaceful
cooperation among nation-states. In fact, Wilson’s points were adopted in post-War peace
settlement and ultimately led to the birth of League of Nations and the Covenant.

However, in contrary to the Wilsonian pledge for democracy and peaceful cooperation,
Fascism and Nazism grew in Italy and Germany and there was also the rise of
authoritarianism in Central and Eastern Europe. The League of Nations proved to be too
weak to control the aggressive states. Moreover, the international politics was clouded with
rivalry and differences against each other in relation to the League as for instance Russia and
Germany always had strained relationship with the League. Germany joined the League in
1926 and left in the early 1930s. Russia joined the League in 1934 but was expelled in 1940,
following its attack on Finland. Japan left the League, aftermath its invasion on Manchuria.
Britain and France never had regards for the principles of League. USA a forerunner in the
creation of the League could not join it because of the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Covenant
of the League as well as their intention to pursue their age old policy of isolationism. As cited
by Jackson and Sorensen (Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches,
1999), the situation was like each country for itself, each country trying as best it could to
look after its own interest, if necessary, to the detriment of others- the ‘jungle’ rather than the
‘zoo’.
 Introduction to International Relations
Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

While these developments were taking place, World War II broke out (1939-1945), the
idealist-legalistic approach was critics for not able to understand the complex nature of
international relations ignoring the harsh realities of international relations. Out of this
emerged a new approach to IR- known as Realism. The chief exponents were E.H. Carr,
George F. Kennan, Hans J. Morgenthau, Kenneth W. Thompson and others. This was the
emergence of the first ‘Great Debate’ in IR in post-
world war II period.
Main features of Realism:
The realist approach unlike the idealist approach  State as the only primary actors in
international system.
regards power politics as the be all and end all of
 Power politics is the end of all
international relations. It is one of the widely international politics.
debated approaches that revolve around Realism,  National self-interest is best
either supporting it or developing a critique around served by doing anything
it. The credit of being the first noted realist of the necessary to ensure self
preservation.
twentieth century is usually given to N.J. Spykman  If all states search for power,
who in the late thirties cited in his book, America’s peace. Stability will result
Strategy in World Politics, that the “preservation through the operation of balance
and improvement of its power position in relation of power.
to other states” must be the “primary objective” of
a state. The contribution of reviving the theory in a
more coherent way after the Second World War goes to Hans J. Morgenthau.

To realist states were the principal actors in international system and their activities were
guided by the desire for self-interest that is always in conflict with abstract universal moral or
international morality. Thus, to realist conflict of interest is inevitable, which results in an
anarchical international system as each state aimed to achieve their interest through power
politics. Such a system at the international level according to realist can only be managed by
diplomacy and balance of power in regulating relation between states to maintain minimum
basic international order and peace. David Jordan (World Politics in Our Time, 1970) rightly
sums up: “most of realist theory is focused on the actor: the state. It is concerned with what
the state does and why- its interest and how- its power. The explanation is usually based on
an assumption about human nature, the need to survive in an imperfect world. Nevertheless,
dissatisfaction arose about the shortcomings of the realist paradigm around 1960s and 1970s.

Realism theory was not free from criticism, as critics attack on its divorce nature of morality
and politics and its justification of war to create a hegemonic state. However, the discontent
was more with the method of studying IR which was largely due to emergence of the
behavioural revolution in social sciences with its main emphasis was on the application of
scientific methods of study and thus emerged the second Great Debate in International
relations. Due to the debate, some major works evolved that incorporate scientific methods in
the study like the works of Quincy Wright’s A Study of War (1942), Morton A. Kaplan
System and Processes in International Politics (1957), and Charles McClelland’s Theory of
the International System (1967).
 Introduction to International Relations
Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

This debate led to reformulation of both realism and liberalism and the offshoots of it was in
the form of “neo” i.e. neo-realism and neo-liberalism. It also ignited another debate between
neo-liberalism and neo-realism on one hand and neo-Marxism on the other which constitute
the third Great Debate of IR.

Like realism, neo-realism considered state as Basic features of neo-realism:

the principal actor. It gives importance to the  States are the only actors in
structuralist mode of analysis to reinforce, international politics.
reassert and validate realist premises after  The international system is
characterised by anarchy.
taking due cognizance of the critique of
 States are mainly concerned with
realism made in the 60s, 70s and in the present survival and security.
times. A structure theory suggests that the  States arm themselves and enter
whole is greater than the sum of parts, and that alliances for their protection.
the whole acts autonomously to constrain the  States face a security dilemma and
will seek a balance of power.
parts. It assumes that international relations
conform to orderly patterns of wholes and
parts: the whole is the international system, the
parts are the actors within it. The prominent proponents of this school are: Kenneth Waltz
(the main exponent), Herz, Buzan, Keohane, Mearsheimer, Synder.

In sum, the neo-realism holds that the nature of international structure is defined by its
ordering principles, anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities. The anarchic ordering
principle of the international structure is decentralised, meaning there is no formal central
authority as every sovereign state is formally equal in the system. These states act according
to the logic of self-help groups which means that the states seek their own interest and will
not subordinate their interest to the interest of other states.

The neo-liberals renewed the old liberal ideas and

tried to formulate theories and apply new
Basic features of neo-liberalism:
methods that were scientific. The principle idea  States are the main actors but
of neo-liberal school was pluralism or there are other actors also.
multiplicity of actors and associated with  The international system is
Interdependence Model of international relations. characterised by
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered interdependence.
the founders of the neoliberal school of thought  States cooperate to create
and others prominent. Keohane's book After international institutions with
Hegemony is a classic of the genre. Other major the goal of avoiding market
failures and creating trust.
influences are the hegemonic stability theory of
 International relations are
Stephen Krasner and the work of Charles P. peacefully driven by self-
Kindleberger. interested, economic behaviour.
Unlike realism, which promotes the idea that
nations are motivated by their own interest, the
neo-liberals stress the idea that states can work
 Introduction to International Relations
Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

together in a plurality of actors to foster international cooperation. They acknowledged other

regional organisations like the European Union, Association of South East Asian Nations, the
Africa Union, and Non-state actors such as multinational corporations, International
Monetary Fund, World Bank and several other non-governmental organisations along with
the United Nations.

The neo-liberals also put forward the idea of complex interdependence. As they argued that
besides the political relations of governments, there are other forms of connections between
societies including transnational links between business corporations. Thus unlike neo-
realism, the neo-liberals promotes the idea that states can pursue their own self-interest while
also pursuing international cooperation thought the creation of international norms and
institutions. In the words of Stephanie Lawson (International Relations, 2004), therefore it
can be said that the neo-liberals put forward non-military paradigms of international relations
and continuously argued for peaceful and
cooperative international relations.

Another emergence from ‘neo’ debate was the Basic features of neo-Marxists:
neo-Marxist that posed a challenge to the neo-  The international system is divided
realists and neo-liberals. The main contributions into dominant North and dependent
South.
from neo-Marxist were Andre Gunder Frank,
 There is a monopolistic rather than
Samin Amir and Immanuel Wallerstein. The
the competitive nature of
fundamental argument of the theory is that the
capitalism.
international system is divided into dominant  The core of wealthy states enriched
North and dependent South. Andre Gunder Frank at the expense of the periphery.
and Samin Amir developed a dependency theory  The structure of the world economy
on the concept of “core” and “periphery” to is to serve the interest of capitalist.
highlight the structure of global political
economy. Core area such as the North, benefit
from the advantages of science and technology,
which means better lifestyles and health for its
citizens. The periphery is dependent on the core for aid, food and technology and is unable to
emancipate itself from this exploitative structure. Raul Prebisch another neo-Marxist argued
for a new international economic order in the 1970s observe that the terms of trade for
underdeveloped countries relative to the developed countries had deteriorated over time: the
underdeveloped countries were able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured goods from
the developed countries in exchange for a given quantity of their raw materials exports.

In the 1970s, Immanuel Wallerstein added another category of semi-periphery to the dual
structure model while developing the modern world system. Wallerstein argues that there are
two kinds of world systems: world empires and world economies. In a world empire, the
decisions are made by centralised political system, which accordingly distributes resources.
On the other hand, in a world economy, there is no one centre of authority. There exists a
multiplicity of centres, which decentralise power and decision-making. In other words, the
structure of the world has been designed to serve the interest of capitalists. Wallerstein builds
 Introduction to International Relations
Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

on the core-periphery model and posits that between the core and periphery lies the
intermediate “semi-periphery”. The semi-periphery lies on the continuum between, the core
and periphery, facilitating the drain from the periphery to the core. These arguments, which
stresses on international structure of trade and political system has been termed as the Neo-
Marxists.

However, with the end of Cold war and the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, the
dominant paradigms in IR seemed unable to explain the prevailing situations. Therefore, new
reflective critical ideas started gaining ground, which were a departure from the mainstream
liberal, realist and orthodox Marxist thinking in IR. New debates have, therefore, arisen in IR
addressing methodological as well as substantial issues. The new voices in IR are identified
as post-positivist approaches by Yosef Lapid (The Third Debate: On the Prospects of
International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era, 1989). According to Neufed (The Restructuring
of International Relations Theory, 1995) the third debate, which aimed at the search for better
theory, has been conducted not in terms of individual propositions or hypotheses, but in terms
of larger conceptual schemes. Lapid and Neufed
believe that the third debate has been understood as Constructivism
marking IR theories break with positivist Established as recently as the late 1980s
orthodoxy. and early 1990s by such thinkers as
Nicholas Onuf, Alexander Wendt,
Emanuel Adler, Friedrich Kratochwil,
In sum, Steven Smith (New Approaches to John Gerard Ruggie and Peter Katzenstein,
International Theory, 1997) argues that present day constructivism is a “social theory of
IR is, therefore, characterised by three principal international politics” that emphasizes the
social construction of world affairs as
trends: opposed to the claim of (neo)realists that
international politics is shaped by the
o Firstly, continuing dominance of the three rational-choice behaviour/decisions of
theories- Realism, Liberalism and Modern egoist actors who pursue their interests by
making utilitarian calculations to
World System theory- constituting the maximize their benefits and minimize their
rationalist position and epitomised by the losses, hence the materiality of
international structures.
‘neo-neo’ debate.
o Secondly, emergence of non-positivist
theories making the reflectivist position.
o Thirdly, development of an approach that seeks a rapprochement between the
rationalist and reflectivist positions and is epitomised by the social constructivist
position.

Classification of international relations theory in the later 1990s (Steve Smith)

Social
Rationalism Constructivism Reflectivism

Neo- liberalism Neo-Realism Post-Modernism

 Introduction to International Relations
Dr. Achanger
St Joseph University

Feminist Theory
Normative Theory
Critical Theory
Historical sociology

Practice Questions
1. Discuss the different stages of evolution of international relations as an academic
discipline with special emphasis on the Great Debates
2. Elucidate on how scholars, over time, have tried to define international relations. Also
try to trace the evolution of international relations.
3. Discuss the liberal approach to the study of international relations.
4. Is theory really useful in understanding international relations
5. Examine the realist approach to international relations. In this context also discuss the
emergence of neo-realism and its basic tenets.
6. Discus the Marxist approach to the study of international relations.