Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Relations Imp Notes
International Relations Imp Notes
One can better define International Relations if one clarifies in which aspect it is required to be
defined. International Relations is beyond a comprehensive definition because of its
multidimensional approaches. Scholars however devised their own kinds of definitions depicting the
sense in which they take IR. As Palmer and Perkins used these words to define IR;
"International Relations is the objective and systematic study of international life in all its
aspects."
This is a relatively general definition yet beyond the width of International Relations as a discipline.
IR in its very first sense name of the relationships between the nation states of the world. The
internationality is subject matter of the discipline. Modern nation state system evolved from the
Peace of Westphalia Treaty signed in 1648. Today, in the complex structure of world states working
on varying ideologies, International Relations helps to study them in a unanimity of thought.
Scope of International Relations
Another merit as well as demerit of this discipline is that it has no boundaries of its scope. It is merit
in the sense of provision of absolute opportunity to man to make research on the daily changing
international relations. It is demerit as the discipline fails to give itself a concrete shape and outline.
But still keeping in view the aspects studied in the International Relations till now, we will try to
elaborate its scope. Following points will prove helpful in this regard;
IR studies relations between states in their political and economic prospects primarily.
IR covers the realm of 'foreign affairs' in all its dimensions.
IR deals with the recording and studying of International History with the aim to find out the
basis of states' relations in the past.
IR studies International Law in the context of how international rules define and govern the
relations between states.
IR embodies its scope with the inclusion of not only states but also the non-state actors in
international relations.
IR deals with the international events of;
War
Peace
Nuclear world
International political economy
Globalization
International institutions
Conflicts among states
Foreign policy and decision making
National powers and interests
Conclusion
International Relations has a wider scope. The points elaborated above as its scope are not final.
This discipline broadens its scope with the changing events of the world and new dynamics of
international relations. It is a subject along with being a practical course adopted by nations of the
world and the international institutions.
The Nation State System
Modern world is the world hosting nation state system. This system in its very basic sense ensures
the origin of states on the world map. And the relationships among these states are to be regulated
by internationally agreed set of rules. This nation state system is child of political and social evolution
of the world that commenced with the birth of social animal on this planet.
Prior to signing of this treaty various religious sects of Christian Europe were at daggers drawn at
one hand and there was dreadful clash between the Church and the Throne on the other hand.
With the Peace of Westphalia drawn in 1648, for the first time in human history, independent
sovereign territories were defined to be ruled by the nations living in them. This was a way to end the
long war and it proved quite effective.
Today, the nation state system is complex than ever. Not only the states are the prominent actors as
in the past but also the non-state actors occupy their place. Nation state system of present day is
however more concrete but still victim of various international problems.
Further, nations have learned to govern themselves and their states. They have established
international community, international peace making institution and international law as well. Thus, it
is a relatively better system.
Conclusion
Nation state system is the framework in which modern political world acts. It has more evolved and
developed mechanisms of conduct with each other. Nation states become the basis of studying
International Relations as well both in terms of a discipline as well as in terms of a mechanism.
Evolution of International Society
Nation state system provided the fundamental unity for giving this world an international society. This
society of states faced various phases of peace and war to evolve into its contemporary shape.
Today, international society is more powerful and strong under the shadow of international law than
it was ever before in the past. Conflicts and frictions in the relations among states however
undermine the concreteness of international society at different levels of interaction.
Nation states of the world plunged into the First World War in 1914. At the end of this war, the first
ever time came in history when the idea of an international community was materialized. Following
the proposition of the then American President Wilson, the League of Nations was established as an
apparent body of international society.
UN survives even today after having passed through the bumpy decades of the Cold War between
the US and the USSR. The organization represents an international society with the gathering of 192
states as its members.
The UN as universal body of nation states pledges for the world peace and to avoid any possibilities
that might lead the world into another major conflict.
International society today has evolved to discuss and deal with the modern day problems of global
climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and so on. It is dealing with the issues of regional and civil
conflicts as well to prevent them from escalation. As has been the case with Libya and Syria today
where UN interfered to stop the wars.
Conclusion
From the origin of nation state system to the establishment of the League of Nations and then its
successor the United Nations, International Society is endeavoring in one way or the other to infuse
more rational ways to deal with the global problems and global crisis. The community faces
dilemmas and debacles in their efforts but overall prevent the world system from disintegrating.
International Relations Theoretical Approaches
Theories are the academic basis of any discipline of social science. International Relations being a
discipline is studied in different theoretical approaches. It has varying approaches because of
different perspectives in which its subject matter is studied by the scholars. All interpret the
postulates of International Relations mostly not in a common way. Among the theoretical
approaches of the IR:
Liberalism or Idealism
Liberalism or Idealism comes first in terms of its formal origin.
Realism
Realism comes first in terms of its strong realistic postulates.
Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism comes as a refined form of the aboriginal Realism.
Neo - Liberalism
Neo - Liberalism takes re-birth years after the failure of idealism.
Feminist Theory
Feminist Theory brings forth the new and utopian ideas related to suppressed role of women in
International Relations.
Liberalism and Idealism
What is Liberalism?
Liberalism as its name denotes, is a theory that defies the traditional and conservative style of
observing International Relations. It is a theory that basically emphasizes upon the need of liberal
thought and openness while maintaining international relations.
What is Idealism?
Idealism is nothing different from liberalism. It is part of the Liberal Approach which denotes a
specific period of time in the world history following the First World War when the Liberals made an
abortive effort to give this world an ideal system regulating the international relations. Idealism is
also called 'Utopianism'.
Failure of Liberalism?
Liberalism if not utterly failed then at least received a blow when the League met failure and world
plunged into World War Two. The utopian scheme could not prevent the nationalistic tendencies
of the League's former members from disrupting the world order.
Conclusion
Liberalism is among the classic theoretical approaches of the International Relations. The theory
carries massive support for its liberal and peaceful modes of regulating the international relations.
However, it is criticized for its failure to prevent the world from another great war with its utopian
schemes.
Realism
Realism is the approach of International Relations that works as anti - thesis to Liberalism. Realism
focuses on the more realistic, power oriented and state centric principles that play important role in
international relations. Realism lays emphasis upon gaining national power to pursue national
interests at all costs.
Conclusion
International Relations seeks Realism as among the influential classical approaches. Realism talks
about the aboriginal and realistic basis of international relations. It is criticized for its extreme version
but the theory completely rejects the utopian postulates of idealism. Realism does not take
cooperation as an option because according to its proponents, world is anarchic where intense
competition is inevitable to maintain national power.
Neo-Realism
'Neo' means new or the latest. Neo-Realism is more refined and advanced strand of Realism. Neo-
Realism unlike the original Realism is more moderate form in International Relations.
Origin of Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism originated in latter part of 1970s. It was the reactionary product of Neo-Liberalism
which once again posed serious threat to the Realist idea of state centrism. It was the work of
Kenneth Waltz with the title of 'Theory of International Politics' which gave birth to neo-realism.
Exponent of Neo-Realism
Among the modern exponents of neo-realism the name of Kenneth Waltz echoes. He is regarded as
founder of this theoretical approach in the International Relations. Waltz sticking to the traditional
ideas of Realism, infuses a new spirit in this approach by not utterly rejecting the possibilities of
cooperation among the states of the world.
Postulates of Neo-Realism
Postulates of new-realism are the same as that of realism. They differ in a few points which are
explained as following;
There exists international anarchy which serves as basis of international relations rather than
the Human nature of violence.
World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in international
relations.
There exists Security Dilemma in international relations. States accumulate power for their
security and survival which leads most of them into a race of armament and militarization.
Possibilities of cooperation between the states need not to be overlooked when they are
serving the interests of a state.
It is not the cooperation however but the 'Balance of Power' that actually prevent the states
from large scale war.
Criticism on Neo-Realism Theory of International Relations
Neo-Realism is criticized on the account of following points;
Still the theory is extreme and regards state as the sole actors of international relations.
It admits cooperation now but it has not yet rejected war as an option.
Focuses on national power and national interests of a state which actually undermine the
possibilities for cooperation.
The theory of Neo-Realism gives a mixed vision not a clear cut one. It is not inclined on a
single side.
Conclusion
Neo-Realism is actually the reaction to the action posed by Neo-Liberalism. The theory has not
given up the basic postulates of Realism but it is still moderate as compared to its original version.
Neo-Realism is brainchild of Kenneth Waltz who believed neither in extreme liberalism not in
extreme realism. As a consequence, he devised a middle way to meet the ideals in international
relations.
Neo-Liberalism
Neo-liberalism emerged to be the modern strand of liberalism in the realm of theoretical International
Relations. This approach just like its previous aboriginal strand believes in rationality of human
nature and international cooperation. But unlike its aboriginal form, neo-liberalism is moderate and
less extreme.
It was 1960s which is seen as the decade when neo-liberalism took birth. Its origin was catalyzed by
the declining oomph of realism.
Since after the collapse of liberalism as first hand approach of international relations, realism was
holding firm grip on the world order. Neo-Liberalism defied the system of state centrism and intense
competition bringing forth cooperation as the best option in economic and political terms.
B. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
This strand of neo-liberal institutionalism though believes in cooperation but in one aspect it shares
commonality with the Realism. It concurs to the point of realism that states are the principal actors
and institutions in the international relations.
But instead of seeing this thing in terms of competition in anarchic world, neo-liberal institutionalism
focuses on ensuring prospects of cooperation.
Neo-Liberalism does not represent utopian and impracticable schemes. It accepts the primary role of
states in world affairs but suggests them to work with cooperation.
Criticism on Neo-Liberalism
Realists attack neo-liberalism again with the traditional mantra of not being a realistic approach in
understanding the global affairs. For the proponents of Feminism this is again among the theories
that carry nothing remarkable to ensure women empowerment. Marxists consider it as a tool of the
Western powers being exploited to deal both the developing and the developed states under the
same but unfair mechanisms.
World System Theory
World System Theory, unlike the classic theories of Realism and Liberalism, is one dimensional
approach to study the situation of dependency of a part of the world upon the other. The central
point of the theory emphasizes on the point that the unhealthy economic condition of the developing
countries is due to continuous dependence on and unending exploitation by the developed states of
the world.
The theory propounds that the Periphery world is dependent upon the Core world. This dependence
can be interpreted in terms of economy, politics and technological advancement. The reasons
behind the dependence are not only backwardness and depravity of the Periphery but also
continuous exploitation of these states by the Core states. This exploitation is carried out by various
tools that can be laws, institutions or any other form.
The situation worsened when the Core states reached high levels of industrialization and technology
but they did not share this advancement with the periphery states.
Conclusion
The approach of World System is criticized for being not a theory in real sense. It is single
dimensional perspective that explains how developing states are dependent upon the developed
states. The theory did not carry enough weightage in the theoretical realm of International Relations.
Feminist Theory
Feminism is a non-traditional and modern theory of International Relations. The theory highlighted
the aspects of international relations from the point of view of women of the world. The theory
propounds how this gender has been sidelined in deciding international relations despite being its
direct victim every time. Feminism is the broadest example of an effort for women empowerment.
Another point which proves that women are now more active in international relations more than
they were in the past is that they can be seen as heads of the states, chief diplomats, ambassadors,
head of delegations at UN.
Conclusion
Feminist theory is more a reservation than an explanation how international relations are regulated.
It rarely gives any clear cut mechanism to regulate international relations. It has however helped in
empowering women.
Power & Elements of National Power
National Power is fundamentally a mantra given by and believed in by the Realist school of thought
in International Relations. Having assumed this world as anarchic, the realists emphasize upon
accumulation of power by a state as inevitable. As far as the parameters of measuring the national
power is concerned, realists do measure it in relative terms. The criterion set to determine national
power is a collection of different elements that collectively assess it.
What is Power?
In simplest terms of understanding, power is the capacity to get a thing done from someone who
would not have done this otherwise.
A. Geography
Geography does not only include the size and location of a state which determine national power but
also strategic position, climate, topography etc. Role of geography can be seen in terms that the
USSR and the USA had been super powers of the world and both carried vast territories. But that is
not always the case. Britain has small territory of its own but its control on seas empowered it to rule
over the world.
B. Economy
In the contemporary world order, the thing which matters the most is the powerful and stable
economy of a state. China is a clear example which due to its economy emerges out to be the next
world super power. Even the USA which is super power now has a vibrant economy.
C. Military
With economy, military might be also essential to enhance national power. China might be an
economic giant but it has limited military capacity as compared to the US. Thus the USA surpasses it
in national power.
D. Technology
Technological advancement emerges out to be another modern element of national power.
Technology is something that is shared in every field whether it is military, science, agriculture or
another department of state. A state technologically advance shares superiority over the other. For
instance, during the Cold War, the USA shared technological superiority over the USSR.
E. Natural Resources
Natural resources are another element of national power. What matters in real is not the presence of
natural resources but it is their exploitation. If exploited to the maximum benefit, natural resources
can be helpful in enhancing national power.
G. Ideology
Ideology is traditional element of national power. It matters less but still matters to determine national
power. This is because of the reason that ideology plays role in determining structure of state.
National Interest
National interest is a tricky topic of modern International Relations. It is something taken as an
impetus behind every state action relative to another state. National Interest serves as the
determinant of state's foreign policy along with depicting the nature and policies of political
government ruling the state.
But in a very safe and simplest attempt to define national interest following words can be used;
"National Interest is the name of those goals and objectives of a state which are pursued to seek the
maximum benefit in a given set of circumstances".
Ways to pursue other than diplomacy can be use of influence, making alliances, concluding
agreements and treaties. Illegitimate ways might include the use of force against the other state or
interfering in its internal matters with the help of non - state actors.
Conclusion
National interest is understood in wider sense. It is mostly long term policy. The reason behind the
presence of complexity in understanding national interest is also that we take it in shorter term as
something imminently achievable and based on unchangeable principles. But in fact it is contrary to
that.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a modern day aspect of the International Relations. It is actually linked with the
aboriginal concept of the nation - state system. Before the origin of the nation state system, the idea
of sovereignty was vague. Later it evolved gradually to assume the contemporary manifestation.
Defining Sovereignty
Sovereignty is defined in terms of 'unrestricted and unlimited authority of a state within its territory
and on its population'. In another meaning of sovereignty, it is taken as the supremacy of state. This
supremacy is meant to control and command everything inferior to it.
Sovereignty as Element of State
Modern nation state has four essential elements as defined in the 'Montevideo Convention on Duties
and Rights of States';
Population
Territory
Government
Sovereignty
Sovereignty as an element of state is the most important one in abstract sense. Without sovereignty
the idea of population and territory can be perceived but the idea of government control on both
these things remains impossible. So, sovereignty is actually the name of that control as well which
government being the working agency of state exercise over its people.
A. Domestic Sovereignty
Domestic sovereignty means that the state is sovereign to rule over and decide for all the internal
matters within its territory or related to its population.
B. Interdependence Sovereignty
Interdependence sovereignty means that state shall have control the international boundaries it
shares with the neighboring states. No one is permitted to cross the borders of the state without due
permission.
Absoluteness of sovereignty of state means that the supremacy and authority of state is absolute
and final. It will govern not only all the geographical parts of the country but also decide for the
people. This feature makes the modern nation state as central institute of power.
Conclusion
Sovereignty is an abstract element of state which is also the most important one. Sovereignty is the
actual thing which works as the soul of modern nation state.
o
International Relations Notes
Balance of Power
Balance of power is the classical realist concept that preserved peace of the pre - world wars world.
It is concept that marks its practical implementation in 18th century. In the contemporary world,
balance of power theory has little role to play but it cannot be ignored utterly due to its historic role.
Even during the Cold War, a balance of power was present between the two Super Powers which
prevented from escalation of any conflict to the total war.
B. Buffer States
These are the states which geographically work as barrier between two or more rivals. For instance,
Afghanistan has been a buffer state between British held Indian colony and the Soviet Union.
Similarly, Tibet served as buffer states between India and China.
D. Disarmament
During Cold War, particularly in its later part, rapid disarmament agreements were concluded
between the US and the USSR. These agreements were like SALT, NPT at global level, etc. These
helped to restore balance of power by reducing dreadful arms.
E. Intervention
Intervention is also an option to bring balance of power. The US & USSR' interventions in Korean
war, Vietnam war are its examples. Both the powers maintained balance of power between them by
fighting proxy wars at foreign
Conceptualization of Security in 21st Century
Balance of Power is anachronism in the 21st century which is dominated by the nation states that
see their national interests and national powers as chief aims. Thus, intense competition exists in
anarchic world. Balance of power was not appropriate to bring peace to the 21st century world. Due
to its inadequacy and uncertainty it was needed to be replaced by something more reliable.
Conclusion
Collective Security is the idea that works as the concept of security in 21stcentury. This concept is
working contemporarily along with several flaws it carries.