0% found this document useful (0 votes)
80 views19 pages

Chapter 1 Global Trends

Nationalism has been a powerful force that has shaped the modern international system. It led to the emergence of nation-states as the dominant political entities and undermined empires. The revolutions in America and France in the late 18th century spread nationalist ideals of self-determination and popular sovereignty. By the 19th century, most European political communities demanded independent nation-states of their own. As a result, the international system became truly "inter-national," composed of relations between nation-states rather than just states. However, the role and influence of nation-states is now being challenged by other non-state actors in global politics.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
80 views19 pages

Chapter 1 Global Trends

Nationalism has been a powerful force that has shaped the modern international system. It led to the emergence of nation-states as the dominant political entities and undermined empires. The revolutions in America and France in the late 18th century spread nationalist ideals of self-determination and popular sovereignty. By the 19th century, most European political communities demanded independent nation-states of their own. As a result, the international system became truly "inter-national," composed of relations between nation-states rather than just states. However, the role and influence of nation-states is now being challenged by other non-state actors in global politics.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

CHAPTER 1: UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States


Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs. It has caused the outbreak of
revolutions and wars across the globe. It is noted as a factor for the collapse of age old empires,
marker for new borders, a powerful component for the emergence of new states and it is used to
reshape and reinforce regimes in history. Nationalism’s achievement is the coming of the nation-
state as key actors in world politics-accepted as ultimate, legitimate and the most basic form of
political entity. According to Heywood nationalism is the doctrine that asserts the nation as the
basic political unit in organizing society.
In common parlance, the words ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘country’ are used interchangeably and this
is not correct. For instance, the word the ‘United Nations’ is a misnomer since in reality it is an
association or a society of states-instead of nations. In international politics, it is also common
but incorrect to refer the ‘Chinese’, the ‘Americans’ and the ‘Russians’ as ‘nations’. Hence, the
question remains: what is a nation? According to Heywood, ‘nations are historical entities that
evolve organically out of more similar ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths,
legends, and songs. On the other hand, at the end of the eighteenth century this state came to be
radically transformed. The ‘state’ was combined with a ‘nation’ forming a compound noun – the
‘nation-state’ – which was organized differently and pursued different goals. A nation, in
contrast to a state, constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and by common
social practices. Communities of various kinds have always existed but they now became, for the
first time, a political concern. As a new breed of nationalist leaders came to argue, the nation
should take over the state and make use of its institutional structures to further the nation’s ends.
In one country after another the nationalists were successful in these aims. The nation added an
interior life to the state, we might perhaps say; the nation was a soul added to the body of the
early modern state machinery.
The revolutions that took place in Britain’s North American colonies in 1776, and in France in
1789, provided models for other nationalists to follow. ‘We the People of the United States’ – the
first words of the Preamble to the US Constitution – was a phrase which itself would have been
literally unthinkable in an earlier era. In France, the king was officially the only legitimate
political actor and the people as a whole were excluded from politics. In addition, the power of
the aristocracy and the church remained strong, above all in the countryside where they were the

1|Page
largest landowners. In the revolution of 1789, the old regime was overthrown and with it the
entire social order. The French nation was from now on to be governed by the people, the nation,
and in accordance with the principles of liberté, égalitéetfraternité– liberty, equality and
brotherhood.
The Congress of Vienna of 1815, where a settlement was reached at the end of the Napoleonic
Wars, was supposed to have returned Europe to its pre-revolutionary ways. Yet, nationalist
sentiments were growing across the continent and they constantly threatened to undermine the
settlement. All over Europe national communities demanded to be included into the politics of
their respective countries. Nationalism in the first part of the nineteenth century was a liberal
sentiment concerning self-determination – the right of a people to determine its own fate. This
programmed had far-reaching implications for the way politics was organized domestically, but
it also had profound ramifications for international politics. Most obviously, the idea of self-
determination undermined the political legitimacy of Europe’s empires. If all the different
peoples that these empires contained gained the right to determine their own fates, the map of
Europe would have to be radically redrawn. In 1848 this prospect seemed to become a reality as
nationalist uprisings quickly spread across the continent. Everywhere the people demanded the
right to rule themselves.
Although the nationalist revolutions of 1848 were defeated by the political establishment, the
sentiments themselves were impossible to control. Across Europe an increasingly prosperous
middle-class demanded inclusion in the political system and their demands were increasingly
expressed through the language of nationalism. The Finns wanted an independent Finland; the
Bulgarians an independent Bulgaria; the Serbs an independent Serbia, and so on. In 1861 Italy
too – long divided into separate city-states and dominated by the Church – became a unified
country and an independent nation. Yet it was only with the conclusion of the First World War in
1918 that self-determination was acknowledged as a right. After the First World War most
people in Europe formed their own nation-states.As a result of the nationalist revolutions, the
European international system became for the first time truly ‘inter-national’. That is, while the
Westphalian system concerned relations between states, world affairs in the nineteenth century
increasingly came to concern relations between nation-states. In fact, the word ‘international’
itself was coined only in 1783, by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. In most respects,
however, the inter-national system continued to operate in much the same fashion as the

2|Page
Westphalian inter-state system. Nation-states claimed the same right to sovereignty which
meant that they were formally equal to each other.
In international politics, nevertheless, the implication of nationalism and its essence is highly
questioned. Especially in the contemporary period, nation states are put under pressure and their
role in world politics is significantly challenged. However, there is also an emerging narrative
which advances the idea that a revival of nationalism is happening across the world with the
post-cold war assertions of religion, culture and ethnicity as potent forces in world politics –
hence we have S.P. Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ as an alternative to Francis Fukuyama’s
‘End of History’ thesis on world politics.
1.2. Meaning of International Relations (IR)
Participation in international relations or politics is inescapable, given that no country/state/ in the
world are self-sufficient/self-reliant/. Some are endowed with abundant resources, some are not.
Some may have the potential to growth but may not tap its resources effectively due to lack of
appropriate technology. Whether big or small, rich or poor, powerful or weak, the existence and
development of one is highly dependent on the supply of resources or technology from others.
Hence, entering into relations with other countries is inevitable.

A practical discipline that studies the multifaceted relations of different actors is International
Relations (IR). The conventional definition of the field IR is the study of the relations of states, and
that those relations are understood primarily in diplomatic, military and strategic terms – this is
certainly the way in which diplomats, historians and most scholars of IR have defined the subject. It
is devoted to the study of how the system of states could be made to work more effectively to
enhance the power of law, peacefully manage interstate affairs, preserve order and minimize the
prospect of war. International Relations as a discipline thus chiefly concerned with what states do on
the world stage and, in turn, how their actions affect other states . This has the advantage of clearly
identifying and limiting the subject matter and core concerns of the discipline, by concentrating on
states as the central actors and limiting our study to how states conduct their relations with ‘others’,
through foreign policy, diplomacy and war, for example. This definition is relatively state-centric
since it confined the relevant unit of analysis to the state.

What is wrong with this state-centric (an ugly but useful piece of jargon) definition of the subject?
The definition do not subsumed the roles of other non-state actors like NGOs, IGOs, MNCs and the
private individuals on global politics. States may still be, much of the time, the dominant actors, but

3|Page
this is a pragmatic judgment rather than a matter of principle and, in any event, they must always
acknowledge that on many issues other players are in the game. Thus the classical definition of IR is
exclusive since it excludes the roles of other non-state actors in international arena. So, finding
alternative definitions of IR became the preoccupations of scholars and the following are some of its
contemporary understandings.
 IR is the study of all human interactions across national boundaries and the factors that affect
those interactions. These relationships linked with other actors such as intergovernmental
organisations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), transnational corporations
(TNCs) and notable individuals make them interdependent.
 It is the study of the political and social interaction of states, non-state actors, and individuals in
international arenas. It deals with the nature, conduct, and influences upon of various actors
operating in a particular arena within the framework of anarchy.
 It can also be defined as the study of who gets what, when and how in matters external to states
or matters crossing national boundaries. The who of international relations refers the actors
(states and non-states) who influence the conduct of international events whereas the what of
international relations denotes goals actors sought to achieve from their intercourses. The when
of international relations refers the time actors pursue goals (whether through continuous or
episodic activities) and the how of international relations represents the instruments actors use to
achieve goals like the use of military force, propaganda, foreign aid, diplomacy and others.
1.2. Foundational Questions of International Relations
 How can human nature be characterized?
 What is the relationship between the individual and the society?
 What are the characteristics and the roles of the state?
 How is the international system organized?
1.3. Historical Development of International Relations
International Relations as a formal discipline is a relatively young discipline compared to other social
sciences and humanities to which it is closely related. Although historians, international lawyers and
political philosophers have written about international politics for many centuries, the formal
recognition of a separate discipline of International Relations is usually thought to have occurred at
the end of the First World War, 1919, with the establishment of a Chair of International Relations at
the University of Wales. Other Chairs followed in Britain and the United States. Their central
preoccupations was dealing with international conflict/war and secure peace and cooperation at

4|Page
international levels. Scholars of the day found war as the gravest problem facing humanity and
articulation of how and why war began prioritized in their academic discourse. To give answers to
these questions, they base their inquiry on WWI;
 What were the main causes of the First World War, and what was it about the old order that led
national governments into a war which resulted in misery for millions?
 What were the main lessons that could be learned from the First World War? How could the
recurrence of a war of this kind be prevented?
 On what basis could a new international order be created, and how could international
institutions, and particularly the League of Nations, ensure that states complied with its defining
principles?
In response to these questions, many members of the first ‘school’ or ‘theory’ of international
relations maintained that war was partly the result of ‘international anarchy’ and partly the result of
misunderstandings, miscalculations and recklessness on the part of politicians who had lost control of
events in 1914. The field has got wide recognition and due attention across several European
universities and elsewhere in the world following the conclusion of the Second World War.
1.4. Nature of International Relations
To some extent, IR is an interdisciplinary field of study. It is becoming eclectic in nature and the
discipline enriched its subject matter by borrowing knowledge and theoretical ideas from such
diverse fields as economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology,
psychology, and cultural studies from time to time. New subject matters are frequently added to this
field of study from time to time. Some universities offer separate degrees or departments for IR.
Most, however, teach IR in political science classes, in which the focus is on the politics of economic
relationships, or the politics of environmental management to take two examples. (The domestic
politics of foreign countries, although overlapping with IR, generally make up the separate field of
comparative politics).
1.5. Scopes of IR
International Relations as a field of study have its own scope and its scope can be defined by the
subfields it encompasses. As hinted above, traditionally, the study of IR has focused on questions of
war and peace—the subfield of international security studies. A concern with arms race, the
crafting of treaties and alliances, the development and deployment of military capabilities, crisis and
wars, and the causes of wars became logic extensions of these interests. If war gave birth to academic
IR, the establishment of peace was its first mission. These are the subjects that dominated the study
of IR in the past, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, and they continue to hold a central position in

5|Page
the field. Since the Cold War, regional conflicts and ethnic violence have received more attention,
while interdisciplinary peace studies programs and feminist scholarship have sought to broaden
concepts of “security” further.

Moreover, the other prominent subject in the field of international relations in recent years has been
the international political economy. IPE concerns trade and financial relations among nations and
focuses on how nations have cooperated politically to create and maintain institutions that regulate
the flow of international economic and financial transactions. Although these topics previously
centered on relations among the world’s richer nations, the widening of globalization and multilateral
economic institutions such as the World Trade Organization has pushed IPE scholars to focus on
developing states as well. In addition, they pay growing attention to relations between developed and
developing nations (often labeled North-South relations), including such topics as economic
dependency, debt, foreign aid, and technology transfer. Also newly important are problems of
international environmental management and of global telecommunications. The subfield of IPE is
expanding accordingly. This subject involves the interactions of political and economic phenomena
and the two affect each other. The international closely looks at the political effects of economic
phenomena such as international monetary exchange rate, international loans and debt, intellectual
property rights, and foreign direct investment. IR also emphasized on international trade, monetary
exchange, debt, aids and FDI. Specifically, international political economy as one branches of IR
uncovers how politics plays a role on international economics.

Other scholars have taken a special interest in human welfare at the global levels. They investigate
how to improve the human condition in decentralized world with limited resources. What can be
done with the refugees fleeing war and famine across national boundaries, what human rights
standards can apply globally, how can the economic conditions of the poor countries improve as they
confront with the problems of overpopulations, these and other related questions occupied the
teaching of IR scholars with concern for human welfares.

Similarly, global warming might be regarded as an ‘issue’ in international relations which is slowly
finding its way onto the agenda of international politics, but one which is at best a secondary concern
for the world’s great ‘players’ like the USA or Japan. However, global warming might be perceived
as a pressing concern to people living in small island Pacific states, which are facing the threat of
rising sea levels. In this case, global warming is likely to be viewed as a vital security concern.

6|Page
The other newer subject that have risen recently in international relations are gender perspectives,
environmental issues, ethnicity and identity politics, terrorism, religious revivalism of
fundamentalism. A feminist perspective has shed light on several international subjects, in particular
drawing attention to male control culture as the cause of war and problems. Feminists are, in turn,
entitled to point out that women constitute over 50 per cent of the world’s population and that the
marginalization of women and their lives is a consequence of the indifference and, perhaps, self-
interest of the already powerful, who for the most part are men. Though the topic emerged as recent
issue in the field of IR, ethnicity or nationalism has becomes a potential force that might lead to
disintegrations and ongoing civil wars if not well managed. The USSR and Yugoslavia can be a good
example.
1.6. Actors of International Relations
Actors are individuals or a group that seeks to achieve goals by either cooperating or conflicting with
others in a policy context in international relations. As introduced above, IR traditionally focused on
interactions between states and studied decisions and acts of those governments in relation to other
governments. However, the traditional view that states dominate international relations has to give
way to the recognition that multiple actors are now competing for authority and influence in the
world. New actors now undertake roles alongside the state on the international stage. This makes the
state not as the sole actor but as the primary actor among other influential actors. Consequently, we
have two major actors in international relations: state and non-state actors.
1.6.1. State Actors
States are considered as the primary actors in international relations. According to Henderson, the
term state can be defined as a sovereign actor with a central government ruling over a population and
territory as well as representing and protecting that population in the international context. It can also
be understood as a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the
people, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. In Max Weber's influential
definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a
given territory." It thus includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state
bureaucracy, courts, and police.

Modern states are unique from the traditional political systems or states in that modern states exercise
sovereign power over its territory and people. Modern states are the highest and supreme institutions
both at domestic and international level. Domestically the rules or government decisions and actions
are supreme over other institutions such as religious or family or any kind of human association.

7|Page
Citizens obey the rules and dictates of the state. Sovereignty also infers state autonomy in its
external/ international/relations. There is no any power that can intervene in the internal and external
affairs of the state. Thence, a state government answers to no higher authority; it exercises
sovereignty over its territory—to make and enforce laws, to collect taxes, and so forth.

With few exceptions, each state has a capital city—the seat of government from which it administers
its territory— and often a single individual who acts in the name of the state. We will refer to this
person simply as the “state leader.” Often he or she is the head of government (such as a prime
minister) or the head of state (such as a president, or a king or queen). In some countries, such as the
United States, the same person is head of state and government. In other countries, the positions of
the president or royalty, or even the prime minister, are symbolic. In any case, the most powerful
political figure is the one we mean by “state leader,” and these figures are the key individual actors in
IR, regardless of whether these leaders are democratically elected or dictators. The state actor
includes the individual leader as well as bureaucratic organizations such as foreign ministries that act
in the name of the state. (What the United States calls departments are usually called ministries
elsewhere. U.S. secretaries are ministers and the State Department corresponds with a foreign
ministry.)
1.6.2. Non-state Actors
National governments may be the most important actors in international relations, but they are
strongly influenced by a variety of non-state actors-defined as actors that cross national boundaries
and frequently jostle with states over policy outcomes. These include actors like ethnic groups, local
governments, and individuals; Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs), International Non-
Governmental Organizations (INGOs), Multinational Corporations (MNCs), various churches and
terrorist organizations. All these actors, in one way or another, influences our everyday lived
experience, the conduct of interstate interaction and the global politics.
1.7. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The many actors involved in international relations contribute to the complexity of competing
explanations and theories. One way scholars of IR have sorted out this multiplicity of influences,
actors, and processes is to categorize them into different levels or chunks, enables us to determine
what decisions are made by whom, and under what constraints. A level of analysis is a perspective on
IR based on a set of similar actors or processes that suggests possible explanations to “why”
questions. IR scholars have proposed various level-of-analysis schemes, most often with three main
levels (and sometimes a few sublevels between).These are: the individual, state and the international

8|Page
system, as K. Waltz identified in his workMan, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (1959).
One thing that you should bear in mind is that no consensus among scholars over the most
appropriate level of analysis.
A. Individual (Micro or First Image) Level Analysis
Every international event is the result, intended or unintended, of decisions made by individuals. So,
all social explanation can be reduced to the level of individual actors. Here we would look at the
behaviors, motivations, nature of humans, choices, abilities, unique personality, biographies, aims,
beliefs and orientation of the individual from where we can create an account of world events. In
doing this we are arguing that certain choices and decisions made by different people at different
times are the things that we need to be looking at in explaining international relations. This level
analysis might ask various questions like: Are there special political personalities? Do power seekers
or belligerent personality types appear who, once positioned as leaders, are more likely to lead
countries to war? Do people have innate biological characteristics that induce them, through herd like
instincts, to follow an authoritarian leader, or are people individualistic by nature and resist authority
altogether? How do individual decision makers process information and make decisions? And who
make decisions? Are the biographies of “great leaders” worthy of study? Can they shape an era as
Napoleon did? This level of analysis might explain World War II by examining the role of Hitler. It
might look at the end of the cold war by studying Gorbachev. It might suggest that the economic
reforms in China are result of the transition from Mao Zedong’s leadership to Deng Xiaoping’s rule.
B. State (Meso or Second Image) level Analysis
One way to understand state-level analysis is to contrast it with system-level analysis. Both state-
level analysts and system level analysts recognize that states have long been and continue to be the
most powerful actors on the world stage. Unlike system-level analysts, however, who believe that the
international system pressures states to behave in certain ways, state-level analysts contend that states
are relatively free to decide what policies to follow. According to Singer, international system is the
most comprehensive level of analysis that encompasses interactions of system alongside component
parts of the system. International level of analysis helps in understanding patterns of interaction and
also helps to make generalizations and therefore predictions. In other words, the systemic level of
analysis creates the opportunity to study international relations in the whole. He argues that the main
weakness of systemic level is its lack of details. In other words, in systemic approach, students have
no choice but to ignore some details in favor of studying the whole. He argued that the strengthening
characteristic of systemic orientation is its ability of prediction. Behaviors of actors, in systemic
approach, can be predicted generally in terms of pressure structure of system force (Singer, 1961).

9|Page
The state level analysis focuses on states. It exists between the international system and individual
levels. It might be interested to look at any one of the following: it can consider states as actors in
their own right as if they were clearly defined entities that have certain preferences, and accordingly,
look at their actions and decisions to find an answer to our analytical questions; it may look at how
states interact with each other to deal with the crisis – in other words, their foreign policy; how they
build off each other‘s suggestions and react to international developments and trends; how they
cooperate, say, in the framework of international organizations; or how we look at them as
competitors and antagonists, each of them pushing for a stronger position in what makes up the world
economy.

A state-level study would also require careful consideration of what kinds of states we are looking at
(how they are ordered politically), their geographical position, their historical ties and experiences
and their economic standing. It would likely also look at the foreign policy of states, meaning their
approach to and practice of interacting with other states. Key indicators of the foreign policy of states
would be the policies proposed and decided by governments, statements of top-level politicians but
also the role and behavior of diplomats and their adjoining bureaucratic structures.

C. System (Macro or Third Image) Level of Analysis


This level of analysis involves a top down approach to the study of world politics. It examines state
behavior by looking at the international system. In this level of analysis, the international system is
the cause and state behavior is the effect. Characteristics of the international system cause states to
behave the way they do. The following are some of the variables that we take into account to create
explanations about the occurrences of international events.

 Characteristic of the international System


The international system is one such system with a mostly horizontal authority structure. It is based
the idea that there is no higher authority that exercises power over a sovereign states. As such, the
international system is anarchic; it has no overarching authority to make rules, settle disputes, and
provide protection. Waltz (1959), in this regard, argues that, with many sovereign states, with no
system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambition
according to the dictates of its own reason or desire-conflict, sometimes leading to war, is to occur.

 Nature and Influences of Actors

10 | P a g e
Another characteristic of any system is its actors. What organizations operate in the system, and what
impacts do they have on the course of international relations? We can answer these questions by
dividing actors as state and non-state actors. Here we are advised to base our explanation on what
roles all these actors contribute to the occurrence or resolution of international phenomena like war.

 Roles and Number of System Poles


Many analysts believe that a pivotal determinant of how any given system operates is the number of
major power poles that it has. Some political scientists believe that the pattern of interaction varies
according to the number of poles that a system has. It is possible, for example, to identify patterns or
rules of the game for unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar systems. .
1. Unipolar System- a system dominated by one super power/empire. The hegemonic actor
prevents or resolves conflicts by serving as “the Police Agent of the World.” The distribution of
power is determined by the single super power. Unipolar system is similar with an inter-state
structure governed by a government because one state tries to assume a world government while
other states become dependent and less influential. Power structure is hierarchical in that power
is concentrated in the hands of one powerful nation/empire. Using such powers, the hegemon
assures international order and stability through punish violators and giving rewards to obedient
actors. No alliances exist because the hierarchy is ruled by one centre of power. In history, we
have experienced the emergence of single empires like the Romans and the Ottoman-Turks
which assumed sorts of world powers at various epochs. It is also argued that immediately after
the Gulf War in 1991, many states, including the United States’ closest allies and virtually all
developing states, grew concerned that the international system had become unipolar.
2. Bipolar System- a system dominated by two contending super powers which in turn dominate
other states and the international system at large. There are two coalitions/alliances formed and
headed by the two super powers. In fact, there are ideological ties with in the blocs. Alliances
are hierarchically organized with the two powers as the leaders of their respective alliance.
There is conflict between the two coalitions/blocs and especially between the bloc leaders. In
our contemporary world, the Cold War (1947-1991) period can be an example. The states that
allied to either of the two became the “satellites” and acquired huge military, financial and
political support/assistances. The era is called cold war for the two super giants never fought
full-scale “hot war” or real war. What they did fight was simply “proxy war” in a form of
helping their respective client/satellite states when the latter were engaged in conflicts/war.

11 | P a g e
3. Multipolar System- is any system in which the distribution of the power to conquer is
concentrated in more than two states. It comprises of four or more powerful actors in the
international system with relative equal political, economic and military powers. There is no
significant hierarchy among actors. Blocs/Coalitions are formed where there is limited
cooperation with in each bloc and limited conflict between blocs. A second possible impact of
the number of poles is the propensity of a system for instability and war. The importance of this
effect has increased with the current change of the system from a bipolar to a multipolar
configuration. Several factors are important to mention. One study found that a system with two
poles (bipolar) has a medium chance of war; and that systems with four or more poles
(multipolar) have the highest probability of war. Systems with five poles were found to be the
most unstable. It has also been argued that global unipolar systems are relatively peaceful.
Rasler and Thompson, for instance, suggest that a multipolar may be one of the most dangerous
of the systemic structure because of the possibilities of war looming on the international
horizon. In the system preceding World War I, five states, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia,
France, and Austria-Hungary, comprised a multipolar system that had evolved from the balance
of power after the Napoleonic wars.
 Economic Patterns
Yet another key determinant of the operation of any system is its economic patterns. We can gain a
sense of the impact of these patterns by touching on just three of them: interdependence, natural
resource location and use, and the misdistribution of development.
 Economic interdependence: is one pattern that we have noted repeatedly. There is some
controversy over whether interdependence promotes peace or creates tensions, but there is no
disagreement that it profoundly affects the international system.
 Natural Resources Location and Use: the pattern of where natural resources are produced
and consumed also influences the operation of the system. The strong reaction of the
industrialized and petroleum import-dependent nations to Iraq’s aggression in 1990 was
based significantly on the distribution of resources. Turmoil in the Persian Gulf region
threatened needed oil supplies.
 The Misdistribution of Development: is a third economic pattern that has consequences for
the international system. The main actors, the states, in the system are divided into relative
haves and have-nots. At the most general level, this economic division puts the LDCs of the
South and their demands for equity against the DCs of the North along the North-South

12 | P a g e
Axis. More specifically, there is a connection between the poor economic conditions in LDCs
and such problems as political oppression and instability, population growth, and
environmental degradation. These problems harm the people of the South and, by their
spillover effect, are detrimental for the people of the North as well.

1.8. Theories of International Relations


Theories of international relations allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world around
us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective. In order to
consider the field as a whole for beginners it is necessary to simplify International Relations theory.

1.8.1. Idealism/Liberalism
Idealism, also called Liberalism, arose after World War I in response to the inability of states to
control and limit war in their international relations. Idealists focused much of their attention on
understanding the causes of war so as to find a remedy for its existence. They have the following
assumptions:
❖ Idealists believe that human nature is essentially “good” or altruistic, and people are therefore
capable of mutual aid and collaboration. They hold that human nature is basically good and that
people can improve their moral and material conditions, thus making societal progress—
including establishment of lasting peace as possible. Bad or evil human behavior, such as
injustice and war, is the product of inadequate or corrupt social institutions and
misunderstandings among leaders.
❖ They also argued that there is a greater potential of cooperation among states even if the
international system is anarchic. From this cooperation, states drive absolute or mutual gains.
❖ Regarding the view about state, idealists considered states as entities enjoying sovereignty but is
not an autonomous actor. Just as liberals believe that the international system is a process
occurring among many actors, they see the state as a pluralist arena whose function is to maintain
the basic rules of the game.
❖ Liberals have faith in the idea that the permanent cessation of war is an attainable goal. Injustice,
war, and aggression are not inevitable but can be moderated or even eliminated through;
strengthening norms, creating regimes, forming economic interdependence, building democracy
etc.. Liberalists are thus more optimistic than realism about the prospects for peace
❖ International institutions (such as IGOs) are important in terms of reducing the dangers of war.
They considered IGOs as important actors for collective action.

13 | P a g e
❖ They found international law and morality as Key source of order in the International system.
They offer a mechanism by which cooperation among states is made possible. They provide
mechanisms for cross-border interactions, and the other is to shape the values and goals these
interactions are pursuing. States comply because law and morality ensures order.
❖ NGOs are also increasingly key actors that represent d/t interests and facilitate collective action.
Woodrow Wilson is one of the famous proponents of liberalism/idealism. Following World War I,
Wilson came up with the ‘Fourteen Points’ of 1917, some of which are discussed below:

 Democracy should be promoted in all countries. This arises from the assumption that
“democracies do not fight one another” since parliamentary accountability and public opinion
control the ambitions and desires of leaders.
 Self-determination of subjected people and nations should be encouraged, because if they are
not allowed, they may opt for violent responses.
 Lowering barriers (like unhindered flow of people, removal of obstacles for trade,
information, etc.) between countries to encourage interdependence.
 Strengthening international law and creating international organizations would be so
important. Respect for international law is emphasized by Wilson because he believed that it
is reliable to predict the behavior of actor, especially states.
1.8.2. Realism
Idealists were active particularly between World War I and World War II. They placed hopes for
peace in the League of Nations as a formal structure for the community of nations. Those hopes
however dashed when that structure proved helpless to stop German, Italian, and Japanese aggression
in the 1930s. Consequently, the realists argued that the inter-war scholars' approach was flawed in a
number of respects. For example, they ignored the role of power, overestimated the degree to which
nation -states shared a set of common interests, and were overly optimistic that humankind could
overcome the scourge of war. The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 confirmed, for the
realists at least, the inadequacies of the idealists' approach to studying international politics. A new
approach, one based on the timeless insights of realism, replaced the discredited idealist approach.

Basically, the realist tradition goes back to many centuries. It can be traced back to the thoughts of
Thucydides (Peloponnesian War) in the 5th Century. This school of thought has also been the
predominant way of characterizing international politics throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th
Centuries. Niccolo Machiavelli (Princes), Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) and J.J. Rousseau are the

14 | P a g e
most prominent of these thinkers. E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau are considered to be modern
realist thinkers. They were among the first scholars to use the term ‘realism’ and to elaborate its
fundamental assumptions by contrasting with the allegedly idealists. Particularly, Morgenthau is
considered to be the “father of realism”.

Indeed, the three core elements that identify with realism-statism, survival, and self-help-are present in
the work of a classical realist such as Thucydides and structural realists- K. Waltz.
As a counter response to idealism, realists chiefly denying the assumption that states seek to
cooperate. They further maintained that idealists ignored the role of power and overestimated the
degree to which human beings were rational, mistakenly believed that states shared a set of common
interest, and were overly passionate in their belief in the capacity of human beings to overcome the
scourge of war. They claimed that there was no natural harmony of interests among states and that it
was foolish and even dangerous to hope that the struggle for power among states could be tamed by
international law,democratization, and international commerce. Since World War II, realists have
blamed idealists for looking too muchat how the world ought to be instead of how it really is.

What are the key arguments of realism?


 Characterized human nature as flawed, egoistic and power seeking. The instinctive lust for power
and the desire to dominate one another is the dominant character of human nature and this
characters and desires of human being inscribed in states. Individuals are organized into states,
each of which acts in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national interests, defined in terms of
power.
 They also considered states as the unitary, autonomous, power seeking and rational actors. For
realists, the state is the main actor and sovereignty is its distinguishing trait. There are no sub-
national actors trying to overturn the decisions of government or subvert the interests of the state.
They believe that the state is an autonomous actor constrained only by the structural anarchy of
the international system. Although other actors, such as international institutions, may participate,
their impact on the system is marginal. Individuals are essentially rational beings who make
decisions by weighing the strengths and weaknesses of various options against the goal to be
achieved. Likewise, rational decisions advance the national interest—the interests of the state.
The behavior of the state as a self-seeking egoist is understood to be a reflection of the
characteristics of human beings. It is human nature that explains why international politics is
necessarily power politics.

15 | P a g e
 Realists are skeptical of the idea that universal moral principles exist, and therefore warn state
leaders against sacrificing their own self-interests in order to adhere to some indeterminate notion
of 'ethical' conduct. Moreover, realists argue that the need for survival requires state leaders to
distance themselves from traditional notions of morality. Machiavelli argued that these principles
were positively harmful if adhered to by state leaders.
 Furthermore, realists characterized international system as anarchic. By anarchy, what is most
often meant is that international politics takes place in an arena that has no overarching central
authority above the individual collection of sovereign states. There is no higher power than that
of a sovereign nation-state. It is states that are sovereign and autonomous actor pursuing its own
national interests in international system.
 The absence of a supreme power capable of enforcing order across the entire system means that
individual states are in a permanent state of insecurity. So, war is always a possibility because
there is nothing that can prevent a state from using force against another state. The overriding
goal of all states in the anarchic international system is ensuring survival (perpetuate their
existence): How? Through self-help techniques, balance of power and alliance formations.
 Cooperation in anarchic world is difficult due to the concern of relative gains. If cooperation to
happen, states should when they are sure to gain more power than other states (relative gain).
Realists claim that, in anarchy, states compete with other states for power and security. The
nature of the competition is viewed in zero-sum terms; in other words, more for one actor means
less for another.
 Realists are skeptical about intergovernmental organizations, international law, and
nongovernmental organizations, though they do not completely discount their place.
1.8.3. Marxism
A fundamental critique to economic liberalism comes from the 19th century German philosopher and
economist, Karl Marx. Marx rejected the liberal's view of the economy as a positive-sum game with
benefits for all. Marx rejected the assertion that exchange between individuals necessarily maximizes
the welfare of the whole society. Marx takes a zero-sum argument and applies it to relations of
classes instead of states. He saw the economy as a site of human exploitation and class inequality.
Marx saw capitalism and the market as creating extremes of wealth for capitalists and poverty for
workers. Contrary to the classical economics that viewed the free market as natural and necessary
system, Marx began with belief that free market system was an aberration and has to be destroyed by
revolution.

16 | P a g e
For Marx, capitalism is characterized by two major divisions within society; the ‘bourgeoisie’ who
own the means of production, and the ‘proletariat’ who do not (own only its labor power which it
must sell to the bourgeoisie). The ‘proletariat’ has no property and share from the means of
productions. The only way that the proletariat can survive is to sell their labour, i.e. to work for a
wage. The theory that holds that the more powerful classes oppress and exploit the less powerful by
denying them their fair share of the surplus they create. The oppressed classes try to gain power in
order to seize more of the wealth for themselves. This process, called class struggle, is one way of
looking at the political relationships between richer and poorer people, and ultimately between richer
and poorer world regions.

Even if capitalist economy is controlled by the bourgeoisie is exploitative of labor, Marx did not see
the growth of capitalism as a negative or retrogressive event. According to him, capitalism means
progress since it destroys previous relations of production such as feudalism, which were even more
exploitative, with peasant subsisting under slave like conditions. Marx further argues that Capitalism
paves the way for a socialist revolution where the means of production will be placed under social
control for the benefits of the proletariat who are the majority. That is the revolutionary goals of
Marxist economic thought.

Marxist approaches to IR hold that both international and domestic politics arise from unequal
relationships between economic classes. This emphasis on classes—implying that the domestic and
economic attributes of societies shape external relations with other states—contrasts with the realist
approach to IR with its separation of domestic and international politics.

 The human nature is motivated by self-interest, egoism and the readiness to dominate others.
Due to this, some get rich at the expense of others and hence this gives rise to a system of
exploitation. Marxists saw it as a product of capitalism.
 Actors of International Relations are the class. Classes are more important than society and
states. The state is an agent of international capitalism; and the international system is highly
stratified, dominated by an international capitalist system. But states reflect the interests of
the dominant/rich class.
 The role of the state- State as “Executive Committee of the Ruling (Corporate) Class,” doing
the bidding of corporations. Marxist view sees the state as the executing agent of the
bourgeoisie. Ensuring overall stability of global capitalist economy as the roles of the state.

17 | P a g e
 International cooperation among the working class/proletariat will eventually bring about a
just and fair international system where everyone equally benefits. There could not be peace
in the world unless the proletariat class wages proletarian internationalism and seizes power.
 There is no anarchy; rather there is hierarchy in international system. This is to mean that
some states (dominant classes within them) dominate other states and peoples of the world.
States are unfinished but categorized into different classes that also dominate the
international system.
 Economic power is the most crucial power to dominate others.
 Skeptical about IGOs, international law, and many NGOs-contemporary international law
and organization as the product of a specific time and historical process. Emerging from
Western capitalist state experiences, international law and organization serve the interests of
the dominant capitalist classes. The actions by the United Nations following the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait in 1990, including a series of resolutions condemning Iraq and imposing
sanctions on that country, were designed to support the position of the West, most notably the
interests of the hegemonic United States and its capitalist friends in the international
petroleum industry.
 International law is biased against the interests of socialist states, the weak, and the
unrepresented. For example, international legal principles, such as the sanctity of national
geographic boundaries, were developed during the colonial period to reinforce the claims of
the powerful. Attempts to alter such boundaries are, according to international law, wrong,
even though the boundaries themselves may be unfair or unjust.
 NGOs are largely based in the North and are dominated by members of the same elite that
run the state and international organizations. They see NGOs as falling under the exigencies
of the capitalist economic system and as captive to those dominant interests.

1.8.4. Constructivism
Constructivism is another theory commonly viewed as a middle ground, but this time between
mainstream theories and the critical theories that we will explore later. Unlike scholars from
other perspectives, constructivists highlight the importance of values and shared interests
between individuals who interact on the global stage. Alexander Wendt, a prominent
constructivist, described the relationship between agents (individuals) and structures (such as the
state) as one in which structures not only constrain agents but also construct their identities and

18 | P a g e
interests. His famous phrase ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992) sums this up well.
Another way to explain this, and to explain the core of constructivism, is that the essence of
international relations exists in the interactions between people. After all, states do not interact; it
is agents of those states, such as politicians and diplomats, who interact. As those interacting on
the world stage have accepted international anarchy as the defining principle, it has become part
of our reality. However, if anarchy is what we make of it, then different states can perceive
anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over time. International anarchy
could even be replaced with a different system if a critical mass of other individuals (and by
proxy the states they represent) accepted the idea. To understand constructivism is to understand
that ideas, or ‘norms’ as they are often called, have power. IR is, then, a never-ending journey of
change chronicling the accumulation of the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms
of the future. As such, constructivists seek to study this process.
1.8.5. Critical Theories
Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have been established in response to
mainstream approaches in the field, mainly liberalism and realism. In a nutshell, critical theorists
share one particular trait – they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR that have
been central since its establishment. Thus, altered circumstances call for new approaches that are
better suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find ourselves in. Critical theories
are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked
within IR. They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been marginalized,
particularly women and those from the Global South.
Critical theorists who take a Marxist angle often argue that the internationalization of the state as
the standard operating principle of international relations has led ordinary people around the
globe becoming divided and alienated, instead of recognizing what they all have in common as a
global proletariat. For this to change, the legitimacy of the state must be questioned and
ultimately dissolved. In that sense, emancipation from the state in some form is often part of the
wider critical agenda.

19 | P a g e

You might also like