Studying International

Relations UNIT 2 EVOLUTION OF THE

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS*
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Stages of Evolution
2.2.1 Diplomatic History Stage (1648-1919)
2.2.2 Current Events Stage (1919-1945)
2.2.3 Law and Organization Stage (1919-1945)
2.2.4 Scientific Studies Stage (1945-1991)
2.2.5 Critical Theories and Globalisation (1991-2019)
2.3 Let Us Sum Up
2.4 References
2.5 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

2.0 OBJECTIVES
This Unit is about the emergence of International Relations as an independent
and separate academic discipline. After going through this unit, you should be
able to:
Trace the evolution of the discipline of International Relations
Identify different stages in the development of International Relations as a
discipline
Explain the causes for the changes in different stages of the discipline

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The origin and evolution of International Relations (IR) as the subject of study
and as an independent discipline have several theories and interpretations. Besides,
the dynamic nature of events at the global level and the ever-changing scope of
the discipline makes it even more difficult to talk about the exact nature of the
evolution of IR. However, it is a fact that the history of IR can be traced back to
thousands of years; to the prevalence of interaction among the Sumerian city-
states dating back to 3500 B.C. The Greek city-states had their international
system with norms of war and peace. But we cannot mark the origin of
international relations to these periods as they do not fulfil the basic requirement
to be called as International Relations. The history of modern International
Relations is more precisely related to the origin of the nation-state system in the
17th century. In this context, the Peace Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which
recognised the idea of sovereign nation-states can be regarded as the real beginning
of International Relations. Before this treaty, European medieval organisation of
political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order. However,
about the Westphalian treaty also, indeed, there existed still embodied layered
systems of sovereignty, especially within the Holy Roman Empire. That is why,
*
Prof. R. S. Yadav, Dept. of Political Science, Kurukshetra University.
28
more than this treaty, it is the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 which can be considered Evolution of the International
Systems
as a more appropriate document delineating the sovereign state. Because it
reflected an emerging norm that the sovereign had no external superiors as the
ultimate authority within the territory’s sovereign borders. As with the origin,
there is a difference in terms of scope and activities of the IR. Hence it is necessary
to have a critical appraisal of the evolution of the discipline of International
Relations.

2.2 STAGES OF EVOLUTION

From the First World War to the present times, International Relations has passed
through different stages of evolution. Besides, the journey of its efforts to make
it an independent discipline also started with the end of the First World War. This
journey of International Relations for becoming a separate discipline can be
understood by analysing its evolution and direction of the changing contours of
interaction among states.

2.2.1 Diplomatic History Stage (1648-1919)

Until the First World War (1914-18), the study of IR was dominated by historians
rather than political scientists. At this stage, the study of IR mainly centred around
the state system. Individual scholars also identified and organised themselves in
sovereign states and through them strove to fulfil their interests. That is why no
organised and systematic study of international relations was made in universities
anywhere in the world. Only in a few courses dealing with history, law and
theology etc, initial efforts were made to study a wide variety of current
international problems. But all this was done in a very unsystematic and superficial
manner. No real attempt was made to study and analyse IR in an organised and
systematic manner to give it the shape and stature of a distinctive subject. The
only exception is the pioneering effort of Paul S. Reinsch, who in 1900 delivered
lectures on world politics at the University of Wisconsin.

Despite the existence of the state system, however, not all states accepted every
other state. The norms of universality and sovereign equality were still nebulous
and often questioned by powerful states. Truth is, some of the states had only
partial attributes; they were small principalities and fiefdoms owing their
allegiance to some big empire or a strong man. Some states were significant
because of their neighbourhood; while others were due to their economic or
military might. Some others due to their cultured or ethnic peculiarities. Thus,
inter-state relations existed due to sovereign states and it constituted the agenda
of international relations. However, relations between two or more states acquired
complexities and divergent implications due to a variety of factors like economy,
geography, military, historical, social, cultural, religious, ideological, strategic,
and leadership. As a result, there emerged a situation of conflict or cooperation
among them and the same became the area of study of international relations.
Since both these aspects continued to remain part of the behaviour of states,
international relations also was constrained to study both dimensions of conflict
and cooperation. Thus, in the real sense of the term, despite the emergence of
nation-states, international relations did not develop much till the First World
War.

Since the study of International Relations was dominated by diplomatic historians

the basic trends of this era were as follows: 29
Studying International 1) Most of the study was descriptive and no effort was made to develop the
Relations
causal relationship.

2) Instead of analysing the events based on various factors and forces, most
studies of the period were chronological descriptions of the events, recorded
partially.

3) Most studies were rooted to know the historical past and no effort was made
to analyse the contemporary events. Therefore, the study of contemporary
events and developments did not receive the importance it deserved.

4) Since most of the studies were not done systematically, they lacked scientific
rigour towards theory building.

5) Since most studies were descriptive and chronicled the events without any
effort to find a causal relationship, the discipline of International Relations
lacked empirical and scientific grounding.

Thus, in the years before World War I, studies in International Relations were
predominantly in the form of historical and diplomatic writings. This disrupted
the growth of the analytical, theoretical, and contemporary study of the IR.
Therefore, this era was devoid of the development of theories of the discipline.
Besides, systematic and comprehensive growth of the subject was also missing
during this period.
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Identify the features of the study of International Relations before World
War I.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

2.2.2 Current Events Stage (1919-1945)

The First World War had a tremendous impact on the study of International
Relations. It was only after the War that teaching of the subject of International
Relations was initiated in the various universities in the United Kingdom, United
States of America, and Switzerland. The teaching of the subject as a formal
academic discipline started with the founding of international professorship in
the UK. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Relations was
established at Aberystwyth, the University of Wales (now Aberystwyth
University). The first person to hold this chair was Alfred Eckhart Zimmer.
Simultaneously, in the same year, Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh
School of Foreign Service was founded in the USA. In early 1920, the department
of international relations was established at London School of Economics at the
30
behest of Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker. This was the first institute Evolution of the International
Systems
to offer a wide range of degrees in IR. Numerous other universities in the USA
and Switzerland also followed this trend. Later, the London School of Economics
and at Oxford, Montague Boston Professor of International Relations was created
which gave further impetus to the study of international relations

In 1927, the first university entirely devoted to the study of international relations,
the Graduate Institute of International Studies, was established in Geneva. It was
meant to train diplomats for the League of Nations. In 1928, Chicago University
started offering a graduate course in International Relations. Then in 1933,
Harvard and Tufts University jointly started Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy which was the only school in the USA offering graduate degree in
IR. Later, such courses were offered in some other universities as well.

During this era, some significant changes in the study of international relations
were noticed. Salient ones of them inter alia were:

1) This phase focused on current events and happenings in international

relations. A past study of diplomatic history was replaced by an interest in
current affairs.

2) Despite the neglect of historical descriptions, an integrative knowledge of

international relations was still not attained. Because at least to understand
the contemporary developments, contextualization of the same in its timing
and space was required. Hence complete neglect of history led to the limited
knowledge of international relations.

3) Complete and total dependence on current affairs was not enough for a correct
knowledge of IR. This kind of detachment and compartmentalization led to
the lopsided reading of international relations.

4) Lack of complete study of past and present with appropriate linkages in the
study of international relations were missing. As a result, theory-building
was absent during this period too. In the absence of a long-term historical
perspective to drive common consensual finding, the element of predictability
in the working of international relations again went missing.

2.2.3 Law and Organisation Stage (1919-1945)

The period between the two world wars witnessed a strong trend regarding the
growth of international legal organisations. It emphasized the institutionalization
of international relations through the development of a legal organizational setup.
It was assumed that with the growth of such an institutional arrangement, problems
of the international system will automatically get resolved. Therefore, the
emphasis was to identify goals and values which would facilitate the growth of
peaceful world order. This kind of thinking was based on idealism, optimism
and hope that with the growth of some legal and institutional setup, issues of
conflict, violence and war could be overcome. This type of approach was thus
based on an emotional and visionary outlook of its supporter. As a result, the
idea of League of Nations was conceived as part of the treaty of peaceful resolution
of conflict after the First World War. It was thought that issue of war and conflict
in past were linked to the thinking of power enhancement, the balance of power
and demonstration of power which was not appropriate; rather only through law
31
Studying International and organisation states can attain the goal of peace. This belief was based on the
Relations
strength of individual and collective morality found in men and state.

The increased emphasis on law and organisation had the following implications
for international relations:

1) Though the emphasis on institutional setup based on law and organization

was based more on idealism, morality and vision for peace; yet, it was beyond
the prevailing relations of the time and non-comprehension of interests of
the state. Therefore, it was far from the existing realities of international
relations.

2) The establishment of global peace is dependent on multiple and complex

variables than the wishful thinking and narrow outlook of legal and
organizational structure. Hence, the thrust on institutionalization did not factor
in the dynamism of international relations. This became apparent when the
League of Nations failed to establish international peace.

3) Despite their best effort to evolve some framework and establishment of

League of Nations, no general theorization of international politics was
developed during the period.

4) There is a clear difference between suggestions for reforms at the international

level by the states and the pursuit of their national interests. Most powers
agreed on the Charter of the League of Nations for the observation of peace,
but when issues were confronted by them against their perceived national
interest, they left the League, rather than observe the mandate of the Charter.

Thus, this era also failed to understand and analyse the complex phenomenon,
called International Relations. Nor the creation of an international legal and
institutional setup facilitated the establishment of peace. There were no efforts
to evolve a general theory to understand this phenomenon. Therefore, the need
for a sound framework of peace was still required. Thus, due to parochial vision
which remained restricted to law and organization, the study of IR during this
era prevented the real understanding of dynamic and complex forces of
International Relations.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) What were the features of International Relations studies during the interwar
years?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
32
2.2.4 Scientific Studies Stage (1945-1991) Evolution of the International
Systems

After the end of World War II, international politics underwent a significant
transformation in terms of its nature and scope. On one hand, the emergence of
new states of Asia and Africa enhanced the membership of the global community;
and thereby, made international politics truly international. Simultaneous to this
phenomenon, the onset of Cold War between the then two superpowers led to
the requirement of the study of conflict, proxy wars, arms race, nuclear threat,
détente, the balance of power etc. as new issues in international relations. Besides,
a new dimension came to be added in the form of non-state actors, who began to
strongly influence and shape the working of international relations. These non-
state actors were both political like Amnesty International and economic like the
multinational corporations (MNCs). As a result of power rivalry and Cold War
tensions, theoretical approaches to the study of peace and the world order studies
also acquired important space in International Relations. Thus, global politics
acquired new dimensions that demanded the discarding of earlier idealistic,
moralistic, legal and institutional studies; and their replacement by rational and
scientific studies.

Realism and Neo-Realism: As a result of the above developments, studies of

‘Realism’ and behaviouralism acquired importance in international relations. Hans
J. Morgenthau has been regarded as the first realist thinker who propounded
Realism as a theory for the study of International Relations.

Realism dominated the study of IR since the end of World War II. In 1948, Hans
J. Morgenthau wrote his Politics among Nations and scholars have continued to
refer to the book ever since. Morgenthau and other Realists drew ideas from
philosophers such as Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and others. Their writings
on variety of subjects and themes about IR were clubbed together and labelled
by critics as ‘Classical Realism’. Core arguments in ‘Classical Realism’ are as
follows: (i) In IR, there is no scope for idealism; the failure of the League of
Nations to ensure peace in the inter-war years is a good example of the misplaced
belief in the goodness of human nature, scientific temperament, and the
inevitability of material progress for the betterment of all. ‘Classical Realists’
point out the selfishness and brutishness in human nature, the corruptibility and
self-serving tendency of institutions, and the anarchic and fluid character of the
international system as realistic points to start any discussion on IR. (ii) ‘Classical
Realists’ argued that there is no centralized authority to enforce the law at a
global level; hence international relations operate in an anarchic, somewhat
lawless, context. (iii) Here, every state is concerned with its preservation.
Therefore, every state is guided by the pursuit of power and promotion of its
self-interest. ‘Classical Realism’ was grounded in a mix of history, philosophy,
and theology. As a theoretical framework of IR, it declined with the rise of social-
scientific behaviouraism in the 1960s.

The decade of 1970s marked the ascendance of ‘Neo-Realism’. In his Theory of

International Politics (1979), Kenneth Waltz argued that all-important features
of international relations, especially the actions of great powers, could be
explained in terms of the anarchical structure of the international system. Waltz
tried to give ‘Classical Realism’ empirical bases but failed to do so, and have
since been criticized for that. His ‘Neo-Realism’ differed from the ‘Classical
Realism’ in two ways: (i) Waltz tried to give his ideas a scientific basis and drew
33
Studying International some ideas from economics. While doing this, he tried to shed ‘Classical Realism’
Relations
of its penchant to draw from history, sociology, theology and human nature. (ii)
In building their theory of international relations, ‘Classical Realists’ considered
variables such as domestic institutions, quality of diplomacy, the nature of
statecraft, national morale and human nature. Waltz considered all of them as
irrelevant in understanding IR.

Core arguments of Waltz’s theory of ‘Neo-Realism’ are: (i) States are unitary
rational actors existing in a self-help system. They are all concerned above all
else with their survival; and, equally important, they all operate with imperfect
information. (ii) Waltz makes an important statement: states are conditioned by
the logic of the international system into similar patterns of behaviour. (iii) The
trajectory of international relations is explained by the distribution of power
across units (states) in the system. (iv) He argues that the international system,
conceived in this way, has maintained remarkable continuity across space and
time. (v) The most important argument of Waltz is that the most stable arrangement
in an international system is bipolarity or a balance between two great powers.

Waltz’s conception of IR remained influential in the 1980s and the 1990s. (i)
Many have criticized his argument that states inherently find cooperation difficult.
(ii) Critics further ask: what it is that the states want in the end: security or
power? The so-called defensive ‘Neo-Realists’ answer: security. Since states seek
foremost security, a stable international equilibrium is possible via balancing.
The so-called offensive ‘Neo-Realists say power. Maximization of power makes
attainment of equilibrium hard to achieve. No wonder, the international system
always remains on tenterhooks. (iii) There are other grounds of criticism. ‘Neo-
Realism’ has been faulted, for example, for neglecting the insights of history,
sociology, and philosophy. Besides, most important, its claim of scientific validity
is found false. (iv) ‘Neo-Realism’ also does not consider, nor in fact, it does
explain, systemic transformations in IR. It cannot explain, for example, the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War or, for that matter,
the advent of globalization.

Systems theory: In the post Second World War period, one major development
in the field of political science has been to make the study of the discipline more
scientific through quantitative methodology with the study of behaviour.

What do we mean by systems theories? Systems theories of international relations

(IR) give priority to the structure of the international system to explain the
behaviour of states and interactions among them. States are the units of the
system, and they collectively constitute a system of states. Most systems theories
treat the relationship between the international system and states as reciprocal.
However, it is the structure of the international system that strongly influences
and shapes the behaviour of the states and interaction among states. Thus, what
a state does or does not do at the international level can be explained by referring
to the structures of the international system; and the way these structures impinged
on the state. For the first time, systems theory came to treat the international
system as the formal and independent variable. Systemic thinking became central
to the study of IR in the second half of the 20th century, after the publication of
Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics in 1979. IR scholars have
continued to study and develop the strengths and weaknesses of Waltz’s and
others’ systems approaches. No doubt, systems theorizing remains an important
34 approach to the study of IR. However, not all theoretical assertions of systems
approaches have been empirically supported; there thus remains a strong debate Evolution of the International
Systems
about how much systems theories explain the IR and the behaviour of the states.
Moreover, the notion of an international “system” and how to define it remain
contested among IR scholars.

Systems theory assumes that basic parameters of the system can be integrated.
Hence a general system theory can be developed. Though, as stated above, in
terms of the meaning of ‘system’, there is a difference of opinion among scholars,
but one thing is certain: systems theory has helped in the enrichment of theoretical
studies of International Relations. Systems theory has widened the scope of the
study by highlighting those dimensions of international relations which were not
given adequate attention earlier.

Other theoretical frameworks: Other partial theories developed due to the

influence of behaviouralism have been decision-making theory, game theory,
communication theory and bargaining theory. They cannot be treated as full
general theories of international relations because they are dealing with one aspect
of it only, i.e. foreign policy analysis. This has been done through the evaluation
of the behaviour of foreign policy or decision-makers. They are also based on
the scientific method and value-free approach as suggested by behaviouralism.

Thus, in this era an effort was made by Realists and behaviouralist to study
international relations in a scientific and realist manner, rather than the utopian,
idealism, emotive, historical, diplomatic, ethical, legal and institutional
frameworks. But both the studies suffered from serious weaknesses of not
interpreting international relations holistically. In the case of the Realist approach,
predominant issues have been the issue of struggle and conflict. An important
aspect of cooperation has been missing, which is not only equal rather it is the
aim of nation-states. Similarly, behaviouralism also ignored the value of peace
in their craze for scientism issue and quantification. Besides, they all put more
and more emphasis on analysis over description, on transnationalism over
nationalism and interaction over action. That is why all these approaches failed
to predict the end of the Cold War and its likely consequences for international
relations. No theory, howsoever scientific it has been, can predict major upheavals
and transformations in the global political system.
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Pick the correct response about the core concern of Defensive realists.
a) Security
b) Power
c) Cooperation.
2) Pick the correct response. Neorealism has been faulted for its neglect of ?
a) Insights from history, sociology and philosophy
b) Systems approach
c) Models and theories of economics

35
Studying International
Relations
2.2.5 Critical Theories and Globalisation (1991-2019)
With the end of the Cold War, not only the nature and working of international
relations changed but new kind of discourse started in analysing and understanding
of international politics. New Critical theories in the form of constructivism,
feminism, post-modernism etc. started raising some normative questions, which
were missing in the discourses that prevailed during the Cold War era. This
theoretical orientation is termed as “Paradigm shift” in International Relations.
This period is different from ‘post-Westphalia’ representing ‘post sovereignty’
phase. These theories were not concerned with scientism or analytical framework;
rather they are of problem-solving nature. Hence, they can be termed as
emancipatory theories. Therefore, they are aimed at providing an answer to
questions faced by contemporary International Relations. As a result, these are
purposive in nature and provide a critique of dogmatism. Simultaneously, they
are in favour of de-legitimization of the existing order. Hence, their dominant
concern is not merely providing a framework, but concerns for social and political
examination. These normative and explanatory theories are developed by scholars’
like Andrew Linklater, Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean Elshtain, Cynthia
Enloe, Christine Sylvester, J. Ann Tinker, Richard Ashley, Richard Cox, Herbert
Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas etc.

Some scholars believe that the behaviour of human beings is determined by their
identity, which itself is shaped by society’s values, history and practice. Therefore,
most of the institutions, including the state are socially constructed. For instance,
feminists believe that gender-based role differentiation is socially rather than
biologically determined. Similarly, critical theorists believe that the task of theory
is not to just explain but provide for the emancipation of human beings from
social institutions and practices that oppose them. In the same way, post-
modernists consider themselves as incredulity towards meta-narratives.
Postmodernism then is essentially concerned with de-constructing and de-trusting
any account of human life that claims to have direct access to truth. It is a narrative
of narratives that have a totalizing view of historical events, social experiences
and culture as lived and politics as experienced. Meta narratives are false; they
often claim to be all-knowing truths. Thus, in this era, like the earlier period, a
lot of theories are available but they have their limitations like earlier ones. In
sum, International Relations is a very complex discipline involving a variety of
factors and forces shaping its working; and all attempts at building theories about
IR have at best met only limited and partial success.

Parallel to political development in the form of the end of the Cold War, the
world witnessed a new phenomenon of ‘Globalisation’ after 1991. But how to
interpret and understand this phenomenon is also a cumbersome task. It is because
both positive and negative discussion of this phenomenon is given in terms of its
being a myth and reality. It is only after knowing both the arguments we can be
better equipped to explain the working and process of contemporary international
relations.

Those who support or justify the process of Globalisation give the following
arguments in support of their contention. First, the world economy has become
more interdependent than before; hence it has opened the doors of trade and
other such activities for the nations. Second, as a result of this changing world
has become more inter-connected and communicative, this has strengthened social
36
cohesiveness. Third, with the growth of large-scale interactions now the world is Evolution of the International
Systems
witnessing common culture across nations. Fourth, with this development
differences among nations are being replaced by homogeneousness. Fifth, time
and space have seemed to collapse and we are witnessing concept of the global
village. Sixth, even polity seems to be moving in the direction of a transnational
order and the beginning of a transfer of allegiance is witnessed from state to sub-
state, transnational and international bodies. Seventh, a cosmopolitan culture is
developing and people seem to begin to think globally and act locally. Finally,
risk culture is emerging to take care of common humanitarian concerns.

But opposition to Globalisation is equally strong and the following arguments

are given to prove their contention. First, the present process of Globalisation is
merely strengthening capitalism. Therefore, it is more about Trade, FDI, Finances
etc. than development of human growth and interactions. Second, it is very uneven
in its effects, because it is a game between unequal players. Hence, it is not
going to provide equal opportunities for all. Third, it is not Globalisation with a
human face, rather it is the concentration of capital and going to prove the latest
stage of Western imperialism. Fourth, it is going to benefit the rich and to remain
disadvantageous for the poor. In this open competition, the huge gap between
rich and poor countries will only widen and deepen further. Fifth, all forces of
Globalisation are not good. For instance, it also makes it easier for the drug
cartels and terrorists to operate worldwide. Sixth, it is not to facilitate good global
governance, because most of the MNCs and TNCs are not under the control of
any one country or some global agency. Finally, it is paradox: whether
Globalization is a triumph of Western capitalism or it marks the rise of Asian
economic and technological dynamism.

Thus, developments of Critical theories and Globalisation present a paradox for

the readers to provide an adequate explanation for the contemporary International
Relations. If critical theories are discussing the emancipations, then Globalisation
is posing the problem of inegalitarian world order. In both the senses it is difficult
to develop a general theory for the understanding of IR. Both the propositions
must deal with multiple factors and processes; hence are not able to explain the
complexities of contemporary international relations. No common consensus
has been arrived at among different scholars. Thus, this era is also full of partial
approaches that can at most explain one or the other phenomenon, but a complete
understanding of international relations is missing.
Check Your Progress Exercise 4
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) What is the function of a theory according to Critical theorists?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

37
Studying International
Relations 2.3 LET US SUM UP
Above discussion about various stages of the evolution of International Relations
reveals that this discipline is not only difficult but also very dynamic and complex
to understand. In the first phase, it emerges as a separate discipline woven around
the concept of nation-states as first developed under the Westphalian treaty. Treaty
of Utrecht further polished it to provide complete external sovereignty to the
nation-states. However, this phenomenon remained limited to diplomatic history
and of the descriptive nature of the subject. Later, the period between the two
world wars proved critical for the development of the subject. During this period,
on the one hand, emphasis on current affairs was manifest; whereas, on the other
hand, the importance of law and organisation was strongly underlined. It was
believed that legal and institutional architecture shall help resolve the problems
of war and peace among nations. In the post-Second World War era, major
stress was put on scientism and studies based on Realistic paradigm. Finally, the
end of the Cold War presented a bizarre scenario both at political and economic
levels. As a result, alternative Critical theories of global politics were presented.
But new departure has also not been able to develop a complete general theory
of international relations. Simultaneously, post-1991 economic development in
the form of Globalisation too cannot provide an answer to all kinds of problems
and economic challenges being witnessed by most of the states. Thus, for a sound
understanding of International Relations, some more efforts are needed. However,
due to the dynamic and complex interdependence among nation-states, it seems
difficult, if not impossible, to provide a complete explanation and understanding
of International Relations in times to come.

2.4 REFERENCES
Baylis, John et al. eds. (2015). The Globalisation of World Politics. New Delhi.
OUP.
Chatterjee, Aneek. (2018). International Relations Today. New Delhi. Pearson.
Carlsnaes, Walter. et al. (eds). 2012. Handbook of International Relations. New
Delhi. Sage.

George, Jim and Anthony D. Burke. (2007). An Introduction to International

Relations.

Hocking, Brian and Michael Smith. (2014). World Politics: An Introduction to

International Relations. London. Routledge

Kumar, Mahendra. (2017). The Theoretical Aspects of International Politics.

Agra. Shivlal Aggarwal

Palmer and Perkins. (2015). International Relations. New Delhi. CBC

Distributors.

Reus-Smit, Christian and Duncan Snidal. eds. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of
International Relations.London. Oxford University Press.

Rosenau, N James. (2006). The Study of World Politics. (2 vols.). London.

Routledge.
38
Sorensen, Georg and Robert H. Jackson. (2016). Introduction to International Evolution of the International
Systems
Relations. New Delhi. OUP.

Wilkinson, Paul. (2007). International Relations. New Delhi. Oxford University

Press.

2.5 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) The study of IR was dominated by diplomatic histories which were mostly
descriptive and chronological. These studies did not focus on contemporary
developments and lacked scientific rigor. They lacked scientific rigor and
did not establish causal relations
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
1) During the interwar years, the focus of IR shifted on institutions and on
contemporary developments. In the absence of historical analysis, theory-
building could not take place.
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
1) (a)
2) (a)
Check Your Progress Exercise 4
1) A theory should function to emancipate human beings from social institutions
and practices that oppress them.

39