INTRODUCTION TO

INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
Unit 1 : How Do you
understand International
Relations : Levels of
Analysis
Lecture Notes

Sonali Chitalkar
Department of Political Science
Miranda House, Delhi University

Introduction

A basic problem in the study of International Relations (IR) is the understanding of the
definitional contexts. There are three basic levels of understanding. These include IR as a
course of study, as a situation, and as a principle. We are therefore going to do a conceptual
clarification of each of these.

As a course of study, IR refers to our discipline, what we are currently studying.

It is the field or body of knowledge that examines the totality of human relations across
national boundaries. At least the following points are noteworthy.
Goldstein (2010), reminiscent of Carr (1964) submits that IR is that branch of Political Science
that deals with interactions between state and non-state actors in the international system.

Brown in his book, Understanding International Relations (1995), notes that such relations
transcend the political and governmental. Such non-state actors include inter- governmental
organizations (IGOs, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational companies (TNCs) or multinational
corporations (MNCs), which are not necessarily political in nature.

Hoffman attempts to view IR as a field that studies the foreign policies of states and factors
determining the nature of such policies. The view is reinforced by Ola (1999) who argues that
"International Relations are the study of all forms of interactions that exist between members
of separate entities or nations within the international system". This perspective corroborates
the earlier submission that IR is an expansive field of knowledge.

As a situation, IR describes the state of interaction between two or more actors in separate
national boundaries. Put differently, it describes the relationships that take place by members
of the international community. These include all or any aspects of their relationship such as
war, conflict, dispute, separation, belligerency, settlement, pact, treaties, cooperation,
conferences, and organization.

As a principle, IR refers to a set of ideas that constitute the public policy that a state makes
for the purpose of the external context. It describes the foreign policy of a state, international
organization or region, which are articulated, formulated and implemented by an International
Department, or a State Department or Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The totality of such policy
process is what is sometimes referred to as, for instance, the International Relations of
Nigeria, or International Relations of Africa or International Relations of the United Nations. In
some cases, it is referred to as the International Diplomacy of Africa. In some literature,
preference is for International Politics of Nigeria or a particular institution or state.
Basic Concepts in IR
There are many concepts in IR. The concepts are however common to Political Science sub-
fields and as such have been mentioned in this book, while some have already been defined
in this chapter. For these reasons, we will limit ourselves to only the very basic terms in IR,
which include diplomacy, foreign policy, instruments of state policy, war, alliances and balance
of
power. Broadly speaking IR is at least the following core ideas:

1. Anarchy and Interaction: The basic nature of the world is anarchic. There is no
centralized overarching World government. However even within this anarchic world
sovereign nation states are interacting and are interconnected. This is the basic premise of
IR. Thus IR is basically the study of interactions between state and non state actors in a
overarching condition of Anarchy. The central aim is to find patterns in such
interactions.

2. War: War is usually regarded as the absence or opposite of peace and diplomacy
because it represents a breakdown in states’ interaction. War is generally referred to
as direct aggression between parties. In IR, war has been described as the state of
hostility (actual or mutually declared aggression) between two or more parties with
the oversight of a third party (neutral non-partisan umpire). War has to be mutually
declared before it can be so regarded, and when aggression becomes physical, it
has to be prosecuted by the engagement of armed forces. In this case, it means all
wars can be called conflict. But can all conflicts be called war? The answer is “no”
because not all conflict situations involve the mutual declaration of aggression, nor
third parties. There are certain conflict situations that do not involve the use of armed
forces, and yet there are times when conflict goes on and yet a shot is not fired.
Conflict and war are therefore two different concepts. War is conflict, but not all
conflicts are wars. But like war, conflict is a state of hostility between parties.

Carl von Clausewitz defines war as the continuation of politics by other means. This implies
that war, like trade, the Olympics, or diplomacy, is another instrument of states interaction.
Incidentally, war is the expression of dissatisfaction, “anger” or “hate”, just as cooperation and
alliance is the expression of agreement or “love”. The middle point between war and peace is
consensus. By consensus, compromises and concessions are made by two or more
contending parties for the sake of peace.

In the present the nature of war has changed. Thus this broadening and deepening of Warfare
to include dimensions of fifth generation warfare is an essential part of IR.
3. Peace: Most of the efforts in IR are towards the maintenance of Peace.

4. Imperialism and Colonialism: The study and operation of both these ideas forms an
important part of the world of IR. The rise and sustenance of the USA as a hegemone, the
current rise of China as a colonial power of sorts are all important aspects of IR.

5. Diplomacy: Broadly speaking, diplomacy is the employment of tact in dealing with people
in such a way that their minds, if not won, are carried along. Originally, diplomacy is derived
from Latin and Greek word, diploma, which means a folded official document. In our
context however, diplomacy is simply the conduct of international relations. Kissinger
(1999) and some
other scholars and practitioners have described diplomacy as the art of conducting relations
(treaties, external trade, peacemaking, war, issues of environment, culture and external
representation) through polite, non-hurtful manner on behalf of a state through the
engagement of professionals. This perspective attempts to conceptualize diplomacy as an
official act or formal practice of the state to gain strategic advantage or finding mutually
acceptable solutions to shared challenges. Diplomacy is thus both a theory and a practice. It
also could be informal. Informal diplomacy involves the use of non-practitioners by a state to
deal with international issues. Such persons are usually very influential individuals with
international popularity, particularly in the country they are being sent, could be drawn from
the academia, think-tanks, clergy or entertainment industry. In Western countries, this is a
component of what is referred to as citizen diplomacy; t is also called Track 11 diplomacy.

Modern diplomacy is traceable to Renaissance Italy in the 13th century, when Milan began the
idea of establishing formal embassies in other countries. This initiative soon spread to other
parts of Europe and then down through the 17th century with the Peace of Westphalia to the
19th and 20th century with the emergence of more states and expansion of the basis for
international relations. International diplomacy generally involves the resolution of
international problems. It takes the forms of arbitration, mediation, conferences, and
negotiations.

6. Foreign Policy: This refers to a set of principles that guide the conduct of a
nation’s external relations. That is why in Western literature, it is sometimes called
foreign relations policy. Foreign policy is sometimes loosely referred to as diplomacy;
but in actual fact, all foreign policies are conducted by instruments of diplomacy.
Foreign policy is premised on national self- interest: policy-makers articulate goals or
objectives of the nation in the international community with the view of gaining
mileage and strategic advantage in international politics.

Foreign policy is therefore the general objectives that guide the activities and relationships of
one state in its interactions with other states (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2012). It is instructive
to note that the foreign policies of states are primarily determined by domestic considerations,
including strategic interests, economic and military potentials, quality of leadership and
citizens, quality of ideas in government, geographical vantages, among other factors. External
factors shaping foreign policy include the behaviour of other states, manifestations in the
global system, plans to advance specific geopolitical designs, as well as external threats.

7. National Interest: This refers to the strategic goals of a state in international

politics. It is embedded in the country’s foreign policy and actualized through
diplomacy and other instruments. National interest is the raison d’état or the reason of
the State in international politics. It represents the ambitions of the state expressed by
policy makers in their definition of the nation’s international relations. National interest
is articulated, gauged, aggregated and made by policy makers or government.

National interest is the central plank in the school of power politics or political realism. Primary
in national interest is national survival and preservation, which constitute a state’s short-term
objectives. The mid-range objectives of a state include pursuit of welfare, wealth or prosperity
of the nation. Long-range interests include the emergence of a state as a regional or world
power, expansion of external influence and domination.
8. National Role Conception: This refers to policy makers’ articulation of the content
of the state actions in international politics in order to gain desired mileage and
strategic advantage over other states (Holsti, 1987). National roles are conceived by
policy makers, who do this to complement national interest because it is by tangible
roles played in international community that national interest can be accomplishable.
National role conception therefore gives life to national interest or objectives (Folarin,
2012).

National role conception is shaped by a number of factors. Predominant factors include

leaders’ perceptions of who the state is and what the state has the capacity to do;
interpretations of the roles of the state has the potentials to undertake; and the expectations
of the international community about roles the state should play in given circumstances. For
instance, in the face of global terrorism spreading to Africa (Somalia, Kenya and Nigeria), the
 United States and Western Europe are expected to increase their roles in the continent in
assisting counter- offensive measures.

9. Instruments of State Policy: These refer to the means or strategies by which

states conduct their foreign policies. They are embedded in national role conception.
These include political, economic, military, and cultural instruments.

Political instruments include diplomacy, propaganda, summitry and conferences, alliances,

treaties. Diplomacy encompasses most if not all of these instruments. Propaganda is an
informal diplomatic channel by which a government penetrates the populace of another state
with the view to making them influence their government to bend to its goals. These channels
include formal access such as cable news, newspapers, press statements, slant stories, et
cetera; and informal access such as social network media, ICT devices, literature books,
music, and movies, through which a particular society imbibes and follows the will of another
society without
consciously realizing it. Summitry involves the periodical gathering of political leaders to
appraise issues or chart fresh course of relations. Bilateral summits involve two states;
multilateral summits are between several states or bodies such as international organizations
as the African Union, United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Alliance is the
strategic understanding and special relationship between two or more states for mostly
security and economic ends. Treaty is a pact or a formally documented agreement between
states on matters that can further or preserve their cause in the international community.

Economic instruments include sanctions, tariffs, trade, boycott, sabotage or subversion, and
embargo. Sanctions are punitive economic actions to compel a state to conform to
international law or the selfish ambitions of some powerful states. Nigeria under General Sani
Abacha encountered economic sanctions from Europe for its poor human rights records.
Mugabe of Zimbabwe also faced economic sanctions to compel him to improve on his human
rights conduct. Tariffs are import and export duties on goods that can be used (reduced or
increased) by a state to encourage or frustrate another state depending on the interest of the
former. Embargo refers to the outright refusal to buy or formal banning of goods from a
particular country for one political purpose or the other. Boycott is like embargo. It however
refers to the pulling out from an international trade with another state or other states.
Sabotage is a criminal act of subversion, which may involve the outright damaging of a
nation’s economic facility, goods, trade routes, et cetera.
Military instruments include war, exchange of military attaches, exchange of military
knowledge, shared capacity and joint actions (such as ECOWAS’ military actions in war-torn
Liberia and Sierra Leone and NATO’s involvement in Libya), and blockade. Blockade refers to
a military action that aims at cutting off an enemy state’s area, in part or totally, from
communication and supplies (food, water, relief and war materials). For instance, between
1810 and 1814 there was a total British blockade of the French Port of Toulon by its fleet to
punish France in the course of the conflict between the two countries.

Cultural instruments of policy are gaining momentum in current international politics. Cultural
instruments are much smoother means by which powerful states expand their reach and
influence in the world. It is the less hurtful form of propaganda and a component of informal
diplomacy. Wealthy states establish their cultural centres or villages and build educational
institutions in other countries (particularly the developing countries), and deploy cultural
officers to their embassies abroad, with the ultimate aim of spreading their national values. In
some cases, such wealthy states endow scholarships to be offered to fellows that will spend
some time in the academic environment of the donor nations. The cultural content of such
fellowship experience becomes valuable in meeting the national goals of the donors.

10. Balance of Power: This is a famous concept in realist literature. As a practice,

it was the currency of diplomacy after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, and it
dominated the foreign policy of Germany under Otto von Bismarck. It had to be a
common denominator in Europe in the 19th century so as to put paid to the
emergence and hegemony of another predatory state. The unsavoury experience of
the quick succession of the Holy Roman Empire and France under Napoleon was too
much to bear as it was still fresh in memory. In 1814 therefore, a movement began
aimed at “balancing power” among the powerful and preventing another single
dominant
power. From the Vienna Congress to the infamous “Concert”, “balance of power” gained
currency.

Balance of power is thus the theory that national security is guaranteed when military
capabilities are distributed in such a way that no single state strong enough to dominate or
threaten the security of others. The contention is that when there is a military hegemon
among states, it will take advantage of its strength on weaker ones, which makes it imperative
for weaker states to unite in a defencive coalition (Kegley, 2005). As such, there will be
relative stability in a potentially anarchic international system when there is equilibrium or
balance of power among potentially aggressive configurations.
The theory and practice of balance of power is evident in today’s international politics. It has
manifested in the idea of collective security put up by states and international organizations,
military alliances and security coalitions to tackle problems hindering world peace.

Level of Analysis Problem in IR

This simply refers to the critical junctures or arduous tasks faced in selecting the appropriate
analytical framework in IR analysis. Levels of analysis are categories of generalization or
abstraction to help understand the complex problems in international politics. There are three
main frameworks namely, individual, state and international levels of analysis. There is the
globalist framework still evolving at the moment. Each is distinct from the other, but yet each
can be used in explaining a particular set of phenomena. Where the problem lies however, is
that an analyst may be constrained by certain limitations inherent in each of these three
frameworks, or could be tempted to use more than one of them. When this happens, the
analysis is limited.

It is not apposite to use more than one, because each framework has its own merits and
comes with its own peculiar strands and conclusions. Using more than one will thus make the
analysis unwieldy and the conclusion, confusing. The state level of analysis for instance, is
commonplace in realist analyses while the individual and international or globalist frameworks
are the favourites of idealists. Now, let us briefly examine the level of analysis.

Individual: This is the level that holds moral principles of individuals may translate into that of
nations and form of government. The moral principles of Napoleon Bonaparte for instance,
transcended the French society as it became the political system of Continental Europe at a
point. Woodrow Wilson’s ideals became the core values for democratic governments and
indeed the international system from 1920. Today, democratic governments exist as moral
examples for other nations such as Africa, America. The individual level is often the strength
of analysts who refer to the behaviour and idiosyncrasies of, or events surrounding leaders as
transferrable outside national boundaries to create a chain reaction and global phenomenon.
Examples include
the murder of Austrian Crown-Prince Frantz Ferdinand and the First World War; Hitler’s
ambitions and the Second World War; Ojukwu’s sense of judgment and the Nigeria- Biafra
War; and Osama bin Ladin’s Islamist ideals and global terrorism as we have it today.

State: This is the unit level of analysis. It locates its explanation at the level of the state, rather
than the international system. Its argument begins with the fact that inter-national politics itself
bears the tag “nation” or state, and as such world politics is characterized by the behaviour of
(state) units, whose actions (national interests, national roles, national security, national
power, among other quests), determine the happenings in the global system. The inactions of
states (such as watching without intervening while the Rwandan Holocaust was going on)
could also shape international and the domestic politics of states. The unit level of analysis is
strengthened by the fact that all non-state actors (including even global organizations as the
UN) do not exist outside state boundaries. Further, such even work for the interest of
inter-sate peace, cooperation or mutual help. The state cannot be wished away. Even if
nothing else, the state gives accommodation to non-state actors, protects or shields them,
and grants visas to individuals and groups of such organizations. Hence, the state gives
political and legal expression to the non- state actors.

International: This is the level that holds that it is the nature of the international system that
determines the behaviour of states and the attitudes of leaders or governments. An instance
is drawn from Weber (2012) who argues that the central proposition of classical realism that
the relations between states are anarchic because of lack of a central power or world
government to maintain order and stability, is what Neorealists have built on, making anarchy
the logic of the international system. The anarchy of the international system thus becomes
compelling factor for states to pursue power and act amorally in the course of
self-preservation. Put differently, the structure of international politics is what compels states
to act in the international system. The theory implies that states no longer have a conscious
interest in forming foreign policy but that the best possible policy formulas are determined by
the structure of the anarchical system itself.

There are other levels of analysis as there are other schools of IR that have evolved over the
years, but which have not been mentioned in this chapter. The other schools of IR are
Neorealism and Neoidealism (both of which, incidentally use the international system level,
but with arguments), Marxism (which uses the class level), Marxism-Leninism, which uses the
finance capital level), and Constructivism or Post-Structuralism (text level of analysis).
Conclusion
IR is an exhaustive discipline that deals with a wide range of issues as they affect relations on
a global scale. We have however, been able to examine the basic issues and concepts that
are common denominators in most (if not all) of international politics. It is expected that
students and scholars of IR will regard and employ this as a glossary to guide them in
deepening their search for knowledge on world politics.

Note :
1. These are lecture notes to be
circulated after class.
2. Please use these points as a
framework to expand and add from
references.