Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Relations
International Relations
Definition
One can better define International Relations if one clarifies in which aspect it is required to be
defined. International Relations is beyond a comprehensive definition because of its multi-
dimensional approaches. Scholars however devised their own kinds of definitions depicting the
sense in which they take IR.
"International Relations is the objective and systematic study of international life in all its
aspects."
This is a relatively general definition yet beyond the width of International Relations as a
discipline.
IR in its very first sense “Name of the relationships between the nation states of the world”.
The internationality is subject matter of the discipline. Modern nation state system evolved from
the Peace of Westphalia Treaty signed in 1648. Today, in the complex structure of world states
working on varying ideologies, International Relations helps to study them in a unanimity of
thought.
Scope of International Relations
Another merit as well as demerit of this discipline is that it has no boundaries of its scope. It is
merit in the sense of provision of absolute opportunity to man to make research on the daily
changing international relations. It is demerit as the discipline fails to give itself a concrete shape
and outline. But still keeping in view the aspects studied in the International Relations till now,
we will try to elaborate its scope. Following points will prove helpful in this regard;
IR studies relations between states in their political and economic prospects primarily.
IR covers the realm of 'foreign affairs' in all its dimensions.
IR deals with the recording and studying of International History with the aim to find out the
basis of states' relations in the past.
IR studies International Law in the context of how international rules define and govern the
relations between states.
IR embodies its scope with the inclusion of not only states but also the non-state actors in
international relations.
IR deals with the international events of;
War
Peace
Nuclear world
International political economy
Globalization
International institutions
Conflicts among states
Foreign policy and decision making
National powers and interests
Conclusion
International Relations has a wider scope. The points elaborated above as its scope are not final.
This discipline broadens its scope with the changing events of the world and new dynamics of
international relations. It is a subject along with being a practical course adopted by nations of
the world and the international institutions.
Realism
Realism is the approach of International Relations that works as anti - thesis to Liberalism.
Realism focuses on the more realistic, power oriented and state centric principles that play
important role in international relations. Realism lays emphasis upon gaining national power to
pursue national interests at all costs.
Proponents of Realism Approach
Among the classic proponents of Realism, also regarded as its founders, following names fall;
Nicolo Machiavelli
Thomas Hobbes
Clausewitz
Modern scholars that favor Realism as a better approach in International Relations are;
Hans Morgenthau
George F. Kenan
E. H. Carr
Origin of Realism as Approach of International Relations
Formal origin and incorporation of Realism as an approach in the International Relations was
seen at the end of the Second World War. Liberalism failed in all its utopian schemes to bring
peace to the world. States fought another Total War. Following that the approach of Realism
sought grounds. If seen in the distant past, Realism finds its origin in writings of Machiavelli as
well as Thomas Hobbes.
Fundamental Postulates of Realism
Following were the fundamental postulates drafted by various scholars under the umbrella of
Realism;
There exists international anarchy.
States are the principal actors in international relations.
States pursue national interests.
States tend to accumulate national power.
States strengthen the means of their survivals.
National power and national interests determine the relations between states.
States need to compete each other for seeking relative gains in the international realm.
War is an option in the international relations.
Realism and Six Principles of Hans Morgenthau
Hans Morgenthau's Six principles of Realism are taken as eminent work in this field of
International Relations. His six principles give the ideas of;
National power
State centrism
National interests
Autonomy
Survival
Beyond morality approach of state
Criticism on Realism as Theoretical Approach of International Relations
Realism is criticized for its extreme emphasis on state centrism, power grabbing and national
interests at the costs of world peace. The theory is realistic but leads the world states into an
anarchic position where everyone is at war against the other. It does not eliminate war as an
option in the international relations.
Conclusion
International Relations seeks Realism as among the influential classical approaches. Realism
talks about the aboriginal and realistic basis of international relations. It is criticized for its
extreme version but the theory completely rejects the utopian postulates of idealism. Realism
does not take cooperation as an option because according to its proponents, world is anarchic
where intense competition is inevitable to maintain national power.
Neo-Realism
'Neo' means new or the latest. Neo-Realism is more refined and advanced strand of Realism.
Neo-Realism unlike the original Realism is more moderate form in International Relations.
Origin of Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism originated in latter part of 1970s. It was the reactionary product of Neo-Liberalism
which once again posed serious threat to the Realist idea of state centrism. It was the work of
Kenneth Waltz with the title of 'Theory of International Politics' which gave birth to neo-
realism.
Exponent of Neo-Realism
Among the modern exponents of neo-realism the name of Kenneth Waltz echoes. He is regarded
as founder of this theoretical approach in the International Relations. Waltz sticking to the
traditional ideas of Realism, infuses a new spirit in this approach by not utterly rejecting the
possibilities of cooperation among the states of the world.
Postulates of Neo-Realism
Postulates of new-realism are the same as that of realism. They differ in a few points which are
explained as following;
There exists international anarchy which serves as basis of international relations rather than
the Human nature of violence.
World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in international
relations.
There exists Security Dilemma in international relations. States accumulate power for their
security and survival which leads most of them into a race of armament and militarization.
Possibilities of cooperation between the states need not to be overlooked when they are
serving the interests of a state.
It is not the cooperation however but the 'Balance of Power' that actually prevent the states
from large scale war.
Criticism on Neo-Realism Theory of International Relations
Neo-Realism is criticized on the account of following points;
Still the theory is extreme and regards state as the sole actors of international relations.
It admits cooperation now but it has not yet rejected war as an option.
Focuses on national power and national interests of a state which actually undermine the
possibilities for cooperation.
The theory of Neo-Realism gives a mixed vision not a clear cut one. It is not inclined on a
single side.
Conclusion
Neo-Realism is actually the reaction to the action posed by Neo-Liberalism. The theory has not
given up the basic postulates of Realism but it is still moderate as compared to its original
version. Neo-Realism is brainchild of Kenneth Waltz who believed neither in extreme liberalism
not in extreme realism. As a consequence, he devised a middle way to meet the ideals in
international relations.
Neo-Liberalism
Neo-liberalism emerged to be the modern strand of liberalism in the realm of theoretical
International Relations. This approach just like its previous aboriginal strand believes in
rationality of human nature and international cooperation. But unlike its aboriginal form, neo-
liberalism is moderate and less extreme.
Origin of Neo-Liberalism as Theoretical Approach in IR
Origin of neo-liberalism in International Relations was both the result of changing world
circumstances and need of the evolving discipline of International Relations. Even more than
these two points, neo-liberalism originated to revive the dead approach of liberalism.
It was 1960s which is seen as the decade when neo-liberalism took birth. Its origin was catalyzed
by the declining oomph of realism.
Since after the collapse of liberalism as first hand approach of international relations, realism
was holding firm grip on the world order. Neo-Liberalism defied the system of state centrism and
intense competition bringing forth cooperation as the best option in economic and political terms.
Various Aspects of Neo - Liberalism
Neo-Liberalism can be understood in various aspects it brought. These are explained below;
A. Neo Liberal Internationalism
The core assumption of this aspect of neo-liberalism is that the liberal democratic states of the
world don't war against each other. This ensures peace and prosperity at global level.
B. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
This strand of neo-liberal institutionalism though believes in cooperation but in one aspect it
shares commonality with the Realism. It concurs to the point of realism that states are the
principal actors and institutions in the international relations.
But instead of seeing this thing in terms of competition in anarchic world, neo-liberal
institutionalism focuses on ensuring prospects of cooperation.
Neo-Liberalism and Idealism
Neo-Liberalism gives a different scheme to regulate the international affairs as compared to
idealism. The theory of idealism that took birth after the First World War was taken as utopian
way to deal with international relations. It was impracticable.
Neo-Liberalism does not represent utopian and impracticable schemes. It accepts the primary
role of states in world affairs but suggests them to work with cooperation.
Criticism on Neo-Liberalism
Realists attack neo-liberalism again with the traditional mantra of not being a realistic approach
in understanding the global affairs. For the proponents of Feminism this is again among the
theories that carry nothing remarkable to ensure women empowerment. Marxists consider it as a
tool of the Western powers being exploited to deal both the developing and the developed states
under the same but unfair mechanisms.
Feminist Theory
Feminism is a non-traditional and modern theory of International Relations. The theory
highlighted the aspects of international relations from the point of view of women of the world.
The theory propounds how this gender has been sidelined in deciding international relations
despite being its direct victim every time. Feminism is the broadest example of an effort for
women empowerment.
Origin of Feminism as Theory of International Relations
Origin of Feminism is actually the consequence of several world conferences convened to
empower women across the globe. Some of the prominent conferences that played role in this
regard are;
Mexico Women's Conference 1975
Copenhagen Women's Conference 1980
Nairobi Women's Conference 1985
Convention on Elimination of All Kinds of Discriminations against Women 1979
These conferences highlighted the rights of women along with the need to empower them and
give them a share in deciding international affairs.
International Endorsement of Women's Rights
Following the conferences mentioned above, international community endorsed the rightful
demands of women. The United Nations declared the years from 1976 to 1985 as 'Decade for
Women'. Similarly, the year 1975 was marked as the 'International Women's Year'.
Core Points of Feminism as a Theory
Feminism laid down following reservations upon the contemporary world order;
World order is in fact male dominated.
National interest is always multi-dimensional but is defined by masculinity.
Women have always remained hidden in international relations.
Women are direct victims of male dominated decision making in international relations.
War is decided by men but women suffer.
Efficacy of Feminism
Feminism is right in its reservations but it is utopian scheme. It is not practicable to secure the
share for women in international relations in a way as demanded. Feminism just like World
System Theory explains one dimensional aspect of international relations. Though there is a vast
change observable today in the status of women in world. They have been empowered greatly.
But there are cultural, social and historical barriers to enhance their role in international relations
that are difficult to overcome.
Another point which proves that women are now more active in international relations more than
they were in the past is that they can be seen as heads of the states, chief diplomats, ambassadors,
head of delegations at UN.
Conclusion
Feminist theory is more a reservation than an explanation how international relations are
regulated. It rarely gives any clear cut mechanism to regulate international relations. It has
however helped in empowering women.
National Interest
National interest is a tricky topic of modern International Relations. It is something taken as an
impetus behind every state action relative to another state. National Interest serves as the
determinant of state's foreign policy along with depicting the nature and policies of political
government ruling the state.
Defining National Interest
It is a common perception that national interest has no concrete and definite words that can
define it absolutely. It is a fluid aspect of International Relations. The definition of national
interest lacks universality because the national interest is not shared common by all states.
Secondly, there are the factors which determine national interest of a state for a specific period of
time. These factors also vary from state to state.
But in a very safe and simplest attempt to define national interest following words can be used;
"National Interest is the name of those goals and objectives of a state which are pursued to seek
the maximum benefit in a given set of circumstances".
Fluidity of National Interest
National interest lacks definite outlook. The variables which prevent national interest from
seeking a concrete shape are following;
Varying circumstances
Different state ideologies
Major changes in the World Order
These variables make states to review their national interests from time to time and alter their
course of action then.
Link Between National Interest and Foreign Policy
National interest is closely linked to the foreign policy of a state. As foreign policy is determined
and drafted keeping in view the national interest. Relations of one state with another state are
nothing more than their interests attached to each other's. In Foreign policy a state pursues its
national interest.
Determinants of National Interest
Along with the variables mentioned above, national interest is determined by following
elements;
State's geo - strategic position
Political traditions
Goals and manifestoes of political parties
History of the state
Survival - The Chief Aim of National Interest
Among the several aims and goals of the national interest of a state, survival stands to be the first
one. All other interests come after a state has ensured survival. Other aims of national interest
can be economic, political and diplomatic oriented.
Ways to Pursue National Interest
National interest is pursued through different ways. In the modern world of the nation - state
system, national interest is pursued chiefly by 'Diplomacy'. It is the legitimate art of forwarding
state's foreign policy towards other states. In this way actually national interest is pursued.
Ways to pursue other than diplomacy can be use of influence, making alliances, concluding
agreements and treaties. Illegitimate ways might include the use of force against the other state
or interfering in its internal matters with the help of non - state actors.
Conclusion
National interest is understood in wider sense. It is mostly long term policy. The reason behind
the presence of complexity in understanding national interest is also that we take it in shorter
term as something imminently achievable and based on unchangeable principles. But in fact it is
contrary to that.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a modern day aspect of the International Relations. It is actually linked with the
aboriginal concept of the nation - state system. Before the origin of the nation state system, the
idea of sovereignty was vague. Later it evolved gradually to assume the contemporary
manifestation.
Defining Sovereignty
Sovereignty is defined in terms of 'unrestricted and unlimited authority of a state within its
territory and on its population'. In another meaning of sovereignty, it is taken as the supremacy
of state. This supremacy is meant to control and command everything inferior to it.
Sovereignty as Element of State
Modern nation state has four essential elements as defined in the 'Montevideo Convention on
Duties and Rights of States';
Population
Territory
Government
Sovereignty
Sovereignty as an element of state is the most important one in abstract sense. Without
sovereignty the idea of population and territory can be perceived but the idea of government
control on both these things remains impossible. So, sovereignty is actually the name of that
control as well which government being the working agency of state exercise over its people.
Various Dimensions of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is understood in different dimensions or types. Some are explained below;
A. Domestic Sovereignty
Domestic sovereignty means that the state is sovereign to rule over and decide for all the internal
matters within its territory or related to its population.
B. Interdependence Sovereignty
Interdependence sovereignty means that state shall have control the international boundaries it
shares with the neighboring states. No one is permitted to cross the borders of the state without
due permission.
C. International Legal Sovereignty
This sovereignty is linked to the recognition of other sovereign states which have fulfilled the
criteria of being the nation states.
Exclusivity and Absoluteness in Sovereignty
Exclusiveness and Absoluteness are two important features of sovereignty. Exclusivity means
that the state is sovereign excluding all other agents that may tend to exercise control. In simple
terms it excludes these agents from sharing state's sovereignty.
Absoluteness of sovereignty of state means that the supremacy and authority of state is absolute
and final. It will govern not only all the geographical parts of the country but also decide for the
people. This feature makes the modern nation state as central institute of power.
Internal & External Sovereignty
Internal sovereignty deals with the internal affairs of a state. This idea is most of the time also
linked with the concept of legitimacy of government. The way in which a government is elected
to exercise internal sovereignty is an important aspect.
External sovereignty is the name of maintaining relations of a sovereign power with the other
states of the world. It is not the supremacy of one state over another but the way in which
relations between states are to be maintained on equal footing.
Conclusion
Sovereignty is an abstract element of state which is also the most important one. Sovereignty is
the actual thing which works as the soul of modern nation state.
Balance of Power
Balance of power is the classical realist concept that preserved peace of the pre - world wars
world. It is concept that marks its practical implementation in 18th century. In the contemporary
world, balance of power theory has little role to play but it cannot be ignored utterly due to its
historic role. Even during the Cold War, a balance of power was present between the two Super
Powers which prevented from escalation of any conflict to the total war.
Defining Balance of Power
It has been noted that unlike most of the topics of international relations which lack concrete
definitions, 'Balance of Power' is actually the one which has multiple interpretations. In simple
terms, Balance of Power refers to 'the mechanism which the states adopt in order to maintain a
certain level of equilibrium in their relative powers'.
Balance of Power as a General Social Principle
International Relations' Realist Morgenthau see the 'Balance of Power' as a general social
principle. According to this perspective, 'Balance of Power' exists among states just as it exists
among individuals in society to maintain the social peace and equilibrium.
Pre - Requisites of 'Balance of Power'
Balance of power requires following essentials;
Multiple nation states
International anarchy
Varying degrees of powers distributed among the states
Requirement for bringing an equilibrium
Tools of 'Balance of Power'
Balance of power is not naturally present in the world order. It has to be achieved by the world
states utilizing one or the other method. Some major tools or techniques of achieving balance of
power are elaborated as following;
A. Alliances & Counter Alliances
This is the chief way to maintain or bring balance of power. In the 18th century world and also
during the Cold War, balance of power was kept by establishing Alliances. A common example
is 'NATO' & 'Warsaw' during the Cold War. Both the alliances, each led by rival superpower,
maintained a level of balance between them.
B. Buffer States
These are the states which geographically work as barrier between two or more rivals. For
instance, Afghanistan has been a buffer state between British held Indian colony and the Soviet
Union. Similarly, Tibet served as buffer states between India and China.
C. Armament and Militarization
Armament and militarization by one nation leads the rival states to do the same. This maintains
balance of power between them. India and Pakistan present this type of case. Both the states
maintain a level of deterrence through militarization and nuclear armament.
D. Disarmament
During Cold War, particularly in its later part, rapid disarmament agreements were concluded
between the US and the USSR. These agreements were like SALT, NPT at global level, etc.
These helped to restore balance of power by reducing dreadful arms.
E. Intervention
Intervention is also an option to bring balance of power. The US & USSR' interventions in
Korean war, Vietnam war are its examples. Both the powers maintained balance of power
between them by fighting proxy wars at foreign lands.
Conceptualization of Security in 21st Century
Balance of Power is anachronism in the 21st century which is dominated by the nation states that
see their national interests and national powers as chief aims. Thus, intense competition exists in
anarchic world. Balance of power was not appropriate to bring peace to the 21st century world.
Due to its inadequacy and uncertainty it was needed to be replaced by something more reliable.
Perceiving the Idea of Security in 21st Century
21st century is witnessing the nation states in their evolved shapes. International community is
stronger than ever before in the chaotic world history. But the risks of conflicts among states are
never eliminated absolutely. It is part of realistic world. In 21st century these risks might be less
but dangerous than ever. This is because international community is strong but several states
have weaponized themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Thus, maintaining peace in this
scenario is critical and needs proper mechanisms.
'Collective Security' as Core Concept of World Peace in 21st Century
The idea of 'Collective Security' replaced 'Balance of Power' in 21st century. This core concept
of security is different from its preceding formula.
A. What is Collective Security?
Collective Security can be defined as the 'the collective or joint mechanisms adopted and
pursued by the international community to fight aggression and the aggressor in order to
maintain international peace'.
B. Principle behind the Concept of Collective Security
The principle behind the concept of Collective Security is that 'all the states must be joining
hands to fight against the aggression. Attack against one states shall be taken as an attack against
all states'.
C. How to Achieve Collective Security?
Collective security can be achieved by pursuing the ways mentioned below;
Aggressor state is needed to be identified in a combat
All other states shall work jointly to contain or defeat the aggressor
Aggressor shall be either made to surrender or defeated
Arrangements shall be made in future to bring the aggressor state into mainstream
Effectiveness of Collective Security
Effectiveness of 'Collective Security' depends completely upon the eagerness of states to play
their respective roles in this regard. More the willing states would be the more effective
Collective Security can be perceived.
Collective Security & The League of Nations
League of Nations established on the principle of collective security failed in its mission due to
inappropriate and nationalistic approach of certain states like Germany, Italy, France. It carried
the principles to preserve the world peace which collapsed after the Great Depression and finally
led world to Second Great War of the century.
Rising China
Effective yet Peaceful Rise
Keeping itself abreast with the commandments of Mao Zedong and the necessities of the
transforming world, China is rising effectively yet peacefully.
Unipolar World
End of Cold War cemented a unipolar world with the USA as its sole hegemon who had
technological, economic and military powers not better than anyone else but everyone else.
Being the superpower of the world, the USA practiced influence in Europe, Middle East and to
some extent South East Asia.
Superpower in-Waiting
In the wake of rapid economic development and enhanced trade, the realists of international
arena began to call China as the 'superpower-in-waiting'. But this was not the belief shared by all
of them.
Former American Secretary of the State 'Henry Kissinger' calls the Chinese rise as nothing more
than a 'psychological impact'.
US-China Comparison
Militarily China has the world's largest number of soldiers but this in no way surpasses the US
military might. The tactics, weapons and aircraft technology and the experience of unilaterally
directing the world order make US superior even now. Regarding the economy, US still has the
GDP of over 17 trillion as compared to the Chinese GDP of 11 trillion according to the statics
taken a previous year.
Transforming World and Chinese
The world is facing a change in alliances and interests. China though not overtake the USA very
soon but it's not far away as well. According to various predictions, China will be the
superpower within next 50 years or even a bit longer. The country has begun to show its
presence in South China Sea, South Asia and Africa either through trade or other hegemonic
designs.
Afghan War
9/11 & Invasion of Afghanistan
Following the September 11 Al-Qaeda led attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the then
American President G. W. Bush launched the 'Operation Enduring Freedom' along with its allies
to root out the said militant organization which was then being hosted by 'Taliban Government'
in Afghanistan.
Allies of Afghan War on Terror
Primarily the militarily powerful member states of NATO and then UN Security Council
sanctioned 'International Security Assistance Force' led all the war operations in Afghanistan.
The 'Northern Alliance' of Tajiks of Afghanistan backed the US operations. A new government
was also installed.