Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Department of

Law, Indore
International Relations and World Politics Notes – Unit – 1

Table of Contents
Structures, institutions, and levels of analysis of International Relations..............................................2
Recent perspectives..........................................................................................................................3
Constructivism.................................................................................................................................3
Nation-State Theory..............................................................................................................................4
The Nation and the State...................................................................................................................4
Before the Nation State.....................................................................................................................5
History of the Nation State................................................................................................................5
Theories of Idealism and Realism..........................................................................................................5
(I) Idealism in International Relations: The Idealist Approach:..........................................................6
“A world full of human happiness is not beyond human power to achieve.” —Bertrand Russell.....6
Main Features of Idealism:................................................................................................................6
(B) Realism in International Relations or the Realist Approach:........................................................7
International Agreements.....................................................................................................................8
Colonialism..........................................................................................................................................10
 Structures, institutions, and levels of analysis of
International Relations
Since the 1970s the study of international relations has been marked by a renewed debate
about the relationship between structures and institutions in international systems. On one
side of the controversy was a revival of the school of realism, known as neorealism, which
emerged with the publication of Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics in 1979.
Neorealism represented an effort to inject greater precision, or conceptual rigour, into realist
theory. While retaining power as a central explanatory notion, Waltz’s neorealism also
incorporated the idea of structure as it is reflected in alliances and other cooperative
arrangements among states of varying sizes, strengths, and capabilities. A bipolar system, for
example, is a structure in which two states are dominant and the remaining states are allied
with one or the other dominant state. According to Waltz and other neorealists, the structure
of the international system limits the foreign-policy options available to states and influences
international institutions in important ways. The United Nations (UN), for example, mirrors
the structure of the existing international system insofar as it is dominated by leading powers
such as the permanent members of the Security Council. Changes in international structure,
including the rise of new powers, eventually lead to changes within international institutions.
Thus, some neorealists have suggested that the Security Council’s permanent membership
will eventually be expanded to include countries such as Germany, India, Japan, and others.

On the other side of the structures-institutions debate have been the neoliberal
institutionalists, who contend that institutions matter beyond simply reflecting or codifying
the power structure of the international system. Although neoliberal institutionalists accept
the realist conception of states as the principal actors in a fundamentally anarchic
environment, they argue that state behaviour can be modified by interaction with
international institutions such as the European Union (EU), NATO, the World Trade
Organization (WTO), and the UN. Such interaction, they contend, reduces the long-term
potential for international conflict.

Although neorealist structuralists and neoliberal institutionalists generally agree that

international cooperation is possible, neorealists are much more skeptical of its chances for
long-term success. According to neorealist logic, NATO should have dissolved in the 1990s
after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bipolar structure that had led to its formation.
Instead, NATO was transformed in the decade following the end of the Cold War, taking on
new tasks and responsibilities. This contradiction may be apparent, however, only because
such adaptation can be viewed as reinforcing the neorealist thesis that institutions reflect the
existing international structure: when that structure changes, they must change accordingly if
they are to survive. Thus, NATO was able to survive because it underwent a transformation.
At the same time, NATO’s adaptation reflects the neoliberal-institutionalist contention that
international organizations can modify national interests through the process of cooperation.
Thus, NATO countries have altered their policies to take account of the needs of other
members, and potential members have undergone rigorous internal reform in order to qualify
for membership. Consequently, each theory appears to offer useful insights, and both together
can form the basis of a unified approach to the relationship between structures and
institutions.
 Central to neorealist structural theory is the levels-of-analysis question—i.e., the question of
whether international inquiry should be focused at the individual, state, international-system,
or other level. Introduced in the 1950s as part of an attempt to make research in international
relations more scientific, the levels-of-analysis question provided a conceptual basis for
addressing issues such as the effect of structure (bipolar or multipolar) on the behaviour of
states or other units. At the same time, it offered a means of distinguishing between different
sources of explanation and different objects of analysis. Thus, assuming that the international
system shapes the options available to states as actors, it is plausible to suggest that the way
in which decision makers respond to such options depends on how they perceive them and on
the related opportunities and constraints created by domestic-level forces. In the 1980s this
perspective was reflected in the burgeoning literature on “democratic peace theory,” an
approach that President Wilson undoubtedly had in mind when he called on Congress to
support an effort “to make the world safe for democracy.” Democratic peace theorists
appealed to the internal characteristics of democratic states in order to explain why
democracies tend not to fight each other. According to them, the peaceful norms that
democratic states have developed for resolving differences with each other are an outgrowth
of their domestic traditions of law and order, compromise, due process, protection of
individual rights—including property rights and the right to freedom of speech—and an
independent judiciary. In The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study
of International Relations (1939), E.H. Carr contended that individuals’ interest in the
creation of a peaceful world could determine the foreign policies of democracies. A world
constituted entirely of democracies, according to this view, would be peaceful.

By the late 1990s neorealist structuralist theory had been supplemented, in what was termed
neoclassical realist theory, by explorations of the implications of structure, not just at the
international-system level but also at the state level and within the state at the individual and
group levels. Realist theory continued to be marked by major disagreements, however, a
situation that supporters claimed was a reflection of rich intellectual resources and that
detractors cited as an indication of fractured conceptual foundations. In any event, the
contemporary effort to update, refine, and broaden realist theory, as well as the ongoing
debate between neorealism and neoliberalism, may represent a trend toward a synthesis of the
various realist schools of thought.

Recent perspectives
Constructivism
In the late 20th century the study of international relations was increasingly influenced by
constructivism. According to this approach, the behaviour of humans is determined by their
identity, which itself is shaped by society’s values, history, practices, and institutions.
Constructivists hold that all institutions, including the state, are socially constructed, in the
sense that they reflect an “intersubjective consensus” of shared beliefs about political
practice, acceptable social behaviour, and values. In much the same way, the individual
members of the state or other unit continuously construct the reality about which policy
decisions, including decisions about war and peace and conflict and cooperation, are made.

Some constructivists contend that gender is socially constructed. On the basis of this thesis,
feminist theories of international relations have attempted to address the fundamental
question of the extent to which gender-based role differentiation is socially rather than
biologically determined. In so doing, they have sought to answer questions such as: Are men
more prone than women to aggressive, warlike behaviour? If gender roles are socially
constructed, then according to feminist theory it would be possible to reduce male
aggressiveness by changing beliefs or values regarding what it is to be male. On the other
hand, if aggression is the product of male biology, then such change becomes impossible, or
at least considerably more difficult.

Nation-State Theory
When we talk about the nation state, we are really talking about three separate things: the
nation, the state, and the nation state. Confused? Don't worry - you're not alone! Take a deep
breath and relax.

The nation state is a system of organization in which people with a common identity live
inside a country with firm borders and a single government. That wasn't so bad, right? But
what does it all mean? The nation state has a dramatic influence on the way we live our lives.
It's how we identify ourselves. I'm American. I'm Russian. I'm Antarctican. (Okay, that last
one isn't a thing.) It also determines what language we speak, what laws we follow, and what
holidays we celebrate. Cinco de Mayo? Boxing Day? Fourth of July? The nation state is a
system of political, geographic, and cultural organization, and it is one of the most important
parts of your life that you don't think about. The nation state is held together by its physical
boundaries, its government, and the fact that the people believe they are connected to each
other.

The Nation and the State

The fundamental parts of the nation state are the nation and the state. Let's start with the state.
In the broadest of terms, the state is a body of government. All the rules and laws, the
government officials and their titles, the physical boundaries and those who define them -
these make up the state. The state is what makes a country run from a political, practical
standpoint.

The nation, on the other hand, is the people. The nation is created by a shared belief that the
people inside a country are connected to each other. Whether you live in Cleveland, Denver,
or San Francisco, you still share a connection with other Americans. The idea that people of a
nation are connected to each other is called nationalism.

Nation states must also have a shared national culture. This is often achieved through
common language, history, holidays, and education. Sometimes national culture is a result of
similar people living in the same area. In the United States, the colonists began developing a
unique national culture, which led to them declaring war against England and creating their
own government and state.

On the other hand, sometimes the nation state begins as a government and later has to try and
create a national culture. For example, when Mexico became independent from Spain, the
country was too large and fragmented for the people to have developed a national culture.
There were dozens of different identities. It took nearly a century for the Mexican
government to develop a sense of 'Mexican-ness', or Mexicanidad in Spanish.
The government had to carefully, and intentionally, select the moments from history that all
Mexicans could unite around. They had to control language, education, and holidays to make
sure that all Mexicans celebrated the same national culture. Sometimes this meant violent
oppression of the people who weren't cooperating. However, the government knew that
without a national culture, the nation state had no real power, and it would fall back into war
and chaos.

Before the Nation State

There have been different kinds of states in history, other than the nation state. For example,
in 15th-century Italy, the independent body of government was centered on a city. These
were called city-states. City-states were based on the city, but their power extended beyond
the city limits and could change depending on other powers, resources, etc. The nation state,
by contrast, has a definite border where its power ends. The United States cannot enforce its
laws in Canada.

At one time, kingdoms and empires ruled over lots of very different people who did not see
themselves as united or sharing any sort of identity. The transition from kingdoms, empires,
and city-states into nation states did not happen everywhere in the world at the same time, or
in the same way.

History of the Nation State

Many historians debate the origins of the nation state. The historian Benedict Anderson,
author of Imagined Communities, argued that nation states began because of print media,
such as newspapers, when the rise in literacy and new technologies like the printing press
between 1500 and 1600 let people talk to each other in new ways. They discussed their
similarities and ideas through the press, and this meant that they had to share a common
language. They began to form the early versions of national identities. Anderson's argument
is still the most commonly held belief by historians.

However, other scholars have also noted that the early nation states coincided with new map-
making technologies from the age of exploration and discovery in the 1500s, when European
merchants began sailing around the world for the first time. Better maps and technology to
move people and goods changed the way that people, particularly rulers, understood
boundaries and borders.

Theories of Idealism and Realism

Idealism (Idealist Approach) and Realism (Realist Approach) have been two competing
traditional approaches, each of which wants recognition as the sound approach to the study of
international relations. Each advocates a particular view of the totality of international reality
and believes that it can be adopted as the means for understanding and explaining all aspects
of international relations. Both of these represent the classical tradition of the study of
international relations. Both Idealism and Realism are normative approaches in essence and
content.
 The Idealist Approach holds that old, ineffective and harmful modes of behaviour i.e., war,
use of force and violence should be abandoned in favour of new ways and means as
determined by knowledge, reason, compassion and self-restraint.

The Realist Approach regards international politics as struggle for power among nations and
justifies as natural the attempts of a nation to use national power for securing the goals of its
national interest. It rejects the Idealist Approach as a Utopian approach. In fact both Idealism
and Realism are opposed and competing approaches and each offers a particular view of
international relations.

(I) Idealism in International Relations: The Idealist

Approach:
Idealism stands for improving the course of international relations by eliminating war,
hunger, inequality, tyranny, force, suppression and violence from international relations. To
remove these evils is the objective before humankind. Idealism accepts the possibility of
creating a world free from these evils by depending upon reason, science and education.

“Political idealism in international relations represents a set of ideas which together oppose
war and advocate the reform of international community through dependence upon moral
values and the development of international institutions and international law.”

“A world full of human happiness is not beyond human

power to achieve.” —Bertrand Russell
Idealist approach derives strength from the general idea of evolutionary progress in society
and the spirit of liberal idealism which was at the back of American policies, particularly
during the inter-war years. During the inter-war years (1919-39), the U.S. President
Woodrow Wilson became its most forceful exponent.

The Idealist Approach advocates morality as the means for securing the desired objective of
making the world an ideal world. It believes that by following morality and moral values in
their relations, nations can not only secure their own development, but also can help the
world to eliminate war, inequality, despotism, tyranny, violence and force.

“For the idealists, politics is the art of good government and not the art of possible. Politics
provides for the good life and respect for his fellow humans, both domestically and
internationally.” —Couloumbis and Wolfe

As such Idealism advocates the need for improving relations among nations by removing the
evils present in the international environment.

Main Features of Idealism:

1. Human nature is essentially good and capable of good deeds in international relations.

2. Human welfare and advancement of civilization are the concerns of all.

 3. Bad human behaviour is the product of bad environment and bad institutions.

4. By reforming the environment, bad human behaviour can be eliminated.

5. War represents the worst feature of relations.

6. By reforming international relations, war can be and should be eliminated.

7. Global efforts are needed to end war, violence and tyranny from international relations.

8. International community should work for eliminating such global instruments, features and
practices which lead to war.

9. International institutions committed to preserve international peace, international law and

order should be developed for securing peace, prosperity and development.

The main supporters of idealism have been Mahatma Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, Woodrow
Wilson, Aldous Huxley, William Ladd, Richard Cobben, Margret Mead, and others. They
strongly oppose the realist view of international politics as struggle for power and national
interest and advocate the use of reason, education and science for securing reforms in
relations and for eliminating war and other evils from international relations.

(B) Realism in International Relations or the Realist

Approach:
Political Realism stands associated with the names of Max Weber, E.H. Carr, Frederick
Schuman, Nicholas Spykman, Reinhold Niebuhr, Arnold Wolfers, Kenneth Thompson,
George F. Kennan, Hans J. Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger and several others. Realist
Approach follows a power view of international relations.

Political Realism:

Realism regards politics as struggle for power and seeks to explain it with the help of such
factors as power, security and national interest. Power is defined as a psychological
relationship in which one actor is able to control the behaviour of another actor. A political
actor is one who always seeks to secure one’s interests as defined in terms of power. Political
realism further regards prudence as the guide in politics.

Couloumbis and Wolfe explain the basic feature of Realism and observe, “to act rationally
(that is, to act in one’s interest) is to seek power, i.e., to have ability and willingness to
control others.”

Key Features of Political Realism:

1. History gives evidence that humanity is by nature sinful and wicked.

2. Lust for power and dominance has been a major, all important and all pervasive fact of
human nature.
 3. Human instinct for power cannot be eliminated.

4. Struggle for power is the incontrovertible and eternal reality of international relations.

5. Each nation always seeks to secure the goals of national interest defined in term of power.

6. Self-preservation is the law that governs the behaviour of all the states at all times.

7. Nations always seek power, demonstrate power and use power.

8. Peace can be preserved only by management of power through such devices as Balance of
Power, Collective Security, World Government, Diplomacy, Alliances and the like.

“The basic assumption underlying the realist approach,” holds Dr. Mohinder Kumar, “is that
rivalry and strife among nations in some form or the other is natural and not a mere accident.”

Acting in pursuit of interests is political. It has its roots in human nature. To seek power in
pursuit of one’s interests is to follow the basic dictates of the “laws” of nature. It is the
highest moral and legal principle. It is a pragmatic and valid principle which can help the
understanding of the whole of international relations and the formulation and implementation
of policies designed to secure one’s national interest. Realism offers a realistic and holistic
view of total international reality. Hans Morgenthau has offered a realistic theory of
international politics, which, according to him, can explain the whole matrix of politics
among nations. He is the most popular of all the realists of our times.

International Agreements
International agreements are formal understandings or commitments between two or more
countries. An agreement between two countries is called “bilateral,” while an agreement
between several countries is “multilateral.” The countries bound by an international
agreement are generally referred to as “States Parties.”

Under international law, a treaty is any legally binding agreement between states (countries).
A treaty can be called a Convention, a Protocol, a Pact, an Accord, etc.; it is the content of the
agreement, not its name, which makes it a treaty. Thus, the Geneva Protocol and the
Biological Weapons Convention are both treaties even though neither has the word “treaty”
in its name. Under U.S. law, a treaty is specifically a legally binding agreement between
countries that requires ratification and the “advice and consent” of the Senate. All other
agreements (treaties in the international sense) are called Executive Agreements, but are
nonetheless legally binding for the U.S. under international law.

A treaty is negotiated by a group of countries, either through an organization set up for that
specific purpose, or through an existing body such as the United Nations (UN) Council for
Disarmament. The negotiation process may take several years, depending on the topic of the
treaty and the number of countries participating. After negotiations are finished, the treaty is
signed by representatives of the governments involved. The terms may require that the treaty
be ratified as well as signed before it becomes legally binding. A government ratifies a treaty
by depositing an instrument of ratification at a location specified in the treaty; the instrument
of ratification is a document containing a formal confirmation that the government consents
 to the terms of the treaty. The ratification process varies according to the laws and
Constitutions of each country. In the U.S., the President can ratify a treaty only after getting
the “advice and consent” of two thirds of the Senate.

Unless a treaty contains provisions for further agreements or actions, only the treaty text is
legally binding. Generally, an amendment to a treaty is only binding to the states that have
ratified the amendment, and agreements reached at review conferences, summits, or meetings
of the states parties are politically but not legally binding. An example of a treaty that does
have provisions for further binding agreements is the UN Charter. By signing and ratifying
the Charter, countries agreed to be legally bound by resolutions passed by UN bodies such as
the General Assembly and the Security Council. Thus, UN resolutions are legally binding on
UN Member States, and no signature or ratification is necessary.

Some multilateral agreements set up an international organization for a specific purpose or a

variety of purposes. They may therefore be referred to as constituent agreements. The United
Nations Charter (1945) is both a multilateral treaty and the constituent instrument of the
United Nations. An example of a regional agreement that operates as a constituent agreement
is the charter of the Organization of American States (Charter of Bogotá), which established
the organization in 1948. The constitution of an international organization may be part of a
wider multilateral treaty. The Treaty of Versailles (1919), for example, contained in Part I the
Covenant of the League of Nations and in Part XIII the constitution of the International
Labour Organisation.

The term supranational is of recent origin and is used to describe the type of treaty structure
developed originally by six western European states: France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The first treaty was that of Paris, signed in 1951,
establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC); the second, the Rome treaty,
signed in 1957, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC); the third, the Rome
treaty of the same date establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). A
clause in the ECSC treaty provides for the complete independence of the members of the
executive organ from the governments that appoint them.

Treaties, however, are not the only instruments by which international agreements are
concluded. There are single instruments that lack the formality of a treaty called agreed
minute, memorandum of agreement, or modus vivendi; there are formal single instruments
called convention, agreement, protocol, declaration, charter, covenant, pact, statute, final act,
general act, and concordat (the usual designation for accords with the Holy See); finally there
are less formal agreements consisting of two or more instruments, such as “exchange of
notes” or “exchange of letters.”

In the absence of an international legislature, the multilateral treaty is the chosen instrument
for adapting international law to changing circumstances brought about by rapid
technological developments and the ever-growing interdependence of nations.

Despite the extreme diversity of international agreements, it is possible to classify them

according to the functions that they serve in international society. Three such broad functions
may be discerned; namely, the development and codification of international law, the
establishment of new levels of cooperation and integration between states, and the resolution
of actual and potential international conflict.
 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties contains a compromissory clause (whereby
participants agree to submit disputes to arbitration or the International Court of Justice) for
certain types of disputes and a procedure of conciliation for others. The resistance of states to
compulsory arbitration or adjudication is indicative of their limited commitment to universal
integration through the rule of law. In this respect the European Economic Community is an
exception, providing as it does for the compulsory settlement of disputes arising under the
three constituent treaties by the Court of Justice, which is open even to individuals. It may be
noted that western Europe was the cradle of nationalism and the doctrine of the sovereignty
of states. Now it may have become the cradle of supranational integration.

Colonialism
Study this topic from the power point presentation shared by me.