INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

 
I. THE NOTION OF A SYSTEM
 A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction.
 International relations It is the global constellation of states. The term is commonly applied to the international
systems of the Twentieth century and can equally be applied to preindustrial international state system.
 The international system – the distinct realm created by the interaction of the 193 plus mutually exclusive,
territorial ‘states’ that organize the globe politically – plays a central, foundational and legitimating role in and
for the discipline of International Relations (IR).
 State is the fundamental unit of International System.
 It is composed of states and non-state actors and their interrelationships/interaction.
 In international relations states are considered subsystems, or components, of the entire international system.
In analyzing the international system, researchers often posit distinct political, economic, cultural, and social
subsystems.
 Although interactions between states have varied over time, by the latter decades of the 20th century they had
become global in scope and unprecedented in their number and in the types of actors they involved. The
volume, velocity, and types of interaction had expanded to include not only the greater movement of people
but also trade, investment, ideas, and information—all of which were shaped by technology.

 In the 1950s, the behavioral revolution in the social sciences and growing acceptance of political realism in
international relations led scholars to conceptualize international politics as a system, using the language of
systems theory.
II. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO REALISTS
 All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority exists above the state, which is
sovereign. Each state must therefore look out for its own interests above all.
 Polarity: system polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in the international system.
There are three types of polarity:
1. Multipolarity: if there are a number of influential actors in the international system, a balance-of-
power or multipolar system is formed.
1. In a balance-of-power system, the essential norms of the system are clear to each of the state
actors. In classical balance of power, the actors are exclusively states and there should be at
least five of them.
2. If an actor does not follow these norms, the balance-of-power system may become unstable.
When alliances are formed, they are formed for a specific purpose, have a short duration, and
shift according to advantage rather than ideology.
2. Bipolarity: in the bipolar system of the Cold War, each of the blocs (the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, or NATO, and the Warsaw Pact) sought to negotiate rather than fight, to fight minor
wars rather than major ones, and to fight major wars rather than fail to eliminate the rival bloc.
1. Alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting, interests.
 2. In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop or are ineffective.
In a looser system, international organizations may develop primarily to mediate between the
two blocs.
3. Hegemony: one state that commands influence in the international system.
1. Immediately after the Gulf War in 1991, many states grew concerned that the international
system had become unipolar, with no effective counterweight to the power of the United
States.
 System Management and Stability: Realists do not agree among themselves on how polarity matters.
o Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, since neither uncommitted states nor
international organizations are able to direct the behavior of either of the two blocs. Informal
regulation may be easier.
o Kenneth Waltz argues that the bipolar system is the most stable structure in the long run because there
is a clear difference in the amount of power held by the two poles as compared to that held by the rest
of the state actors.
o John Mearsheimer suggests that the world will miss the stability and predictability that the Cold War
forged. He argues that more conflict pairs would develop and hence more possibilities for war.
o Theoretically, in multipolar systems, the regulation of system stability ought to be easier than in
bipolar systems. Under multipolarity, numerous interactions take place among all the various parties,
and thus there is less opportunity to dwell on a specific relationship or respond to an arms buildup by
just one party in the system.
o Advocates of unipolarity, known as hegemonic stability theorists, claim that unipolarity leads to the
most stable system. Paul Kennedy argues that it was the hegemony of Britain in the nineteenth century
and that of the United States after World War II that led to the greatest stability. When the hegemon
loses power and declines, then system stability is jeopardized.
o The international system of the twenty-first century is confronted by a unique problem: the United
States dominates both militarily and economically. What are the implications of such a world? Will it
lead to international peace?
 Realists and International System Change
o Changes in either the number of major actors or the relative power relationship among the actors may
result in a change in the international system. Wars are usually responsible for changes in power
relationships.
o An example of a system change occurred at the end of World War II. The war brought the demise of
Great Britain and France, and signaled an end to Germany’s and Japan’s imperial aspirations. The
United States and Soviet Union emerged into dominant positions; the multipolar world had been
replaced by a bipolar one.
o Robert Gilpin sees another form of change, where states act to preserve their own interests and
thereby change the system. Such changes occur because states respond at different rates to political,
economic, and technological developments.
o Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system. Advances in technology not only have
expanded the boundaries of accessible geographic space, but also brought about changes in the
boundaries of the international system. With these changes came an explosion of new actors.
o Nuclear warfare has had more of an impact of on the international system more than any other
technological change. Although these weapons have not been used since 1945, the weapons remain
much feared, and efforts by nonnuclear states to develop such weapons, or threat to do so, has met
sharp resistance. The nuclear states do not want a change in the status quo and do not want them in the
hands of rogue states.
 o In the view of realists, international systems can change, yet the inherent bias among realist
interpretations is for continuity.
III. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO LIBERALS
 The international system is not central to the view of liberals. Thus, there are three different conceptions of the
international system:
o Not as a structure but as a process, in which multiple interactions occur among different parties and
where various actors learn from the interaction.
1. Actors include, not only states, but also international governmental organizations,
nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, and substate actors.
2. Each actor has interactions with all of the other ones. Thus, a great many national interests
define the system, including economic and social issues and not just security.
3. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye describe the international system as interdependent. There
are multiple channels connecting states, and multiple issues and agendas arise in the
interdependent system.
o An English tradition of international society: in an international society, the various actors
communicate and consent to common rules and institutions and recognize common interests.
1. Actors share a common identity, a sense of “we-ness”; without such an identity, a society
cannot exist.
2. This conception has normative implications: the international system is an arena and process
for positive interactions
o An anarchic one in which each individual state acts in its self-interest: This is also called neoliberal
institutionalism, a view that comes closer to realist thinking.
1. But, unlike many realists, they see the product of the interaction among actors as a potentially
positive one, where institutions created out of self-interest serve to moderate state behavior.
 Liberals and International System Change
o Changes come from several sources:

1. Changes occur as the result of exogenous technological developments—that is, progress

occurring independently. Examples are communication and transportation systems.
2. Change may occur because of changes in the relative importance of different issues areas. In
the last decades of the twentieth century, economic issues replaced national security issues.
Globalizing issues such as human rights may assume primacy in the twenty-first century.
3. Change may occur as new actors, including multinational corporations and nongovernmental
organizations, augment or replace state actors.

IV. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO RADICALS

 Radicals seek to describe and explain the structure of the system in terms of stratification: the uneven
division of resources among different groups of states. The system is stratified according to which states have
vital resources.
 From the stratification of power and resources comes the division between the haves, characterized by
the North, and have-nots, positioned in the South. Economic disparities are built into the structure and all
actions are constrained by this structure.
  The Implications for Stratification
o When the dominant powers are challenged by those states just beneath them in terms of access to
resources, the system may become highly unstable. The rising powers seek first-tier status and are
willing to fight wars to get it. Top powers may begin a war to quell the threat.
o For Marxists, crippling stratification in the system is caused by capitalists. Capitalism dominates
international institutions whose rules are structured by capitalist states to facilitate capitalist processes,
and MNCs whose headquarters are in capitalist states but whose loci of activity are in dependent
states.
o Radicals believe that the greatest amount of resentment will be felt in systems where stratification is
most extreme. The call for the New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s was voiced by
radicals and liberal reformers in most developing countries. They sought changes such as debt
forgiveness, how commodities were priced, and controls on multinational corporations (MNCs).
V. CONSTRUCTIVISM AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CHANGE
 Constructivists argue that the whole concept of an international system is a European idea. Nothing can be
explained by material structures alone
o Martha Finnemore suggests that there have been different international orders with changing
purposes.
 Constructivists believe that what does change are social norms.
o Social norms change through both actions of the collective and through individuals

o Norms may change through coercion, but most likely they will change through international
institutions, law, and social movements
VI. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AS A LEVEL OF
ANALYSIS
 Advantages:
1. Allows comparison and contrasts between systems
2. Comprehensiveness: it enables scholars to organize the seemingly disjointed parts into a whole.
3. Systems theory is a holistic approach. Although it cannot provide descriptions of events at the micro level, it
does allow plausible explanations at the more general level. For realists, generalizations provide fodder for
prediction. For liberals and radicals, these generalizations have normative implications.
 Disadvantages
1. The emphasis at the international system level means that the “stuff of politics” is often neglected, while the
generalizations are broad and obvious.
2. The testing of systems theories is very difficult. Most theorists are constrained by a lack of historical
information and thus the ability to test specific hypotheses over a long time period is restricted.
3. The problem of boundaries: does the notion of the international system mean the political system? What
factors lie outside the system? What shapes the system?
4. The idea of a single international system is largely a creation of European thought. It may be better to think of
multiple international systems over time
1. Imperial China
2. The umma as a community of Muslims

VII. IN SUM: FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TO THE STATE

  Of all theoretical approaches, realists and radicals pay the most attention to the international system of
analysis. For realists, the defining characteristic is polarity; for radicals, it is stratification. Constructivists
emphasize how changes in norms and ideas shape the system, seeing little differentiation between the
international and domestic system and eschewing the importance attached to international system structure.
 Constraints are viewed by realists as positive, by radicals as negative, and by liberals as neutral (as an arena
and process for interaction).

INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OR POWER STRUCTURE AND FOREIGN POLICY

 Modern state system has been in existence since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It includes big, middle and
small powers. As mentioned above, the interaction between these states takes place at the international level
and as such it plays a significant role in shaping and moulding the foreign policies of those interacting states .

 Establishment of friendly and cooperative relations between states is the aims of a sound foreign policy.
Foreign policy is essentially shaped by one’s relative power within the international system.

 World is continuously changing, new events and personalities create fresh foreign policy problems for all
concerned. To select events at random, the impact of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the rise of Communist
Power in China in 1949, the rise of De Gaulle to power in France and Hitler in Germany, and the emergence
of new states in Asia and Africa; brought about significant changes in the power structure and that has
impacted the foreign policy of many states.

 A prevalent framework of world politics plays decisive role in deciding the foreign policy of a country. As
such foreign policies of states thus changes with shiіs in the international power structure. In the traditional
multi-polar system, it was easier for states to switch sides and gain maximum interests from both sides. Italy
has used this strategy skillfully and switched sides during the height of World War I to gain its share in the
post war colonial arrangement . During the 1980s, the international system was characterized with a bi-polar
system as witnessed during the Cold War, and now a unipolar with the US as the only hegemonic power. Нese
events have restructured the power system and have a significant effect on the foreign policies of states .

 During the bipolar world system, it was not easy for states to switch sides easily as the ideological fault lines
were clearly marked. Нe demise of the Soviet Union and the advent of the unipolar world (US hegemony)
have its own system dynamics, such as Bush’s “either with us or against us”. Нis declaration has made many
states from the margins of the system to come forward and play e ‫و‬ective
‫ٴ‬ roles, especially in the so-called
Global War on Terror. At this point therefore, every type of power structure at the international level has its
own particular dynamics and has an impact on the foreign policies of states.

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
Compiled by Mahar Munawar
Faculty Member, PhD Scholar, Columnist

DEFINITION
 INTRODUCTION

 “International society” is a term of art introduced into the study of international relations largely by a group of
scholars working in the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s, often referred to as the “English School” of
international relations—and was in part clearly an attempt to distinguish their emphasis from the emphasis on the
international system very prevalent in international-relations scholarship in the United States at that time. It was
derived from the historical and legal study of human interactions that had its origins in the growth of the
diplomatic system in Europe (and later elsewhere) after the 15th century; works of 17th- and 18th-century thinkers
such as Hugo Grotius (b. 1583–d. 1645), Samuel Pufendorf (b. 1632–d. 1694), and Emmerich de Vattel (b. 1714–
d. 1767); and the growth and codification of international law during the 19th century
 . Other thinkers who influenced the school would include the international lawyers of the 19th and early 20th
centuries, nationalist writers such as Mazzini and, of course—though largely negatively—Niccolo Machiavelli and
Karl Marx. While the English School has perhaps been the most influential group of theorists to have developed
the notion of international society, it has not been the only one. Some constructivist writers, such as Alexander
Wendt; some communitarian writers, such as Amitai Etzioni; and some radical scholars of world politics, such as
Richard Falk, have also used the notion of international society in more or less different ways. And the English
school has also influenced writers whose broad philosophical approach is very different, such as James Der Derian
whose thesis, later published as On Diplomacy, was supervised by Hedley Bull. This bibliography will focus
principally on the English School approach to international society but will also draw attention to other accounts
where they vary with, challenge, or enrich, in important ways, the English School approach.
GENERAL OVERVIEWS

 The idea of international society—as an essential part of the idea of a European states system and different from
the notion of system that gained currency in US scholarship during the 1940s and 1950s—developed largely in the
United Kingdom during the 1950s and 1960s. In particular it is central to the work of Martin Wight (Butterfield
and Wight 1966, Wight 1977). It emphasizes the centrality of historical, legal, and philosophical (and, in Wight’s
case, theological) frames of reference for the study of international relations. Wight developed it in conjunction
with a group of scholars at the London School of Economics, where he taught in the 1950s, and a more dispersed
group that he was in regular contact with, the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics, convened
initially by Herbert Butterfield and chaired in turn by Butterfield, Wight, Hedley Bull, and Adam Watson between
1954 and 1984.
 There is considerable controversy as to which of the two groups was more influential in shaping the idea of
international society (Linklater and Suganami 2006, Vigezzi 2005, Dunne 1998). Often during the 1970s and
1980s it was termed the “classical” theory of international relations to distinguish it from the methodological—
largely positivistic—style favored by many in the United States (see Forsyth 1978). The term “English School,” as
a collective term for the idea of international society and those who propagated it, first appeared much later in an
article by Roy Jones (Jones 1981) that was in fact strongly critical of these ideas.
 Perhaps the central idea of tying the idea of international society to the notion of a Grotian tradition is also present
in Wight and the early work of Bull (See Bull’s essay in Butterfield and Wight 1966), but the central text that,
perhaps more than any other, crystallized the idea of international society as the central organizing idea of the
English school was Bull’s The Anarchical Society (Bull 1977). Bull also developed the notion that international
society was susceptible to both “pluralist” and “solidarist” interpretations, where “pluralism” is taken to represent
the idea of a society of equal states with little or no common purposes, saving only the maintenance of the society
itself, and “solidarism” assumes a much more integrationist pathway of notions of international society.
 CONTESTED CONCEPT
 The very concept of the international is, of course, highly problematic in the light of the discussion in the previous
chapter. International refers, in reality, either to relations between states or, at a minimum, to relations across state
boundaries which are significantly structured by these boundaries. The concept of the international is an inherently
statist concept, and although it is difficult to avoid using this terminology which is so embedded in popular,
political and academic language, we must always be aware of its incipient statism. Relations between states cannot
be assumed to be relations between nations, and social relations across state or national boundaries cannot be
assumed to be international.
 The discourse within international relations theory which most acutely embodies the contradictions of the
discipline is that of international society. International society, as used in this context, is neither international nor a
society, but refers to a particular trend towards 'society-like' features in the state-system. In this chapter we pursue
the critique of 'society' in international theory, and the contradictions of a theory of relations between states which
neglects their context in global society, by unravelling the meaning and historic significance of the idea of
international society.
 The concept of international society has been put forward by its advocates as a 'central' position for international
studies, a modal alternative to the extremes of brutish Hobbesian realism and utopian Kantian idealism. It
incorporates the dominant realism of the subject, in its recognition of the dominance of independent sovereign
states as actors in the international system; yet it makes a nod to idealism (as well as to social-scientific
functionalism) in the role it assigns to consensus among actors as the basis for 'society'-like elements in the way
this system develops. (This theoretical balancing act is a source of tensions in the theory, as Nicholas Wheeler
shows.)
 The international society position has, of course, its own (Grotian) philosophical antecedents; but it is essentially a
modern theory, a product (like most of the discipline of international relations) of the unique international situation
of the third quarter of the twentieth century. On first approach, the context of a bipolar conflict between rigidly
ideologically opposed powers is hardly the most apposite one for a stance which stresses a consensual framework
of relations between states. However, Hedley Bull argued that even in the depths of the Cold War, the idea of
international society 'survived as an important part of reality.'
 It is perhaps the major achievement of writers like Bull, and the great strength of the largely British-based
international society school, to have recognised the elements of cooperation which underlay the apparently
irreconcilable Cold War opposition. Much more than the school of strategically-oriented international relations,
dominant in the United States, which stressed technological rivalry, it has been vindicated by the outcome of the
Cold War. To a greater extent than even Bull seems to have thought likely, a shared set of expectations and
understandings dominated the behaviour of the political elites in the USA and former USSR. This led - after the
crisis of the 'second Cold War' - to a relatively orderly unwinding (at the level of superpower relations at least) of
the Cold War.
 That the international society perspective stressed the framework of common understandings among states (despite
the unpromising Cold War context) is testimony to the strength of broader historical understanding which it
brought to the study of the international system. Bull, Wight and others were able to see the Cold War system in
the context of a longer historical development and to ask many of the right comparative questions, pointing to the
strengths as well as weaknesses of contemporary international society in the light of past models.
 Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan,
1977.The locus classicus of English School accounts of international society and probably the single most
influential book of the entire English School. Bull takes Wight’s notion of international society and develops it
both historically and in terms of contemporary international relations. Also examines the principal “institutions” of
international society—according to Bull, the balance of power, diplomacy, international law, war, and the great
powers. Considers alternative models of world order, principally a disarmed world, a world government (a topic in
which he criticizes his friend Richard Falk), and “a new medievalism.”
INTERNATIONAL RELATION /INTERNATIONAL POLITICS/WORLD POLITICS
Compiled by Mahar Munawar
Faculty Member, PhD Scholar, Columnist
WORLD POLITICS

is barely wider, still a subsection of Political Science, but carrying the implication that there is more politics at the
global level itself, including transnational politics and global governance.

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

is perhaps the narrowest name, implying that that the subject matter is just the macro-scale end of Political Science
focusing on relations between states and covering foreign policy, strategy and security, international organizations,
and the politics of the international system.
International Politics is concerned with relations and interactions among nations. It has been identified and named
differently by various scholars. Some prefer to use the name International Relations, where as several others prefer to
call it International Politics. Some of other popular names used for this discipline are World Politics, World Affairs,
International Affairs, Foreign Politics, Foreign Policies and International System. However, these have not been very
popular.

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
is broader still, bringing language and culture into the frame. Perhaps the broadest term is ‘globalization’/‘global
studies’, which eschews both ‘international’ and ‘relations’, and underlines a multisectoral perspective in which
interactions of all sorts, and especially economic and common-fate ones, are given prominence.

1. International Relations and International Politics:

These are the two most popular names of the discipline. So much so these are quite often used as synonyms Several
writers do not like to draw a line of demarcation between International Relations and International Politics. Even some
top ranking scholars like Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Thompson use these terms inter-changeably as they regard
“International Politics as an inalienable part of International Relations.”
There are several other scholars like Palmer, Perkins, Burton, Schwarzenberger, Schleicher, Theodore A. Couloumbis
and James H. Wolfe, who prefer to use the name International Relations.
(a) International Relations:
Supporters of the name International Relations, regard it as a more comprehensive term which highlights the vast
scope and the true nature of relations among nations. It covers all types of relations among states, their peoples and
groups, as well as the relations among international actors and international institutions operating in the world. The
relations among nations are both political and non-political.
These include social, economic, cultural, legal, official and non-official relations. All international transactions—
financial and commercial, international, sports, technical, cooperation, cultural, visits, business visits, trade and
economic relations, diplomatic relations, people to people relations and ceremonial visits, form part of international
relations.
Since relations among nations form the core of the study, the term International Relations is considered more
appropriate than other terms. Palmer and Perkins prefer to use the term International Relations on the ground that
politics at international level in a product of relations of different types and this name rightly suggests the study of all
aspects of relations among nations. “The term ‘International Relations’ is broader than International Politics and it puts
a stronger emphasis on the interdependence of all the entities inside international society.” — Schwarzenberger.
(b) International Politics:
Several scholars, however, advocate the name International Politics. They hold that the term International Relations is
too general, too broad and a loose term which fails to specify the true nature of interactions among nations. It gives no
indication of the primary concern of study i.e. politics among nations.
It further tends to suggest an unduly vast scope of the subject—the study of all types of public and private relations
among people, groups and nations of the world. The term International Relations is further regarded as inappropriate
because it denotes cooperation and relations as the hall mark of international intercourse which is not in tune with the
realities of the international system.
In reality, we find the arena of international interactions characterised by conflict, struggle for power, wars and
disputes along with some cooperation and friendship. As such, the use of the term International Relations for
designating the study of politics among nations is held to be inappropriate and misleading.
Legg and Morrison hold International Politics to be the correct name of the subject which studies power interactions
among nations or politics among nations, “Since the core area of the study is the political aspect of relations among
nations, we must stick to the use of the name International Politics.” This name truly reflects the true nature of
relations among nations.
The main area of concern is struggle for power among nations which gives rise to a system of actions, activities,
interactions and relations among nations. As a discipline, International Politics is concerned primarily with the study
of power-relations among nations and the study of other aspects of relations is incidental to this basic necessity. To be
specific, the use of the term International Politics is most appropriate for identifying the study of conflict of purpose
and struggle for power among nations.
(c) Both the names, International Politics and International Relations, can be used:
The above discussion leads us to conclude that the term International Politics appears to be more specific and
particularistic than the term International Relations. Nevertheless, it must also be accepted that in actual usage both the
terms have been equally popular. Many scholars prefer to use International Politics for highlighting the distinctive
property of relations among nations, whereas others prefer to keep the scope of the subject vast by using a
comprehensive name i.e. International Relations.
In a broader and general sense we can use the term International Relations but to be specific in identifying the core of
international relations and interactions, we must use the term International Politics. Undoubtedly, politics among
nations is a product of various types of relations and hence we cannot be absolutely rigid in specifying a single term.
We can use both the names International Relations and International Politics without any hindrance.
So for all other names—Foreign Affairs, International Affairs, World Affairs, Foreign Politics, and World Politics
International System—are concerned these are very general terms. None of these has been in a position to get a
universal acceptance. Against these, the terms International Relations and International Politics are being used by a
large majority of scholars. Hence, we can accept these two names for identifying the subject of our study.
Difference between International Relations and International Politics
International Relations encompasses a broad area in that it examines the entire international system. Think of
International Politics, then, as a component within that broad spectrum. Therefore, it is a much narrower subject area.
The term International Politics is used synonymously with the terms ‘ world politics’ or ‘global politics
’. Thedefinitions for each of these terms are often not helpful and tend to confuse a person evenmore. International
Politics deals with the practical realities of a state’s I nteraction with anotherstate or several other states. On
the academic front, it entails utilising the theories ofInternational Relations and applying them analytically to the
contemporary issues in theinternational system. Thus, issues in the international system also play a large role
inInternational Politics. More importantly, the concept of power is key to understandingInternational Politics. Students
of International Politics are well aware that power can be both a means and an end. Furthermore, power can be either
hard power or soft power.Hard power means military and economic power while soft power is more indirect such
ascultural power. International Politics essentially studies how and why states use these typesof power to achieve
their goals.Some differences we find, here:

 
 International Relations encompasses a broad spectrum of the international arena whileInternational Politics is only
a component of International Relations and, therefore,much narrower.

 International Relations concerns the relations or foreign affairs of nations. InternationalPolitics deals only with the
political relations of states and focuses on how statescollectively respond to the emerging global issues

 International Relations is the branch in which we shed lights on relations among states.Those relations between
nations could be political relations, economic relations, culturalrelations, military-technical cooperation, and more.
Thus, IR includes every aspect ofrelations between states. Whereas International Politics which also refers as
Global Politics is just one of the aspect we discuss in IR.. it deals with the practical approach of a nations
interaction withanother by using the theories of IR and applying them in the international system. 
 International Politics is a subset, at best, of International Relations. Just as your politicalrelations with others in
your town might deal primarily with political issues and partisanelections, but you must also deal with people in a
great many other ways. You mayinteract with others in a church, for example, where, hopefully, politics is
not present. You surely have to interact with others every day in the course of normal business. If youthink
shopping at a supermarket is a political experience, you might be unusual. SoInternational Politics deals
realistically with political relations and alliances with othernations. Intentional Relations are far broader, and
nations which disagree on politicalmatters must still deal with each other on matters of trade and economics,
among manyother issues

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS