Comparative Politics and International Relations

→ Comparative Politics

● It is a sub-discipline of Political Science and Comparative Politics means comparing political systems
of different types. This subject is as old as political theory. Aristotle is regarded as the Father of
Comparative Politics as he has compared a number of constitutions to give his theory of constitution
(empirical approach used by him)

● Until WW2, Comparative Politics was known as ‘Traditional Comparative Politics’ or Comparative
Government. Traditional Comparative Politics was narrow in scope as it included the study of
constitutions and institutions and that too of the Western world.

● Thus, traditional comparative politics was the study of institutions rather than politics (When we study
social, economic, cultural, psychological, formal and informal practices beyond constitutions and
institutions, we study politics)

● The traditional approaches were used in traditional comparative politics, dominated by the legal-
institutional approach.

● Thus, comparative government was the subject matter of traditional comparative politics and no
attention was given to the study of formal and informal actors which influenced the working of the
government.

● Neither the study of political behaviour nor processes is the subject matter of comparative
government.

● After WW2, modern comparative politics emerged. Modern comparative politics is different from
traditional comparative politics as the focus of the research shifted from Western to non-Western
countries as decolonisation led to the emergence of Third World countries.

● It was realised that the study of constitutions alone will not be adequate to give a comparative
perspective. The need was realised to understand the sociological, cultural and economic factors in
these societies rather than just studying the constitutions.

● The behavioural revolution made possible the study of modern comparative politics as the former
resulted in the emergence of modern approaches like Systems approach, Structural Functional
approach, Political Sociology approach etc.
Limitations of the traditional approaches which led to the rise of modern approaches

● Ethnocentrism or parochialism: According to behaviouralists, the focus of the traditional approaches

was limited to the Western world and there was no attempt and effort to understand the different ways
of life, cultures and societies. Though it is true that the non-Western world did not have an independent
political system because of colonialism, there was a lack of enthusiasm among the researchers to
develop an understanding about the non-Western world.

● Traditional approaches are essentially non-comparative: According to behaviouralists, traditional

approaches are not truly comparative, the reason being that except the difference in political
institutions, there was nothing much to compare. The discipline has become comparative in true sense
only when the study of non-Western societies have been included. There is also a focus on socio-
cultural factors.

● According to behaviouralists, traditional approaches lack a scientific attitude and systemic

perspective: Traditional studies are not comprehensive.

Factors which led to the rise of modern approaches

● Rise of alternate political systems: Alternate political systems emerged even in the West, for eg- rise
of Soviet communism Nazism, Fascism. This required that the focus of enquiry should shift towards
socio-cultural and economic conditions so as to understand the conditions which led to the rise of such
political systems.

● Process of decolonisation: It led to the emergence of a large number of states with a lot of
differences in their socio-cultural and political systems. Thus it was realised that the legal-institutional
approach will not be sufficient. For eg- two countries might have a Parliamentary form of government
but the nature of the parliamentary democracy can be very different. For eg parliamentary democracy in
India cannot be understood without understanding caste. Thus, it increases the need for new
approaches. The experiment of democracy failed in many Third World countries. However, it has
survived in India and it requires an understanding of socio-cultural factors.

● Methodological movement: It was going on in the discipline of Political Science known as the
behavioural movement. It was an attempt to scientify the discipline which was primarily the effort of
American scholars. Thus, historical and intellectual forces were responsible for the emergence of
modern approaches and the conversion of comparative government into real comparative politics.
 Traditional Comparative Government Modern Comparative Politics

Scope Limited to Western countries Postcolonial societies

Methodology Legal-institutional approach Behavioural approaches

Study of Focus on institutions and constitutions Focus on politics

Coverage Narrower Broader

Utility of Comparative Government and Polity

● It enables us to understand the similarities and the differences between political systems: It is
not necessary that the political institutions having the same name will perform similar functions. Eg-
Head of State in India and the US is the President but there are vast differences in their powers. Thus
we cannot have the knowledge of the real nature of any political system without a comparative study of
it. Thus it is necessary for the students of political science to know the similarities and the differences
found in different political systems and comparative government and politics helps in understanding
this.

● The knowledge regarding the contextual elements of different political systems: In some
countries, parliamentary systems have led to stability while in others, it has failed. In some countries,
pressure groups play an important role while in other countries, they are passive. In some countries,
monarchies still prevail. To understand these questions, it is important to study the contextual elements
of different political systems, that is, the need is to study the history and socio-economic conditions.

● Theory generalisations became possible with comparative politics: Some important

generalisations which can be made after comparative studies are-

- Whatever may be the form of government, power remains in the hands of the elites.
- In a time of crisis, personal rule is more efficient than collective leadership
- Liberal governments have shorter lifespans than authoritarian regimes.
- There is no guarantee that democratic political systems are more efficient than totalitarian regimes
● Comparative politics is not concerned with any particular value: Rather, it is a value-free approach
and it is more concerned about the present than the future. It examines reality and tries to reach correct
conclusions
The criticism of Behavioural approaches also applies to comparative politics as it is the outcome of
behavioural approaches

Behavioural Approaches/ Modern Approaches

1. System Approach

● It is the project of behaviouralists

● It was given by David Easton

Why is it called status quoist? What are its limitations

● Behaviouralists suggested the need to bring the discipline of political science closer to scientific
disicplines and away from philsosophy, history and law
● They suggested the interdisciplinary approach and that we should borrow from biology, sociology,
psychology and anthropology.
● It has been taken from biology and has been adapted by sociologists like Talcott Parsons and Robert
Burton.
● They decided to study society as a system (rather than studying independent units like caste, class,
ethnicity) and political science borrowed it from sociology to study political systems.
● It was realised that the study of constitutions alone will not be adequate without understanding the
system in which the constitution is placed as it was realised that instead of studying the constitutions
alone, we have to study the interaction between the constitution and the environment in which it is
placed.
● Scholars realised that it is important to see the interaction between the various sets of elements within
the political system.
● System- a system is a conceptual framework. Within a system, there is a set of elements which are in
a state of interaction. The elements have a structured or patterned interaction. Elements are interacting
in a pattern and behaviouralists want to study that pattern.

Components of a system

1. Elements: constitution, political parties, pressure groups, media, economic conditions

2. Environment: Elements which impact the political system will constitute the environment of the political
system, that is, all the variables impacting political phenomena.
3. Boundary: A boundary denotes the limits of the environment. Elements beyond the boundary will not
impact the functioning of the political system.

● Systems are distinguished from one another not only on the basis of structures but also on the basis of
functions.
● According to David Easton, political systems perform a unique function, that is, authoritative allocation
of values (that is, its decisions are binding on all). It means that the supreme decision-making body in a
territory is the political system.
● Values means those things that are considered valuable, that is, material things or things for which
there will be competition.
● This requires the political system to introduce a principle of distribution which should be acceptable by
the people. As said by Robert Dahl, “Who gets what, when and how?”.

Input-Output model of Easton

● David Easton has replaced the study of the state (the term state is used by traditionalists) with the
study of political systems. As for behaviouralists, state is a legal term. It is a static concept while a
political system is an idea of the environment in which it is placed.
● According to Easton, the political system operates as input-output mechanisms and he has compared
political systems with a machine. Its task is to convert inputs into outputs. Inputs are of two types-
demand and support. Outputs will be in the form of decisions and policies.

● The demand is what people expect from the system and it can be of 4 types-

- Allocation of goods and services- food, clothing, education

- Regulation of behaviour- law and order, market rules
- Demand for participation- right to vote
- Demand for communication and information

● According to Easton, support can also be categorised into 4 types-

- Material support- the payment of taxes

- Obedient support- to follow rules, laws
- Participatory support- exercising franchise
- Attention and respect support- standing up for the national anthem
● The political system will process these demands but every demand will not enter the political system.
Only a demand with substantial support will enter the political system and it will be converted by the
political system into output in the form of decisions and policies.
● This process of converting inputs into output is called the conversion process. This depends on the
efficiency and the ability of the political system.
● According to Easton, every political system gets influenced by the environment in which it is placed and
the output will interact with the environment and it re-enters the system through a feedback loop and
feedback is very important for the survival of political systems.
● If the loop doesn’t exist, the system will collapse. Thus the system which is not able to adjust according
to the environment will face difficulties and crises.

Criticism

● According to traditionalist scholars, behaviouralists have introduced unnecessary jargon. Similar

functioning could have been explained through simpler terminologies

● Marxist scholars- This model is status-quoist as it is based on the understanding and working of
political systems of liberal democracies. This model cannot explain the political system of authoritarian
regimes. This model is not suitable for understanding political changes as it does not talk about the
contradictions in political systems which may result in revolutions.

Marxists are also against the universality and the neutrality of this model. This model takes Western
political systems as an ideal system. Even this model does not give the correct explanation of the
political system of the Western countries as it assumes that political systems in Western countries will
operate smoothly, not facing any problems. According to Marxists, anything which is not universal can’t
be accepted as scientific. This model is biassed as it cannot explain the functioning of authoritarian
political systems or the political systems of Third World countries as the input aspect is very limited in
these systems.

● According to critics, it is very difficult to determine the boundary of the system and it is not only difficult
but impossible to define the boundary.

● Thus, this model is a primitive type of a conceptual framework useful only in the initial level of research
for the collection and organisation of data but it cannot provide deeper critical analysis.

We can say that although the system approach of Easton is not a solution to all problems, we cannot
ignore that it is important as it does give an important tool of political analysis. It is a practical method of
analysis and it tries to prove that an isolated study of any factor can never help to draw the right
conclusion.

2. Structural Functional Approach (J.A. Almond and B. Powell)

● This approach is based on the System approach and it is considered as an improvement over the input-
output model of Easton.
● The input-output model does not deal with structures or institutions or the functions within the political
system.
● This approach was developed by Almond and Powell while studying the Third World countries.

Influences on this approach

- It is based on the input-output model of political systems given by David Easton.

- It is also inspired by the structural functional approach developed by anthropologists like Radcliff Brown
and Malinowski ( according to them, all societies perform similar functions but the structures performing
these functions may vary). For example, the political systems of India and Pakistan- the same functions
are performed by different structures- Army in Pakistan playing legislative, executive, judicial roles
- To make their approach more comparative, they have introduced the concept of political development
and political culture.
- They are also influenced by the institutional approach.
- This approach was developed to understand the politics of developing areas.

● Almond and Powell wanted to develop a universal model of analysis which should help in
understanding the political system of different countries.
● On the basis of the views of Brown and Malinowski, Almond and Powell have tried to provide seven
functions of political systems.
● According to Brown and Malinowski, all societies perform some similar essential functions. Societies
differ from each other as in different societies, different structures will perform these functions.
● If society is more advanced then there will be specific structures (functional specialisation in advanced
societies). However, in societies which are not advanced, functional specialisation will not be that
prominent- a single structure will be performing multiple functions.
● The structural functional approach is considered as an improvement over the institutional approach as
under the influence of behaviouralism, the focus has shifted from structures and institutions to
functions.
Input functions performed by a political system

● Political socialisation and political recruitment: It is a process by which citizens acquire information
about the political system, understand the values and norms of the system, and develop their
acquaintance with the political system of their country. Political socialisation is an essential function and
without it, the political system would not exist.

Without socialisation, there will not be political recruitment. Different societies have different structures
which help in political socialisation and recruitment. The most common structures are family,
neighbourhood and educational institutions. It is a regular process which goes on continuously. It is the
process by which values and beliefs of the people are formulated and incorporated into the state’s
political culture. Thus socialisation is the process by which political culture is maintained and changed.
The degree of political socialisation increases in a democratic state and decreases in an authoritarian
regime. Though political socialisation is universal, it still varies in degrees as it is fast in democratic
states and slow in totalitarian states.

● Political communication: Communication is provided by the government to the citizens. Besides the
government, other agencies also perform the function of providing information about the functioning of
the political system. Political communication belongs to the sphere of mass media. The nature of
political communication is shaped by the stage of political development of that system. Its openness
depends on the nature of governance and the stage of political development.

● Interest articulation: In the political system, it is performed by different interest and pressure groups.
In advanced societies, associational and developmental pressure groups dominate while in traditional
societies, communal pressure groups dominate- caste and religion based.

● Interest aggregation: It is the task of political parties that aggregate the interests of different pressure
groups. The party system may vary from society to society as democratic political systems will have
competitive party systems. Non-democratic societies will have a hegemonic party system. The function
of converting demand into general policy alternatives is called interest aggregation and without the
aggregation of different interests, suitable common policies cannot be framed. Political parties frame
out a general acceptable programme, keeping in view the interest of different castes, communities and
sections for the purpose of policy-making.

Output functions performed by a political system

● Rule making: Rules are necessary to determine relationships among individuals and without rules,
anarchy would prevail in society. The first important function of any political system is rule-making. New
rules are framed to deal with changing situations and needs. The institutional approach views the
legislature as the only institution involved in law-making. However, according to the structural functional
approach, other institutions are also involved in rule-making.
●

● Rule application: However good the rules may be, they will lose their utility if they are not properly
implemented. Rule application is the domain of the executive but there are some rule application
functions which may be performed by the legislature and judiciary.
●

● Rule adjudication: The rules may be good or stringent but there remains the possibility of their breach.
If an adequate mechanism to punish the violation of rules does not exist, then each individual would
violate the rules and will interpret them according to their own convenience. Primarily, this is performed
by the judiciary.

Thus according to Almond and Powell, every political system has the following characteristics

● Every political system has certain structures. Out of them, some perform more functions in comparison
to others.
● There can be differences among the structures of different political systems but all political systems
perform the similar functions of converting input into output
● Some of the structures can perform multiple functions.

Changes made by Almond and Powell in the input-output model

● This model gives a more detailed view about the functioning of the political system than the input-output
model of Easton. According to them, every political system has its own capacity to perform functions
which keeps growing with the growth of needs. Political systems keep developing. Thus, this model is
not static but dynamic and the input-output model is criticised as status-quoist.
● This model has also used the parameter of political culture. The type of political culture which will
prevail will be based on the criterion of political development.

Criticism of the model

● According to traditionalists, unnecessary jargon has complicated the understanding.

● According to them, it is descriptive and not prescriptive
● A & P have developed uniform tools for the study of political systems of developed and developing
countries whereas it is not possible to study both with the same tools as the problems of developing
countries are different from those of the developed world. Thus this approach is not sufficient to
understand different political systems.
● It is a narrow approach and we cannot understand a political system only through the study of their
structures and functions as the political system is a much wider concept and its scope and constituent
elements are much wider.
● Marxists continue to believe that this model is biassed in favour of liberal political systems as the
criteria of political development is biassed in favour of liberal democratic political systems. This
approach completely ignores the important truths such as the materialistic interpretation of history, the
theory of surplus value, class wars. Without a proper evaluation of these factors, we cannot draw the
right conclusions.

Thus it can be concluded that it provides just a conceptual framework which is helpful at the preliminary
level of analysis. For political inquiries, analytical perspectives are more important because they are
prescriptive in nature.

3. Political Sociology Approach

● This approach is the outcome of the behavioural revolution (this approach has become so dominant
that it has become an independent discipline)
● This approach is used to study the interaction between politics and society. To understand the political
system, the need is to understand the society first.
● Political sociology is one of the oldest approaches. Aristotle is known as the father of this approach. In
his theory of ‘revolution’, we can see one of the earliest versions of political sociology wherein he tried
to analyse the social conditions giving rise to revolution.
● Machiavelli has also used this approach as according to him, the nature of society determines the form
of government. If people are virtuous then a republican form of government is preferable and if they are
corrupt, then a monarchy is the best.
● This approach was further developed by Karl Marx. We cannot understand the nature of the state
without understanding the mode of production and class relations.
● Max Weber has considered bureaucracy as one of the most rational systems and he is a critic of Marx.
The most important contribution of Weber is the study of authority and legitimacy.
● According to him, the basis of authority is shaped by the nature of society. Charismatic authority is the
prominent basis of legitimacy in traditional societies while modern societies show legal-rational basis of
authority.
● Later, elitist and pluralist scholars like Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills and Robert Dahl have further
developed the school of political sociology and they have tried to utilise scientific methods like field
studies for the collection of facts to support their arguments.
● Thus the political sociology approach has further been developed under the behavioural revolution.
● There is enormous literature on Indian politics developed by political sociologists where they have
studied the impact of caste, religion and ethnicity on Indian politics.
● Some of the prominent scholars who have used this approach in the Indian context are Rajni Kothari,
Christophe Jaffrelot, Yogendra Yadav.
● This approach is further enriched by behavioural studies and scholars like David Easton have proposed
that instead of institutional approach, politics should be studied from a systemic perspective as it has
been felt that especially for developing countries, the study of constitutions will not be enough. It is
necessary to understand the sociocultural environment.
● This approach deals with the issues located at the interface of politics and society. Thus this approach
has become a prominent approach in comparative politics.

Critical evaluation

● This approach emerged as a useful tool of investigation in comparative politics for analysing the
political systems of developing countries. It is not simply an approach. In fact, it has emerged as a
hybrid discipline.
● There is a greater enthusiasm among sociologists towards this approach and similar enthusiasm does
not exist among political analysts.
● Political scholars believe that this approach subordinates the study of politics to the study of society. It
shows that political systems lack autonomy and they just respond to sociological variables. It appears
as if society is shaping politics and that politics has no influence on society.
● In many Third World countries like India, the state has played an active role in shaping society. For
political analysts, there is a danger of the discipline losing its identity. Thus, according to them, the
focus should be more on the state, institutions in the political system
● Scholars like Theda Skocpol call for bringing the state back in. It means that political science as a
subject should not get submerged in sociology. Thus, centrality needs to be given to the study of the
state. It is true that society influences politics but it is also true that politics shapes society.
● The call to bring the state back has led to the renewal of interest in the study of institutions which has
given rise to a new approach, that is, neo-institutionalism.
● March and Olsen, in their book, ‘Reinventing Government’, have prescribed the theme of neo-
institutionalism- there is a vice versa relationship that prevails between politics and society. For
example, under Nehru’s leadership, the Indian society transformed into a modern society as the state
tried to induce scientific temper in the society.
● Though it is true that institutions are shaped by the behaviour of the person occupying the institution, it
is also true that institutions constrain the behaviour of the person as the formal and the informal rules of
the institution will limit the action of the individual.
● One of the prominent works in India from the perspective of neo-institutionalism has been done by
Pratap Bhanu Mehta as he has analysed the Indian judiciary and how the judiciary has perpetuated its
relevance. He has given a call to reboot the institution.

4. Political Development Approach

● Western scholars have developed different models to study and make comparisons between developed
and developing countries. This approach is one such approach.
● Lucian Pye has given 3 parameters of political development-

- Equality: it symbolises political equality, that is, equal rights being enjoyed by the people.
According to Pye, democracy symbolises political equality.
- Capacity: The state’s capacity to govern and enforce law and order.
- Differentiation: Functional specialisation of institutions will determine the development of the
political system.

● According to Pye, these parameters can be used to compare the political systems of different countries.
● S.P. Huntington has suggested the concept of political decay. According to him, in many Third World
countries, along with political development, political decay has been observed (political decay in
Pakistan or in other South Asian states is not in the interest of India- we should promote political
development in South Asia. In India, state capacity is increasing but equality is not).
● F.W. Riggs has given the concept of ‘development trap’. When there is a mismatch between the
parameters and the rate of development of these three parameters, it will result in the development
trap.
● This approach has been criticised by traditionalists and Marxists. According to Marxists, it is biassed
towards Western liberal democracies and this approach does not offer a model that can be uniformly
applicable to all countries.

5. Political Culture Approach (By Sidney Verba and Gabriel Almond)

● This method is also used by the structural functional approach.

● Political culture is a subset of culture. Culture shows the values, norms, beliefs of the people. It is
transferred from one generation to the other. Thus it can be a significant variable to compare societies
as it is a long term phenomenon (culture is the outcome of natural processes but political culture can be
manufactured by political socialisation).
● Countries can have different political cultures as in some countries, people have closeness with the
political system while in other countries, they may be indifferent and in some, they may be alienated.
● This approach emerges in the works of Verba and Almond and they have talked about political culture
in their book, ‘Civic Culture’.
● The objective of their study is to find out which culture is the most appropriate for the functioning of a
democracy and their conclusion was civic culture.
● Almond and Verba have utilised the methodology of ideal types (given by Weber). Ideal type is a tool of
conceptual analysis for the study of society and Weber has suggested that researchers should
construct ideal types or models.
● It is a type of method used in the social sciences and the models can be used to compare the actual
reality. They have also utilised the framework of system approach. They have also used the input-
output approach of David Easton to classify political cultures.
● Utilising the methodology of ideal types, they have developed certain ideal types of political culture-
parochial political culture, subject political culture, participant political culture, civic political culture.

- Parochial political culture: under this type of culture, people are not connected to the political
system. This approach can be explained through the input-output method and it can be said that in
this culture, people neither influence the input nor the output. Eg- tribes in Andaman and Nicobar
have a parochial position in the Indian political system.

- Subject political culture: It is based on the understanding of the difference between citizens and
subjects. The concept of citizen denotes the rights of citizens. They are supposed to be active
participants while the concept of subjects is associated with duties and obligations. In this culture,
 people do not have any influence on the input aspect as they are not empowered enough to
influence the inputs.. However, they may have some significance as far as the output is concerned.
As subject political culture may be concerned about the responses of the people towards policies
and decisions, this type of culture is found in societies where democracy is in its nascent or initial
stage.

- Participant political culture: In this, people consider themselves actively associated with the
political system where they are influencing both the input and the output. This type of political
culture is associated with Western liberal democracies where citizens have a strong sense of
empowerment.

- Civic political culture: According to this approach, it is the most appropriate culture for the help of
democracies. Though the participation of people is good but excessive participation has some
inherent dangers as it gives rise to demagogue leaders which is a threat to democracy. Thus more
than mere participation, it is the quality of participation which is more important. Hence, civic
political culture will develop when participant political culture is at the centre while some people
have parochial and subject political cultures. This will lead to a stable democracy.

Critical evaluation

● According to the proponents of this approach, it has encouraged political scientists to take up the study
of sociocultural factors to understand the political cultures of different countries.
● According to the critics, the concept of civic culture is biassed against the masses. It also advocates
status-quoism as it is based on the disbelief in the capacity of the masses.
● For Marxist scholars, this approach is tilted in favour of the elites.

6. Political Modernisation Approach

● The political development approach is criticised for being biassed towards the western model of
democracy. Hence, a politically neutral approach was proposed, that is, political modernisation.

● According to this approach, whatever may be the form of government, what is more important is
modernisation. As per S.P. Huntington, the components of modernisation are- urbanisation,
industrialisation, rationalisation, secularisation.
● It was proposed that states can be compared in terms of the level of modernisation and this approach
has broadened the scope of comparative politics as even non-liberal democracy can be compared.

● According to Huntington, political modernisation will lead to an increase in political participation. Thus,
ultimately it will lead to political development.

● Though, according to the critics, this approach can be linked to the thesis of the end of ideology.
According to Marxists, these approaches ultimately aim towards the expansion of capitalism. Hence,
they do not consider these approaches as value neutral.

● This approach suggests that institutions like the IMF and WB would support political modernisation in
developing countries. Thus, according to Marxists scholars, this approach is just the political agenda of
the West.

7. Political Economy Approach

● In the political economy approach, we study and compare the economic policies of states based on the
economic policies. We try to understand the nature of the state- whether the state is a welfare state,
socialist state or neoliberal state.
● Political economy as a tradition of study can be traced back to the works of Adam Smith and his book,
‘Wealth of Nations’ is considered as the first textbook in political economy. In his book, he criticised the
mercantilist policies and recommended a free market economy as according to him, a free market
economy will bring wealth and prosperity for all while mercantilist policies will benefit only the
merchants.
● This approach is both quantitative and normative. It is normative as it is value based. As there are
different schools of thought and there is no consensus which one is superior.

● The two major schools within political economy are-

- Liberal or Classical school of political economy

- Marxist school of political economy: Marxism is primarily a critic of the classical school as
according to Marx, the free market economy will give wealth to a few and poverty to the masses.
Marx recommended the replacement of the capitalist mode of production with the communist mode.
There is a continuity in the Marxist tradition as the scholars of the dependency school have
analysed the phenomenon of neo-colonialism. Another Marxist school, that is, the structural school
shows the relative autonomy of the state.
 ● Later on, the third school of political economy emerged which was known as the Welfare economics
school based on Keynes’ ideas. It supports the welfare functions of the state.
● Another school, the Neoliberal school, developed under Hayek and Nozick who suggested the rolling
back of the state.
● The welfare economy approach (social liberalism/positive liberalism) has gained prominence in the
works of scholars like Amartya Sen and Joseph Stigliz.

Limitations of this approach

● It focuses only on the economic sphere and it is not taking into consideration the socio-cultural
variables. Thus, this approach alone is not sufficient to understand the political systems of different
states.

→ State in comparative perspective

● According to Garner, Political science begins and ends with the state.
● Though state is a core concept in political science, it has remained contested.
● The traditional comparative politics has focused on the study of governments, institutions and
constitutions for the study of the state. While, behaviouralists shifted the focus of study from the state to
the society and from constitution to processes and politics for the study of the state.

● The characteristics and the changing nature of the state can be analysed from two different
perspectives:

- Liberal perspective: State is created by man to remove the inconveniences present in the state of
nature. For liberals, the state is an instrument of utility and it is a neutral arbitrator between
conflicting and competing interests.

- Marxist perspective: The Marxists have challenged the neutrality of the state and they believe that
the state is the executive committee of the bourgeois class.

● Within liberal countries, the model of laissez faire state or night watchman state was prevailing which
was later replaced by the welfare state which emphasised that the state should make positive
interventions in the economy on behalf of the disadvantaged sections.
● However, Marxist scholars have analysed the nature of the welfare state in postcolonial societies from
2 perspectives-

- Instrumentalist: In their studies, they have said that the managerial revolution in a capitalist society
is a myth. Economic power has remained concentrated and the class which controls economic
power also controls political power.

- Structuralist: they have suggested that because of new historical developments like universal
adult franchise, competitive party system, the state in most situations appears neutral. Although the
state appears neutral, at the time of crisis, it will work in the interest of the properties class.

● The nature of the state has also been analysed by elitist and pluralist scholars. Elitist scholars have
analysed the nature of the distribution of power in the US and have held that the US is helmed by
power elites. Robert Michels suggested that oligarchy is the iron law. Robert Dahl applied the pluralist
perspective and has stated that states are polyarchies and later he modified his view and referred to it
as deformed polyarchy.
● Since the 1970s, the welfare state has shifted to the ideology of neoliberalism or market
fundamentalism which signifies the rolling back of the state. Since the beginning of the 21st century,
liberal states have been oscillating between the idea of the night watchman state and the welfare state.

● Since the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008, many core states also are passing through a state
of crisis, that is, a legitimation crisis. To quote Habermas, “We are passing through a highly volatile
phase in the evolution of the world system and various conflicting trends are appearing in parallel on
the world stage.

Nature of the Socialist state

● Socialist economies are based on the ideas of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Mao.
● The first example of a socialist state was the USSR and then the PRC.
● However, China has progressively shifted from a socialist economy towards a state controlled market
economy.
● With the collapse of communism in the USSR and in the Eastern European countries (Third wave of
democracy), the socialist economies also shifted towards the market model.

● The nature of the socialist state can be analysed from two perspectives:
 - Marxist perspective: According to this perspective, states in socialist economies are actually
people’s democracies. States in capitalist economies are the dictatorships of the bourgeois class
while the states in socialist economies are the dictatorships of the proletariat.

- Liberal perspective: According to this perspective, states in socialist economies are a form of
totalitarianism. Socialist economies started with the hope that states in these economies will wither
away. However, after the communist revolution, very powerful states came into existence in place
of the dictatorship of the proletariat, these states became the dictatorship of the communist parties.
Western scholars held that the situation is better in liberal democratic countries where the elite
structure is fractured whereas in communist states, monolithic elites exist as these states are based
on a single ideology. For example, the constitution of China recognises the role of the CPC in the
Chinese Revolution and China continues to be committed to the leadership of the communist party.

● In a communist state, fundamental duties are enforceable. In recent times, we have seen the tightening
of the control of the CPC on the society and on the party by the leader- Xi Jinping is a leader for life.
● According to Western scholars, the end of the Cold War was projected as the Third wave of democracy
by Huntington. However, the transition from authoritarian regimes to democracy has remained a far-
fetched dream as many communist states have gone towards the path of authoritarianism. For
example, Russia, the Central Asian states, Eastern European states- Belarus, Hungary and also China
are showing authoritarian trends.

The nature of the state in developing countries

● Developing countries are postcolonial countries known as the Global South or the Third World
countries.
● These countries suffer from a colonial legacy in administration and economy. Most of these states are
facing the problem of mass poverty and deprivation.
● The study of the political system of developing societies has been a major area of research of modern
comparative politics.
● Modern nation states in Third World countries are imported institutions and not a product of indigenous
evolution- The reason why even after independence most of these states suffer from a governability
crisis ; the reason why there will be an excessive reliance on the use of force- as in most states, violent
secessionist movements are going on. Thus, many states are failed states.
● The nature and the changing trend of the state in developing countries can be discussed by utilising
various methods which have been developed under the behavioural revolution.
● According to the political development approach, the states of developing countries can be called
prismatic states. However, according to S.P. Huntington, most of these states have witnessed political
decay.
● In the words of F.W. Riggs, these states are under the ‘development trap’.
● Gunnar Myrdal gave the concept of ‘soft state’ and he has tagged India as a ‘soft state’.
● The neo-Marxist scholars of dependency school call these states the peripheries and the ruling class
acts as the instrument of the bourgeoisie class of the core states.
● Hamza Alavi, using the structural approach, calls the postcolonial states ‘over-developed’ states.
● These states are in a state of transition and these countries adopted democracy but democracy didn’t
sustain and soon they were replaced by authoritarian regimes with the exception of India.
● Many countries also adopted the communist model. Since the 1990s, most developing countries have
shifted towards the model of liberal democracy with the exception of China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran
and the monarchies of the Gulf and few pockets in Africa.
● Out of these countries, with the exception of India, democracy remains too fragile and they continue to
be semi-authoritarian states.
● The states of these countries are not isolated from the global trend as world over, there is a decline of
the liberal world order. Even in Third World countries, we can see the rise of the rightist parties and
authoritarian leaders.

Nature of the advanced industrial state

● Advanced industrial states are those countries where industries dominate the mode of production.
Industrial revolution first took place in countries like Britain, France, the US, Canada, Germany and
some East European countries like Russia.
● Developed countries are also known as advanced industrial states. They haven been imperial powers
in the past and they continue to have dominance in politics, economics, cultural and ideological
spheres. Even after the formal end of colonisation, there may be neo-colonialism.
● They can be called the Global North or the OECD countries. In Marxist terminology, these countries are
called core countries and from the Maxist point of view, the drain of wealth still prevails from the
periphery to the core.
● Till the end of the Cold War, advanced industrial states were divided into 2 blocs- first, the capitalist
bloc and second, the socialist bloc.
● The socialist bloc countries could not sustain themselves and with the collapse of the USSR, the
majority of the socialist states adopted the Western model of politics and economy. Most of these
 counties are now developing countries despite having a strong industrial base. (deregulation,
disinvestment, diversification)
● Since the end of the Cold War, till the beginning of the 21st century, the Western Developed countries
were enjoying a dominant position. However, since 2001, there has been a decline in the hegemony of
the West, marked by the rise of the East as the centre of gravity started shifting from the Atlantic to the
Asia-Pacific. The BRICS countries started challenging these countries in different sectors. The most
affected sector in these countries is manufacturing (the rise of China).
● Since the 2008 global financial crisis, developed industrial states are not only facing an economic crisis
but they are also facing a political crisis. Whether in Western Europe or in the US, there is a rise of the
neo-rightist trend. These countries have become susceptible to the political agenda of populist parties.
Populist parties have got a new lease of life because of the combination of factors like economic crises,
migration crises, trans-national terrorism and Islamophobia.
● The victory of the right began from Poland, Hungary and the rise can be seen in France, Germany,
Netherlands, Sweden and even in the US. Thus, in the end it can be said that these countries are also
in a state of transition.

→ Politics of Participation and Representation

Party System/ Political Parties

● Political parties have become the universal feature of politics around the world irrespective of whether
the country is democratic or non-democratic. The study of political parties has become an extremely
specialised field in itself called statsiology. Political parties perform an essential input function known as
interest aggregation.

● Political parties have been analysed from two different perspectives/theories.

- Normative approach- It is proposed by Edmund Burke. According to this approach, political parties
are a set of people, sharing a common ideology, coming together for the promotion of national
interest.
- Behavioural approach- Political parties are powerhouses and the purpose of their formation is to
acquire power.

In recent times, ideology has lost relevance and we can see the rise of ‘catch all’ parties- parties which
can accommodate the voice of many ideologies, sections and people.
Theories of Political parties

1. Lenin’s theory

● Lenin has given the theory of the communist party in his pamphlet, ‘What is to be done?’
● Though Marx never accepted the idea of the party system, as it would create a hierarchy which
goes against the idea of equality. Lenin believed that workers are not capable of developing
revolutionary consciousness on their own. Hence, communist parties will act as the ‘vanguard of
revolution’.
● Lenin has made a distinction between the communist party and trade unions.
● According to him, trade unions are a part of the bourgeois system and they can get only some
concessions for workers whereas the communist party can get workers to power.
● The communist party will act as a secret society and its aim will be to overthrow the state.
● It will be pyramidal in structure. It will have its cells at local levels. Top leadership will be at the
central level. Thus the communist party will be broad at the base and narrow at the top. However,
top leadership will do whatever will be determined by the base.
● Thus, according to Lenin, communist parties will work on the principle of ‘democratic centralism’ as
the top leadership will be determined by the base.
● People will communicate and convey their demands. The top leadership will convert the people’s
demands into a workable programme of action.
● Once decisions are taken by the top leadership, it will be implemented at all levels.
● Hence, it is a centralised model of decision-making.

2. Robert Michels

● In his book ‘Political Parties’ has analysed the internal functioning of socialist parties to examine the
claim of Marxists that socialist parties operate on a different principle.
● However, he concluded that there is no difference in the internal functioning as all powers are in the
hands of the top leadership.
● Hence, he suggested that oligarchy is the iron law and power will remain in the hands of elites while
masses never shape decisions.
● Thus, irrespective of the ideology, all parties operate in the same fashion.
3. Duverger’s Law

● This Law tells the relationship between the electoral system and the party system in the country.
● If a country has a simple majority type of electoral system, it will be a two-party system but if a
country has proportional representation, it will have a multiparty system.
● However, India is an exception to Duverger’s Law.

Comparison between the Party system of Western and non-Western states

● Though Western and non-Western is a very broad concept and there is much internal differentiation
and heterogeneity. Thus, it will be very difficult to give a micro-analysis. Hence, the differences can
be analysed at a very general level.
● It is to be noted that political parties do not operate in a vacuum. They are influenced by socio-
cultural and economic factors.

● The features of political parties in Western countries-

- Mature, institutionalised democracies.
- Intra-party democracy with respect to the selection of candidates.
- The working of political parties is transparent.
- They are financially accountable.
- Political parties are primarily built on ideological lines.
- Political parties are institutionalised, hence they do not die with the death of the leader.

● In non- Western countries, there are two models- two party system and multi-party system.
● Political parties in these countries show paradoxical features as parties are modern, bureaucratic in
their organisation. However, they are traditional in functioning (nepotism prevails), thus representing
the features of a prismatic society. They lack intra-party democracy and they are controlled by
dynasties and revolve around personalities. They lack transparency and financial accountability.
This is more complex, multi-dimensional as class, caste, region, religion, language all play a role.
Thus political parties do not have secular ideologies.

Interest Groups (Read Bluebooks)

● Interest and pressure groups are called the invisible empires.

● The difference between political parties and pressure groups is that political parties contest for
acquiring formal posts in government offices while pressure groups do not. Yet, they may influence
government decisions to a great extent.
● It can be said that pressure groups play the game of hide and seek in the political system. If political
parties perform the role of interest aggregation, pressure groups play the role of interest articulation.
● The study of interest pressure groups is the main concern for political sociologists as they operate
at the interface of politics and society.
● The pluralist theory of democracy or power has put a lot of emphasis on the study of pressure
groups as Robert Dahl, on the basis of the study of the role of pressure groups in the US, prefers to
call the US a ‘polyarchy’. There is no difference between the interest and the pressure groups as
both are performing the same function of interest articulation except for terminology.
● Traditionalist scholars prefer the term ‘pressure group’ while behaviouralists prefer ‘interest groups’
(they wanted to develop standard terminology in the subject of political science. According to them,
when we say ‘pressure group’, we are focusing on the technique employed by these groups and
when we use the term ‘interest group’, we are focusing on the purpose of interest articulation)
Behavouralists say that ‘interest group’ is more accurate as pressure is employed by opposition
political parties as well. Hence the term ‘pressure group’ may create ambiguity.

Types of interest/pressure groups

Gabriel Almond: Has classified interest pressure groups into 4 types:

1. Institutional
They are a part of government institutions. These interest groups are seen as the most powerful ones
as they operate within the system and they are in the best possible situation to influence government
policies. Eg- organisation of civil servants, military personnel. They are more prominent in developing
countries considering the fact that the state in these countries is ‘over-developed’- Hamza Alavi.
Western states are comparatively minimal or night watchman states although in reality, the situation
may vary. For eg- the US is a developed country but the military plays a prominent role in politics. (In
India, the power of the civil service is much greater. In developed countries, civil society performs this
role)

2. Non-associational
Community based interest groups- caste, religion, language. They are exclusive in nature and
membership criteria is based on birth. They play a prominent role in prismatic societies.

3. Associational

They denote the organisations based purely on interest irrespective of caste, colour, creed, religion,
region and language. Eg- trade unions, business lobbies, agricultural lobbies. They are more prominent
in Western countries although the trend is changing in non-Western countries too under the forces of
globalisation.

4. Anomic
When people come together for collective behaviour which cannot be put in any of the above
categories. In general, they are short-term associations. Eg- people taking to the streets to protest
against injustice. They are more common in developing countries due to the inadequate
institutionalisation of democracy.

Jean Blondell’s classification: He has defined them based on membership and functions:

1. Membership
- Associational and non-associational

2. Functions
- Protective (when people come together for narrow interests) and developmental (when people
come together for broader interests- environment, human rights violation for eg)

Social Movements

● They are a type of collective behaviour like political parties and social movements. The study of
social movements is also the main concern of political sociologists.
● Pressure groups, political parties and social movements are interchangeable.
● Eg- The Indian nationalist social movement led to the emergence of the INC- a party
The movement against corruption led to the emergence of the AAP
● Out of the above 3, social movements are the least institutionalised. They are primarily a feature of
left politics while in liberal discourse, scholars do not prefer to use the term ‘social movement’ as
they use ’resource mobilisation’.
● Social movements began in the West as a reaction against the exploitation of the working class.
Thus, the workers’ movements were the earliest social movements and they are also called the ‘old
social movements’.
● In the West, around the 1960s, the trend of new social movements started and these were more
concerned with developmental issues and the quality of life. They were occupied with the
environment, nuke free world etc.
● In the developing world, considering the prismatic nature of the society and the state, old and new
social movements are not entirely distinct. They overlap. For eg- environmental issues also includes
the issue of livelihood for tribals and farmers.
● Old social movements deal with ‘bread and butter’ issues while new social movements deal with the
matter of ‘quality of life’- liberal interpretation of the right to life.
● While old social movements are led by the lower classes, the new ones are led by the middle class.
● While old social movements are materialistic, the new ones are post-materialistic- mental and
spiritual well-being.
● The objective of old social movements was to gain political and economic power while the objective
of the new social movements is not to gain power but to raise consciousness.

→ What determines the foreign policy of States?

National Interest

● Objective interests: Core interests- integrity and sovereignty; territorial integrity; water, food and
energy security (No state can afford to bring dilution in its core interests- hence political
deadlock in world affairs- justification for war, acquisition of nuclear weapons)
● Subjective interests:

(( Realists believe that Realism is timeless wisdom- all states strive to acquire power for the purpose of
survival

Prerequisites for power- economy, defence, alliances, political stability within the state, geography
Geoeconomics rather than Geopolitics- U.S. would intervene if China were to invade Taiwan
because the semiconductor industry there is crucial but the U.S. did not directly intervene when Russia
invaded Ukraine ))

→ Geopolitics (short note)

● It is the study of the effect of geographical factors on international politics. This term was first
used by the Swedish political scientist Rudolph Kjellen. He was the student of Frederick Ratzel
who was the political ideologue of Hitler and has given the concept of ‘Lebensraum’
● Lebensraum: State is like a living organism and like an organism, the State also requires
nourishment for its growth. This concept of Ratzel is based on the application of Social
Darwinism that is the ‘survival of the fittest’ (Hitler’s foreign policy was based on the concept of
Lebensraum)

Geostrategy

● Geostrategy is the sub-field of Geopolitics. It is a type of foreign policy guided primarily by the
geographical factors
● The important scholars of geopolitics or geostrategy are Ratzel, Kjellen, Alfred Thayer Mahan,
H.J. Mackinder (heartland theory- whosoever will control ), N.J. Spykman (Rimland theory)
● Mahan’s theory: Those who will control the oceans will control the world and the Indian Ocean is
the key to all the oceans in the world; also K.M. Panikkar said: whosoever will control the Indian
Ocean will have Indians at their mercy
● Heartland theory of Mackinder: Whosoever will control Eastern Europe will control the Heartland
and whosoever will control the Heartland will have world dominance. Mackinder has given
importance to the continental powers. The Nazi party was in favour of this concept during WW2
and this theory was accepted by the USSR during the Cold War.
● Rimland theory of Spykman: Whosoever will control the Rimland will have world dominance.
Spykman countered the Heartland theory of Mackinder and he stated that it is the Eurasian
Rimland, that is, the coastal powers which will be the key to world dominance. Rimland theory
became very influential during the Cold War and it became the area of geopolitics as both the
superpowers were trying to increase their influence within the Rimland. Even in the
contemporary times, these theories have not become redundant or they are irrelevant and by
 observing the world politics closely, we can realise that these areas or regions are still the main
arenas of world politics

→ International politics

● The emergence of the sovereign state system took place in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).
International politics is inter-state politics, that is, politics between states interacting with each
other independently. Hence, state sovereignty becomes most important in international politics
or in other words, territorial integrity and political independence becomes inviolable.
● International politics was basically European politics till WW2 and it became truly international
after the end of WW2 with the emergence of Afro-Asian states
● T.o.Westphalia to WW2- Modern age- international politics, sovereignty and now Postmodern
age- global politics (international politics + global governance), rise of supranational institutions,
dilution of state sovereignty, focus on deterritorialisation and decentralisation, global village but
necessary because states can’t solve many problems on their own so this is in their interest

How Geopolitics has evolved

1. From International politics to Global politics

2. From Independence to Complex interdependence
3. From Billiard Ball Model to Cobweb Model
4. From State-centrism to Mixed Actor Model (non violent, non-state actors)

● Though states remain the primary institutions, global governance also involves supranational
bodies and inter-governmental organisations. According to liberals, the trend has tilted from
international politics towards global politics and this will strengthen global governance.
Ultimately, this will lead to the formation of the world government. Liberals believe that a world
government can counter international anarchy (Realists believe that it is not possible to have a
world government as it will lead to the dilution of the sovereignty of states. It is not capable of
imposing its will on nation states)
● Under supranationalism, sovereignty and decision-making authority is being transferred from
constituent bodies to the international or the regional organisations. The advancement of
supranationalism is seen as part of the general integrated trend within global politics.
 ● However, the critics of supranationalism (Realists) claim that these institutions are seen as
threats by the states to their sovereignty and national identity. For states, their sovereignty is
sacrosanct ((For Realists, the UN and EU (considered supranationalist institutions by Liberals)
are quasi-governance institutions at best and not supranational institutions ))

→ Intergovernmentalism

● It refers to the interaction amongst states which takes place on the basis of sovereign
independence. It is different from supranationalism. In such bodies, state sovereignty is
preserved through a process of unanimous decision-making

→ World Government

● It is an idea of all humankind united under one common political authority based on the idea of
decentralisation of authority. ICJ, EU etc have the features of world government- binding on the
parties
● Liberals think that it is the only way to counter international anarchy and end wars while for
Realists, world government is utopian

→ Globalisation

● It is the emergence of a complex web of interdependence

● The central feature of globalisation is that geographical distance is of declining relevance and
the territorial borders between nation states are becoming less significant. Our lives are shaped
by events that occur at a great distance from us
● Globalisation has been interpreted in 3 ways- political, economic, cultural
● Political globalisation- growing importance of international organisations although their nature
and implications vary- may be based on the principles of intergovernmentalism or
supranationalism
● Economic globalisation- it refers to the process whereby all national economies to a greater or
lesser extent are absorbed into an interlocking global economy. Marxists have interpreted the
forces of globalisation as neo-colonialism
 ● Cultural globalisation- It is the process where information, commodities, images produced in one
part of the world enter into the global flow that tends to flatten out the cultural differences
between regions and nations. It is closely linked to and emerged in association with economic
globalisation. It is the domination of foreign ideas and values and it has led to the rise of ethnic
violence in many parts of the world

→ International Relations

● The term IR was coined by Jeremy Bentham. It is the youngest of disciplines, the first Chair of
International Politics was established at the University of Wales in 1919 after the end of WW1-
known as the Woodrow Wilson Chair.
● Though the subject of IR dates back to the early modern era when the sovereign states were
established under the Treaty of Westphalia, it became a proper academic discipline after the
end of WW2. After WW2, the discipline was dominated by American scholars and it became
American social science (behavioural revolution). The end of the Cold War led to the expansion
of UN membership and IR became a universal academic subject
● The phases of IR-
1. Treaty of Westphalia to WW1 (1648 to 1919)
2. WW1 to WW2- Interwar period (1919- 1939)(Modern age until here)
3. End of WW2 to the end of the Cold War (1945- 1991) (Postmodern)
4. End of Cold War until the present times (1991-)

Phase One

● The Treaty of Westphalia led to the emergence of nation-states which ended the Thirty Years’
War in Europe. It led to the establishment of the Westphalian World Order. Under this order,
world politics was mainly concentrated in Europe and the politics of Europe was shaped by
powers like Britain, France and Germany.
● Politics of this phase can be explained using the Billiard Ball Model given by Arnold Wolfers-
- There will be four or five great powers but there will be no superpower (the one who
cannot be challenged even if all the other powers get together)
- There will be an absence of universal actors like the League of Nations or the UN
- Politics will be state-centric
- Each state will have to depend on itself for survival
 - States will consistently collide with each like free-standing balls in the game of billiards.
- This model believes that there are no permanent friends or foes politics and there will a
prevalence of anarchy in the system with high chances of war

Phase Two

● During this period, attempts were made to change the manner in which politics is conducted
among the states. After the end of WW1, the US President, Woodrow Wilson, suggested certain
ideas in his ‘Fourteen Points’ speech in the US Congress. The major ideas of his speech are-

- The establishment of the League of Nations (first initiative taken towards global
governance although the US never joined it as the Congress decided to continue with
the policy of isolation- Monroe Doctrine)
- He suggested to replace the concept of balance of power with the idea of collective
security
- Maintain free trade between states (first step towards globalisation)
- Maintain freedom of navigation in high seas
- Promotion of democracy in the world (democratic peace theory- democratic leaders are
responsible and can go to war only for sovereignty and integrity but not for their
personal, arbitrary reasons- peaceful resolution, rule of law) and recognition of people’s
right of self-determination

● These principles of Wilson were pronounced as the principles that can establish a New World
Order based on liberal ideas. The objective of establishing the new world order denotes the
existence of the Old World Order, that is, the Westphalian World Order. However, the New
World Order never came into existence as WW2 could not be prevented. As the US Congress
decided not to join the League of Nations, the responsibility to make it work fell upon European
countries- Britain, France. The leaders of both the countries accepted the ideas of the New
World Order. However, both were sceptical about the idea of collective security and both
continued with their old style of politics, that is, maintaining the balance of power.

● In 1917, the Communist Revolution took place and the USSR was established, frightening the
capitalist world and due to this reason, the capitalists of Britain, France and the US began
appeasement of fascist powers against the threat of communism- the reason why they
overlooked the expansionist actions of Hitler and Mussolini. They allowed the League of Nations
 and collective security to collapse. Hence the vision of the New World Order by Wilson proved
short lived.

● In this period, the first major debate took place in the subject of IR- between Idealists (Utopian
Liberals- New World Order) and Realists (not possible- Westphalian order will prevail)

- The Realist scholars, during the interwar period, termed the Liberals as ‘Idealists’ or
‘Utopian Liberals’. According to them, the Idealists have misread the facts of history and
they have misunderstood politics. They believe that Idealists have ignored the role of
power.
- Idealists have accepted that the traditional power politics is like a jungle where no law
prevails and the need is to apply the restraints of international organisations to make it a
zoo. However, Realists say that it will not be possible to reorganise the jungle into a zoo
as strong states will never allow themselves to be caged. Rather than international
organisations, it is the balance of power which can prevent war. WW2 could have been
prevented if the balance of power had been maintained.
- As the second major war took place in the world, the first debate was won by Realists
but Liberal ideas did not disappear. They re-emerged with greater strength after the end
of WW2.

Phase Three

● The end of WW2 led to the beginning of the Cold War between two superpowers- the US and
the USSR. Some scholars have called this phase the Cold War World Order. It saw the rise of
superpowers unlike the great powers of the Westphalian World Order, The status of a
superpower is different from that of a great power. It denotes extraordinary power and means
that other states, even in combination, cannot challenge the superpower. The Westphalian
World Order was multipolar and the Cold War World Order was bipolar
● During this phase, there was a collapse of the traditional balance of power politics which gave
rise to nuclear balance of power- nuclear deterrence to avoid war. Balance of power through
nuclear deterrence is called ‘balance of terror’.
● After the end of WW2, the academic discipline of IR expanded rapidly, especially under the US
scholars. Their focus was on scientific research and their objective was to create verifiable laws.
 These new ideas came to be summarised under the term ‘behaviouralism’. Behaviouralism was
a movement to study social sciences more scientifically.
● In this phase, the second major debate took place- between Neoliberalism and Neorealism

- Neoliberalism: After 1945, during Cold War tensions, the Realist interpretation seemed
correct. However, during the Cold War, interdependence between states started
increasing. The formation of institutions like the UN, IMF and WB provided the basis for
a new attempt by the liberals to formulate an alternative to realist thinking. Neoliberals
decided to avoid the utopian essence of earlier liberals (the Idealists). This renewed
approach is known as Neoliberalism and its focus was on interdependence, regional
integration and cooperation among the states.Conflicts will keep emerging but the need
is to prevent war through cooperation, interdependence etcetera- recommending ways
to ensure peace.

- The different schools of Neoliberalism are-

a. Republican liberalism
b. Institutional liberalism
c. Interdependence liberalism
d. Sociological liberalism

- These schools or strands of Neoliberalism challenge the Realistic analysis of IR and

there was a great feeling among the IR scholars that Neoliberalism was on the way to
become the dominant approach in IR.

- However, in 1979, the reformation of Realism by Kenneth Waltz once again tipped the
scale towards Realism. Neorealist scholars attempt to formulate law-like statements.
Hence, they depart sharply from Classical Realism. Neorealists focus on the structure of
the international system and according to Waltz, the structure is anarchic. Thus for
Waltz, states are seeking power and are security-conscious not because of human
nature (Classical Realists) but because of the structure of the international system which
compels them to seek power. Neorealists have not denied the possibilities of
cooperation among states (Realists had denied) but they have maintained that states
cooperate to maximise power. Therefore, just because there is cooperation among
states, it does not mean that the neoliberal view is vindicated. According to them, there
will always be competition between the self-interested states that are fundamentally
 concerned about their power position relative to each other. Thus Neorealists succeeded
in putting Neoliberalism on the back foot.

- Neoliberals accepted the Realist view that anarchy prevails in the international system
and the way to counter that is through vibrant cooperation. Neorealists believe that the
way to counter anarchy is balance of power. Although both Neorealists and Neoliberals
come closer to sharing a stand that states are the main actors in world politics

Phase Four

● Phase of complex interdependence (cooperation and conflict can go hand in hand). It was the
US President Bush Sr., who, after the end of the Cold War, declared the emergence of a new
world order, the Global World Order. In the words of Belli and Smith, world politics has shifted
from international to global. A Global World Order denotes complex interdependence
● The Billiard Ball model has been replaced by the Cobweb Model given by John Burton- while
the first was state centric, the latter was society centric. Under the Cobweb Model, states are
connected with one another through multiple threats. In present times, the BBM is under
pressure as a result of interdependence and interconnectedness.
● According to many scholars, the post-Cold War world order is still evolving and all the features
of this world order have not emerged in the immediate context. Earlier it appeared as if a bipolar
world would be replaced by a unipolar world order under US hegemony. However, since the
2008 financial crisis, scholars have been discussing the possible emergence of a multipolar
world in which the BRICS and EU have emerged as other poles. The current global order has
become much more complicated with many actors. On one hand, there has been a rise of
ethnic and subnational movements in Third World countries while on the other hand, there are
growing tensions between great powers.
● The Westphalian World Order has not ended as sovereignty and territorial integrity are still
regarded as sacred principles but at the same time, interventions by the international community
in domestic affairs have increased.
● According to political scholars, international politics is suffering from the crisis of anomie- or a
state of confusion
● Joseph Nye has described the present world order to be in the state of complex
interdependence. Nye has explained that the present world order is like a chessboard. The
 world is unipolar in terms of military power, it is multipolar in economic terms and it is diffused
apolar in its socio-cultural aspects.

→ Theories of IR

Purpose of IR

● To understand the processes in international politics so as to frame foreign policies accordingly

● To understand the nature and the structure of international politics
● To use these theories as a tool to predict the behaviour of other states
● These theories offer an emancipatory vision- what needs to be done

Types of Theories in IR

● Empirical/Descriptive/Scientific- Their focus is on what is- influenced by behaviouralism which

emerged after the end of WW2. These theories are evidence based and try to frame laws. Eg-
Neorealism and Neoliberalism are seen as scientific theories
● Normative/Prescriptive- Their focus is on what ought to be
● Critical/Interpretive/Post-positivism/Constructive- These theories have offered the critique of the
established traditions or the mainstream perspectives- Realism and Liberalism. They have
raised two kinds of issues- methodological (how to study IR), substantive (how to decide which
issues are more important). They are against the scientific explanations of IR as it is not
possible to ignore normative values and human behaviour is an integral part of IR.
- Postmodernism/Post-structuralism
- Social Constructivism
- Feminism
- Post-colonial
- Green

Theories of IR can also be classified as-

● Traditional/Conventional/Classical- Mainstream perspectives: Realism, Liberalism, International

Society School, International Political Economy. They regard the state system as valuable and
the state system as the core institution of modern life. They have taken a positive view of the
 state. They hold that the state should uphold values. However, they differ on which values are
more important. Eg- Realists focus on security, Liberals focus on freedom, ISS on order and
justice, IPE on welfare

● Critical/Revisionist/Radical- These theories regard the state as problematic and they see the
Treaty of Westphalia as a conception or a construction by traditional IR scholars. They want to
change the Westphalian order (When states themselves threaten security instead of providing it,
it prompts these perspectives)

→ Realism

● It is the dominant theory in IR. It can further be divided into Classical Realism, Neorealism or
Structural Realism, Strategic Realism and Neoclassical Realism

Basic assumptions of the Realist school (across all sub-schools)

● Realist scholars have taken a pessimistic view of human nature as according to them, humans
by nature are egoistic, self-interested and have a hunger for power
● International relations is necessarily conflictual and international conflicts are ultimately resolved
by war
● State survival is the core national interest and power is the ultimate aim
● All states will pursue their own national interests
● In the international states system, there will always be anarchy and it is not possible to have a
world government
● All international agreements are conditional on the willingness of states to observe them
● States are the most important actors whose fundamental responsibility is to advance and
defend national interests. This was most brutally stated by Machiavelli in his book, Prince, “As
long as possible rulers should not stay away from good but should know how to enter into evil
when necessity commands.”
● Realists will remain valid eternally in time and space because the basic facts of world politics
will never change

I. Classical Realism

Intellectual precursors-
 ● Thucydides- Greek scholar studied the Peloponnesian war- the strong will do what they have to
and the weak will accept as they have to. Thus according to him, what matters in international
politics is power. Even God cannot help, only self-help works. Thus, states do not have much
choice and world politics operates on the principle of power politics

● Machiavelli- The main responsibility of the ruler is to defend the interests of the state and ensure
its survival. The ruler needs to be ruthless in pursuit of national interest and this requires
strength. “The ruler should be brave like a lion and clever like a fox”. The ruler should be ready
to act against his promise and his religion as political morality is very different from private
morality. The fundamental values of security and survival must guide the foreign policy of the
state.

● Hobbes- the state of nature is a state of permanent war which led to the creation of the
sovereign state. The values of peace and order prevails firmly in the minds of the people which
has led to the creation of the sovereign state. This statist solution to the problem of life in the
state of nature has automatically posed another serious political problem as it has created a
state of nature between states. It is expected from states that they will ensure the security of the
people but often it is the state itself that threatens the security of the people- referred to as the
Security Dilemma in world politics. The international state of nature is a condition for potential
war and there is no escape from the international security dilemma.

● Thus, according to Realists, there can be peace within the framework of sovereign states-
domestic peace- but it is not possible to have peace in the international system as it is not
possible to have world government
● These pessimistic and unhopeful views are at the heart of the IR of Classical Realists of the
20th century- H.J. Morgenthau

H.J. Morgenthau

● Hans Morgenthau was the first person to give the systematic view of international politics in his
book, ‘Politics Among Nations’, in 1948. He was influenced by the works of Machiavelli. He was
fearful of American foreign policymakers developing some idealistic trends (as they felt that US
has been able to establish its hegemony)
● He has given 6 principles of Realism to warn American foreign policy-makers and he claimed
that they are scientific principles-
Classical Realism lays emphasis on two aspects-
- normative (value based) as it deals with political ethics which are circumstantial
- Empirical (observation based) as it observed human beings as they are

1. Man and woman, by nature, are political animals- animus dominadi (power seeking
animals). They are born to pursue power. States are run by humans so states are also
seeking power
a.

2. Self interest is the basic fact of human condition as human beings are guided by self-
interest. So nations are also guided by their national interest and survival is the
fundamental interest- it is the prime motivation of foreign policy and the only way to
secure it is through power. According to him, power is the means and power is the end
a.

3. Though national interest remains the permanent motivation, it is highly dynamic and
countries have to consistently revise their interest
a.

4. On the role of ethics: Like Machiavelli, Morgenthau has not seen the role of ethics in
world politics and according to him, universal moral principles cannot be applied to the
states. He believed that there exists dual morality- one for the private sphere and a
different morality for the public sphere. Political ethics allows some actions that would
not have been allowed by private morality. Thus for Morgenthau, pragmatism is the
ethics of politics- being politically correct. Morgenthau was critical of the US President
Woodrow Wilson who believed that it is necessary that political ethics be brought in line
with private ethics. For Morgenthau, the Head of the State needs to understand that
political and private ethics are not the same and the exercise of political power in foreign
affairs inevitably involves moral dilemmas and sometimes, it may involve evil actions to
prevent greater evil. The responsible State leader should try to do the best that
circumstances permit on that particular day as the leader is responsible towards people
who depend on him/her for security and welfare. This circumstantial situation of political
choice is the normative heart of Classical Realism.

5. He has not seen any significance of ideology in international politics. According to him,
ideologies are masks to hide real intentions.
 6. On the nature of international politics- Like Machiavelli, he said that international politics
is neither ethics nor law. It has its own rules. Morgenthau also believed that international
politics is not an inspiring field but that is how it is. This pessimistic knowledge of human
values as they are and not as we wish them to be is the empirical aspect of his theory.

Criticism of Morgenthau-

● Criticised by Neo-realists- Scholars like Waltz have criticised him for not being scientific
● Criticised by Liberals- For taking a pessimistic view of human nature
● One of the major criticisms comes from Feminists. J.A. Tickner has reformulated the 6 principles
of Morgenthau from a feminist perspective. She has disagreed with his view of human nature as
she believes that human nature is culturally defined. Human nature at the same time can be
both masculinist and feminist.

II. Structural Realism or Neorealism

● Since the 1950s, new Realist perspectives emerged and they are the outcomes of the quest for
making laws in IR. They hold back from providing a normative analysis of world politics because
it seems to be subjective and unscientific. This marks a fundamental divide between Classical
Realists on one side and Structural or Neo-Realists and Strategic Realists on the other. Both
Structural and Strategic Realists have ignored norms and values in favour of scientific analysis
of structures and processes in IR.

The Difference between Classical and Neo-Realists (** important for Mains)

● There is no difference as far as the basic assumptions about international politics are
concerned. The basic difference lies in methodology. According to Neo-Realists, the theory of
Morgenthau cannot be considered as scientific as it is not possible to have a scientific
understanding of human behaviour. Hence, they have changed the methodology from actor-
level analysis to structure-level analysis. Thus, Neo-Realism is also called Structural or
Scientific Realism.
● Neo-Realism emerged during the Cold War and they challenged Neo-Liberals. There had been
a question mark on the status of Realism as a scientific theory. Liberal scholars like Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye challenged the status of Realism as a scientific study of international
 politics. Thus the Neo-Realists aimed to establish the scientific nature of Realism to prove that
Realism is a timeless wisdom.
● In 1979, the world saw the re-emergence of the Cold War and in the same year, Waltz’s book,
‘Theory of International Politics’, was published. His ideas were inspired by the scientific
ambitions under behaviouralism.

Prominent ideas of Kenneth Waltz

1. Unlike Morgenthau who went for actor level analysis, Waltz goes for structural level analysis
and he has emphasised the structure of international politics in anarchy.
2. According to Waltz, the basic difference between the structure of international politics and that
of domestic politics in anarchy. In the domestic sphere, the state exists and its responsibility is
to provide stability and security. Hence, in the domestic sphere, individuals need not possess
arms for their protection but in the international sphere, the state has no option but to acquire
arms. Hence the structure of international politics creates the security dilemma and it becomes
a struggle for power
3. States in international politics do not differ much in terms of functions as they have to perform
approximately the same functions. However, they do differ in terms of capabilities or the amount
of power. Thus, the structure of the international system changes with the changes in the
distribution of capabilities. The balance of power shifts accordingly
4. Waltz has distinguished between the bipolar system which existed during the Cold War and the
multipolar system which emerged after the end of the Cold War. He believed that bipolar
systems will be more stable and provide a better guarantee of peace and security than
multipolar systems.
5. According to Waltz, with only two superpowers, it will be easier to operate the effective system
of deterrence. Thus, the Cold War was the era of international stability and peace.
6. There is no need for states to go on an endless search for power. They should acquire power
that is sufficient for their defence. Thus Waltz has supported security maximisation rather than
power maximisation. Striving for an unnecessary amount of power is counter-productive. When
states go for power maximisation, that is, the unending pursuit of power or power beyond
security, it proves to be counterproductive as it will force other states to form counter-coalitions
and balance hegemony.
7. According to Waltz, the structure of international politics gives no freedom to actors and he sees
leaders as robots that respond to impersonal constraints and the dictates of the international
 system. Thus, whosoever will be the foreign policy maker is compelled to go for power politics
as the structure of international politics constrains the choices of leaders Therefore, we can see
continuity in the foreign policies of states.
8. It is the great powers that manage the international system. Thus, changes in the capabilities of
great powers will bring requisite changes in the structure of international politics. Great powers
have a big stake in the international system and in its management. Thus, from this point of
view, it is clear that Waltz values international order and he was convinced that international
order is more likely to be achieved in a bipolar system than in a multipolar system.

Although Waltz wants to present a scientific analysis of world politics which was a big step beyond the
moral theories of Classical Realism. Although Waltz has not made any explicit reference to values or
ethics, the concepts and issues with which he is concerned are normative ones. This serves a
reminder that even scientific explanations frequently involve norms and values

John Mearsheimer: Neorealist Stability Theory

● He is a post- Cold War Realist and his book, ‘Tragedy of Great Power Politics’, was published in
2001. The end of the Cold War raised questions about the future of Realist theories as there
were doubts about its status as a timeless wisdom. After the end of the Cold War, there has
been remarkable growth in cooperation between states with a phenomenal increase in regional
cooperation, global conventions and the membership of international institutions.
● The end of the Cold War led to the emergence of globalisation, leading to the growth of
interdependence and it seems like international politics has changed to global politics. Thus it
was advocated that Realist policies no longer hold any relevance and world politics will now be
conducted along the lines suggested by Liberals (states need not be concerned about an arms
race and they can pursue the politics of cooperation).
● In the above context, Mearsheimer reestablished the relevance of Realism although he was
critical of Waltz whom he categorised as a Defensive Realist. He refers to his own theory as
Offensive Realism.
● No amount of power is enough- on this point, he comes closer to Classical Realists like
Morgenthau as for both, power is an end in itself. States are not security maximisers, they are
power maximisers. Anarchy or the structure compels the state to compete for power. However,
he argues that states seek hegemony.
 ● The focus of his work was on the future of US- China relations. Mearsheimer has suggested
that the objective of China is to increase its power, not for its security but for its dominance.
According to him, states are power maximisers rather than security maximisers and it will be
foolish on the part of US foreign policy makers if they accept the discourse of the ‘peaceful rise
of China.’ The sooner the US will take steps to contain China, the better it would be as the gap
between the powers of the US and China is fast disappearing. Never in the history of
humankind has the rise of any country in the context of all dimensions of power been so fast.
The US should aspire for hegemony rather than balance and it should not allow any country to
attain balance of power (Waltz suggested balance of power; Mearsheimer- only guarantee of
security is hegemony)
● The second focus of his work is to conduct a structural analysis of world politics where he has
built upon Waltz’s statement, ‘Bipolar system is more stable than a multipolar system’.
Mearsheimer argues that the long peace and stability in Europe between 1945 and 1990 was
the result of the bipolar system. The withdrawal of superpowers from the European heartland
has led to the rise of a multipolar system as the 5 great powers are Germany, Britain, France,
Italy and Russia. This system will lead to more instability and violence- a highly undesirable
return to the bad old ways of European anarchy and instability and the renewed danger of
conflicts, crisis and war.

Criticism of Structural Realism or Neorealism

● Liberals
● Feminists
● Social Constructivists
● Marxists- According to them, Realists aimed to put a curtain across the exploitative nature of
global capitalism by suggesting the supremacy of national interest. National interest is just the
interest of the capitalist class.
● Postmodernists
● International Society school

III. Strategic Realism

● Strategic Realism focuses centrally on the foreign policy decision-making where the leaders of
the state confronts basic diplomatic and military issues
 ● State leaders are obliged to think strategically if they have to be successful
● According to the scholars, it is a scientific theory. It is also called Game Theory. The
assumptions are also based on the basic assumptions of Realism. The central concept that
Shelling has emphasised is that of threat analysis- how states will deal rationally with threats
and dangers
● He has suggested that international politics can be understood as a game. The few concepts of
the game
- A game implies a game of strategy like chess
- It is assumed that a game is played to win or to maximise gains
- It is also assumed that those who are playing the game, states or foreign policy makers,
are rational
- Every game has its payoff, that is, cost-benefit analysis.
- Games can be categorised based on their outcome- zero sum game (one’s gain is the
other’s loss) and non-zero sum game.
- According to Shelling, games can also be categorised based on the number of persons
playing the game- 2 persons and ‘n’ persons. Although ‘n’ person game is the reality of
international politics, the models developed by the game theorists have been 2 person
non-zero sum games
- The prominent models are Chicken Game and Prisoners’ Dilemma (developed by A.W.
Tucker).

Prisoners’ Dilemma

● PD shows how two rational individuals might not cooperate even if it might be in their best
interest. This game helps in predicting the possible course of action which states will adopt.
● It has been observed that states fail to adopt the best course of action. According to Strategic
Realism, states cannot trust each other because of the prevalence of anarchy and the primacy
of national interest (focus on the structure rather than the actor- like Neo-Realists). If both states
cooperate, both would have mutual benefit. However, if one cooperates and the other defects
then the defector would have greater advantage over the other. Hence, states will prefer that
course of action which may not be beneficial but ensures their survival.
● The nuclear arms race between countries, eg. India and Pakistan or any other countries, can be
explained using this model. This model does not provide any suggestion. Considering the HDI in
both countries, the best course of action would be to divert resources towards development. It
 will be a win-win situation if both enter into an agreement that both will go for nuclear
disarmament. However, both are stuck in the Prisoners’ Dilemma as there can be a situation
where one country defects and this would give a clear advantage to the defector and pose a
threat to the survival of the other. Hence both will not go for nuclear disarmament.
● Thus for Shelling, the activity of foreign policy is free from moral choices. It is not primarily
concerned about what is good or what is right but it is concerned with the question of what is
required for the foreign policy to be successful.

Chicken Game

● This game was developed during the Cuban Missile Crisis

● It helps in predicting the outcome when the two actors are in a state of head-on collision. The
rational action would be to avoid a bigger catastrophe.
● During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the tension between the US and the USSR reached the level
where one party had to dilute its stand otherwise it would have led to Mutually Assured
Destruction. In this case, the USSR agreed not to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba although in
return, it took a guarantee from the US that it would not deploy its nuclear missiles in Poland.
● According to Shelling, this was the rational act that was to minimise the loss rather than reach
the level of self-destruction for the sake of prestige and ego. Thus, according to Shelling, states
and leaders will make their moves as per their payoff as actors are rational.

Criticism of Strategic Realism

● According to the critics, it is wrong to equate international politics with a game. The major
drawback of strategic realism is that the rules of the game in international politics are defined by
the participating states without any umpire and players can change the rules whenever they
wish.
● Also, most games have an end but international politics resembles an unending game. No state
can pick up their marbles and go home

IV. Neoclassical Realism

● Neoclassical Realism is a reformation of Neorealism as under Neoclassical Realism, structure

level analysis has been combined with actor level analysis. A prominent Neoclassical Realist
 scholar is Randal Schewallar. Scholars have suggested 3 levels of analysis- actor level,
structure level and domestic level constraints (role of non-violent non-state actors).
● According to Neoclassical Realists, the state leadership operates within the overall constraints
of the anarchical structure of IR. It also seeks to introduce the internal characteristics of the
state- non-violent non-state actors (the view suggested by sociological liberals). Thus it is
closer to the liberal approaches of IR and it contrasts sharply with Neorealism.

→ Theory of Liberalism

● The liberal tradition is closely linked with the emergence of modern liberal states. Some basic
liberal assumptions are
- A positive or optimistic view of human nature
- Liberals believe in progress- Man possesses reason and when it is applied to
international politics, greater cooperation is possible- leads to the belief that IR can be
cooperative rather than conflictual
- Realists emphasise on security, Liberals on freedom- but both believe in the state for the
same
- Liberals believe that wars are not profitable and if power is the aim of states then so is
prosperity. Thus, in the field of international relations, Liberals are known as the ‘children
of light’ and Realists are known as the ‘children of darkness’.

Intellectual precursors

● John Locke- Took a more balanced view of human nature. He believed that Man does have
reason which teaches him the benefit of cooperation
● Immanuel Kant- has given the concept of human dignity. His two prominent ideas are economic
interdependence and the republican form of government rather than monarchy (led to the
school of Republican Liberalism)
● Norman Angel- He suggested that wars are not profitable, not even for the victors
● Woodrow Wilson- in his Fourteen Points speech, gave the idea of collective security which led
to the creation of the League of Nations

Four schools of Liberalism

 ● Liberal institutionalism
● Economic interdependence
● Sociological liberalism
● Republican liberalism (democratic peace theory)

I. Liberal Institutionalism

● The theme of this school is that international politics is in the state of anarchy because there are
no parallel institutions like that of the state in the domestic sphere. If a similar arrangement is
also established in the international sphere then the nature and the structure of international
politics will change
● In the words of Woodrow Wilson, it is possible to convert a jungle into a zoo. According to the
scholars of this school, the advantages of promoting liberal institutionalism are-
- It limits the possibility of war. It is assumed that states are rational actors and the
resolution of disputes at the level of international organisations is less costly and more
productive than resolution through war
- One of the reasons for the security dilemma and states’ quest for power is the
vulnerability that exists in world politics with respect to the behaviour of other states
- International organisations will help in the evolution of norms and a platform for
interaction and communication- thus there will be greater predictability in state actions
- These platforms give states the opportunity to understand each other’s point of view.
These organisations act as platforms for monitoring commitments by states and for
holding them accountable
- Wilson suggested that the concept of balance of power can be replaced by the concept
of collective security

Criticism

● Realist scholars continued to be critical as even in the post-Cold War world order, we cannot
overlook the significance of the power factor.
● Joseph Nye has given the concept of quasi-negotiations- negotiations in international politics
seem like negotiations but there is very little outcome as it has been observed that big powers
apply their coercive diplomacy against smaller countries to get support for their point of view.
According to Nye, it is a handful of countries that set the whole agenda
 ● International organisations need restructuring as the UN, IMF, World Bank are highly tilted in
favour of developed countries. It is often said that international organisations suffer from a
democratic deficit as they are managed by the bureaucracy of developed states and their
functioning is also non-transparent. According to Realists, international law remains weak as it
lacks the power of enforcement. On many occasions, it is the great powers who have
undermined international organisations. Countries are not interested in strengthening the
international organisations as it would dilute their sovereignty.
● However, according to Liberal Institutionalists, the role of international organisations cannot be
neglected as they do act as buffers and they claim that international organisations and
institutions have made a significant difference and that international politics has turned into
global politics. They are relevant for providing a platform for the deliberation and evolution of
global norms
● According to Liberal Institutionalists, we are living in a world where there are numerous
challenges like climate change, epidemics, food security etc which cannot be tackled by a state
alone. Though it is true that international organisations require urgent reforms, these institutions
will not work if nations do not fulfil their commitments. Thus they say that the responsibility to
make them work lies on the shoulders of great powers.

II. Economic Interdependence

● Woodrow Wilson, in his Fourteen Points speech, supported freedom of trade and commerce
and in recent times, it is Thomas Friedman, who in his theory, Golden Archer Theory, suggested
that two countries having a McDonald’s chain will not go to war.

● Richard Rosecrantz has given the concept of trading states. This concept is based on the
economic model of the states of Germany and Japan as after WW2, both these countries
focused more on economic growth rather than military power. Due to their economic power
credentials, they enjoy strong influence in world politics. On the other hand, the USSR focused
more on its military and defence which resulted in its disintegration. In recent times, the US has
also overstretched itself militarily which has become one of the major factors for the decline of
US hegemony

● According to Rosencrantz, if states go for the concept of trading states then there will be greater
peace and prosperity. Over a period of time as economic integration will grow deeper, the cost
 of going for war will be much higher thereby forcing states to rethink before opting for a military
solution. Many analysts believe that the expansion of trade and commerce between India and
China is responsible for the changing nature of their relationship. Thus this theory supports the
view of greater economic integration between the economies of India and Pakistan.

● This theory gained relevance in the era of globalisation but still, Realist scholars continue to
believe that the probability of war cannot be removed and states will not deviate from power
politics as the structure of international politics makes power politics inevitable. According to
Realists, economic interdependence at times may create new issues of dispute that may
become the cause for a deterioration of relations.
During the Cold War, there was less economic interdependence between European states. Yet it was
comparatively a stable period due to bipolar stability- a concept given by Realists Waltz and
Mearsheimer- and nuclear deterrence- also a Realist principle

III. Republican/ Democratic Liberalism

● It is based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant and in contemporary times it is advocated by Michael
Doyle. It is based on the assumption that democracies do not go to war against each other.
● This assumption is based on the hypothesis that people do not prefer war as war creates
economic hardships. In democratic states, public opinion restrains leaders from going to war.
However, according to critics, this theory is weak in its foundation. It is more of an ideological
tool to justify Western intervention and this theory is contradictory to the sacred principle of
national sovereignty in international politics.
● It is suggested that it will be better for world peace if international politics is democratised rather
than attempting to change the domestic form of government. According to India, the promotion
of democracy at gunpoint is not acceptable as it will generate new threats in world politics.
Often, Western powers, in the name of promotion of democracy have sought to replace
dictatorial regimes with people and parties who are pro-democracy but often they have been
replaced by puppet regimes which leads to more unrest, violence and instability in world politics.

IV Sociological Liberalism
 ● According to J. Rosenau, we are living in a society-centric world and the nature of the world has
changed under the forces of globalisation. John Burton, in his Cobweb Model, also suggested
that the world has become society-centric and that there is a growth of global civil society.
● Karl Deutch has given the concept of a security community. It is the alternative to the security
dilemma. This concept is an attempt to overcome the security dilemma which is the cause for
the states to go for acquiring weapons. The security community is based on the concept of
domestic politics as, in the domestic context, people do not go for acquiring weapons because it
is the state that provides the guarantee of security and people living within the territory form the
security community.
● The EU is the best example where the states have agreed to have common foreign and security
policies. Western European states and North America have formed a Trans-Atlantic security
community as they do not fear a threat from one another. The US and Canada are another
example. The process of regional integration is based on the concept of a security community.
The ASEAN is also moving towards a security community and they have created the ASEAN
Regional Forum for the objective of security in the South-East Asian region.
● The most backward regions in this context are South and West Asia- the states themselves
were artificially drawn up by colonial powers.

The concept of collective security is a universal concept and it can be achieved through international
institutions while security community means increasing cooperation between states through
cooperation and confidence building measures.

● A Security Community does not have a source of threat within itself but may face a common
source of threat externally.
● Various factors play a role in the evolution of the security community
- Common cultural values
- Vibrant communication and cooperation between the societies- this is one of the most
concrete ways to establish a security community as it will dilute wrong perceptions
● Thus this theory emphasises that borders should become gateways rather than fences
● Deutch has tried to measure the relationship between two states by calculating the number of
travellers, mails or letters exchanged
● The concept of Security Community is more workable in modern nation states and as far as
South and West Asia are concerned, the national identities of these states are not consolidated
yet. Thus they not only suffer from security dilemma but also from an Insecurity Dilemma
 (internal threats). There has been much involvement of external powers in the region that has
resulted in this state of affairs.
● Thus according to sociological liberalism, IR is not only the study of relations between the states
but it is also the study of relations between private individuals, groups and societies- role of non-
state actors
● Overlapping interdependent relations between people are bound to be more cooperative and a
world with a large number of transnational networks is bound to be more peaceful.

V. Functionalism

● An independent theory under the school of Liberalism- this theory is based on the ideas of
Richard Cobeden. His idea is to keep politicians out and bring technicians in
● It is being promoted as a strategy for regional integration
● This theory is the strongest challenge to Realism. The EU is an example where Realistic politics
has given way to regional integration. As a theory, it has been developed by David Mitrani
● Key Concepts:
- He has suggested that there is a need to segregate issues of high politics and low
politics. Thus, this approach is also called ‘piece by piece approach’.
- Strategic issues are the issues of high politics. Eg- territorial disputes, nuclear
disarmament and river water sharing
- While, economic issues are the issues of low politics
- According to Mitrani, states should try to develop an understanding on the issue of low
politics- called doable issues or workable issues. Eg- in case of India and Pakistan, trade
can be treated as a doable issue whereas Kashmir is an issue of high politics.
- The settlement of issues of low politics will help in understanding the benefits of
cooperation and it will have a spillover effect- the benefits of cooperation realised in one
area will have its spillover effect in another area
- Functionalism as a theory is also influenced by the concept of functional sovereignty-
based on the idea given by GDH Cole
- Cole has suggested that the territorial concept of sovereignty needs to be replaced with
the functional concept of sovereignty of supranational bodies and give decision-making
powers to these bodies
- EU is based on the idea of functional sovereignty (functional theorists have adopted the
pluralistic notion of sovereignty)
 - According to functionalists, regional integration will be conducive for international peace.
According to many Indian strategists, the dialogue process between India and Pakistan
should be modelled on the functionalist perspective on the segregation of issues

Criticism

● Regional integration is a time-consuming process. The EU integration process shows that it

requires much political will, determination and patience. Often, situations may develop that can
cause a setback to the integration process
● The vested interests that do not benefit from peace will take certain steps to derail the process
(as we have seen in the case of India and Pakistan)
● It has been seen that regional integration requires many push factors (The US was a major
push factor and the USSR was a threat- prompted European integration. But tensions in South
Asia benefit the Western arms manufacturers)
● Criticism by Neo-Functionalism- Ernst Haas has suggested that regional integration cannot be
left to technicians and we cannot overlook the significance of politicians. He said that integration
process cannot proceed without the political class acting with strong will and determination.
Within the EU, the leaders of Germany and France have always provided a significant push
whenever the process has faced significant challenges. Within SAARC, despite scientific and
technical cooperation, it has failed to emerge as a successful grouping or it is dysfunctional as
there is a lack of vibrant political cooperation. Thus, Neo-Functionalists believe that strong
political will is essential for effective regional integration

Complex Interdependence

● Advocated by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (this theory comes under the liberal theory of
IR)
● This theory, so far, is the best description of the nature of IR or international politics in present
times. It emerged in the context of the description of the nature of post-Cold War world order.
During the post-Cold War world, some liberal scholars made over-ambitious and premature
claims about the new world order or the Global World Order. For eg, Francis Fukuyama gave
the ‘end of ideology’ thesis. Liberal scholars suggested that there has been a growth of
economic interdependence and the nature of politics has changed quantitatively. However, on
the other hand, Neo-Realists or Structural Realists continue to believe that there is no
 quantitative change and there is nothing new in the new world order as anarchy still forms the
basic structure in world politics.
● The theory of complex interdependence modifies the two extreme values, that is, it suggests
that neither has complete interdependence developed nor have military and strategic issues lost
their significance
● Complex interdependence is bringing Realism into Liberalism but for these scholars, the
economic agenda tops the military agenda. The scholars of Complex Interdependence accepted
that anarchy prevails in world politics but they also believe that conflicts can be restrained from
turning into full-fledged wars if the interdependence between states increases
● According to Keohane and Nye, at present in the foreign policies of the state, it is the economic
agenda which gains more importance over the military agenda. This describes the nature of
international politics in the present time

Criticism of Liberalism (in general)

● According to Realists, states will remain states and in spite of historical changes, they continue
to reside in an unchanging anarchic system. Anarchy leads to self-help and states have to look
after themselves- thus they have to go for arms races which eventually leads to war. Thus, it is
not wrong to say, “States are either preparing for war or they are actually fighting a war against
each other.”
● Realists also say that the Liberal conditions have existed for a long time without being able to
prevent violent conflicts between states as economic interdependence is nothing new. For them
stability in Europe during the Cold War was due to the balance of power and nuclear deterrence
● Realists are critical of the role that Liberals attach to international institutions as they believe
that though states may operate through institutions, they do it solely for self-interest.
● They are also critical towards Republican liberals as there is always a possibility that the liberal
democratic state can revert to authoritarianism.
● There is always a possibility that there can be high tensions between democratic states
● Thus according to Realists, anarchy cannot be eclipsed and no amount of institutional,
interdependence, republican liberalism will do the trick. There is no escape from self-help and
the security dilemma

→ International Society School (Important for Mains)

● Also called the English School (Though many of its proponents were not from Britain). The
prominent scholars are Hedley Bull and Martin White
● It occupies a position between Realism and Liberalism (it is closer to Realism. Complex
interdependence is closer to Liberalism). With time, it has developed into a separate and
distinctive approach and theory in IR
● The field of IR continued to be dominated by US scholars during the Cold War but after its end,
the European scholars were not ready to accept the agenda largely set by the US scholars. A
school of IR emerged in Britain, the ISS, which rejected the behaviourist approach and
emphasised on traditional approaches based on norms and values
● The scholars have acknowledged the transformation that has happened in international politics
over a period of time because of the growth of institutions, international law and regimes. Thus
these developments have converted anarchy into anarchical society
● ISS is liberating Realism as according to this school, it is not anarchy which prevails as
predicted by the Realist scholars. What prevails is anarchical society. Hence ISS is also called
Liberal Realism- neither there is complete society nor is there complete anarchy
● ISS is also called Neo-Medievalism as during medieval times, there was no central authority
and there was a prevalence of shared sovereignty. Thus, according to ISS scholars, the nature
of sovereignty has changed in the present times and the concept of shared sovereignty has
come into the picture with the emergence of supranational institutions and bodies like the UN,
EU and the IMF.
● This school incorporated the features of traditional approaches, that is, historical approach,
philosophical approach and legal-institutional approach.

- Historical approach- It has taken an evolutionary view of international politics and it

suggests that earlier anarchy was prevailing which has been converted into an
anarchical society.
- Philosophical approach- It has given importance to the ideas of order and justice and it
believes that IR cannot be seen in terms of the struggle for power as there are elements
of conflict and cooperation, anarchy and order, power and justice

- Legal-institutional approach- This school has not ignored the role of international
institutions and organisations

● The theory of ISS is seen as an extension of the debate that took place in the subject of IR in
the first phase between Idealists and Realists. It builds on the ideas of Classical Realism and
 Liberalism, combining them in ways to provide an alternative to both as it has provided another
dimension or perspective. According to this school, the world does not choose between power
and law the way in which this debate implies.
● ISS has also rejected the behaviouralist approach as there is a role of norms and values in IR
and it is not possible to construct scientific laws in IR. IR is entirely a field of human relations
and is a normative subject and it cannot be fully understood in non-normative terms.
● The scholars who have influenced this school are Immanuel Kant and Hugo Grotius
● Kant believes in man’s capacity of reason and Grotius is known as the Father of International
Law.

Hedley Bull

● According to Hedley Bull, international politics has changed into anarchical society because
states do realise that observing norms and laws are better for peace and security. There is
better order in international politics in comparison to the domestic order of many countries in the
Third World.
● Bull has recognised the importance of power in IR and has considered the sovereign states to
be the foundation of world politics but he has rejected the narrow Realist view that world politics
is in a Hobbesian state of nature without any international norms, rules and regulations
● The scholars of ISS agreed with the Realist scholars that it is not possible to have a World
Government which wlll be above sovereign states but still there are many common interests
which states want to achieve and this has led to the creation of rules, institutions and
organisations
● Thus this theory suggests that the international system has changed and what prevails is not
simply the system of states but it is the society of states
● According to Bull, states are conscious of certain common interests and values and thus they
agree to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations or ties with one another. Thus the
elements of society are present and will remain present
● Thus this theory rejects the pessimistic view of Realists that states deal with each other only on
the basis of narrow self interests.
● According to Bull, the existing rules and norms are constantly being challenged by the norms of
WWO but it is not as anarchical as projected by the Realists that international politics is an
unchanging system of states that is prone to discord, conflicts and sooner or later, war.
 ● This school has also rejected the liberal optimistic view towards international politics that it is
moving towards unparalleled human progress and perpetual peace developing into a world
community or a world society. ISS theory is mid-way between Realism and Liberalism and it
regards international politics as a society of states in which the principal actors are the
sovereign states which are the foundation of international politics (thus ISS under the Classical
Theories of IR- Realism, Liberalism, ISS, IPE)
● Bull has regarded the role of IGOs and INGOs but has given more importance to the role of
states as the former are subordinated to states (Liberals- central role to them to them while
Realists- no importance at all, only states). Hence the ISS is closer to Realism.

Within IR, there are two kinds of scholars- the Pluralists (different from the Pluralist theory of States)
and the Solidarists. The Pluralists have emphasised more on state sovereignty and for these scholars,
the principle of respect for sovereignty and non-intervention always comes first. The Solidarists have
given more importance to the individual as they are the ultimate members of international society and
thus, they have given more emphasis to human rights than to state sovereignty.

● As most of Bull’s analysis is concerned with states and the principal actors in international
politics are sovereign states, he seems more like a Pluralist than a Solidarist.
● However, Bull has also recognised the importance of individuals and has distinguished between
the international and the world order. According to Bull, international order is the order between
the states while the world order is the order among humankind as a whole. World order is more
fundamental than the international order since the ultimate unit of society is not the state but
human beings. Thus Bull also has Solidarist inclinations

The Idea of World Society

● World society refers to the common interest and the shared values that link humanity or the
human community
● There is a difference between world society and world empire. World empire refers to the world
government under one imperial sovereign to which the population of the world is subject.
However, world society refers to the universal community of humankind
● This concept of world society is the argument of Solidarist scholars while the idea of
international society is the argument of Pluralist scholars and it rests on sovereign states
 ● According to ISS scholars, there is a clear shift from international society towards world society
or in Bull’s terms, from pluralism to solidarism
● Bull has suggested that an international society based on states’ sovereignty is not inconsistent
with a world society based on human rights. As defenders of humankind and protectors of
human rights, sovereign states have an important place in world society

Martin White

● According to him, there are three different ways of looking at the relations between states and
the theory of ISS is the exploration of the conversation between these three different theoretical
perspectives- realism, rationalism and revolutionism.
● Realism- By this perspective, states are power agencies and they will always pursue their own
national interests. It has emphasised on international anarchy and is based on the ideas of
Machiavelli.
● Rationalism- States are legal entities and they act in accordance with international law. It is
based on the ideas of Hugo Grotius- Father of International Law
● Revolutionism- It downplays the importance of states and gives emphasis to human beings as
humans are more fundamental as units than states. This perspective is based on the ideas of
Kant. It identifies itself with universal human fulfilment as the objective and it assumes the moral
unity of human society beyond the state. This perspective is more cosmopolitan rather than
being state-centric.
● According to White, there is a clear shift in world politics from realism to revolutionism and
according to Bull, the shift is from pluralism to solidarism

Statecraft and responsibility (Unrelated to ISS- to be continued under UN, R2P, War)

There are three different dimensions of responsibility which correspond to the above three theoretical
perspectives. Realism corresponds to national responsibility- devotion to one’s nation. International
responsibility corresponds to respect for the rights of other states and originates from the rationalist
perspective. Humanitarian responsibility connotes respect for human rights and comes from the
revolutionist perspective.

→ International Political Economy

 regulates

Political Power ⥨ Economic Activity

provides the basis for and affects

● Politics and economics interact in a complicated manner and this complex interplay between the
state and the market
● Within IPE, there are three views- mercantilists, liberals, marxists (traditional marxists,
Gramscian perspective, Critical school perspective/Neo-Marxists)
● The theories of realism and liberalism deal with the issue of war and peace respectively, conflict
and cooperation between states. However, the theory of IPE, shifts our attention to the issues of
wealth and poverty and to who gets what in the international system
● Some scholars argue that IPE is the most comprehensive discipline and IR should subsequently
be seen as the sub-field of IPE. However, political scientists are against this tendency to reduce
Politics to a branch of Economy. As French President, Charles DeGaulle said, economic affairs
are the issues of low politics while political issues are the issues of high politics

● Mercantilists: The outlook of Mercantilists is close to that of Realist scholars as they believe that
the economy of the state should be used to serve national interests and for building a strong
state. Wealth should be controlled by the state. This statist view on international political
economic theory is often referred to as Economic Nationalism. Mercantilists believe that the
smooth functioning of the free market depends on political power. There cannot be a liberal
world economy without hegemonic power (to be continued under HST- Hegemonic Stability
Theory). Mercantilists subordinate economics to politics and according to them, the objective of
every economic activity is to increase state power. Economic dependence on others should be
avoided and wherever economic and security interests clash, security interests should have
priority.

● Liberal view: The outlook of the Liberals is different from that of the Mercantilists and almost
exactly opposite to that of the Marxists. Liberals believe that human prosperity can be achieved
through the global expansion of capitalism. They believe in a free market economy, private
property and individual wealth. Under the liberal perspective, international capitalism is an
instrument of progressive change for all countries regardless of their level of development.
 Though liberals are aware of the need for a legal framework as the basis of the smooth
functioning of the market. Classical economic liberals view the role of the state as that of leaving
the market alone, that is, the policy of laissez faire should be followed in the international market
as well. However, welfare or positive economic liberals favour the involvement of the state in the
marketplace.

● Traditional Marxist view: Politics is a part of the superstructure and the economy is a part of the
basic structure. Marxist analyses of politics is actually the criticism of capitalism. The entire aim
of Karl Marx was to suggest the theoretical framework which can support the view that
capitalism is full of contradictions,it is exploitative and the need is to move towards communism
where contradiction will end and humans will attain real freedom.

Marx has not dealt with the issue of capitalism in the international context. He has confined his theory
to the domestic context. However, Marx did have the vision of proletarian internationalism. It was
Lenin, who in his book, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, had put the focus on the
international dimension of capitalism. He was the first person to establish that the driving force behind
imperialism is capitalism. Therefore, he said that imperialism is the offshoot of capitalism as it is a
search for raw materials and markets. Lenin concluded that the main reason behind WW1 was the
competition for colonies (the Allies built the narrative that they were fighting for liberty and democracy-
the Congress in India agreed to support the war effort while the revolutionaries continued their
struggle). With Lenin’s work begins the Marxist school of IPE

● Marxists agree with Mercantilists that economics and politics are closely interrelated and both
have rejected the Liberal view that the economy can operate on its own and under its own law.
While Mercantilists see economics as a tool of politics, Marxists have put the economy first and
politics second. Marxists have accepted the zero sum argument of the Mercantilists but they
have applied their idea to the relations between classes rather than states. The focus of the
scholars of the Marxist school is to analyse the impact of capitalism on the relations between
states. Capitalism is responsible for global inequality, that is, poverty in the peripheral states
and prosperity in the core states

Mercantilism Liberalism Marxism

Relationship between Politics decisive Economics Economics decisive

economics and politics autonomous

Main actors/Units of States Individuals and private Classes

analysis firms

The nature of economic Conflictual; Cooperative; a Conflictual; zero sum

relations Zero sum game positive sum game game

Economic goals State power Maximum individual Class interests

and social well-being

● Marxists have also suggested that there has been much involvement of the core countries (G7,
for example) in the domestic politics of the peripheral countries with the aim of setting up puppet
regimes. These puppet governments have adopted exploitative policies for their own people.
Thus Marxist scholars have suggested autonomous national development. Imperialism has
ended in its traditional form but it has evolved into new forms- Neo-imperialism.
● The Marxist view further evolved around the 1970s as the Marxist scholars of Third World
countries gave their theories. The American scholar, Immanuel Wallerstein has given the World
Systems theory in which he has analysed the structure of the international economy (Neo-
Realists have analysed the structure of the international political system). He has analysed the
working of capitalism at the global level and his theory is influenced by the ideas of Lenin.
Wallerstein has provided a critique of globalisation from the Marxist point of view and a critique
of Modernisation theory given by F.W. Riggs. Riggs suggested that the path for poverty
alleviation for developing economies is greater integration with the world economy. For
instrumentalist scholars like Wallerstein, closer the developing economies to the international
economy, the poorer they will be. Thus for instrumentalist scholars, the reason for poverty in
Third World countries is the presence of MNCs in these countries and thus they have suggested
the path of ‘National Autonomous Development’.

● According to Wallerstein, to understand the nature of world politics, we have to understand the
structure and the processes of the world system. From the 17th century, the nature of the world
system is economic rather than political.
● According to Wallerstein, the world system can be seen as core, periphery and semi-periphery.
These are the units of the world system

- The features of Core countries: advanced technology, high GDP, high HDI,
commercialised agriculture, majority voting rights in international economic institutions.
The Core countries determine the rules of politics in the world
 - Features of Peripheral countries: non-advanced technology, low GDP, low HDI,
subsistence agriculture, minimum voting rights in international economic institutions

- Features of Semi-Peripheral countries (BRICS, G20): They emerged out of the

Periphery and they have developed some features of Core states (eg. India’s space
programme). From the Marxist perspective, the semi-peripheral economies act as shock
absorbers for the capitalist core countries and they dilute class struggle.

● According to Wallerstein, the nature of the world system is capitalist and the global expansion of
capitalism has created interlocking structures which have impacted the domestic politics of
peripheral states. He has suggested that the Third World phenomenon of poverty can end only
when there will be the destruction of capitalism and the emergence of socialism. According to
Wallerstein, the world only has two options- either socialism or barbarism. Wallerstein believed
that capitalism does not result in equal exchange and the unequal exchange has resulted in the
prosperity of the Core and the impoverishment of the Periphery. The dependencies created
from these interlocking structures have led to exploitative relationships.
● Thus Marxist analysis of international politics is the criticism of globalisation and the scholars of
this school have opposed institutions like WTO and platforms like WEF. They have supported
civil society protests and social movements against globalisations.

True Claim False Claim

Mercantilism Political regulation creates a Politics is in full control of economics

framework for economic activity

Marxism Economics affects and influences Economics determines politics

politics

Liberalism The market has an economic dynamic The market is an autonomous sphere of
of its own society

● Gramscian/ Neo-Marxist perspective- The scholars of international politics belonging to the

Gramscian tradition have suggested that Core countries may take their dominant status not
simply because they control the economic structure (Marxist) or they have superior military
power (Realist) but because of their ability to establish hegemony. Thus from the perspective of
Robert Cox, the dominance of the US in world politics is because of its ability to shape the world
 order based on its world view and also because of its ability to displace rival world views and
establish liberalism as common sense or a hegemonic idea.

● Critical perspective: The scholars reflect the concern for emancipation. They want to change the
existing nature of international politics. Andrew Linklater is an important scholar and he has
suggested that a new world order must be created which would be more conducive for peace.
He has suggested a cosmopolitan world view, that is, there is a need to dilute territorial
boundaries and create moral boundaries- civil society networks. The new moral boundaries
should be shaped by a concern for human rights, empowerment of subaltern classes,
strengthening of grassroots democracy with a focus on multiculturalism. This perspective
suggested that the concern of international politics should shift from state security to human
security.

Hegemonic Stability Theory

● The roots of this theory lie in the views of the Mercantilists. As per Mercantilists, a strong state is
required for the smooth functioning of the economy.

This view is very close to Ordo-Liberalism which is a German variant of economic liberalism that
emphasises on the need for the government to ensure the smooth functioning of the economy. They do
not advocate a welfare state

● HST is not exclusively Mercantilist as there are Liberal elements in it too. The dominant or the
hegemonic power will not manipulate the international economy for its own sake (that would be
an imperial power that maintains a world empire) and it will create an open world economy
based on free trade which will benefit all the participating states and not just the hegemon.
● Robert Gilpin is an exponent of this theory. According to Gilpin, the world has witnessed a
longer duration of peace under a hegemon as in the absence of a hegemon, the open world
economy will be difficult to sustain and there is a risk that the economic relations will deteriorate
into nationalist, self-interested, protectionist competition as it took place during the world
economic depression in 1929.

● Characteristics of a hegemon-
 - Capacity- The hegemon requires capacity which comes from a secure location,
economic strength, unparallel military power, control over high technology. The US
acquired the capacity to be a hegemon after WW1 but it was not willing to play the role
of a hegemon.

- Willingness- According to Gilpin, the hegemon plays this role not only for self interest
which is definitely a consideration but also because it is beneficial for others

● It was clearly in the interest of the US to strengthen the liberal world order after WW2 as it
emerged as the world’s dominant industrial power and the open world economy was of great
benefit to it. It brought access to foreign markets. Rebuilding Western Europe and Japan was
important for US security interests during the Cold War struggle. However, it can be argued that
there were altruistic elements in American efforts as the US accepted unequal treatment from its
partners (Trump- America First- will not accept unequal treatment any more). Japan was
allowed to maintain limited access to its domestic market and Western Europe was allowed to
continue with its policy of high subsidies and protectionism in agriculture. Also under the
Marshall Plan, the US gave loans at a low rate of interest to Western European states which
helped in post-War reconstruction
●

● In contemporary times, China is acquiring the capacity to act as a hegemon but it is not willing
to pay the price to pursue this role as it is not ready to give up its debt trap policy while
extending loans to the smaller countries of Asia and Africa (still behaving as a Mercantilist
power, not a hegemon). It is not giving liberal exemptions to Third World countries. Although it is
helping the Afro-Asian countries to build infrastructure, it comes at a huge price of debt and
control and China is seen as a self-serving nation. Its actions are about protecting its own
interests rather than serving the interests of others.

● A few scholars have raised the question of China’s capacity to act as a hegemon on these
grounds
- Absence of a secure location as China is still engaged in multiple conflicts with its
neighbouring countries like India and with the ASEAN countries in the South China Sea
- Political instability within China as there is much dissent prevailing within China- Tibet,
Taiwan, Xinjiang, Hong Kong
- China is still far from matching the US in its military capabilities

● Why is a Hegemon required to maintain the liberal order?

 - The question that has always been raised is why smaller states will not cooperate in the
establishment of a liberal world economy and why a hegemon is required for a liberal
world order that is beneficial for all
- It has to do with the nature of goods that the liberal economy provides
- A liberal world economy is a so-called public economy, that is, it provides goods and
services which will create benefit for all- eg. the international currency system, world
wide web
- The problem with public goods is underprovision or free-riding. The existing public goods
in the liberal world economy invites free-riding and this is where the hegemon comes,
that is, the dominant power is needed to deal with the problems created by free-riders by
penalising them.
- According to this theory, the hegemon creates public goods as it has huge stakes in the
international system and the smaller states do not have the capacity to create public
goods. Hence, they cannot establish a liberal world economy

● Robert Keohane has argued that the hegemonic power that the US has, has helped in
establishing international cooperation in areas like finance, trade and oil cooperation. However,
according to Keohane, as US power has declined, the cooperation between states has not
ended as expected by the scholars of HST. He concludes that hegemonic power may have
been important for the establishment of initial cooperation but once the necessary institutions
are set up, they have their own staying power and can operate on their own even in the
circumstances of hegemonic decline.
● In other words, according to Keohane, we should recognise the ability of countries with shared
interests to cooperate. Thus, according to Keohane, HST downplays the positive role of small
powers or states towards the establishment of the liberal world economy. According to
Keohane, HST tends to view small powers just as free-riders but in reality, small countries have
contributed a lot towards the strengthening of the liberal world economy.
● According to Keohane, US hegemony was less altruistic than the theory leads us to believe as
during the Cold War, it had vital security interests to bring Japan and Western Europe towards
the liberal camp. The liberal economic order set up by the US was not so much for the
promotion of public goods as it was in the interest of the US itself.

● Robert Cox (Neo-Marxist, Gramscian perspective) has argued that the economic decline of the
US is presenting problems for the stable world order but still it continues to lead the world in
high-technology and innovation. The US still remains strong in its non-material power sources
 such as its culture with a universal appeal. The American lifestyle is attractive to people in many
parts of the world. Thus according to Cox, US soft power is still intact.

● Marxist scholars point to the element of inequality inherent in HST. As the US started running
trade deficits for the first time around the 1970s, US policies became more oriented towards
national interest and it adopted more protectionist policies to protect its interests. It started to act
as a predatory economy. Hence, Marxist scholars believe that the notion of the creation of the
liberal world economy by the hegemon is a misnomer for the economic and political control of
the world by the Western capital elites for their own interest.

→ Critical School

- Feminist theory
- Social Constructivist theory
- Post-modernist or Post-structuralist theory
- Post-colonial theory
- Critical school of Andrew Linklater
- Green politics

● These theories are critical of the mainstream perspective, that is, Realism and Liberalism. They
have raised two kinds of issues- methodological (how to study IR) and substantial (how to
decide which issues are more important)

Post-Positivism

● It is an umbrella term for recent issues in IR. The end of the Cold War has changed the
international agenda in some fundamental ways and a number of new issues have emerged in
world politics- terrorism, violent secessionist movements, violent fundamentalism, mass
migration, ethnic conflict, environmental concerns, gender inequalities
● Post-positivist scholars are against a scientific explanation of the world order (post-
behaviouralism) as it is not possible to ignore normative values. Human behaviour is an integral
part of IR.
● According to them, no single truth is possible. Postmodernist scholars bear an incredulity
towards metanarratives (Lyotard). The task is to examine the world from a variety of socio-
 cultural, economic, political, ethnic and gendered perspectives. Thus post-positivists have taken
up a variety of substantial issues. Positivists believe that it is possible to have objective
knowledge about the world- the political world has regularities and patterns.

I. Feminist Theory of IR

● Critique of Realist theories of IR. The prominent scholars are J.A. Tickner and Cynthia Enloe
● In the words of Hillary Clinton, human rights are women’s rights. She has placed an emphasis
on feminist foreign policy. The feminist school of international politics wants to end the neglect
of the female perspective in IR and give primacy to the rights of women.
● This school is emphasising that countries should adopt feminist foreign policies which should
recognise the limitations in the conventional understanding of security and it should recognise
the actual experiences of real persons in conflict situations as women are the most vulnerable
and face targeted violence.
● Feminist foreign policy not only looks at women as victims but also as agents of change. If
women are given primacy in decision-making, it will be good for world peace. Feminist scholars
believe that IR is one of the most masculinist of all disciplines.
● Tickner in her book, Gender in IR, has reformulated the principles of Morgenthau which she
disagrees with:
- The description of human nature by Morgenthau is culturally defined and human nature
is both masculinist and feminist. Power cannot be defined only in the masculinist sense
of domination. It can also be seen in the constructivist sense of empowerment.

- She has also disagreed with the concept of national interest of Morgenthau as it cannot
be determined only in terms of power. The need is to take a multidimensional view of
politics as politics requires cooperation

- Politics cannot be separated from ethics and all political actions have moral significance.
The human race cannot survive without observing ethics. We cannot relieve politicians
from taking moral responsibility for their actions. Thus she rejected the autonomy of
politics from ethics- that is a very narrow view of politics.

● Cynthia Enloe’s book, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International
Politics, has raised the question- where are the women in world politics? She has highlighted
the subordinate role given to women by the state- eg. sex workers in military bases, wives of
 diplomats hosting dinners, workers in banana plantations owned by MNCs. She has concluded
that the personal is international and the international is personal.

● Enloe believes that the lack of women in decision-making structures is one of the main factors
not only for violence against women but also for recurrent wars (Neo-Realist scholars have not
paid attention to actors). She has suggested that excessive masculinist culture is responsible for
the divorce of war from human emotions.
● The feminist perspective is gaining recognition as it is seen as critical towards the establishment
traditions and having a genuine concern for peace.

● The UN Resolution 1325 has recognised the necessity of giving women an essential role in
decisions related to peace and security. It appealed that member countries should integrate
feminist perspectives within their foreign policies. Institutions like the UN, IMF and WB have
recognised the centrality of women in development and security. Both the MDGs and SDGs
have recognised the need for women empowerment

● It is suggested that man makes war because war makes man and feminists believe that the
causes of war lie in the absence of a feminist perspective. Hence women empowerment is
necessary for world peace.

II. Social Constructivism (Important for Mains)

● The idea of Social Constructivism can be traced to the thoughts of the Italian philosopher, G.B.
Vicco who suggested that the natural world is created by God but the historical world is created
by man. Immanuel Kant has also suggested that human knowledge is filtered through human
consciousness
● These views suggest that there are no objective or pure facts in social life. Humans give
meaning to these facts which are shaped by a complex mix of history, ideas, norms and beliefs
● As a school, it is relatively of recent origin and emerged after the end of the Cold War. The
important scholars are Alexander Wendt and Nicholas Onuf.
● Wendt has put forward the criticism of Kenneth Waltz as in Wendt’s words, anarchy is what
states make of it. Although it is true that there is an absence of world government, it does not
necessarily mean that anarchy should be understood in a way that compels the state to go for
power politics. He has illustrated a constructivist view with the following statement- 500 nuclear
weapons of Britain are less threatening to the US than 5 nuclear weapons of North Korea.
● Therefore, it is less the material fact of numbers of nuclear warheads that matter but how actors
think about each other- their ideas or beliefs. Material factors do enter into the picture but they
are secondary to ideas
● According to Wendt, we are accustomed to interpret anarchy in a specific way- linking it with the
security dilemma and it may be because of the hegemony of the Realist school. The security
dilemma may not be the material fact but it may be our own construction and our construction is
shaped by our norms, values and experiences.
● We continue with these constructions without attempting to verify. Thus, for social
constructivists, “All is in the mind.” What is necessary is to change how we think. According to
Wendt, one way of verifying ideas is to go for communication and interaction. Wendt has
suggested three types of anarchy-

1. Hobbesian anarchy- States will view each other as enemies and adversaries. Under this
kind of anarchy, there is war of all against all

2. Lockean anarchy- States will not consider each other as rivals and they will not seek to
eliminate each other. There are restraints and states will recognise the rights of other
states. According to Wendt, Lockean anarchy has become the characteristic of the
modern world order after the Treaty of Westphalia

3. Kantian anarchy- States view each other as friends and are ready to settle their disputes
peacefully. Kantian culture has emerged among the liberal democracies since the end of
WW2.

● Weber: The social world, that is, the world of human interaction is fundamentally different from
the natural world of physical phenomena. Thus, one cannot explain social phenomena the way
one can explain physical phenomena as it is not possible to comprehend human behaviour. He
concluded that subjective understanding is the specific characteristic of social knowledge. For
example, patting another’s face can be a gesture of violence or affection. Thus constructivists
have relied on such insights to emphasise the importance of meaning and understanding

● Anthony Giddens: Social constructivists are also influenced by the concept of Structuration
given by Giddens. He proposed this concept as a way of understanding the relationship
between structures and actors. According to this concept, these structures do not constrain the
actions of the actor in a mechanical way as suggested by Neo-Realists. Actors can also
transform structures by thinking and then acting on them in a different way. Thus this concept of
 Structuration leads to a less rigid and more dynamic view of relationships between structures
and actors.

● Nina Tannenwald: According to her, there are different kinds of ideas or mental constructs held
by individuals based on their distinct beliefs and principles. She has rejected the Billiard Ball
Model as this has failed to reveal the thoughts, ideas, beliefs of the actors involved in
international politics. The need is to go inside the Billiard Balls to arrive at a deeper
understanding of such conflicts.

● Thus social constructivists are sympathetic to several elements of liberal thinking but their focus
is less on the advancement of liberal ideas and it is more on thinking as they believe that
anarchy is a state of mind.

III. Postcolonial Theory of IR

● They have attempted to decolonise the discipline of IR. For eg- during the Cuban Missile Crisis,
the description of this incident shows the perspectives of the leaders of the US and USSR but
the role of the Cuban government has completely been ignored. Thus postcolonial scholars
want to completely decolonise this Eurocentrism.
● The prominent scholars are Edward Said, Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak
● According to postcolonial scholars, the mainstream theories of IR are Eurocentric. They are
neither based on actual history or relevant for the countries of the Third World.
● These scholars want to criticise and deconstruct the Eurocentrism that prevails in IR as it
subordinates the developing world.
● Mohammad Ayub has questioned the relevance of the Security Dilemma as the postcolonial
states are suffering from an Insecurity Dilemma.

● One of the best applications of Foucault’s theory of discourse or the knowledge-power

connection can be seen in the works of Edward Said who has given the concept of Orientalism.
The colonial masters began the study of the Orient and the purpose was not to tell the truth but
to manufacture it. Thus the study of the Orient was a project that was never free from the
knowledge-power nexus.
● Said has used the term, ‘Orientalism’, that denotes the ideological and purposive history of the
Orient. This concept of Orientalism of Said has led to the emergence of the Postcolonial school
of thought in IR.
 ● According to Said, colonial masters in order to justify colonialism and imperialism have
produced theories which have shown that the East is barbaric, childlike and feminine whereas
the West is civilised, rational and masculine. The betterment of the East is possible only when it
is led by the West
● There is a hegemony of the West in academics and the existing theories are not written from the
perspective of Third World countries. Thus the existing theories of IR do not give a correct
explanation and they cannot provide correct solutions

● Gayatri Spivak’s book, Can the Subaltern Speak, has highlighted the hegemony of the West in
academia. She has raised two questions- Is the West ready to listen to the perspective of the
East? Does the subaltern have the capacity to speak?

● Homi Bhabha: The Location of Culture- He has given the concept of hybridity and he has
rejected the concept of binary. He has rejected the description of East and West by which the
East is barbaric and the West is civilised. According to Bhabha, there should be some give and
take between the cultures so that it can lead to the emergence of a world culture and a world
society

IV. Post-Structuralist/ Postmodernist Theory in IR

● Post-structuralism emerged alongside Postmodernism and both these terms are used
interchangeably.
● Post-structuralism emphasised that all ideas and concepts are expressed in a language which
itself is mixed in complex relationships of power as suggested by Foucault.
● Prominent post-structuralist scholars in IR are J.D. Derrian, Rob Walker and Richard Ashley
● Post-structuralist scholars are influenced by Postmodernist scholars like Lyotard, Derrida and
Foucault.
● Lyotard has defined Postmodernism as incredulity towards metanarratives where
metanarratives is understood as a totalising story about history and the goals of the human race
that legitimises knowledge and cultural practices
● Derrian has applied the concept of deconstruction of Derrida and according to this, IR can be
understood as a text that is open to multiple interpretations

● Ashley has given the concept of the anarchy-problematique: the way in which Realists have
described anarchy is problematic as it does not necessarily mean a security dilemma. It is a
 specific interpretation of anarchy by Realists. According to Ashley, the anarchy suggested by
Realists suffers from a number of objectionable exclusions as they have purposefully excluded
the growth of cooperation between states from their framework of analysis. Thus the
interpretation of anarchy in a specific way has created a situation of security dilemma and this
has compelled states to acquire power (self-fulfilling expectations). When power rivalries take
place, Realists claim the scientific nature of their theory.
● According to Walker, world politics cannot operate in accordance with the so-called “scientific
laws” as there are thousands of ways of looking at the world and reality is very subjective. It is
not possible to have a value-free approach in IR.
● According to post-structuralist powers, knowledge is always biased and it is always produced
from the perspective of the analyst.
● Thus, post-structuralists have drawn attention to the fact that any political event will always be
susceptible to competing interpretations. For eg, the event of 9/11- post-structuralist scholars
will debate whether

Critical Analysis of Critical/Post-Positivist Theories

● Post-positivist theories have contributed significantly towards making the discipline of IR more
pluralistic and it has also helped to shed critical light on the commitment and assumptions of
established theories of IR
● Under the influence of these theories, IR is becoming less of a coherent discipline and more of a
fragmented understanding divided into different camps that do not listen to each other
● The critics of post-positivists say that these theories spend a lot of time on criticising others but
they themselves are not able to impart any specific solution. Thus they say that post-positivist
scholars are cannibalistic as they thrive only on criticism but come up with little in terms of their
own solutions
● According to Robert Keohane, post-positivist scholars need to convince us that they can provide
solutions for important issues and until that happens, they will remain at the margins of the field
of IR.

V. Green Politics / Ecologism

● Ecologism is a political ideology based on the belief that nature is an integrated whole in which
every species has an equal right to blossom
● Green Politics has an impact on international politics as issues such as limits to growth and
population time bomb came on the political agenda around the 1970s.
● There has been a growing concern since the 1990s about climate change. The environmental
question has been kept high on the political agenda by Green parties which exist in most
developed countries.
● Green parties address three main issues or problems- resource problem, sink problem and
ethical problems.
- Resource problem is the need to conserve natural resources especially non-renewable
resources and increase the usage of renewable resources while decreasing population
growth- it will curtail resource consumption
- Sink problem- It includes addressing or reducing the damage done by waste products. It
focuses on recycling, reuse and developing greener technologies.
- Ethical problem- An attempt to restore the balance between mankind and nature through
wildlife conservation, respect for other species and change agricultural patterns
● The central theme of Green politics is the notion of the intrinsic link between humankind and
nature which is sometimes called the Gaia hypothesis proposed by James Lovelock. He has
advanced the idea that the Earth is to be better understood as a living entity that acts to
maintain its own existence.
● The basis for the Gaia hypothesis is that the Earth, the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil
exhibit precisely the same kind of self-regulating behaviour that characterises other forms of life.
According to Lovelock, Earth has maintained the state of homeostasis or the state of dynamic
balance despite the major changes that have taken place in the solar system.
● The idea of the Gaia hypothesis has developed into an ecological ideology that has raised a
powerful message that human beings must respect the health of the planet. Lovelock has
suggested that those species who have helped Gaia to regulate its own existence have
prospered while any species that has posed a threat to the delicate balance of Gaia is likely to
be extinguished
● Green politics encompasses a wide range of theoretical positions from Reformism to
Radicalism.
- Reformist: The key theme is sustainable development and they attempt to balance
modernisation and economic growth on one hand and tackle the environmental agenda
on the other. Thus Reformists are also known as Modern Ecologists
 - Radical: They will demand radical social change for maintaining the balance between
humankind and nature. There are three types of Radical Green theorists- Eco-Socialists,
Eco-Feminists, Eco-Anarchists

1. Eco-Socialists demand radical social change and they blame the capitalist
economic system for the environmental crisis
2. Eco-Feminists have advanced an environmental critique of patriarchy. For them,
domination over women leads to domination over nature. According to them, men
are the enemies of nature because of their inclination to control and subjugate.
Thus according to Eco-Feminists, if the world is not able to do much to tackle
climate change, it is because the world leadership is in the hands of men.
Protection of nature requires a change in patriarchal society.
3. Eco-Anarchists have advanced an environmental critique of hierarchy and authority
as domination over people leads to domination over nature. The balance between
humankind and nature can only be restored with the establishment of decentralised
self-managing communities.

● Meaningful progress on environmental issues requires cooperation at the global, national and
regional levels. However, international cooperation on environmental issues is difficult to
achieve because of the following constraints-
- Conflict with economic priorities
- Conflict between the collective good and national interest
- Debate and disagreement about the seriousness and the nature of environmental
problems

→ Systems Theory in IR

● This theory is the product of Mortan Kaplan. It is the product of the behavioural revolution in IR.
● Behaviouralist scholars have strived to provide the systems view of international politics. This
theory is based on the concepts of the Systems Approach given by David Easton (Easton has
not proposed a theory).
● Systems Approach: The system is a set of elements in a state of interaction. Hence, Kaplan has
tried to locate the elements of the system in international or world politics.
● As per this theory, international politics is the system of sovereign states in a state of interaction.
The objective of Kaplan was to create a grand theory of international politics, that is, to give a
 set of models that can explain the international politics of the past, present and future. He
expected that his models would be able to explain international politics scientifically and he
projected his models as universal ones like Newton’s law of gravity
● The models proposed by Kaplan are-

- Balance of power model- There will be 4 or 5 big powers (the elements of the system)
and Kaplan holds that a multipolar world can be explained using this model. The big
powers will be in continuous interaction with each other. Thus, it is closer to the Billiard
Ball Model. International politics under WW2 can be explained using this model. States
aim to preserve their sovereignty and they will not allow other states to gain absolute
power. Thus if any state commits an act of aggression, the other states will come
together to punish the aggressor. The aggressor state will not be kept out of the system
but will again be made a part of the system. There will be an absence of international
actors.

- Bipolar model- This model will prevail when there are two superpowers and the
concentration of power is at two poles with all the other states revolving around the poles
like satellite states. Such a system was prevailing at the end of WW2, during the Cold
War when the US and the USSR became two poles which led to the emergence of a
bipolar world. According to Kaplan, the bipolar model can further be divided into tight
and loose bipolar systems. When many states decide not to align with the poles, the
tight bipolar system turns into a loose one. Eg- the emergence of the NAM brought about
this change. Kaplan says that a loose bipolar system can turn into a very loose bipolar
system as there will be further loss of the power of attraction towards the poles and the
satellite states start jumping out of orbit

- Hierarchical system model- missing one state gained superiority while others were
distinctively subordinate

- Universal actor model- All states have equality of status and the universal actor will
come into existence and poles will vanish

- Unit veto model- Every state will acquire equal capacity to destroy each other

- Incomplete nuclear diffusion model- A large number of states will acquire nuclear
weapons and other countries will aspire for the same
Criticism

● According to Hedley Bull, it was a huge misstep in the right direction and this model is nothing
but a conceptual framework at a preliminary stage.
● This model is oversimplified as it does not give any insights into the factors determining these
structures and processes
● This model has also overlooked domestic determinism altogether
● According to Stanley Hoffman, some of the models of Kaplan like the Universal Actor model are
hypothetical, some are outdated and the current international politics does not bear any
resemblance to any of these models. Also the purpose of the discipline of IR is to find ways to
establish world peace and this model has no such aim
● This model also does not fulfil even the basic requirements of Systems Theory. It neither
explains the environment nor the structures and the functions. Also, this model has not given
any role to the domestic variables in international politics

Missing- large portion in between

● There is huge vagueness or subjectivity in the way in which balance is to be achieved and
different scholars have defined balance of power in different ways
● Ernst Haas has given eight different meanings to the concept of BOP
- Equilibrium resulting from the equal distribution of power among states
- Equilibrium resulting from the unequal distribution of power among states
- Equilibrium resulting from the dominance of one state which acts as a balancer
- Balance of power is a system providing relative stability and peace
- It is a system characterised by instability and war
- It is a way of describing power politics
- This concept is universal law of history
- This concept is a guide for foreign policy makers

● Morgenthau has given 4 different meanings to the concept of balance of power-

- A policy aimed at establishing a certain state of affairs
- A policy aimed at establishing the actual state of affairs
- A policy aimed for approximately the equal distribution of power
 - A policy aimed for any distribution of power
● Despite the multiple, imprecise and ambiguous nature, it is at the core of international politics

Relevance of the concept in contemporary times

● Even though it is viewed as a fundamental law in world politics, there has been a question mark
on its relevance. Questions have been raised by Idealists, Social Constructivists and through
the concepts of soft balancing over hard balancing, the emergence of nuclear deterrence, the
withdrawal of ideal conditions, power transition theory (of Kenneth Organski- imp for Short note)

● Idealists: According to them, the concept of BOP is prone to prompting wars and the turning of
regional conflict into a global war. Hence it is said that, “The concept of balance of power gives
protection against measles but creates conditions for plague.” Even, Pt. Nehru was a critic of
the concept of BOP and he said that, “It is a nervous state of peace as there is always a fear of
war.” The Idealists wanted to end the relevance of the concept of BOP and they have given the
concept of collective security. Nehru also had huge faith in collective security but collective
security never emerged as a viable alternative to BOP (military alliances are still intact).

● Social Constructivists: They have suggested that the concept of BOP overlooks the role played
by norms and values and Realist scholars have over-emphasised on anarchy. However,
according to social constructivists anarchy is in the mind.

● The concept of soft balancing over hard balancing: Realist scholars themselves have added the
concept of soft balancing to the traditional concept of hard balancing which is a militaristic
approach. Soft balancing is a diplomatic political approach. Since the end of the Cold War, as
the US emerged as the superpower, other states were not in the position to go for hard
balancing against it. However, states have gone for soft balancing against it as a coalition of
states have opposed the US position on issues like climate change, global war against terror,
invasion of Iraq.

● Nuclear deterrence: According to many scholars, nuclear weapons have made the concept of
BOP redundant as even a small state like North Korea has been able to deter the superpower
by acquiring nuclear weapons. Thus if a state acquires nuclear weapons, it does not need to
indulge in an arms race and it does not require alliances. According to Barnard Broody, in the
present times, states are trying to acquire nuclear deterrence instead of balance of power.
● The ceasing of ideal conditions: The ideal conditions for the operation of the concept of BOP
have ceased to exist. For liberal scholars, rather than WWO, what prevails is the Cobweb
Model, that is, complex interdependence. According to ISS scholars, what prevails is an
anarchical society. The concept of BOP makes sense in a regional situation. However, the
present politics has become not only international but global. It is not possible to imagine the
working of this concept globally. In some regions like Western Europe, this concept has become
redundant because of the emergence of a Security Community.

● The rise of violent non-state actors: At present, the threat to the security of the state is coming
from violent non-state actors and the concept of BOP is not workable to address this challenge.

● Power Transition Theory: This theory is also offering criticism to the concept of BOP and was
given by Kenneth Organski in his book, ‘World Politics’. This theory suggests that peace
prevails not when there is balance of power but when there is huge imbalance. HST (liberal
world economy will be maintained by a hegemon) is a continuation of the Mercantilist view. He
has given a pyramid of states with one dominant power, four to five great powers, many middle
powers and the remaining small powers. Organski said that if the world is organised in this way
then it will be better for world peace. The chances of war increase when any great power
develops power credentials to the extent that it starts challenging the superpower. Presently,
China has acquired enough military and economic power that it is not satisfied with the status
quo. Its aim is to revise and create a new world order. Thus according to Organski and other
proponents, war occurs when a power transition takes place.

● However, despite the criticism of the concept of BOP, it is wrong to assume that it is irrelevant.
David Hume has said that BOP is common sense. For many Realist scholars, BOP is the only
guarantor of peace in the absence of universal acceptance of the principle of collective security.
Though it is true that nuclear weapons have challenged the importance of conventional
weapons, states are still going for arms races.

● We can still see the game of BOP in Asia-Pacific and because of this game, the centre of
gravity of international politics has shifted towards the Asia-Pacific. The rise of China has forced
the US to go for Asia rebalancing under its Pivot to Asia strategy. The rising Chinese profile has
pushed countries like Japan, India and Australia to go for strategic alliances with the US which
has led to the formation of Quad.
→ Collective Security

Balance of Power Collective Security

BOP is an ad-hoc, fluid arrangement CS is institutionalised under international

organisations

It acts within the state of anarchy It comes into existence when there is a presence of
international actors that can ensure the rule of law

It applies in the regional context It is a universal system

There is uncertainty in the theory of BOP There is theoretical certainty

This concept is more relevant for Great It is more useful for Small Powers as they can
Powers escape an arms race and the necessity of forming
alliances

● Collective security is a concept given as an alternative to BOP. The concept of security should
move from self-help to collective concern.
● This concept is based on the principle of, ‘all for one and one for all.’ Though it has emerged as
an alternative to BOP, it is based on the idea of BOP. Both concepts are the methods of
management of power.
● Collective security is the institutionalisation of the concept of BOP.
● Both concepts are based on the belief that great power is the antidote to power. Sovereignty is
treated as sacred and war is fought for the protection of sovereignty and integrity.
● Though the concept of collective security is conducive to peace, this concept continues to be
viewed as too idealistic. Neither under the League of Nations nor under the UN, has it been
operationalised successfully. It has not been successful in ending the arms race. Collective
security has pushed countries to acquire nuclear deterrence.

Collective Security Collective Defence

It is a universal concept It is a regional concept

Armed intervention by UN as per the principles Military alliances as per the principles of Collective
of Collective Security Defence- like NATO

The enemy is not identified The enemy is known

Membership is universal Membership is narrow

Based on LIberal ideas Based on Realist ideas

India has always supported the concept India has always opposed the concept.

● According to Nehru, Collective Defence is based on disbelief in Collective Security. It

undermines the latter and divides the world into rival military blocs, resulting in an arms race.
Thus the two concepts are antithetical to one another.
● Collective Defence does not undermine Collective Security but it is a practical way to
operationalise Collective Security. According to the US, the UN Charter recognises every right
of the state to self-defence (Article 51) and the concept of Collective Defence is legitimate as it
helps in self-defence.
● Missing
● Also, the charter of the League of Nations lacks a clear definition of missing and when collective
security is to be operationalised
● Though the US was in the best position to guarantee the functioning of Collective Security, it
remained out of the LON and the responsibility fell upon Britain and France to make it work.
However, this concept was new to them as they had mastered the art of BOP and both
continued with their old policies of military alliances. The capitalists of the Western countries
followed the policy of appeasement of fascist powers as they saw communism as the biggest
threat and ultimately CS failed and the world witnessed WW2.

● Learning from the failures of the LON, a modified version of CS was introduced in the UN
Charter where differences among powers were recognised. Great powers who have the
necessary resources and the capacity to provide, were given greater powers- the veto to P5.
The UNSC became the organ for this purpose. It was widely acknowledged that no CS can take
place without consensus among the P5 states.

● According to Article 1 of the UN Charter, the primary purpose and objective of the UN is to
maintain international peace and security. For that, collective measures are required.

● Articles 39 to 51 of the Charter justify the use of armed forces by the UN and its member states.
However, nowhere has it been mentioned in the UN Charter that force can be used for the
protection of human rights as it is believed that human security within a sovereign state is the
responsibility of the respective states. Thus the protection of human rights by means of
international military intervention missing

● Under Articles 39 to 51, it was decided that the UNSC will have ultimate powers to decide or
 determine an act of aggression. The UNSC should first take provisional measures- eg. try to
bring a ceasefire among the conflicting parties and explore the peaceful settlement of disputes.
As a last resort, it can take enforcement actions and the UN Charter does not deny the right of
self-defence to the aggrieved nations.

● During the Cold War, the UN failed to operationalise CS in the conflict between the
superpowers. Only a half-hearted attempt for CS could emerge in case of the Korean Crisis as
the US pushed for the resolution of CS within the UNSC (The US was able to do so because the
USSR was absent and absenteeism does not mean veto). However, the USSR soon decided to
join the UNSC and block further action (Thus, blocked further resolutions on CS using the veto
power). To overcome this deadlock, the US proposed a new concept- UPR or the Uniting for
Peace Resolution in which the US proposed that if there is a deadlock in the UNSC, then the
General Assembly can initiate a CS Resolution and can pass it by ⅔ majority. However, the
USSR never accepted the legality of the UPR as it has not been a part of the UN Charter.

● As CS could not be operationalised during the Cold War, the UN Secretary General Dag
Hammerskjold proposed Peacekeeping to keep the role of the UN relevant. Thus,
Peacekeeping is not a part of the UN Charter. It is an extra-constitutional measure.

Collective Security Peacekeeping

A part of the UN Charter (Article 1- collective An extra-constitutional provision

measures required for peace and security)

Use of the armed forces is allowed for Only play a defensive role- eg. maintaining
offensive operations ceasefires (eg- Korean peninsula)

It is to be authorised by the UNSC It is to be authorised by the UNSC but only with the
consent of the parties in conflict

Military action will be taken to ensure the They maintain a ceasefire until the UNSC decides.
enforcement of peace without the consent of They can use force only in self-defence.
the parties

It can only be provided by the UN It can be provided by other organisations and states
(eg- IPKF in Sri Lanka on their request to maintain
the ceasefire- was authorised by the UN)

● After the end of the Cold War, much optimism was witnessed with respect to the UN and its
ability to provide CS. The most successful example of the operationalisation of CS under the UN
 was the action against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait as more than 30 countries contributed their
forces against Iraq’s aggression. After this incident, the world has not seen the
operationalisation of CS.
● The US’s second war against Iraq in 2003 was not supported by other states and it was viewed
as an act of aggression. Many countries blamed the US itself for undermining the CS system.

Responsibility to Protect

● R2P has been the principle of international law since the UDHR but it became operational only
after the end of the CW.
● While Pluralist scholars have emphasised upon state sovereignty, the Solidarist scholars have
stressed upon individual and human rights
● Human rights takes precedence over the rights of sovereign states according to Solidarist
scholars.
● Thus according to Solidarists, it is the duty of the states or the international community to go for
armed intervention to mitigate extreme cases of human suffering inside states. According to
Solidarists, leaders are foremost human beings and they have the fundamental obligation to
respect human rights everywhere
● The absence of an Article in the UN Charter that explicitly authorises the use of armed forces to
protect human rights has been seen by many leaders of Western countries and humanitarian
NGOs as a deficiency that ought to be corrected.
● This justification of military intervention to protect human rights within a state is called R2P.
● R2P has gained prominence in the post-CW world as the post-CW world has seen the
emergence of asymmetrical violence- eg. ethnic violence, secessionist violence, religious
fundamentalism, civil wars, forced expulsions
● NATO has justified its intervention in Syria and in Libya on the basis of the R2P Doctrine.
● However, this doctrine is controversial and NATO action has been condemned by Russia and
China. Both have held that R2P has been the new discourse used by the West for regime
change rather than the protection of human rights.
● Pluralists have condemned the R2P doctrine for undermining Article 2 of the UN Charter and it
has opened the way for neo-imperial military interferences.
● The Brazilian government came up with a new proposal, that is, RWP or Responsibility while
Protection, according to which it is necessary to ensure the accountability of those who
implement the doctrine. If they transgress the limits, they have to be penalised.
 ● India is a signatory to the R2P doctrine

Responsibility to Protect Collective Security

R2P is closer to Collective Security as it can only It needs to be authorised by the UNSC or UNGA
be authorised by the UNSC

It is also a military intervention- offensive (unlike Collective security is for the protection of
peacekeeping) without the consent of the parties sovereignty
for the protection of human rights (4 grounds-
genocide, ethnic cleansing etc)

R2P allows action within the state on Collective Security allows action between the
humanitarian grounds states where one state violates the integrity and
sovereignty of the other

R2P responsibility can be given to another party Collective Security cannot

(like peacekeeping) (Like NATO but it has been
accused of misusing it for regime change)

Under R2P, force is used as the last resort- more

of a preventive principle while humanitarian
intervention is only the use of military force and
for that, no authorisation is required from the
UNSC

Refer to Hand-out

Peacekeeping

● Peacekeepers are sent only with the consent of the parties in conflict and there is no such
requirement in case of Collective Security operations
● It was due to the failure of Collective Security that the UN Secretary General proposed
peacekeeping
● Thus it is not a part of the UN Charter, it is an extra-constitutional measure
● The UN is not the only organisation to provide Peacekeeping
● India has made an unparalleled contribution towards Peacekeeping operations under the UN.
Its contributions are one of the strongest bases to demand UNSC permanent membership
● The three core principles of UN Peacekeeping operations are:
- Non-use of force except in self-defence and in the defence of the mandate
 - Impartiality in the operations
- UN peacekeeping forces are deployed with the consent of the parties
● India has helped in augmenting peacebuilding activities and in ensuring peaceful transition of
power in countries like Cambodia and East Timor. India is the first country to demonstrate the
importance of women in peacekeeping missions as India deployed the first all-female unit in
Liberia
● It is a paradox that despite being one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions, it
is not a permanent member of UNSC
● India is not only a major contributor but it is also providing training to UN peacekeepers and
Indian peacekeepers have been awarded the Dag Hammerskjold or the Peace Award many
times.
● In recent times, peacekeeping has not only become complex but also controversial.
Complexities have arisen because peacekeepers have to work in highly dangerous
environments as the post-CW world has witnessed the rise of violent non-state actors who do
not observe any norms owing to which the casualties among peacekeepers have increased-
The reason why many countries are not willing to contribute
● Controversies have arisen with respect to peacekeeping also because:
- Reluctance on the part of developed countries to contribute troops
- Allegations by fund contributing countries towards the troop contributing countries with
respect to misappropriation
- As peacekeeping operations are to be authorised by UNSC, the permanent members do
not involve major troop contributing countries in the consultation process
● At present, India is not showing the similar enthusiasm as earlier because so far, its contribution
has not received due acknowledgement
● As these missions have become more dangerous and developed countries are showing
reluctance to release funds, India cannot find strong motivation to contribute
● According to many experts feel that India needs to rethink its growing lukewarm attitude towards
peacekeeping as it should not happen that over a period of time, India’s contribution gets diluted
and we fail to capitalise on the efforts and sacrifices that we have already made
● Also, they feel that peacekeeping has strengthened India’s soft power and it should utilise its
growing weight in international affairs to force countries to take adequate reforms as
peacekeeping is needed more than ever

Changing trends in Peacekeeping

 ● Peacekeeping is an evolving concept. Initially, peacekeeping operations were limited to
ceasefires between the parties in conflict.
● However, during the Congo crisis, peacekeepers got involved in the civil war.
● Over a period of time, peacekeeping has evolved into peace-building efforts through
reconstruction and rehabilitation and peacekeeping missions have become multidisciplinary as
the members of civil society are also involved and they also play a major role in peace-building
efforts
● The developed countries have proposed robust peacekeeping (offensive) since attacks against
peacekeepers are increasing. Thus developed countries have proposed that peacekeepers
should be allowed to have offensive arms and allowed to use force other than in self-defence
● India is demanding a few reforms in peacekeeping missions:
- More consultations with troop-contributing countries
- Increased contribution of funds and timely release of funds from developed countries
- Zero tolerance towards any irresponsible behaviour like sexual violence and corruption

((Usually Peacekeeping→ Peacemaking (mediation)→ Peacebuilding. Then if that does not yield results, there is
Peace enforcement which includes Collective Security and R2P and does not involve consent of the parties))

Critical Analysis of the system of Collective Security in the contemporary world

● Collective Security continues to remain a utopian idea as it is based on some idealistic

assumptions, that is, states will come together to maintain international peace without taking
into consideration their national interests
● States are reluctant to contribute the resources and requisite personnel to the wars in which
they do not have any direct interest
● CS can work only if the P5 countries are in agreement and it is not possible to use CS against
the P5 (consensus is mandatory)
● This suggests that countries cannot depend on the CS system as managed under the UN and it
means that it is not possible to end the arms race
● As long as countries continue to prioritise their narrow national interests, it will be difficult to
expect the operationalisation of CS
 ● According to Liberal scholars, to make it more relevant, the UNSC needs to be made more
democratic and representative. States should continue to strengthen their economic
interdependence and promote interactions between societies to undermine the chances of war

→ Theory of Deterrence

● The word, deterrence, comes from the Latin word, ‘deter’ which means to frighten the potential
aggressor.
● This theory is a Realistic approach to attain peace as it suggests that by superior power an
aggressor can be deterred.
● Though deterrence can be achieved through conventional weapons, since the evolution of
nuclear weapons, the theory of deterrence deals with nuclear deterrence. Thus nuclear
deterrence is seen as an alternative to the concept of balance of power
● Realist scholars believe that the deterrence of nuclear weapons is the reason behind the
prevention of WW3. Liberals believe that nothing can justify the existence of nuclear weapons.
● The concept of deterrence has been developed by Game Theorists and prominent scholars
supporting the theory are Thomas Schelling, Mearsheimer and Bernard Brodie.
● Deterrence is a psychological concept and it assumes that actors are rational. It will work only if
the adversary believes in the credibility of deterrence. The adversary needs to be
communicated that if it prefers to attack, there will be no victory and the cost will not be worth
paying, thereby preventing the adversary from taking any such action.
● Deterrence works through the MAD doctrine
● During the Cold War, the security policies of both the US and the USSR were based on
deterrence- the only way to avoid war was to achieve MAD. Thus MAD is also called the
balance of terror.
● The MAD doctrine is based on the capacity of the country to convince the adversary that
starting a war will be suicidal.
● The idea of deterrence is based on developing Second-Strike capabilities- surviving the attack,
then retaliating and inflicting unacceptable damage. Thus deterrence requires the development
of a Nuclear Triad- the capability of launching a nuclear attack from land, water and air (Nuclear
submarine Arihant has given India a potent Second Strike capability)
● The Realist scholars of the US have suggested that the government follows a policy of NUTS-
Nuclear Utilisation Target Selection. It denotes developing First Strike capability. It has been
 criticised as it can push the world towards a dangerous arms race and it requires huge
investment. It can ignite a nuclear war. (If a country follows NUTS, then aggression rather than
deterrence is their goal)

Relevance of Deterrence in present times

● According to liberals, it is wrong to support the deterrence capability of nuclear weapons and
liberals have their own doubts in their capability to ensure peace. It can fail in many situations-
- If actors are not rational
- If weapons are acquired by violent non-state actors
- Nuclear weapons can be used by accident
- False alarms can cause nuclear catastrophe

● According to liberals, the emergence of complex interdependence has weakened the scope for
hard power. However, Realists have never accepted that nuclear weapons have lost their
relevance as Waltz believed that it is due to the nuclear weapons that the Cold War remained
cold.

● Mearsheimer has supported selective proliferation, that is, nuclear weapons in the hands of
Western countries will add to world security as they are responsible and mature democracies.
Mearsheimer has tagged them as ‘First generation NWS’. However, nuclear weapons in hands
of Second generation states will lead to insecurity in the world.

● Social Constructivist scholars like Nina Tannenwald have suggested that in the world, nuclear
taboo has come into existence- the reason why the US was not able to use nuclear weapons
against Vietnam. Thus according to Social Constructivists, non-nuclear weapons states should
not feel insecure. Rather, they should support the construction of norms and strengthen the
nuclear taboo further

● Henry Kissinger, despite being a Realist, has not supported reliance on nuclear weapons.
According to him, countries need to find other ways to reduce security threats. Although, it is
widely believed that the relevance of nukes has declined in the post-CW world because of
complex interdependence but countries like US, Russia, China, North Korea, India and Pakistan
rely on nuclear deterrence in their security policies

● The nuclear posture review released by the Trump administration in 2018 clearly reflects that
the US will continue to rely on nuclear weapons for its security and for the security of its allies
 ● The Indian PM has recently and clearly stated in Parliament that nuclear deterrence is an
integral part of India’s national security and it will remain so

Why do states want to acquire nuclear weapons?

● Deterrence- protect sovereignty and integrity

● Aggression- to threaten others
● It enhances power status and the diplomatic profile and prestige of the state

Debate between Kenneth Waltz and Scott D. Sagan on Nuclear Weapons

● Realists like Waltz believe that nuclear weapons have ensured that the world does not witness
WW3. According to him, (like Mearsheimer) the gradual proliferation of nuclear weapons is not a
threat to international peace but is actually conducive to peace. He also believes that nuclear
weapons induce a sense of responsibility on those who possess them. However, according to
Mearsheimer, selective proliferation is no harm and if mature democracies have nuclear
weapons, then it is not a threat to world peace.

● Thus according to Realist scholars, much unnecessary hype has been created with respect to
nuclear wars. Expressions like accidental wars, nuclear terrorism, bolts from blue will never
actually happen.

● According to John Mueller, the threat of nuclear terrorism is overstated as it is hardly a

possibility that terrorists will be able to acquire these weapons as it requires the procurement of
nuclear material which remains highly guarded. Also, it requires a high level of funds and
expertise. Mueller says that states collaborating with violent non-state actors is a remote
possibility as no state can afford to take such a risk.

● However, scholars like Nina Tannenwald warn against complacency. That the worst case
scenario has not materialised does not mean that it will not and there is all possibility that we
can skip into a nuclear war because of our carelessness.

● According to Scott D. Sagan, it may be hard to start a nuclear war but it is not impossible.
Military organisations display such behaviour where there is huge temptation to use nuclear
weapons to win the war. The second-generation NWS have weak civilian governments. The
command and control of nuclear weapons is in the hands of the armed forces who do not think
 from a long-term perspective. Hence, according to Sagan, deterrence is hardly a guarantee and
there is a huge possibility of the failure of nuclear deterrence. He suggested that countries have
reached the brink of nuclear catastrophe- eg. Cuban Missile Crisis and the world has already
seen a military conflict between two nuclear armed states eg. Kargil War. Nuclear deterrence
itself has led to a nuclear arms race.

● R.J. Oppenheimer after seeing the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima said, “Now I am become
death, the destroyer of the world.” (Gita quote)

● According to Ramesh Thakur, if a nuclear war were to start, survivors would envy the dead.

→ Global Nuclear Disarmament/Global Nuclear Security Architecture

I. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

● Signed in 1968, came into force in 1970

● 190 parties have signed (188 states + Taiwan, PLO)
● 3 objectives- non-proliferation, disarmament, peaceful use of nuclear energy

Opposition of India towards NPT

● NPT is a step taken by the UN towards global nuclear disarmament and India has made it clear
several times that it will join a universal, comprehensive, non-discriminatory Treaty aiming for a
nuke-free world. The grounds on which India opposes NPT are-

- NPT puts a different set of obligations on the NWS and the non-NWS. NPT defines P5
as the NWS while all other countries are NNWS.
- According to the NPT, NNWS are not allowed nuclear weapons and they should be
prevented from doing so under exceptional security reasons
- Also, NNWS need to keep their nuclear installations under international safeguards-
IAEA. On the contrary, NPT released NWS from both of these obligations (they can have
weapons + do not need to keep them under IAEA- assumption that they are responsible
nuclear powers). Thus according to India, the NPT is discriminatory and India is against
this discrimination
 ● India argues that this Treaty only prevents the spread of nuclear technology rather than fulfilling
the objective of global disarmament. Thus there is a mismatch between its proclaimed
objectives and its actual intentions as the Preamble of the NPT itself talks about global nuclear
disarmament.

● According to India, NPT only delegitimises the proliferation of weapons and does not
delegitimise the possession of weapons. India has also questioned the effectiveness of NPT as
it has failed to check horizontal proliferation. Nuke know-how has proliferated to countries like
Libya, Iran, North Korea through backdoor channels. According to critics, NPT is a compromise
to fulfil the interest of nuclear companies as nuclear technology is a dual-use technology. If
countries get technology for the enrichment of uranium for civilian use, it is very difficult to
assure that it will not result in countries acquiring the capability of enrichment of uranium for
making weapons-grade fuel. Thus according to critics, until and unless nuclear commerce is
completely prohibited, we cannot stop proliferation.

● India has several concerns with regard to the dateline of 1967 which legitimises the possession
of NWS. According to the NPT, those who acquired weapons by 1967 are legitimate NWS and
India believes that this has created a world of nuclear haves and have nots which is inherently
discriminatory in nature.

● According to India, NPT does not take into account the circumstances that prompt a country to
go for acquisition of nuclear weapons. For example, India was committed towards the peaceful
use of nuclear energy but circumstances have compelled India to acquire nuclear weapons. The
China-Pakistan-US nexus during the 1970s pushed India to go for its first nuclear weapons test.
● India has also objected to the NPT on the grounds that it does not stand for any time-bound
disarmament. In 1995 it was decided that the NPT would be extended for an indefinite period.

Counter-view to India’s objections

● To some analysts, the approach of the US and the P5 is the more pragmatic way to achieve
nuclear disarmament as the first need was to check that a second generation of countries
should not be able to acquire nuclear weapons as they have weak civilian leadership. Also if
there were to be more NWS, it would be much more difficult to arrive at a consensus.
● Considering the state of animosity between the two superpowers during the CW, it was
impractical to think that they would agree to eliminate their nuclear arsenal.
 ● According to Western scholars, India’s position on nuclear weapons has been full of
contradictions. Gandhi called nuclear weapons the most diabolical use of science while Pt.
Nehru called them satanic. One of the main items of the agenda of NAM was to oppose a
nuclear arms race.
● According to Stephen P. Cohen, India’s atomic programme was never entirely peaceful as Homi
Bhabha made it clear that he was not against the development of nuclear weapons for India’s
defence. On Bhabha’s advice, Nehru also recognised the importance of nuclear weapons for
the security and the defence of India.
● According to critics, Indian leaders faced only one dilemma, “Not whether to acquire nuclear
weapons but when is the right time to do so.” There has been a difference between what India
says and what India does. India has crafted its nuclear policy very intelligently to maximise its
claims as it decided to continue with its disarmament agenda and not acquire nuclear weapons
until it had the security umbrella of the USSR.
● ((India conducted its first test in 1974 but developed weapons and declared itself as a NWS only
after the second test in 1998 (weaponised its weapons technology- 1974 was not a bluff but it
showed India’s commitment to peace)))

● Once the security umbrella was gone, India decided to acquire its own weapons and thus it was
implied that there was no inherent commitment to disarmament. However, the stand of the GoI
on the nuclear weapons test of 1998 is that the security environment of South Asia became one
of the major motivating factors which pushed India. Also, according to the GoI, there was no
genuine progress towards achieving the goal of nuclear disarmament while India had already
shown exceptional restraint in not acquiring nuclear weapons despite possessing the
technology. After the test of 1998, the Indian PM in a letter addressed to the US President,
stated that the GoI considers the China-Pakistan nexus as a factor that pushed India for
acquisition.

Should India sign the NPT in its present form?

No, India’s biggest concern is the 1967 dateline that separates NWS from NNWS. According to the
Indian PM, there is no question of India signing NPT as a NNWS as there is no question of dismantling
India’s nuclear arsenal which is an important part of its national security. India can sign the NPT if the
reference date is changed to accommodate Indian demands.
II. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

● In 1963, PTBT was signed, under which nuclear weapons testing was banned on land, in water
and in the atmosphere but underground nuclear testing was permitted. While under CTBT, the
testing of nuclear weapons has been banned for both civilian and military purposes in all
environments- hence it is comprehensive.

● The objective of CTBT is to cut down the vertical proliferation and like NPT, India opposes
CTBT also. According to India, CTBT also legitimises the possession of nuclear weapons in the
hands of a few states. It also allows them to retain and improve them indefinitely. Though the
Treaty has banned the testing of weapons in all environments, it has not banned testing through
Computer Simulation Techniques in which the P5 have acquired expertise. Thus like NPT, India
considers CTBT to be discriminatory.

● Also CTBT does not stand for any time-bound disarmament and it only wants to maintain a
world of nuclear haves and have nots. Though India has listed its reservations towards CTBT, to
show its commitment for a nuke free world, India has imposed SIM- Self Imposed Moratorium or
a voluntary ban on further nuclear testing.

India’s track record regarding Global Nuclear Disarmament and the debate on India’s No First
Use Policy

● India’s criticism of NPT and CTBT are not empty as India has shown enough credentials in the
past to prove its seriousness about global nuclear disarmament.

● Though India acquired nuclear weapons technology in 1974, India decided to exercise
unparalleled restraint by not weaponsing its nuclear weapon capabilities. India decided to
weaponise its weapons technology in 1998 as it had confirmed reports that the military of
Pakistan wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. India, after developing its weapon, released its
Nuclear Doctrine:

- Building credible minimum deterrence

- ‘No First Use’- will retaliate in case of an attack on Indian territory or Indian forces
anywhere
- Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be “massive” and will inflict “unacceptable damage”
 - Retaliatory attacks to be authorised only by the civilian leadership through the Nuclear
Command Authority
- Non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states
- India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons in case of a major attack
against it with biological or chemical weapons
- Continuance of strict controls on export of nuclear and missile related materials and
technologies participating in FMCT negotiations and a continued moratorium on testing
- Continued commitment to the goal of nuclear weapon free world through global,
verifiable and non-discriminatory disarmament

India’s ‘No First Use’ Policy

Arguments Against:

● According to the experts, NFU is relevant only for those countries that have extreme confidence
in their survivability as NFU requires efficient crisis management which according to Bharat
Karnad is not the forte of India- the Indian bureaucracy is manifestly incapable of crisis
management
● NFU is morally wrong as it places our population under a huge threat and there is no logic to
face large scale destruction in a first strike

Arguments For:
● With NFU, there is no need to keep the nuclear forces on trigger and by pursuing NFU, a
country can keep its nuclear weapons in disassembled form. Thus there is no need to have an
extensive nuclear weapon architecture
● FU capability requires huge investment and with NFU, the onus of escalation is on the
adversary
● According to Shivshankar Menon, the FU question is highly provocative and it will lead to a
manifold increase in the chances of nuclear war. If India were to announce a NFU doctrine as
null and void, it will destabilise the security environment in South Asia. Menon has given China’s
example as despite asymmetry with the US, it has maintained NFU doctrine. According to
Menon, NFU has credible deterrence
In a recent statement given by the Defence Minister of India, he said that NFU is conditional. As India
has acquired the Nuclear Triad and this has given India potent second strike capability. Thus it seems
rational to follow NFU doctrine. India is seen as a responsible NWS and our strong credentials have
helped us to get the NSG waiver and our entry into other important multilateral export control regimes
(Australian Group, Wassenaar Arrangement, MTCR, NSG). Moreover, India favours and stands for a
global NFU doctrine. According to India, a global NFU doctrine could be the first step towards the
delegitimisation of nuclear weapons. It is emphasised that India should focus more on crisis
management, survivability, strengthening the Nuclear Triad and developing the capacity for a flexible
response instead of changing its NFU policy.

III. Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty

● Fissile material is used to make weapons grade fuel. It complements the NPT as it allows the
use of nuclear technology for civilian purposes. Nuclear technology is a dual-use technology
and there are states that have produced a large amount of fissile material under the guise of
peaceful nuclear activity.

● This Treaty has been under negotiation since 1988. The talks have been stalled by Pakistan
and both India and the US favour the early completion of the Treaty.
● There is divergence between the views of India and the US also on the issue of the coverage of
elements or the fissile materials as the US is against bringing tritium within discussion. Also, the
US does not want to include the existing fissile material under the Treaty.

● Both India and the US have consensus on this point that the Treaty should not cover the
existing stockpile and it should ban the future production of fissile material. Pakistan has
reservations on this point and demands the inclusion of both the existing and the future
stockpile as Pakistan feels that India has already accumulated enough fissile material and this is
the reason why India is pressing for the early conclusion of the Treaty.

IV. Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

● It entered into force on 22nd Jan 2021. This Treaty is based on the objectives of the Social
Constructivists, that is, to stigmatise the possession of nuclear weapons. The purpose of the
Treaty is to develop a new culture where nuclear weapons are seen as a threat to world peace.
 ● This is the first time that a disarmament treaty has been drafted by civil society which has
emphasised on the humanitarian and ecological consequences of nuclear weapons. This Treaty
has prohibited the development, testing, procurement, stockpiling of fissile materials and the
transfer of nuclear weapons technology.

● Ernst Haas has highlighted the role of epistemic communities or networks of professionals who
have expertise in a particular domain. These professionals can form a community because they
can share some norms. They can create pressure on political leaders who are involved in
making security policies. One such epistemic community is ICAN- International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons. It has played an instrumental role in drafting a Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

● India has been at the forefront of global nuclear disarmament efforts and it believes that its own
security can be better served in a nuke free world. However, India has decided not to sign this
Treaty even though it is aligned with India’s aim. According to India, this Treaty has been
negotiated at the UNGA whereas it should have been negotiated at the COD- Conference on
Disarmament. In the UNGA it is majority based and in the COD it is consensus based decision-
making.

● Britain, US and France have given the following reasons for not signing this Treaty:
- It will undermine NPT
- Deterrence is the only way to maintain peace
- This Treaty does not suggest any way forward to deal with the nuclear weapons
programme of North Korea

● Russia, China and Pakistan have not given any reason for not signing the Treaty

● According to Social Constructivist Nina Tannenwald, despite the Treaty not being signed by any
NWS, the Treaty has its relevance as it stigmatises the possession of nuclear weapons and it
gives the message to the NWS that the international community does not approve of these
weapons of mass destruction

● Also this Treaty has led to the democratisation of disarmament diplomacy and for the first time it
has been accepted that the possession of nuclear weapons is not only a security issue but also
a humanitarian issue.

→ Cold War Dynamics

 ● The term, ‘Cold War’ was coined by Bernard Baruch but was popularised by Walter Lipman.
The term has been used to describe the state of relationship between the US and the USSR
after WW2. It denotes high tensions and a state of rivalry and it is believed that if certain
conditions had been absent, it would have resulted in WW3. According to Kenneth Waltz, it was
the nuclear weapons that ensured that the Cold War did not turn into a hot war.
● Chuchill’s Fulton speech where he spoke of an ‘Iron Curtain’ drawn from the Baltic to the
Adriatic symbolises the existence of a Cold War. The 1961 construction of a Berlin Wall was the
concrete expression of the Cold War which divided the entire world into two blocs around two
poles.
● The Cold War and its implications go beyond the two countries as it impacted almost every
corner of the globe and the worst affected have been the Third World countries as they became
the grounds for proxy wars between the two superpowers. These countries became the arenas
for Cold War politics.

The Nature of the Cold War

● The beginning and the end of the Cold War have been matters of debate. Some scholars trace
its origin to the Russian Revolution but some believe that it was a part of WW2.

● The war-time conferences like Yalta and Potsdam Conferences on a number of issues dealing
with the future world order were held. The differences of opinion during these conferences
showed that the wartime alliances between the Western countries and the USSR were alliances
of convenience against the common threat of fascism.

● Certain developments during WW2 led to the development of suspicion within the USSR against
the West:
- Delay on part of the Allied powers to open the second front against Germany. This led to
suspicion in Stalin’s mind that the Allies wanted Germany and USSR to destroy one
another

- During the wartime conferences, a difference of opinions prevailed regarding the future
of Germany. As the USSR had suffered the most, it wanted to impose heavy penalties
on Germany. However, the Western countries started looking at Germany as a bulwark
against the communist USSR. Hence their excuse was that they did not wish to repeat
Versailles.
 - The US kept the nuclear programme secret from the USSR but informed its allies like
Britain and Canada. When the US ended WW2 by using nuclear weapons against
Japan, Stalin was shocked as there was an agreement that the Soviet forces would
enter from the north and the Western forces from the south. Before the entry of Soviet
forces, the US ended the war and claimed the entire credit.

- The US decided to use nuclear weapons to display its superpower status and frighten
the USSR so that its leadership would not bargain with the West regarding the future of
Eastern European states. Also, the US did not want the USSR to be present on
Japanese territory after the experience of the attitude of Stalin regarding the future of
Germany. The location of Japan was crucial for the US to contain the expansion of the
USSR in the Pacific.

● The Cold War had strong ideological dimensions as it has been described as a war between
two ways of life. The end of the Cold War is described as the victory of the liberal way of life
over the communist way of life. However, from a Realist perspective, ideologies carry no
significance. They are just masks to hide real intentions.

● The underlying factor during the Cold War was geopolitics, that is, the geopolitical aspirations of
the US and the geopolitical compulsions of the USSR.

● ‘The Revenge of Geography’ by Robert Kaplan has an explanation for the geography of Russia
determining its politics. As Russia does not have any natural defences and its resource-rich
regions are located in the periphery, it has faced a number of attacks from the routes of Central
Asia and the vast plains of the Eastern European region. Hence, it is a geopolitical compulsion
for Russia to exercise strong control over the peripheral states. As the Cold War evolved, it
became even clearer that ideology was just a means to establish power

● However, according to the Social Constructivist scholars, the Cold War was the story of
misunderstandings, miscalculations and missed opportunities.

Reasons for high tensions during the Cold War

● The factors for the event of such magnitude cannot be attributed to one or two causes. There
are different interpretations with respect to the causes of high tensions during the Cold War.
● Traditionalist scholars have placed blame on the USSR and the foreign policy of Stalin. Stalin, in
his speech, said, “Peaceful coexistence with the West is impossible until the final victory over
capitalism.” Thus he wanted to take a confrontationist approach with the West.
● Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech during his trip to the US where he said that an Iron
Curtain has descended over Europe and he called for an alliance of Western countries to
counter the threat of communism. Churchill was criticised by Stalin for being a warmonger.
● However, there are scholars who have depicted that the underlying factors for high tensions lie
in the traditional European politics and inter-state rivalries. While Stalin adopted the policy of
pushing for communism in the peripheral states, the US adopted the policy of containment
under the Truman Doctrine. Hence, it was very natural that both will have conflicting relations.
● The multiple reasons for causing high tensions during the Cold War were-

- The presence of a bipolar world: The presence of two superpowers with two very different
ideologies of state and society led to a competition in political, economic and military
spheres. The aspiration of both the superpowers was to establish the hegemony of their
respective ideologies.

- The domino effect: Communism was seen as a threat by the leaders of the capitalist world
as their belief was that if one country were to become communist, the other neighbouring
countries would also follow suit, thus threatening democracy and capitalism. It was the fear
of the domino effect that forced US participation in the Vietnam War as after China and
North Korea, a communist Vietnam would have put Japan, where the US had invested
heavily to establish a thriving capitalist economy, under the direct threat of communism. The
capitalist world feared this because the leaders of Third World countries were socialist in
orientation- suspicious of the capitalism that had led to imperialism, colonialism.

- The role of leaders: According to traditionalist scholars, Stalin is to be blamed for Cold War
tensions as he took a confrontationist attitude towards the West. Stalin’s foreign policy was
based on the creation of two lines of defence- (i) the inner line where he incorporated many
territories within the USSR (ii) an extended line of defence, that is, pro-Soviet governments
in power in Eastern European states.

According to these scholars, the policies of Stalin were not very different from Tsarist Russia
but according to Revisionist scholars, Stalin acted only in self-defence and it was the US
President Truman who is to be blamed for Cold War tensions as he unnecessarily provoked
Russian hostility.
 After the end of WW2, the US adopted the policy of containment under the Truman Doctrine
and it made it clear that it would not revert to the policy of isolation as it did after the end of
WW1. This Doctrine announced that the US is committed towards the containment of
communism, not just in Europe but throughout the world. Under this Doctrine, the US
announced the Marshall Plan which is also known as the European Recovery Programme.
Officially, this plan sought to remove hunger, poverty and chaos but it had the hidden
political agenda of containment. Under this plan, the US invested around 1.3 lakh million
USD aid in the Western European states. Stalin denounced the Marshall Plan as ‘dollar
imperialism’ and a device to increase US influence over Western European countries and to
interfere in the Soviet sphere of influence (Eastern European region).

In retaliation, Stalin announced the Molotov Plan, COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance), COMINFORM (Information bureau of the Communist and the Workers’ Party-
coordination body of the Communist parties in Europe, that was formed as a replacement of
the Communist International.

Also, the third view or the Post-Revisionist view came to light after the declassification of
government documents after the end of the CW. According to this view, both the
superpowers equally share the blame for CW tensions as both failed to develop mutual
trust. Due to this mutual suspicion, every action of one side was assumed to have
aggressive intent by the other.

- Clash of interests of classes: it was also responsible for causing high tensions during the
CW as each class had stakes in one form of the economic system or the other. While
workers supported communism, the propertied class supported capitalism as they feared
that communism would lead to the end of private wealth. Thus without local support, the US
and USSR would not have been able to interfere so frequently and successfully in the
internal affairs of other countries.

- Failure of the UN to prevent high tensions: Lack of confidence in the UN to provide

amicable solutions for the disputed issues. Lack of impartiality in the functioning of the UN.
Lack of powers available to the UN. All these weaknesses added to the high tensions during
the Cold War.

Phases of the Cold War

 ● The first phase is marked by the war of words and the proxy wars between the two
superpowers. After the end of WW2, the period until 1962 is seen as the first phase. After the
Cuban Missile Crisis, tensions reached such a high point that they had to be relaxed. Hence, we
saw the beginning of the detente phase of the CW.
● Both the superpowers were exhausted and there was a need to reduce tensions.
● Political scholars have used the term ‘detente’ for the relaxation of tensions between the US and
the USSR, ‘rapprochement’ for the relaxation of tensions between the US and China, ‘ostpolitik’
for the relaxation of tensions between West and East Germany.
● During the detente phase, many arms reduction treaties were signed- PTBT, NPT, OST, SALT
1, SALT 2, Helsinki Accords for European Security.
● Also, during the detente phase, there took place the golden handshake between the astronauts
of the US and the USSR in space. Thus, during the detente phase, there was a dip in the arms
race and political scholars consider the 1962-1975 period as the detente phase.
● 1979 onwards, the third phase is supposed to have begun. In spite of the positive developments
during the detente phase, once again, bitterness and antagonism emerged and a new phase of
tensions erupted between the two superpowers. This is sometimes called the ‘new Cold War.’
● When the USSR intervened in Afghanistan in 1979, the US President Ronald Reagan
announced the end of the detente and initiated SDI- the Strategic Defence Initiative and pushed
for an arms race.
● The US began to train Islamic fundamentalists to counter the USSR.
● According to Martin Kaplan, this phase was more dangerous and less ideological. He has
termed this phase, ‘unstable bloc system’.
● During this phase, the Soviet economy was in deep crisis as the US forced it into an arms race
under its SDI project and because it was deeply involved in the war in Afghanistan, it ultimately
became its Vietnam.
● The biggest reason for the failure of the USSR in Afghanistan was that the US neutralised its air
power by providing surface to air missiles (Stinger missiles) to the fundamentalists. In 1989, the
USSR decided to leave Afghanistan and by this time, it was clear that it cannot maintain itself as
a superpower.
● It became more evident during the Gulf War in 1989 (invasion of Kuwait by Iraq) that the US
was able to pass the Collective Security resolution with no opposition from the USSR,
symbolising the beginning of a unipolar world.

Helsinki Accords
Helsinki Accords were renamed in 1994 to OSCE- Organisation for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. This is the only organisation in which Russia is involved with the Western European states for
the security of the region. Russia wants to make OSCE the main platform for security cooperation. It
has placed a question mark on the continuation of NATO and its eastward expansion. For the first time
under Helsinki Accords that were signed in 1975 during the detente, both sides accepted that no one
would attempt to alter the status quo. However, when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the West
established that Russia has violated the Helsinki Accords.

Reasons for the disintegration of the USSR

● The capitalist world held the belief that the USSR will die its own death as socialist policies will
lead to stagnation.
● The policies of the US, especially those of the Reagan administration of ‘beggar thy neighbour’
by pushing USSR towards the arms race
● Huge corruption within the USSR
● The USSR focused more on producing defence goods overlooking consumer goods which led
to the acute shortage of basic goods
● It also suffered from natural calamities and industrial disasters like Chernobyl which further
aggravated the crisis
● In order to maintain its superpower status, it had to make expensive military expenditure as well
as provide aid to satellite states.
● It is to be noted that there were more weak states in the Soviet league whereas US partners
were economically strong core countries
● Gorbachev’s policies of perestroika (economic restructuring- open economy) and glasnost
(political restructuring- freedom of speech and expression): He became the Soviet President
when it was in a state of crisis. He introduced certain reforms to prevent the collapse of the
USSR but they proved to be counter-productive. According to many scholars, he ignored the
advice of famous political scholar, Alex De Tocqueville who said that, “Tyrannies collapse not
when they are at their worst but when they try to reform.”
● He decided to change Soviet policies on both the fronts of domestic and foreign policy (more
rights to satellite states).
 ● During the Stalin era, the policy was to have tight control on the satellite states but Gorbachev
decided to follow the Sinatra Doctrine: no tight control on the satellite states. On the domestic
front, he decided to follow perestroika ans glasnost.
● Due to these policies, people’s resentment towards the regime surfaced and communism began
to collapse in the peripheral states which began to declare independence from the USSR and
communism collapsed like a house of cards.
● Formal declaration of the end of the Cold War was done at the Malta Conference in 1989 when
Gorbachev and H.W. Bush officially declared the end of the Cold War

Consequences of the Cold War

● Arms Race and Nuclear Arms Race: Led to the development of ICBMs
● Emergence of military alliances- NATO, CENTO, SEATO, Warsaw Pact
● Proxy wars in Third World countries like Korea, Vietnam, India-Pakistan and Afghanistan
● Emergence of NAM
● However, for Neo-Realists scholars like Waltz and Mearsheimer, the Cold War was the most
peaceful and stable phase in European politics

Impact of the end of the Cold War

● International politics changed to global politics

● Billiard ball model changed to Cobweb model
● Interdependence changed to complex interdependence
● Strengthening of global governance under the forces of globalisation
● The end of the CW is being interpreted differently by different scholars. The US President Bush
announced at the Malta Conference that we have entered a new world order.
● Liberal scholars started describing the new world order as a global village and a borderless
world. According to them, the world has become more integrated than it was during the CW.
● However, Realist scholars continue to remain sceptical about the nature of the world order that
followed the disintegration of the USSR. Scholars like Waltz and Mearsheimer believe that
bipolarity was the most stable and figured that a multipolar world would be more stable and
challenging
● Many Realist scholars believe that in the new world order, there is nothing new and nor is there
any order and the talk of the end of history is also premature
 ● It is often suggested that the post-CW order has created more challenges as commented by a
US analyst, “We have killed a python but have given rise to many poisonous snakes.”
● Also in the post-CW world, we have seen the rise of numerous ethnic conflicts and the conflict
between capitalism and socialism has been replaced by the more dangerous clash of
civilisations
● In the post-CW world, countries are not only facing the security dilemma but they are also facing
the insecurity dilemma. Quite contrary to the optimism of liberal scholars that the end of the CW
will give a new lease of life to the UN, it has not happened yet and the UN has been criticised
because of the hegemony of the P5.
● In the world of Bery and Smith, “World politics has moved from international politics to global
politics and the Biliard Ball model has been replaced by the cobweb model.”
● According to Joseph Nye, the present world order is in the state of complex interdependence
and the post-Cold War world order is still evolving.
● However, according to many Realist scholars, the Westphalian world order has not ended as
sovereignty and territorial integrity are still sacred principles
● The end of the CW gives an opportunity for qualitative transformation as it gives some scope for
walking together to counter transnational challenges like climate change, food insecurity, global
disparity, religious fundamentalism, financial crises, nuclear proliferation

Can the present state of ties between the US and Russia be seen as Cold War 2.0?

● According to Stephen Waltz, to call the current state of ties between the US and Russia as a
new Cold War would be highly misleading.
● He says that the Cold War was bipolar where the two superpowers roughly had parity and it was
global in nature. However, the present world is not bipolar, it is lopsided and multipolar. There is
no parity between the US and Russia.
● In the words of Waltz, “If the US is Godzilla, Russia is Bambi.”
● Also, Russia does not have any ideological appeal or soft power at par with the US
● The present competition between the two is not global. It is confined to a few theatres in the
Russian neighbourhood and the Middle East
● At present, there are bigger concerns for the US such as a rising China.
● Thus, according to Waltz, it is the laziness of the strategic community that has prompted it to
call the present war a Cold War 2.0
 ● According to Alexei Arbatov, there is a high level of mutual suspicion between the two. Though
communism is not that relevant, the US cannot afford to ignore the power of Russian orthodox
nationalism which is gaining huge popularity even in Western European countries.
● Also, Arbatov says that Putin is the master of ambiguity. In response to a question that where
does the border of Russia end, he replied nowhere which is indication of his expansionist
attitude.
● The West is well aware of the fact that Putin considers the fall of the USSR as the biggest
geopolitical disaster and he has also stated that anybody who does not feel the pain of its
collapse does not have a heart and anyone who wants to rebuild the USSR does not have a
mind. This is indication of his pragmatism
● Although now there is clear acknowledgement within the US that China is posing a bigger
threat. There was a recently released statement in which the US has admitted that China is the
biggest threat that it has ever faced.
● The main grievances of Russia against the US and the West are:
- Eastward expansion of Nato
- Arbitrary sanctions against Russia
● The main grievances of the West against Russia are that Putin is suppressing democracy, there
is no room for dissent in Russia, there is no rule of law and the media is strongly controlled by
the state. Also, Putin is following an aggressive policy towards its neighbours

→ Non-Aligned Movement

Non-Alignment as the Foreign Policy of India

● The policy of non-alignment is often termed as India’s exceptionalism

● In the literature of international politics, this term is India’s invention. It has been India’s grand
strategy to protect its national interest.

● According to Martend Jha, “Non-alignment remains a highly ambiguous term as there has
always been a question mark on the status of India as a non-aligned country.” According to
Western critics, even during the Cold War, India was in a quasi-alliance with the USSR.

● During CW, the assertion of non-alignment as a choice by India was termed as immoral by John
Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State. It was an example of India's opportunism as India was
 trying to gain the best of both worlds without offering anything in return. According to Dulles,
non-alignment was India’ arrogance to challenge US hegemony. US policy-makers have always
been critical of the idea of non-alignment and they never recognised the integrity of India’s
status as a non-aligned country because they viewed India as the team B of the USSR.

● Even the USSR was critical of the policy of non-alignment as in a very categorical manner,
Stalin said that, “Those who are not with us are against us.”

● The policy of non-alignment was a new concept and at times, scholars of international politics
have compared the policy of non-alignment with the US policy of isolation or the policy of
neutrality adopted by some countries during WW2.

● GoI tried to clarify the nature of non-alignment as a foreign policy. According to Nehru, the
policy of non-alignment is rooted in India’s history and culture, that is, the culture of universal
brotherhood. Nehru further stated that India has suffered from the evils of imperialism and we
have achieved freedom after a long struggle and non-alignment is the policy of exercising
sovereignty in the external sphere. “It’s a policy to make decisions which are in the best
interests of the nation.”

● Nehru further clarified that non-alignment as a policy is not just to fulfil our narrow national
interests. Its aims are in complete harmony with international peace and collective security.

● According to Nehru, our cultural values do not teach us to make distinctions between us and
others and the concept of India is based on the philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. In his
speech in the Parliament, Nehru further clarified that not even as an individual would he give up
his right to make an independent decision and as the Foreign Minister of a country, it is
impossible to do so.

● Thus according to Nehru, non-alignment is not a policy of neutrality but it’s a policy of taking
principled stands. It is not a policy of remaining inactive as non-alignment is different from the
US policy of isolation.

The views of scholars on India’s policy of non-alignment

1. Aparna Pandey: Non-alignment as a policy allowed India to maintain its independence but still
be a part of international politics. Through this policy India was able to maintain its ties with both
the superpowers without coercion.
 2. Paul Powell: He has given domestic reasons for adopting the policy of non-alignment.
According to him, domestic consensus in itself is the basis of sound foreign policy. While the
right wing in India favoured an alliance with the Western capitalist bloc, the left was looking
towards the USSR socialist bloc. Through the policy of non-alignment, Nehru was able to
handle the divisive domestic approach on the foreign policy.

3. K. Natwar Singh: This policy gave enough flexibility to India to maintain its independence
rather than becoming a camp follower. It would not have been wise if India had put all its eggs in
one basket.

4. Teresita Schaffer: Non-alignment as a policy made good sense for India as India aspires for a
leadership role. It would have worked well for India if its neighbour Pakistan had not entered into
a US led military alliance- CENTO which entangled India within CW power politics.

5. Michael Edward: He has defined India’s policy of non-alignment as defence by friendship.

Politically, India was a democracy so India was not in a position to join the communist bloc but
geopolitically India was in the periphery of the communist bloc. If India would have joined the
Western bloc, this would have invited aggression from the Communist bloc.

6. Henry Kissinger: Though India’s policy of non-alignment was irritating for the US, yet it was the
best course of action that India could have followed

Present status of non-alignment

The rationality of continuing with non-alignment in the post-Cold War world was questioned not only by
Western scholars but also by Indian analysts-

1. Brijesh Mishra (Former NSA): He has called the policy of non-alignment as the ideological
baggage of the CW period.

2. J.N. Dikshit (Former NSA): He has also questioned the continuation of the policy of non-
alignment when the fundamental term of reference, that is, the blocs of the Cold War era have
gone.

3. C. Raja Mohan: According to him, throughout its history, except during the phase of Pt. Nehru,
India was never genuinely non-aligned. During the CW, the policy of non-alignment was
 synonymous with anti-American ideology and after the end of the CW, the growing strategic
partnership with the US has put a question mark on India’s integrity towards non-alignment.

● While the INC has maintained the rhetoric without any substance, the BJP never had any
illusions about non-alignment. As A.B. Vajpayee said, “The US and Israel are India’s natural
allies.” The reality of world politics is a zero sum game

● PM Modi has mentioned that the relationship with the US and Israel has gone beyond the
hesitation of history. Both Modi and Netanyahu have described the relationship between India
and Israel as a marriage conceived in heaven. (Pulwama attack then India’s retaliatory Balakot
strike- Israel declared that if war were to break out, it would unconditionally support India)

● Today there is broad consensus that the doctrine of non-alignment has outlived its purpose and
non-alignment has quietly been replaced by a new foreign policy doctrine- strategic autonomy.

● Strategic Autonomy for India denotes its ability to pursue its national interest and adopt its
preferred foreign policy without being constrained in any manner. It is the ability to make
decisions insulated from external pressures.

● The doctrine of strategic autonomy is quite different from Nehruvian era thinking of non-
alignment and is issue and situation based.

● After the end of the CW, the strategic autonomy principle has assumed a new emphasis. After
India’ nuclear weapons test in 1998, this doctrine has been frequently used by Indian officials.
After signing the Civil Nuclear Deal with the US, PM Manmohan Singh claimed that there was
nothing in the deal which can hurt India’s strategic autonomy.

● It is under the UPA government that India gradually transformed from the policy of non-
alignment to strategic autonomy. However, it is the current NDA government that has given a
more decisive shift from non-alignment to strategic autonomy.

● Former Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale said, “India has moved from its non-aligned past and
today India is an aligned state based on issues.” This alignment is not ideological and this gives
India the capacity to be flexible and maintain our decisional autonomy.

● While there is near-universal agreement in New Delhi that maintaining strategic autonomy is a
laudable goal, there remain dissenting views on what precisely contributes to India’s strategic
autonomy and what diminishes it.
 ● For some scholars, the greatest threat to India’s strategic autonomy remains a closer
relationship with the US as a close partnership with the US will open channels to pressure India
on its core national interests (our defence engagements with Russia, the issue of Kashmir, our
nuclear weapons programme). They believe that each step closer to the US will result in a
corresponding loss of strategic autonomy.

● M.K. Narayanan (Former NSA) has suggested that the answer to the rising Chinese hegemony
in the region is not to strengthen ties with the US but to strengthen and revitalise our ties with
Third World countries.

● However, a growing number of Indian strategists believe that Indian strategic autonomy has
been enhanced rather than being constrained by a strategic partnership with the US. Despite
the increasing alignment with the US, India has been able to maintain its freedom of action on
core national security issues.

● The improvement on defence engagements with the US has improved India’s ability to secure
its interests within this region as there is a belief that if any country is restricting India’s
autonomy within this region, it is China. China is threatening the freedom of navigation in the
South China Sea, has thousands of kilometres of Indian territory under its control in Aksai Chin,
it is building infrastructure in PoK under its CPEC project which is a violation of India’s
sovereignty and integrity. Thus it is China's political, economic and military thrust within South
Asia and the Indian Ocean region which is making India more uncomfortable as India feels
increasingly encircled. For India, rising Chinese hegemony in the region is a direct security
threat and it is severely constraining India’s strategic autonomy.
● According to Harsh Pant, India’s engagement with Quad has enhanced the strategic autonomy
of India. According R. Rajagopalan, as India is facing security threats, Quad will enhance its
strategic autonomy.

● According to the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, India has a strong and a proud
tradition of autonomy and we do not seek to change India’s tradition but we want to explore and
empower India’s ability to defend its own sovereignty and autonomy.

Non-Aligned Movement

● NAM was a logical evolution of India’s policy of non-alignment. To pursue this policy, Nehru
gathered the leaders of like-minded countries and laid down the foundation of NAM.
 ● The first Afro-Asian conference in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955 is treated as the beginning of
NAM.
● Nehru never wanted NAM to be converted into an institution or an organisation. He wanted to
maintain it as a movement so as to adapt to the changing needs of time. Hence the NAM
agenda has been evolving. Nehru wanted NAM to remain a movement as he did not want it to
lose its dynamism. Hence he never favoured its institutionalisation.
● NAM is the biggest peace movement in the world. The basic purpose of NAM was to dilute
bipolarity so that the possibility of WW3 could be avoided
● Other major agendas of NAM were:
- nuclear disarmament
- to work against apartheid
- to work towards decolonisation
- to work towards UNSC reforms (right from its inception, NAM was in favour of reforms in
the UNSC and demanded representation of Third World countries in the UNSC)
- focus on peace and development
- work for Afro-Asian unity
- demand for NIEO.
● NAM is an example of soft balancing by weaker states towards greater powers who were
engaged in intense rivalries and conflicts as NAM members have little material ability to
constrain superpower conflicts and arms races. Therefore they decided to use soft balancing
through normative powers.

Phases of NAM

● NAM was started as a movement to adapt to the changing needs of time. The agenda of NAM
has kept evolving and scholars have demarcated the different phases of NAM.

● Phase I (From 1950 to the 1960s): This is seen as the most successful phase of NAM and in
this phase, NAM stood for decolonisation, anti-imperialism, anti-racism.

● Phase II (1960s-1980s): In this phase, the agenda shifted from decolonisation to development.
NAM members put forward the agenda of NIEO at the Algiers Summit which was later adopted
by the UNGA. Some of the main demands of NAM members under NIEO were:
- Impose responsibilities on MNCs
- Full sovereignty for each state over its natural resources
 - Western countries should transfer funds and technologies to developing countries
- Better valuation of goods exported by developing countries
- Demand for reforms in the IMF and WB

● Phase III (1980s-1990s): Though the demand for disarmament originated since the beginning,
it gained more prominence during this particular phase

● Phase IV (1990s onwards): In this phase, NAM is in the search for an agenda as apartheid
ended, decolonisation was achieved, bipolarity ended, no conclusive outcome of nuclear
disarmament talks was achieved as the NPT was postponed indefinitely.

● The end of the Cold War has put a question mark on the very reason for the existence of NAM
and according to many scholars, NAM is suffering from a crisis of identity. After the end of the
CW, countries like Egypt proposed the dissolution of NAM. NAM members witnessed the
disintegration of its prominent member state, Yugoslavia and it failed to play any role in that
crisis.
● NAM members again failed to play any role when Iraq invaded Kuwait- both were member
states. NAM again remained voiceless when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and
2003. It also remained voiceless in the recent crisis in Afghanistan.
● Many NAM members have left the agenda of NIEO and they have embraced the Washington
Consensus (neoliberalism) or market fundamentalism.
● These incidents have questioned the relevance of NAM and its utility in the changed world order
as critics say that it lacks a definite programme of action.

● According to C. Raja Mohan, NAM was always dysfunctional. It was irrelevant even before the
CW ended as many NAM countries never supported India during the Indo-China War. During
the Indo-Pak Wars, many NAM states like the Arab states actively supported Pakistan. Thus,
according to him, NAM was irrelevant before the end of the CW and the movement has been in
a state of coma since the end of the CW. In his view, India should have agreed to end the
movement after the end of the CW as it was the best time for a graceful exit from a platform
which had no achievements in the past and no prospects for the future. The end of the CW was
the best time to end the movement as NAM countries should have taken the credit for ending
the CW and should have declared that its mission had been accomplished.

● According to PM Narsimha Rao, it is wrong to think that the only agenda of NAM was to counter
superpower rivalry and it was a mere coincidence that NAM was born at the time of the CW. It
always had a broader agenda and sought to protect the interests of Third World countries
 ● T.V. Paul has said that NAM never got the credit that it deserves and there has been an
intellectual bias against it. It acted as a soft balancing mechanism and some of its achievements
are-It does enjoy partial credit for achieving the following through sustained pressure-
- Ending colonialism
- Signing CTBT, NPT, Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, development of a taboo against
nuclear weapons

It also delegitimised the threatening behaviour of superpowers. The intellectual bias against
NAM, which is the coalition of weaker states, is very natural as there is a bias against the
subaltern class movements among the upper classes. According to Paul, NAM can never lose
its relevance and it has to adapt and change itself to counter the emerging challenges. NAM can
play an active role in preserving world peace and it can still act as a protector for the smaller
countries against Western hegemony.

● Although NAM may lack military and material strength, it certainly has ideological and political
strength that cannot be neglected.
● Global institutions like the UNSC are facing existential crises as only a few states dictate their
functions. NAM members need to exert pressure and push for reforms in the UN, IMF etc for a
more democratic and equitable world order.

Relevance of NAM (Important for the exam- Read Hand-Outs)

● In context of the relevance of NAM, a group of foreign policy analysts representing the view of
civil society produced a document titled, ‘Non-Alignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for
India in the 21st Century.”
● It supports the policy of NAM and suggests that NAM is important for preserving our strategic
space. It enhances our strategic autonomy and helps us to manage diverse pressures. This
document mentions that building better ties with the rich and the powerful is beneficial but
abandoning solidarity with developing countries would be an abandonment of our national
interest.
● NAM 2.0 doctrine suggests that India should go for multi-alignment and India should forge
partnership with great powers while being present on platforms like NAM, G77, IBSA, BRICS
● ‘Elasticity is the guiding principle of diplomacy.’
→ IBSA

● It is called the new model of South-South cooperation. It was established in 2003 when the 3
most advanced countries of the Global South decided to show their solidarity in addressing the
needs of the Global South as they were disappointed with the developed countries towards
implementing the Doha Development Agenda of 2002 (will be discussed under WTO).

● Cooperation within IBSA is on 3 fronts-

- coordination and consultation on global and regional political issues eg. reforms of global
institutions of political and economic governance
- assisting developing countries by taking up projects in these countries through the IBSA
fund
- IBSA countries will collaborate in concrete areas like climate change through people to
people fora and working groups

● Since the end of decolonisation, countries have emphasised on the historical responsibility of
the Global North towards the development of the South. Developing countries have used the
platform of NAM and came together as the G77 at the UNCTAD in 1964 when they demanded
the creation of a NIEO to address the concerns of developing countries.
● The UN decided to set up the Brandt Commission that set up the terminology of the Global
North and the Global South. It recommended that the developed countries should give at least
0.7% of their GNP as ODA- Official Development Assistance. Thus if ODA becomes the
mechanism of North-South cooperation, IBSA countries decided to have the IBSA Fund for
South-South cooperation. The IBSA Fund has been set up for poverty and hunger alleviation in
the Global South.
● According to many scholars, IBSA was a strategic move by India to regain lost ground in the
developing world as its leadership was overtaken by China and since the end of the Cold War,
questions have been raised on the relevance of NAM. According to C. Raja Mohan, “NAM not
only lost relevance in the post-Cold War world, it did not have relevance in the Cold War world.”
Thus there was a need to develop new and smart mechanisms. It is also based on the
realisation that the US has been critical of NAM so a new incarnation was needed which should
not be irritating for India’s new strategic partner.
● Also, the creation of IBSA was welcomed by the US as it saw this platform as a way to limit
Chinese hegemony. China was well aware of the intentions behind IBSA and it proposed its
inclusion in ‘CHIBSA’ but India took the stand that this was the platform of three multicultural
 democracies of the Global South and rejected China’s request. However, later China later
pushed the entry of South Africa within BRIC and it became BRICS. One of the agendas of
BRICS is South-South cooperation and China said that IBSA should merge with BRICS.
● However, various analysts have said that iBSA is a smarter version of NAM as decision-making
is in the hands of 3 countries. Even if IBSA is a better initiative, it does not mean that NAM is
irrelevant as both complement one another. IBSA is to strengthen economic cooperation
between states of the Global South while NAM intends to strengthen political cooperation.
Therefore India should meaningfully utilise both these institutions to advance national interests.

→ BRICS

● BRICS is a grouping of 5 major economies whose objective is to bring about a multipolar world
and South-South cooperation. It came into existence in a formal sense in 2009 when the first
formal summit took place in Russia in Yekaterinburg after the 2008 financial crisis.
● The global financial crisis started in the US and reached Europe. The hope of the global
economy was placed in the BRICS economies and these were the first signs of the shift in
global politics.
● Both India and China were demanding reforms in global financial institutions and the financial
crisis of 2008 gave an opportunity to the semi-peripheries to lecture to the core countries that it
was their consumerist and irresponsible approach that has created financial problems around
the globe.
● Fareed Zakaria described the establishment of BRIC as the beginning of the post-American
world order. It symbolised the decline of the West and the rise of the rest. It also showed that
the centre of gravity of the international economy has shifted towards the Asia-Pacific. BRICS
countries represent 20% of the global GDP, 40% of the global population, 18% of global trade.
They have a huge amount of natural resources, skilled and unskilled labour. Two members of
BRICS are UNSC permanent members and the other 3 are aspiring and strong contenders for
the same.
● BRICS has given a real challenge to the hegemony of the West and some concrete
achievements are:
- New Development Bank
- Currency Reserve Arrangement
● China in its quest to establish a Sino-centric world is trying to bring a lot of energy into BRICS. It
has assumed huge significance for China as it serves multiple objectives.
 - It has the potential to make Chinese currency the global currency
- It is the platform through which China wants to weaken India’s leadership in the Global
South
- It allows China to use India’s strength to challenge US hegemony

● For India, BRICS gives much needed strategic space to balance its ties with the West and the
East
● However, Western scholars are apprehensive about BRICS and call it a motley cow- a spotted
cow with no harmony in skin colour. To them, BRICS has no future and as a platform, it only
aims to challenge US hegemony. The members of BRICS have more contradictions among
themselves and BRICS solidarity will easily crumble under the pressure of geopolitics as
territorial disputes between India and China and China and Russia have not completely been
resolved.
● Also, BRICS members have more economic interdependence with the US and Western
European states than among themselves. There is a huge gap in the political ideologies of the
BRICS states wherein 2 are authoritarian and 3 are democracies.
● According to Western scholars, it seems that BRICS will crumble as tensions between India and
China will grow, However, according to Rajeev Bhatia, BRICS has grown in influence and has
established new institutions and can be described as ‘unity in divergence.’ He says that BRICS
members are developing the habit of cooperation and the importance of BRICS for both India
and China is evident.
● According to C. Raja Mohan, BRICS is important for India as it gives space to assert strategic
autonomy. “Even though BRICS is a motley cow, India looks cute in it.”

→ Global Governance

Is it possible to have Global Governance without any Supranational Authority or World

Government?

● The answer is yes

● Global Governance is a broad, dynamic, complex process of interactive decision-making at the
global level that involves formal and informal mechanisms as well as governmental and non-
governmental bodies. Global governance involves a wide array of actors, that is, state and non-
violent non-state actors.
 ● Though states have remained a primary element of global governance, it can also involve
intergovernmental and supranational bodies and other transnational actors too (NGOs, MNCs,
IGOs- some consider IGOs as non-state actors, some as a third category after state and non-
state)
● Global Governance is often confused with international organisations but they are not
synonymous. The important aspect of the emergence of global governance has been the growth
in the number and the importance of international organisations as the latter are vital, formal,
the institutional face of global governance.

No Supranational Authority Presence of a Supranational Authority

No binding rules International anarchy Global Hegemony

Binding rules and Global Governance- IGOs World Government

norms

● The UN is not entirely a supranational authority but it has the design to be so- right now, it is in-
between. It is seen as a Global Hegemon right now because there are no binding rules for the
P5.
● The founding vision of both the League of Nations and the UN were constructed around the
concept of World Government. The logic behind the idea of World Government is the
justification that underlines the classical liberal idea of the state- the social contract theory.
● Just as the only means of ensuring order and stability amongst individuals with varying interests
is the establishment of the state, the only way to prevent conflict between self-interested states
is to create the supreme world power, that is, the world government which is a utopia according
to Realists.
● Global Governance differs from World Government as the latter presupposes the existence of a
supranational body but the former is possible without a supranational authority.
● However, according to Liberals, we are tilting towards Global Governance through supranational
bodies like the IMF and the UN.
● According to Realists, in view of the cultural, religious and other differences, the regional
political allegiances will always remain stronger than the global world.

Why are International Organisations created?

 ● There has been much political and academic debate about the forces and processes through
which international organisations have been brought into being.
● The political debate reflects the disagreements between the Liberals and the Realists
● Realist scholars are deeply sceptical about international organisations and they view such
bodies as largely ineffective. The weakness of international organisations derives from the fact
that international politics continues to be characterised by the quest for power among all states
which is reflected in the pursuit of relative gains. According to Realists, world politics is shaped
by the struggle for power and there is little scope for cooperation that will allow international
organisations to develop into meaningful and significant bodies. However, according to Neo-
Realist scholars, states do cooperate but to increase their power and to protect their relative
autonomy.
● Liberals are the most committed supporters of international organisations and this is reflected in
the ideas of liberal institutionalists. Although liberals have not rejected the concerns of states
about their relative gains, they hold that states are more concerned about their absolute gains.
Liberals have also questioned the Realist belief that successful international institutions require
the participation of the hegemonic state.

● ISS scholars believe that international politics cannot be seen only in terms of the struggle for
power as there are elements of both conflicts and cooperation, anarchy and order. ISS scholars
believe that international organisations like the UN demonstrate how the elements of both power
and law are simultaneously present. However, in contrast, the UNGA was set up on the
principle of international equality- each state is legally equal with one vote.
● Feminist scholars have highlighted the gendered construction of international organisations and
that they are male-dominated. These organisations have internationalised masculinist ideas.
● Frankfurt Critical school scholars have emphasised that bodies such as the IMF and WB have
internationalised the neo-liberal agenda and they act in the interest of global capitalism.
● Green scholars look towards IOs with a lot of hope as they believe that these organisations can
help to solve issues like global warming and can play a positive role in the protection of
biodiversity.

→ United Nations

● The UN was not created to make heaven on earth but to prevent it from turning into hell.
● The UN, till date, is the most important international organisation created for global governance
 ● The 3 main pillars of the UN system are- protection of world peace, promotion of development,
protection of human rights

Peace, Security and Development

● Peace is a socio-political issue and it ensures the development of the society and state.
● It is a state of harmony characterised by the existence of healthy ties and relationships between
different groups.
● It is also related to a working political order that ensures the true interests of all
● In the context of world politics, peace is not merely the absence of war or conflicts but it is also
the presence of socio-cultural understanding and unity.
● Traditionally, the concept of security has been understood in relation to state sovereignty and
territorial integrity as expressed in Article 2 of the UN Charter. Thus, security policies of states
were concerned with preventing wars through strategies like balance of power.
● A distinct trend emerged in international security in the post-Cold War era, that is, the
phenomenal rise in non-traditional security threats which includes issues like climate change,
religious intolerance, violent secessionist movements, financial instability, cyber-attacks,
migration crises.
● The MDGs adopted by the UN in 2000 recognise peace and security as the key conditions for
successful development and the UN has recognised that peace, development and democracy
are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. These concepts are inseparable and when combined
together, they create a condition where individuals, states and the world move ahead without
any threat as democracy creates conditions for the elimination of public dissatisfaction.
Democratic systems provide equal opportunity to all to participate in the process of governance
and decision-making. Development ensures that people should not suffer from any sense of
deprivation. Thus, development ensures peace and stability.

Main grounds of criticism of the UN

● Hegemony of the US and the P5

● Failed to prevent nuclear proliferation
● Failed to counter terrorism
● Failed to prevent non-conventional security threats
● Failed to prevent violent conflicts
 ● Failed to offer amicable solutions to conflict like Kashmir, Israel-Palestine etc

Relevance of the UN

● Donald Trump has described the UN as just a club of people to get together, talk and have a
good time
● For many, the UN is fundamentally flawed as it lacks accountability and democratic credentials.
Also, the UNSC is formally paralysed because of the lack of consensus among the P5. The UN
record on standing up to dictators, intervening to prevent genocide etc is rather poor. The UN
has failed to provide amicable solutions for various disputed issues for many states and it has
been blamed for being dominated by the US. Thus, for many, the UN is simply dysfunctional.
● Despite the criticism, there are many voices in favour of the UN. As said by Ban-Ki-Moon,
former Secretary General of the UN, “We need more UN rather than less UN,” as global threats
have gone beyond the capacity of a single nation or state to address on their own.
● US President Truman held that the UN is malleable to the wishes of those who are running the
institution. He said that we should not forget the sacrifices of those because of whom we are
here and in a position to create such institutions. If we do not fulfil the objectives of the UN, we
will be betraying such men and women who have sacrificed their lives in the hope of peace and
justice.
● According to Liberal scholars, it is absurd to suggest that the UN is irrelevant as it has
developed into a leading organisation promoting economic and social developments worldwide.
● It has helped to shape the agenda for global issues like global warming, gender equality,
population control and dealing with pandemics.
● The fact that the two World Wars of the 20th century have not been followed by a third WW is
the supreme achievement of the UN.
● Thus even though the UN has failed somewhere in the fulfilment of its political objectives, it has
successfully been able to achieve its socio-economic objectives. The need is to mend the UN,
not to end it. There is a need for reforms in the UN to make it more inclusive and democratic. As
said by PM Modi recently, the UN is in need of reforms.

International Court of Justice

 ● ICJ is meant only for disputes among states but not for private bodies. UN agencies can refer
matters to the ICJ for its opinion. Decisions of the ICJ are not binding but it is the obligation of all
UN members to comply with the decisions. Decisions can be enforced by the UNSC.
● Two types of decisions can be given by the ICJ- advisory and compulsory jurisdiction.
● It has been the choice of member countries to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and
once a state has granted its consent and a dispute falls within the scope of that consent, states
must subject themselves to the Court’s jurisdiction. India has excluded itself from the
compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in the following conditions-
- A dispute with Pakistan
- A dispute in connection with any situation of armed conflict
● JCPOA- When the US withdrew and reimposed sanctions, Iran went to the ICJ and complained
that this was a unilateral act. The ICJ ruling favoured Iran and called out the US for exercising
its hegemony. Trump said that the ICJ judges cannot impose any decision on the US President
as the US President has the power to punish ICJ judges.

UN Reforms

● Since the 1990s, there have been many calls for reforms in the UN but there is little clarity or
consensus over what reforms might be needed in practice.
● The range of opinions extend from those who want to eliminate the UN entirely to those who
want to make it a full fledged World Government.
● Institutional reforms in the UN require amendments in the UN Charter. Article 108 of the UN
Charter states that the proposal should be initiated by ⅔ members and should be passed by ⅔
members of the UNGA and 9 members of the UNSC including the P5. After that, it has to be
ratified by the domestic ratification procedure in ⅔ of UNGA member countries.
● It is because of this rigidity that the UN Charter has only been reformed twice.
● Demands for reforms in the UNGA: As such, there is no demand for any reform but there are
some who demand better coordination between UNGA and the UNSC.
● There is no demand for any reform in the ECOSOC, ICJ and the Secretariat

UNSC reforms

● The UNSC is considered as the nucleus of the UN and it is the only organ of the UN having
teeth to bite with- it can apply force to enforce its decisions
● There is huge disappointment with the functioning of the UNSC as the P5 have hindered its
functioning multiple times on the issues that are against their national interests
● Also it has been criticised for the lack of transparency and accountability. There is also poor
coordination between the UNSC and the UNGA.
● Thus in the present times, there is an urgent need for a credible institution of global governance
which should be impartial and the UNSC in its present configuration cannot be called
representative
● Within the UNSC, there are demands for two kinds of reforms:

- Membership reforms: To expand the UNSC membership, there must be an amendment in the
UN Charter. While the strength of the UNGA has increased from 51 to 193, there has been no
change in the permanent and non-permanent membership of the UNSC since 1965. In the post-
Cold War era, Germany and Japan also supported India’s initiative and both emerged as major
donors to the UN budget. The US supported the entry of Japan and Germany into the UNSC as
permanent members as it was looking forward to the off-loading of its budgetary contribution
responsibilities. Both Japan and Germany were almost in consensus with the US vision of world
politics.

India objected and said that only monetary contributions cannot be the factor and the seat for
permanent membership is not for sale to the highest bidder. The international community cannot
overlook the contribution of India towards strengthening the UN and world peace. India has
constitutionally committed to promoting international law and order under Article 51. Thus india
proposed itself as the most eligible candidate for UNSC permanent membership. India demands
permanent membership on these grounds:

1. India is the biggest democracy

2. According to the G4 countries, the present composition of the UNSC does not reflect
contemporary global realities. Britain and France are powers of a bygone era. Japan and
Germany are bigger economies and India has become the third largest economy in
terms of PPP.
3. India has consistently displayed signs of democratic maturity (timely free and fair
elections, smooth transfer of power, free media, civil liberties
4. India has made immense contributions towards Peacekeeping missions
5. India’s policy of non-alignment reflects the values of the UN
 It is ironic that a country like India possessing the third largest army, the third largest economy
in PPP terms, a de-facto nuclear power and the biggest democracy is not represented in spite of
its contributions and commitments to the UN.
So far, there is no formula agreed by countries for the expansion of membership but there is a
clear acceptance that if more countries are added, it would enhance the credibility of the UNSC.
In 2005, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan gave two plans for the expansion of UNSC
membership. Under Plan A, there was a proposal to give permanent membership to the G4 and
increase non-permanent membership to 15. Under Plan B, he proposed to add 9 new members
under the category of permanent membership without a veto and increase non-permanent
membership to 11.

- Veto reforms: The inclusion of veto was controversial even at the inception of the UNSC. It was
included on the insistence of the USSR as it was sceptical towards the Western nations and the
experience of the League of Nations has proved that it would not be wise if the USSR is
excluded.

The UNSC’s veto power has been frequently cited as a major problem in the UN as the P5 can
prevent the adoption of any resolution that is not to their liking or not conducive to their national
interests.
The use of the veto power is controversial as it is not used in a principled manner. The veto
power enjoyed by the P5 is actually called a double veto as the subjects to be discussed at the
UNSC are categorised into procedural and substantive matters. On procedural matters, the
votes of any 9 members are required while on substantive matters, the votes of 9 members are
required including the P5. It is the discretion of the P5 to decide whether a matter is procedural
or substantive. Since the P5 has a veto at two stages, it is called a double veto.
The veto reforms that have been proposed are-
- Eliminate the veto
- Eliminate the use of veto for vital issues which deal with national security
- No new permanent members should get the veto
- The UNGA should be given more powers as recently suggested by S. Jaishankar

Despite the pressing need to reform the UNSC, there are various challenges:
- Any reform in the UNSC is very difficult as Article 108 of the UN Charter grants the P5
the veto power over any amendment in the UN Charter
- The P5 states are not in favour of extending the veto as it would dilute their privileged
position
 - There are multiple contenders for the permanent and non-permanent membership. The
G4 are the strongest contenders but those who have contested this have formed a group
called the Coffee Club or Uniting for Consensus under the leadership of Italy. These
countries favour the expansion of non-permanent category seats of the UNSC and they
have maintained that the G4 are not regional leaders but regional hegemons. If they are
given permanent seats, it would destabilise regional stability
- The African Union is demanding 2 permanent seats in the UNSC but there are multiple
contenders (South Africa, Egypt, Namibia, Nigeria)
- The OIC and the Arab League demand the representation of the Islamic world as West
Asia is the most conflict prone region with much UN intervention.
- There is also a proposal to merge all European seats into one called EU and the
European powers can take turns
- Due to these divergences, consensus is difficult to develop

Evaluation of India’s case for permanent membership

● Every government in New Delhi has had the objective to acquire permanent membership in the
UNSC and it is one of the highest priorities of Indian foreign policy.
● According to Manmohan Singh, the expansion of the UNSC in both the permanent and non-
permanent categories and the inclusion of India as a permanent member would be the first step
in the process of making it a truly representative body. Only then would the UN be able to exert
a truly effective influence on global issues of critical importance. He has said that the need is to
grow the economy for 10 years at the rate of 10% and then the world will come to us to offer us
permanent membership.
● According to Ramchandra Guha, there is no need to be in the race for superstardom but the
focus should be on economic growth and development and curbing rising inequalities.
● According to Professor Ramesh Thakur, if India thinks the permanent membership is so
important then it should go for a non-cooperation movement with the UN so that the P5 can
realise the importance of India
● According to Kishore Mahbubani, India’s situation is like that of Sisyphus who had to carry a
huge boulder on its head just to see it roll down again and again (India is neutral on most issues
and in the UNSC, to abstain, it would have to remain absent)
 ● According to Shyam Saran, there is no point running after an illusory goal and the focus should
be on building economic and military strength.
● At the start of its 8th term, India’s Permanent Representative said that India would use this term
to build human-centric and inclusive solutions to international peace and security and India
would be the voice of the developing world. It will look forward to collective pursuits in which the
world is seen as One Family- Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. India is committed to promote
international peace and security through its 5 S approach- Samvaad, Samman, Sahyog, Shanti,
Samriddhi

→ Security and Security Dilemma

● The most important concern of the discipline of international politics is security and that is why
IR theories can be recognised as security theories.
● According to Hobbes, security of life is the most fundamental value and all other values like
liberty, prosperity etc are dependent on it.
● Though security is the core concept, there are disagreements among scholars with respect to
the following questions-
- Whose security is more important? State’s or human beings’ security?
- Whom is security to be protected from? State or non-state actors
- Security of environment or security of life?
● Security theories are broadly divided into 2 types of groups-
- Instrumentalist theories: Liberalism, Realism, Marxism
- Reflectivist theories: Feminism, Social Constructivism, Critical school and Copenhagen
school. Reflectivist theories focus on norms, values, culture as the means of acquiring
security.

School of Security of Security from How security is achieved

thought

Realist State Other states Through balance of power or

theories deterrence

Liberal State and Protectionism, Anarchy, Collective security, promotion of

theories people Suppression of free trade, security community,
Democracy promotion of democracy

Marxist People- ensure Capitalism Abolition of capitalism

theories their welfare

Feminist Women Patriarchy and Wars End patriarchy, bring women’s

theories perspective into IR

Critical People State and people End territorial boundaries, create

moral boundaries

Social People The way we think Changing the way we think

Constructivist

Copenhagen
school (Barry
Buzan)

Copenhagen School

● Barry Buzan has given 2 ideas.

● Securitisation:
- It is influenced by Foucault’s concept of discourse.
- According to Buzan, security is a speech act (how we speak about any issue). Any issue
can be an issue of security if the leaders and the people talk about that issue in a specific
way.
- An issue can be securitised and de-securitised depending on how we talk about it.
- When any issue gets securitised, it starts getting a lot of attention and others get sidelined
- (impression in India that terrorism is the biggest security threat but various reports reveal
that more people lose their lives in road accidents. Thus the issue of terrorism is being
securitised by policymakers in India).
- In most situations the government tries to divert people’s attention away from real issues.
- Thus Buzan has suggested that while considering security concerns, the need is to
understand who is speaking and what they are speaking about.

● Multidimensional view of security:

- Under this view, we have to look at the issue of security in a comprehensive manner.
- He has given 5 pillars of security- political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, military.
- We cannot compartmentalise the issues of security.
- The continuum of security is very wide as human security is linked to national security
which is linked to global security.
 - Thus, security as a concept, ranges from individual to global.

● The Copenhagen school comes very close to the Social Constructivists who say that anarchy is
a state of mind.

Security Dilemma

● It is the state in the world system that is believed to provide security and it is the state itself that
is threatening security.
● This paradox of the state system is called the security dilemma.
● According to the postcolonial scholars, more than the security dilemma, what prevails in Third
World states is the insecurity dilemma as internal threats are greater than external ones. Hence,
the security dilemma is a Western concept.
● For liberals, anarchy does exist and the dilemma exists but it is possible to deal with it through
complex interdependence.
● Social constructivists say that this dilemma is in the mind and we need to change the way we
think.