TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

(A State University established by Act no. 9 of 2012)

Navalur Kuttapattu, Srirangam (TK), Tiruchirappalli – 620 009, Tamil Nadu

COURSE: B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

SUBJECT: POLITICAL SCIENCE-III

SUBMITTED BY:

ABHIJEET GURJAR

[BA0220002]

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. SUBBA RAO

Tamil Nadu National Law University

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI-620 009
 Summary of Class

Level of Analysis
In the last class, We discussed levels of analysis. It is one of the important aspects of international
relations. Whenever an important international development or foreign policy decision is made,
this concept suggests that it needs to be understood from 3 different angles or perspectives or
levels, so as to investigate the real reason behind the same. We need to Scrutinise those events not
just from one level, but from different levels and perspectives. We need to zoom in on the camera
to get a clearer view of the development or decision.
These three levels are
❖ Systemic level
❖ State level
❖ Individual level.

For illustration, to understand why America committed aggression against Iraq in 2002? We
need to know the American perspective. The perspective of Iraq. The perspective of the global
system at that time and the perspective of any important person who indulged in that development
or policy decision-making are usually the Head of State or Head of Government or Leader of that
particular State which for this illustration was George Bush Jr., the American president at that time
and Saddam Hussein who was leader of Iraq during the time of Aggression.

● Systemic Level: Under this Perspective or level we try to understand the global or
International System during this development. This was the period when the Cold War
had ended and America had remained the sole superpower. The World State System had
become Unilateral which used to be Bilateral during the Cold War. America Now started
exhibiting its power over other states so as to show off that it dominates the world state
system. It wanted to Promote its hegemony. So, this was the reason America committed
 aggression against Iraq in 2002 from a systemic perspective.

● State Level: when it comes to the State level, we get two or more different and opposite
perspectives on the same development or decision. For example, in the following case, the
two states had different perspectives as to why did US committed Aggression against Iraq.
1. American perspective: Iraq was Producing weapons of Mass Destruction. There
were also certain Neo-Conservatives who highly Influenced the George Bush
government’s Decisions and these Neo-Conservatives Regarded Saddam Hussien
as a threat to American Internal Security in the Post-Nine Eleven period. Therefore,
America Committed aggression against Iraq.

2. Iraq Perspective: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated in 2003 that
Iraq had 112 billion barrels (17.8×109 m3) and Iraq was also of strategic
importance in the Middle East. Therefore, to take advantage of such a situation,
 America committed aggression against Iraq.

● Individual Perspective: At the International Level, there are certain Individuals Who are
involved in or influence the development or foreign policy decisions. In this case, George
W. Bush had a Personal enmity with Saddam Hussein the Leader of Iraq he was of the Idea
that Saddam Hussein was a great threat to America and needed to be Eliminated at any
cost. Whereas Saddam Hussein made a foolish decision by fighting this 2nd Gulf War
against the U.S. He miscalculated that his army could withstand American aggression and
thus indulged himself and Iraq in such a Gamble. Had he been a little Tactful he would and
surrendered which could have stopped Iraq’s Destruction.

Another Illustration to Understand this Level of Analysis could be through Why India became a
Non-Align State.
● Systemic Level: India became an independent country in 1947. This was the time when
the first phase of the Cold War between the USA and USSR was going on. There existed
bi-polarity in the world State system. Taking the side of either meant the opposition of the
other.
● State Level: India is a Peace-loving State. By taking the side of any of them it didn’t want
to Indulge itself in group politics and hinder its development through aid from both sides.
 ● Individual Level: Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was India’s First Prime Minister. He Fought
for Indian independence through the non-violent means suggested by Gandhi. He was one
of the Moderates and didn’t want to join or instigate any war.

Lastly, for a complete Understanding, we can also look at Why World War II happened.

● Systemic Level: This was the time when anarchy prevailed in the world state system every
state organ was behind its growth and development even at the cost of another state. There
was not any International Organisation or any state that could play the role of Balancer and
the League of Nations was a Complete Failure in playing this role.
● State Level: From the state perspective we can see that there were certain loopholes as a
result of World War II this includes America not joining the League of Nations Italy and
Japan committing aggression against Absenia and Manchuria and Britain and France which
were the major powers in the league of the nation only promoted their self-interest.
● Individual Level: At the individual level Hitler was a power in Germany and was very
aggressive he was of the idea that Germans are the most dominant race and, therefore
Germans needed to rule above all other rises He also gave statements like Germany was
made to pay The Victor's of first world war the need to take revenge of it. Opposite to it,
Britain was governed by Winston Churchill who hated Hitler and Germans.

International Organisations
In the last class, we also started with the International Organisation, any organization in which
more than one state has membership can be called an International Organisation. There are certain
Examples of International organizations such as the UN and SAARC.
Even though both of them are International Organisations there lies an intrinsic difference between
them. On the one hand, SAARC is a regional International Organisation whereas the UN is a
formal International Organization.
Regional organizations such as SAARC have very limited objectives such as promoting trade
among South Asian countries and not every state can become a member of these types of regional
international organizations whereas the UN like a formal International organization has many
objectives such as maintaining world or international peace and promoting trade and interest.
There are also, Certain features of International Organisations like member states should be
sovereign and also that all the member states irrespective of their power and economy have the
same power. However, VETO power in UNSC is one of the exceptions to it.

Recent development and Application

There has been no recent development in this level of analysis as it is a theoretical portion of
syllabus however, we would try to apply this on from past two years ongoing Russia-Ukraine War.

• Systemic Level: The Russia-Ukraine war occurs in the context of shifting global power
dynamics. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, seeks to challenge the post-Cold War unipolar
world order dominated by the United States. It views its influence in neighboring countries,
including Ukraine, as vital for preserving its sphere of influence and strategic interests. The
expansion of Western institutions like the European Union and NATO into Eastern Europe,
along with Ukraine's desire to align with the West, heightens Russia's concerns. This
systemic perspective highlights the war as Russia's effort to secure its position in the
evolving world system.

• State Level: At the state level, we can examine the perspectives of Russia and Ukraine.

Russian Perspective: Russia perceives the Ukraine crisis as a threat to its national security
and interests. It considers Ukraine's alignment with the West, particularly through EU and
NATO aspirations, as a direct challenge to its influence. Russia's annexation of Crimea in
2014 and support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine are seen as actions taken to
protect its strategic interests and maintain its sway over Ukraine.

Ukrainian Perspective: Ukraine views its pursuit of closer ties with the European Union
and NATO as a matter of its sovereignty and self-determination. The Ukrainian
government regards Russian interference, such as the annexation of Crimea and support
for separatists in Eastern Ukraine, as violations of its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
From Ukraine's state-level perspective, the conflict represents a struggle for independence
and the desire to break free from Russian influence.
• Individual Level: At the individual level, we can consider the roles and motivations of
key leaders in both Russia and Ukraine during the conflict.

Vladimir Putin (Russia): Putin's personal ambitions, strong nationalist sentiments, and
the aspiration to restore Russia's status as a great power significantly influenced the
decision to intervene in Ukraine. His leadership style and beliefs about Russia's historical
role in the region played pivotal roles.

Ukrainian Leaders: Various Ukrainian leaders, including presidents and government

officials, have been central in shaping Ukraine's response to the crisis. Their personal
convictions, values, and commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty have been key factors in
Ukraine's efforts to resist Russian influence and regain control over its territory.