BA Hons Pol Sc

EXAM GUIDE INTERNATIONAL

RELATION
Semester 3

• Chapter wise Key points and

Model Answers to Past Year’s
Questions

• 3 sets of Sample Papers with

Hints for Semester Exam

• Tips for Writing Essay Type

Answers in University Exam

By the Author of
POL SC HELP
FEW WORDS ABOUT THE GUIDE

Dear students…WELCOME BACK !

This guide is intended to be like a cheat sheet for your semester exams!
What it contains?
• CBCS Syllabus on each of the theme.
• Answer templates to past year’s and other important questions (mainly taken from DU).
• 3 sets of sample question papers along with hints for the answers.
• Answer writing tips
What is Answer Template?
• Answer written in a particular way (Intro, Body, Discussion, and Conclusion) as expected
for essay type questions in university exam.
• I have given you a template(format/structure) with my own content. Hence, it is a full
answer. You may add or delete contents to make the answer as your own.
How to use the Guide for the best results?
• First, watch the videos on the theme/topic from POL SC HELP- at least 4-5 times, first in
normal speed, later on with faster speed and selectively. Final watching shouldn’t take
more than 5 min.
• Second, read the key points on the theme/topic very carefully. In fact, even if you only
remember the key points you can write answers in the exam.
• Third, read the answers of past year and other important questions, at least 5 times. Again,
the final reading may not take more than 5-10 minutes.
o I have chosen the questions to cover the entire syllabus.
o Note the key phrases repeated in the answers. You should remember and reproduce
them in your answers.
o Also, note the standard words I have used in the answer. Their easier
meaning/synonyms are given in bracket.
• Fourth, read carefully the sample question papers (3 sets). I have given hints to those
questions, too. Read them carefully and think about the answers to those questions. You
may practice by writing answers to these sample questions.
• Finally, read the answer writing tips; use them in the exam.

GOOD WISHES!
 SECTION 1

Chapter Wise

Key Points
and

ANSWERS
Past Year’s &
Important
Questions
 THEME 1: STUDYING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

(Note: this theme is most important for examination point of view. 2 full questions are expected
from this theme. Therefore, 6 questions, which contain in them all the questions asked in last 5
years have been taken up for answers. These questions and answer cover the entire syllabus. This
year, too, 2 questions should be from these 6 questions only. However, the language of the question
and its formation may be different. You need to identify them and pick up the relevant portions
from the answers given below)

1.A: CBCS Syllabus

• Meaning, Nature, Scope of IR
• Evolution of IR as academic discipline
• Levels of Analysis
• Major Approaches or Perspective to IR
• History of IR: Emergence of the International State System
o Pre-Westphalia and Westphalia
o Post-Westphalia

1.B: KEY POINTS:

• IR is both a condition- facts of global politics- and field of study- academic discipline.
• As practice or condition of global politics, it denotes the actual conducts of States towards
each other through diplomacy based on their foreign policy, cooperation, conflict, and war
among them.
• As a field of study, IR try to understand and describe actions, interactions and inter-
relations of states and non-state actors, international organizations, etc in global arena to
prescribes or suggest appropriate actions and behaviours on parts of them in interactions
with other actors.
• IR also include study of phenomena, events, issues, problems falling outside the borders
of nation-state. Aim here is to find solutions to global issues to make life better for the
humankind.
• Thus, IR, as a field of study, is not only descriptive and analytical it is also normative and
prescriptive. It is a problem-solving enterprise.
• Traditionally IR has been the study of interactions and inter-relations between sovereign
states in the international state system.
• However, its nature and scope underwent significant changes and expansion in the era of
globalization.
• Now focus is shifting from state to non-state actors, decentralized, de-centred interactions
among multiple players in the more dynamic global system. Issues beyond the border of
the nation-states affecting the entire humanity such as environmental degradation, climate
change, terrorism, migration, hunger and poverty, human rights, human security, pandemic
etc. are increasingly becoming important area of study in IR.
• The locus (areas, regions where IR focuses) shifting from Europe and North America to
Asia and 3rd world countries.
• IR is significant for nation-states in forming their foreign policies, protecting and furthering
their national interests, and security by maintaining balance of power. For groups and
communities, IR provides platform, forum and opportunity to raise their voices and
contribute as part of the global community. Individuals living within the national border
anywhere in world are hugely impacted by issues happening beyond the borders of nation
state. Ongoing Pandemic crisis clearly prove this point.
• Hence, IR is important and significant for nation-states, groups and communities, and
individuals.
• Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Feminism provide major theoretical perspectives to
study IR
• Realism: Main principles: IR is struggle for power between nation-states, politics is
interplay of interest and power, the world order is anarchic( no world govt to protect, help
states), hence, state have survive by self-help, national interests are defined in terms of
power, political actions cannot be judged on conventional moral grounds, etc
• Liberalism: Focuses on interdependence, co-operations, mutual peace & progress in the
anarchic world order;
• Marxism analyses international state system through the lens of class struggle; for
feminists, gender discrimination in IR is reflected in exploitation, violence, and struggle
for power in the international system.
• Realism has been the soul of IR. But, none of the above perspectives give the real view of
the conditions, issues, and phenomena of IR under study. They all give different pictures
of the same phenomena.
• Phenomena and conditions of IR are too complex to be understood by a particular
perspective. Only by comparing, contrasting, and triangulating the views/pictures
emerging from different perspectives we can somewhat come closer to understanding the
phenomena of IR under study.
• For realists, treaty of Westphalia, in 1648, is a landmark event ushering (leading to)
International state system and hence IR in modern period.
• Westphalian state system: legal equality and territorial sovereignty of states, non-
intervention in internal matters of any state, diplomatic relation, national self-
determination, etc. provided the basic template for the International state system. Even
 after the 350 years, the basic template of International state system is same as provided by
the treaty of Westphalia and Westphalian state system.
• But of late, Westphalian state system is under increasing stress, especially in the globalized
world.
• Evolution of IR, as practice, in modern period, can be studied in dividing it into different
phases. Pre Westphalia, post Westphalia, 20th century- 2 world wars, Cold War, post Cold
War, and globalization era are the different phases of evolution of IR.
• Evolution of IR as academic discipline, which has a short history of about 100 years, can
be studied in dividing it into 7-8 phases- pre WWI, Idealism in Inter-war period, realism
in post WWII, behaviouralism in 1950s, US led developmentalism, modernisation theory,
and area study in 1960s & 70s, perspectives of global south in 1970s in form of
Dependency theory, World system theory, Orientalism, etc, emergence of neo-realism and
neo-liberalism in 1980s, post cold war era, and globalisation era of 21st century.
• In IR research and studies, analyzing the same phenomenon, issues, events, etc from
multiple levels arranged in hierarchical order (from top to bottom) is called level of analysis
approach.
• In IR, these hierarchical levels are International state system, nation-state, and individual.
• In fact, the researcher focuses on a particular level in terms of components and system, or
in terms of parts and whole to understand the phenomenon under study.
• Each level, in level of analysis approach, is like different lens or frame of reference or
perspective for viewing a particular real-world phenomenon and therefore may give
different picture of the same phenomena under study.
• Hence, none of the analysis, by focussing on particular level, gives a complete or true
picture. Only by comparing, contrasting, and triangulating the views/pictures emerging
from different levels of analysis, the truer picture or essence of the phenomena under the
study can be understood.
 1.C ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1 : What do you understand by international relation? Discuss the nature and scope of IR
as an academic Discipline.

Similar questions:
1. Discuss the nature, and scope of IR. Do you think that IR should be inter-disciplinary in nature?
2. Why should we study International Relations? Highlight the nature, scope, issues, and
significance of IR as an academic Discipline.

ANSWER TEMPLATE:

Introduction:
International relation (IR) is generally understood as a set of actions, reactions, interactions,
and inter-relations between sovereign nation-states, through the medium of their foreign
policies and diplomacy. Thus, in simplest language, IR is interrelationship among nation-
states without any super or world Govt. Interactions among sovereign states are based on
their national interests and relative powers & capabilities. They are also guided somewhat
by need for cooperation, interdependence, international treaties, covenants, Inter-
governmental organizations, International NGOs, and other international non state actors.
IR is both a condition- facts of global politics- and field of study- academic discipline. As
practice or condition of global politics, it denotes the actual conducts of States towards
each other through diplomacy based on their foreign policy, cooperation, conflict, and war
among them. As a field of study, IR try to understand and describe actions, interactions
and inter-relations of states and non-state actors, international organizations, etc in global
arena to prescribes or suggest appropriate actions and behaviours on parts of them in
interactions with other actors. IR also include study of phenomena, events, issues,
problems falling outside the borders of nation-state. Aim is to find solutions to global issues
to make life better for the humankind.
Thus, IR, as a field of study, is not only descriptive and analytical it is also normative and
prescriptive. It is a problem-solving enterprise. For example, understanding and
prescribing solutions for global environmental issues, migration, human security,
terrorism, etc. comes under the domain of IR studies. Study of events, phenomenon,
organizations, structures/institutions, conflict, and cooperation beyond the boundaries of
 nation-state also included in the academic discipline of IR. For example: study of global
conflict, violence & war, peace & cooperation, global trade & business, democratization,
globalization, etc. forms part of IR studies.
In a nutshell, IR is both a real-world phenomenon and condition outside national boarders,
or practice of nation-states interacting with each other as well as specific domain of human
knowledge or academic discipline.

Following are some of the most popular definitions of International Relation:

• “Struggle of power among nation-states in International system.”( By Hans
Morgenthau)
• “IR includes many other things beyond interrelationship between states,
international organizations, and groups. Despite keeping nation-sate in its centre,
IR also accommodate various other relationships at upper and lower levels of
nation-states”.( Palmer and Perkins)
• “IR is concerned with those elements and events which affect foreign policies and
powers of those fundamental political units in which the world is divided.”( Stanley
Hoffmann) :
• “IR not only organize study of relations between states but also study of various
kinds of groups like nations, states, people, alliances, regions, international
organizations, industrial organizations, religious organizations, etc. “(Quincy
Wright):

Nature of International Relation:

Nature and characteristics of IR has evolved and changed since the emergence of Westphalian
state system in 1648. However, following are some of characteristics which have remained
unchanged and define the nature of the IR:
• Anarchical World order: No supranational authority or world Govt over the sovereign
nation-state. Hence, IR is mainly guided by national interest and relative power and
capabilities of interacting nation-states. States having widely varying powers and
capabilities adopt several strategies to defend and secure their interests without help from
any superior authority. Thus, anarchical world order and self-help define nature of IR.
• IR is still very much State centric: Despite growing importance of non-state actors, such
as Inter-governmental organization (IGO), International NGOs (INGOs), MNCs, etc,
States or nation-states are main actors in the IR.
• Westphalian state system as the backbone of the International Relation: Westphalian
state system which came into existence after the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 defines the
International state system. Nation-states have territorial sovereignty. Each sovereign state
has equal legal status and certain right, like non-intervention in its domestic affair, equality,
sovereignty, etc., as member of the Westphalian state system.
 • Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism: Despite inclusion of 3rd world post-colonial nations
into the Westphalian state system, the IR paradigm is overtly Eurocentric. Both the theory
and practices of IR show cultural and ideological biases in favour of developed nations of
western world. Issues, concerns and perspectives of poor countries of 3rd world, called
global south, are at margin, given little attention and importance.
• Multi-Disciplinary, Multi Theoretical: IR as academic discipline is, by its nature, Multi-
Disciplinary and Multi Theoretical. Study in IR draws heavily from economics,
psychology, sociology, anthropology, geography, cartography, and many other academic
disciplines. Multiple theories and perspectives, such as realism, liberalism, Marxism,
Feminism, post-modernism, etc have enriched the academic discipline of IR.
• Behaviouralism: comparing state’s behavior to human’s nature, has dominated the
discourse in IR, especially in realist perspective and under the behavioural revolution in
1950s.
• Not direct co-relation between practice and study of IR: Practise of IR as actually done
by the state and non-state actors in global politics is not directly related to IR studies &
research done in universities and colleges. Though actual happenings in IR affect IR studies
and also principles, theories, and research in IR somewhat used in actual IR practises but
there is no direct co-relation between the world of practise and the world of theory and
research in IR.

However, in modern times, there has been perceptible change in the nature of IR; some of
them are as below:
• Increasing roles of non-state actors, supranational organizations- UN, IMF, World
Bank, WTO, INGO, global civil societies, global social movements, etc
• Locus shifting from Europe and North America to Asia and 3rd world countries
• Global shift in power balance from north Atlantic world to Asia (China, India)
• Focus shifting from war, peace and security to interdependence and cooperation,
especially in trade and economy.
• More and more importance to issues affecting people under any state ( non-state
issues), such as environmental degradation, climate change, terrorism & violence,
hunger & poverty, energy security, pandemic, human rights, human security etc.

Scope of IR:
Scope, dimensions, or ranges of issues taken under the fold of IR have been constantly
evolving. Scope of IR can be categorised as traditional and contemporary.
Following are the scope of IR since beginning- traditional scope:
• Diplomatic history - Study of conflictual and co-operational interactions among
states in the International state system
 • Study of processes by which states adjust their national interest to those of other
states
• Study of struggle for power and power relationship( balance of power) among states
• War and peace, security and cooperation, independency, and interdependence
among states
• Study of international laws, treaties, covenants, conventions, International
organizations, etc.
• Study and evaluation of foreign policies of states, and national interests

In recent times, scope of IR has changed and became much broader; following are its
contemporary scope:
• Study of International organizations in fields of politics, trade, economy, cultural,
education, religion, regulation, movements.
• Study of International economic system, free trade, economic liberalization,
globalizations.
• Study of non-state actors, global civil societies, INGOs, global social movements,
global resistance, and social phenomenon such as human rights, pandemic,
environmental issues, climate change, terrorism, migration, refugee, human rights,
human security, poverty and hunger, etc.
• Globalization, its dimensions and its impacts on IR.
• Contemporary international relations embrace the whole gamut of diplomatic
history, international politics, international organization, international law and area
studies aimed at understanding and solving problems and conflicts of shared global
communities separated by boundaries of nation-states.
Conclusion:
International Relation denotes both a condition of interactions and inter-relations between
sovereign nation-states in anarchic world order as well as field of study or academic
discipline which endeavour to study, understand and thereafter prescribes (recommends)
the inter-state interactions and inter-relations and issues related to them in the in the global
arena beyond the borders of the nation-state.
Nature and scope of IR has undergone significant changes in recent times. However, some
of its features are fundamental and define its nature. Some of them, which were explained
above are: IR unfolds and played out in the anarchic world order, self-help is the norm in
which states have to protect themselves and defend their interests without help from any
supra-national power or World government; IR is still very much state centric; it also
suffers from eurocentrism and ethnocentrism; inherently IR has been multi-disciplinary
and multi-theoretical; behaviouralism has impacted IR in many ways, especially the realist
perspective which compares state behaviour to human nature, etc.
 Of late, role of non-state actors in IR has been increasing. The locus is shifting from North
Atlantic world to the third world countries. The issues undertaken as part of IR study are
moving beyond the state. Issues concerning people living within the boundary of any
nation-state are increasingly being undertaken for study in IR. Thus, its nature had changed
a lot from the past when it was state centric and limited in its locus and focus.
With its changing nature, scope of IR also has changed significantly in recent times.
Traditionally IR studied conflictual and co-operatioal interactions among states in the in
international state system. Its scope was limited to study of diplomatic history and
international law. However, in recent times study of International Organisation,
international economic system, trade, liberalisation, globalisation, study of non-state
actors, social movement, Global resistance, democratization, and Global issues &
challenges- climate change, ecology, energy crisis, human rights, human security,
International terrorism, migration, poverty and hunger, pandemic etc. are becoming part of
the IR study.
Thus, there has been a considerable sift in both the nature and scope of IR in recent times.
As a field of study or academic discipline, it has become much broader in its scope, multi-
disciplinary, multi theoretical, including multiple issues both pertaining to state as well as
the people living under any state anywhere in the world. Even the people and community
without a state (stateless people), indigenous communities, marginalised people, etc are
also undertaken for study under the IR in contemporary times.

Q.2: Discuss the significance of International Relations as a discipline. Highlight its multi-
disciplinary and multi-theoretical nature?

Introduction:
Even though human mostly live within a boundary of nation state and relate with it for
most of their activities, the world is common heritage of all the humans living anywhere in
the world. Many of the problems humanity faces, such as climate change, energy crisis,
terrorism, pandemic, migration, etc, are not bound by the borders of the nation state. People
living in a particular nation-state are affected by the interactions and inter-relations of their
states with other states on the global arena. Hence, it is obvious that conditions and issues
beyond the borders of nation-state have a huge impact on people living within the boundary
of their nation state. And here lies the significance of studying IR.
Studying and understanding interactions and inter-relations among nation-states, and issues
beyond the borders of nation state is the subject domain of IR and as explained above they
play a very important role in the life of people living anywhere in the world. Another
significance of IR as an academic discipline is that it helps understand different socio-
economic structure, institutions, and other social arrangements human have
developed/devised to live a good life in different part of the world. This comparative area
study which is integral part of IR help us come out of our own ethnocentrism to understand
and appreciate different cultures, traditions, norms, and values.
 As a condition and practice, IR is as old as emergence of state like institutions in ancient
times. But as an academic discipline, IR has a short history of about 100 years. Beginning
20th century, IR emerged as distinct academic discipline taught in colleges and
universities, first in USA and western world and then in other countries.
Since beginning, Realism, which consider IR as the interplay of relative power and national
interest, was the dominant theoretical perspective in IR. Kautilya’s Arthasastra and the
‘Mandala’ theory contained in it, ‘Melian dialogue’ by Thucydides, and many other such
historical accounts of wars between Kings/empires indicate towards realism as the
dominant theme of IR since time immemorial. However, Realism evolved into neo-realism
or structural realism which emerged during 1980s. After the two world wars, Liberalism
as a theoretical perspective emerged to challenge the hegemony of realism as the dominant
theoretical perspective of IR. Liberalism stressed upon interdependence, cooperation, and
institution building to achieve mutual peace and progress. Marxist perspective, which view
IR from the lens of class struggle, became popular during the Cold War era. In the post-
cold war globalisation era, feminist, post-modernist, and other critical perspectives also
became important part of the theoretical enterprise in IR.
Therefore, during its course of evolution IR became increasingly multi-disciplinary and
multi theoretical. It borrowed many concepts and hypothesis from economics, psychology,
anthropology, geography, cartography, sociology, history, etc. IR becoming multi-
disciplinary was natural because the issues taken for study in IR relates all aspects of socio-
economic life of people and those fall into the domains of different academic discipline.
For example, issues related to trade, economy, climate change, migration, etc require inputs
or concepts from related subject domain to study and understand those issues. Therefore,
IR is by its nature multi-disciplinary.
In the next section of the answer I will list out the significance of IR , some of which are discussed
above.

Significance of IR as a field of study or academic discipline:

Following are the ways IR studies help the nation-state, the communities, and individuals
living anywhere in world and to understand and help solve issues/problems falling outside the
borders of nation state:
• Nation-states:
• IR studies help protect national Interests by understanding, analyzing, and
explaining events and phenomenon across the national boarder.
• Help formulate and orient foreign policy to best serve the national interest.
• For example: Nation-states may devise suitable balance of power strategies, if
they understand the power structure in their neighborhood regions and at global
level.
 • Communities: Help protect interests and contribution as part of global community. For
example, IR may help stateless people ( such as Kurds, Philistine, etc) in articulating
their voice and fight for their causes.
• Individuals: Events, decisions, and phenomenon beyond one’s nation’s boundary
affect people of that nation. For example, the coronavirus pandemic and how people
around the globe are dealing in with the crisis, may help people across the globe.
• MNCs, NGOs, movements, global opinion leaders, etc: help them play their part/role
in global community and International system. IR give them the platform and structure
to perform their roles.
• Help tackle issues beyond national borders such as terrorism, climate change,
pandemic, human rights, migration/refugee, natural disaster, hunger, poverty, etc. IR
studies help achieve universal human values of security, freedom, progress, order,
justice, welfare at global level among people living in separate nation-states.

Discussion and Conclusion:

IR as a distinct field of human knowledge and academic discipline is playing important
role in the lives of people living within the borders of their nation states across the globe.
By studying, understanding, analysing, and recommending solutions for issues falling
beyond the national borders, IR is helping the humidity to live on planet earth as one global
community. Significance of IR can be discussed by highlighting important role it plays for
the nation-state, communities around the world, and individuals living anywhere within the
national borders. IR help nation-state in formulation of their foreign policy, maintaining
balance of power, and protecting their national interest. Groups and communities around
the globe are benefited by IR in getting their voice and opportunity to contribute as part of
global communities. For individual, IR plays multiple important roles in helping to make
their life better and secured. Ongoing crisis of pandemic and study of strategies to tackle it
elsewhere has helped people in other part of the world to face the crisis. It is an example
of important role played by IR studies in individual’s life.
As an academic discipline, IR has evolved from study of diplomatic history and
international law to become a multi-disciplinary, multi theoretical and multi-dimensional
field of knowledge in modern times. During its course of evolution as academic discipline,
multiple theoretical perspectives were added into the dominant perspective of realism to
make IR multi-theoretical. Today, IR studies are done from multiple perspective and
theoretical lenses such as realism, neo realism, liberalism, neoliberalism, Marxism,
feminism, post modernism, constructivism, etc.
IR by its nature is multi-disciplinary. The issues taken for study in IR are related to other
academic disciplines. For example, in the study of international trade and economic
liberalization, concepts and hypothesis from economics are required to be taken for
analysing and understanding the issue. Similarly, to understand climate change concepts
from Geography and Ecology are required. Hence, by its nature IR is multi-disciplinary in
its approach. It draws concepts heavily from Economics, Sociology, History,
Anthropology, Geography, Cartography , Psychology, etc.
 In sum, IR as the study of interaction and interrelation between sovereign nation-states in
the anarchic world order, and of issues and phenomena beyond the national borders, has
been playing important role in human life across the globe. Condition and practice of IR
are as old as the emergence of state like political institutions during ancient times. But IR
as an academic discipline in modern period has a short history of about a century. As an
academic discipline IR has evolved to become a multi-disciplinary, multi-theoretical, and
multi multi-dimensional field of knowledge in recent times.

Q.3 : Give a brief account of evolution of IR as an academic discipline,

highlighting the major issues undertaken in IR studies.

Answer template
Introduction:
Practice of IR as inter-state relations is as old as evolution of state like institutions in
ancient period in in Greece, India, and elsewhere. We can find the theory of inter-state
relations in the classics of ancient era such as the ’Melian dialogue’ by Thucydides and
‘Mandala’ theory by Kautilya in his Arthashastra.
But as an academic discipline in modern times, IR has a short history of about hundred
years. IR began to be taught in the universities of USA, Britain, and Western Europe in
the first decade of 20th century. Since then IR as a field of study has evolved into a multi-
disciplinary and multi-theoretical academic discipline through multiple phases or stages.
In the pre-first world war period IR studies mainly comprised of descriptive diplomatic
history and international law. In the interwar period Idealism emerged as the dominant
perspective in IR. Under idealism normative moral values in foreign policies and actions
of nation- state became the dominant theme. Also, the establishment of League of
Nation in 1920 gave a hope to have some sort of International Government and global
governance structure. Hence, the focus of IR study shifted to peace building,
International organisations, Global governance structure, Cooperation, etc.
But second World War in 1939 changed the idealistic perspective in IR towards realism.
The failure of the idealist and moralist perspectives during the interwar period was found
to be far disconnected from the real politics of those period. Morgenthau’s seminal work
‘Politics Among Nations’ in 1948 define this phase of IR studies. During 1950s
behavioural revolution swept all fields of human knowledge and IR was no exception.
Behaviouralism in IR, during this phase, is remembered for attempt to formulate a grand
theory based on quantitative, empirical and scientific theorization methodologies.
1960s and 70s saw the dominance of US perspective in IR studies. USA supported ‘Area
Studies’ to better understand the domestic dynamics and foreign policies of the
developing nations of the 3rd world. Developmentalism and modernization theory were
also promoted by USA during this phase to serve the national interests of USA. This
 phase also saw emergence of perspectives of global ‘South’ in IR. In practice it was
expressed in the form of North- South dialogue and demand of the ‘south’ for New
International Economic Order (NIEO). In theory, this was manifested in ‘Dependency
Theory’ by Andre Gunder Frank, ‘World System Theory’ by Wallerstein, and
‘Orientalism’ by Edward Said.
The later phases of cold war during the 1980s saw the emergence of neo-realism or
structural realism and neo-liberalism as mainstream IR perspectives. Kenneth Waltz and
Keohane and Joseph Nye were the proponents of these dominant perspectives
respectively.
The post-cold war period saw many changes in the IR discipline in line with the changing
global order. This phase witnessed the emergence of critical theories such as
constructivism, post-modernism, feminism, Neo-Marxism, etc. In the 21st century IR has
included many new themes and issues in its scope such as globalisation, climate change,
environmental degradation, international terrorism, migration, human rights, human
security, poverty and hunger, pandemic, etc. Currently ongoing crisis of pandemic may
become a major issue in IR studies. This may again change the nature and scope of IR in
coming days.

After introducing a brief outline of evolution of IR as academic discipline in above paragraphs,

in the next part of the answer I will try to explain in brief the phases of through which IR has
evolved as an academic discipline. Dominant theoretical perspectives and major issues in IR in
each phase shall also be listed out.

Phases of evolution of IR as academic discipline:

1st Phase: Beginning of IR studies- Pre world war one ( first 2 decades of 20th century)
• Dominant theoretical perspectives were yet to evolve.
• Scope and issues undertaken for IR study: very narrow. Descriptive diplomatic
history and international law. Diplomatic history was a descriptive account of national
foreign policies, international events, and inter-relation and interactions of states in the
Westphalian state system. International law was the fundamental normative standards of
international conduct of nation-states.

2nd Phase : Inter-war period: 1920-39

• Dominant theoretical perspectives: Idealism, which believed that war, use of force and
violence should be abandoned by nation-states in favour of new ways and means as
determined by knowledge, reason, compassion, and self-restraint.
• Idealism promoted normative values of morality and ethics in conduct of nation-states in
IR. It had the vision of making the world order more peaceful, ethical, and just.
 • Scope and issues undertaken for IR study: origins, causes, and costs of World War, pre-
war alliances, secret diplomacy, military planning, International governance through
International organizations, genesis and organization of the League of Nation, the history
of earlier plans for international federations, and the analysis of the problems and
procedures of international organization and international law, etc.
• Representative theoretical works: ‘Fourteen Points’ ( 1918) by Woodrow Wilson , ‘The
Origins of the World War ‘(1928) by Sidney Bradshaw, ‘The World After the Peace
Conference (1925)’ by Arnold J. Toynbee, and The World Crisis (1923) by Winston
Churchill.

3RD Phase : beginning 1930- till WW II; Realist Phase

• Dominant theoretical perspectives: Realism.
• As Idealism failed to understand and predict highly conflictual and tensed global politics
with rise of Fascism in Europe, a new approach to the study of international relations,
known as realism, increasingly dominated the field during this phase.
• Scope and issues undertaken for IR study: Balance of power, secret alliances, war and
security strategies, militant nationalism, foreign policy as function of national interest and
relative national power, etc
• Representative theoretical works: ‘The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919–1939’ by E.H. Carr, ‘A
Study of War (1942)’ by Quincy Wright, ‘Psychopathology and Politics’ by Harold D.
Lasswell which explored the relationships between world politics and the psychological
realm of symbols, perceptions, and images, etc.

4TH Phase: Post second world war till 1960s:

• Dominant perspective: Realism.
• Morgenthau defined IR as struggle for power among nation-states. Politics is interplay of
interest and power. National interest defined in terms of relative national power decides
the foreign policy and diplomacy of the nation-states, etc. became the foundational realist
principles in IR.
• Scope and issues undertaken for IR study:
o developing theories that could help to explain the major issues of the changing
international scene.
o Nuclear weapons and deterrence as a basis of strategic stability, International, and
especially European, integration; alliances and alignment, such as the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); role of ideologies in IR; foreign-policy
decision making; theories about conflict and war; the study of low-intensity
conflict; crisis management; international organizations; and the foreign policies of
the increasing number of states that became part of the international
 • Representative theoretical works: Hans J. Morgenthau’s ‘Politics Among
Nations (1948)’ define this realist phase.
• A sub-phase within this phase was Behaviouralism during 1950s, which emphasized
narrowly focused quantitative and empirical studies designed to obtain precise results, and
testable hypotheses.
• Under Behaviouralism new themes in IR- cognition, conflict resolution, decision
making, deterrence, development, environment, game theory, economic and
political integration, and systems analysis—etc were undertaken for IR study.
• Another sub-phase was during 1950-60s in which US led ‘Area Study’ of developing
nations of 3rd world were undertaken to better inform US foreign policy makers about the
domestic, demographic, and socio-political dynamics of the post-colonial states.

5TH Phase: later phase of the cold war: 1970-80s.

• Dominant Theoretical Perspective: foreign-policy perspective (nation-state as unit of
analysis) and international-system-analysis (state system as unit of analysis) perspective,
Developmentalism, Modernization theory, Dependency theory, World system theory, etc
• Neo-liberalism and neo-realism emerged during this phase as mainstream perspectives in
IR. The former gave primacy to study of international organization, institutional
mechanisms of global governance, co-operation and complex interdependence. Neo-
realism focused on anarchic structure of International state system and great variation in
the relative capabilities of the states.
• Thus, Structures, institutions, and levels of analysis, etc dominated as themes in IR during
phase.
• Representative theoretical works: Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Theory of International Politics’ in
1979 which defined neo-realism and model of 'Complex Interdependence' developed by
Robert O Keohane and Joseph S. Nye in the late 1970s, which became the core principles
of neo-liberalism.
• Dependency theory by Andre Gunder Frank, World system theory by Wallenstein, and
Orientalism by Edward Said gave perspectives of the global south in IR.

6th Phase: post-cold war phase of IR

• Dominant Theoretical Perspective: Feminism, post-modernism, constructivism, neo-
Marxism, and other critical theories. Neo-liberalism and neo-realism remained the
mainstream theories.
• Issues undertaken in IR Studies: Importance of non-state actors, role of gender, class,
culture, ideas & worldview, and contexts in IR, increasing role of trans-national
organizations, energy crisis, ecology and sustainable development, environmental
degradation, terrorism, globalization, the fear of third world war, technological
 development, non-traditional security threats, the North-South debate, nuclearization,
expansion of weapons of mass destruction, etc.
• Grand theories, universalistic principles, objectivity was rejected. IR study based on
specific socio-cultural setting (context) was stressed upon.

7th Phase: The Globalization phase: 21st Century

• Dominant Theoretical Perspective: Neo-Liberalism, though realism remains the soul of
IR.
• Issues undertaken in IR Studies: Globalization, economic liberalization, political
economy, global power shift, global governance, global problems of environmental
degradation, ecology, climate change, terrorism, migration, hunger & poverty, human
rights, human security, and Pandemic, etc.

Conclusion:
In sum, IR as field of study in its hundred years of evolutionary history has continuously
tried to adapt to the changing Global order, issues and problems falling beyond the national
border to find solutions to help the humankind live a better life. This has made IR multi-
disciplinary as it deals in all aspects of human life, which pertains to different disciplines
of social sciences. It has also become multi-theoretical wherein same issues are studied and
analysed from multiple theoretical perspectives giving more holistic and integrated
understanding of the issues and problem at hand.
As can be seen from its evolutionary history, IR has undertaken all the issues related to
inter-state relations and interactions in the international state system, interactions of states
with international organisations, interrelationship between state and non-state actors in
global politics, foreign policies and diplomacy of nation-states, interrelation between
domestic and foreign policy of the nation States, studies on war, security, and peace
building etc. Of late in the globalised era, IR is undertaking study of global problems
humankind faces today such as environmental degradation, ecology, climate change,
terrorism, migration, hunger & poverty, human rights, human security, and Pandemic,
etc.
Thus, we can see that over the course of its evolution, the scope of IR has continuously
expanded. It begins humbly with study of diplomatic history and international law in the
first decades of 20th century. Now in the 21st century, IR studies ranges from study of
national foreign policies to complex interdependence, Global shift, and host of global
challenges from terrorism to pandemic. Current crisis of global pandemic may again
expand the scope of IR in coming days.
Q.4: Why should we study IR? Account for its three dominant Perspectives.

(Hint: First part one of the question is same as asking what is the significance of IR ? For this
part please refer answer to Q,2 above . Here only the 3 dominant perspectives of IR are explained.)

Perspectives are the way to look at something, viewing anything from a particular frame
of reference, or kind of a conceptual construct or lens to study and analyse real life
situations or conditions. Perspectives in IR means to view, study, analyse and understand
the conditions, events, issues in IR from a particular frame of reference or from a particular
ideological lens. Perspectives, in this sense, may also be called approaches or models of
IR.
Since beginning, Realism , which view politics as interplay of power and interest, has been
the dominant perspective to study IR. Examples of realism in IR studies can be found in
Kautilya’s ‘Mandala theory’ contained in his Arthashastra and the ’Melian dialogue’ by
Thucydides. At the beginning of modern time, Machiavelli and Hobbes are considered the
realist thinkers in IR. In modern times, Hans Morgenthau was the main proponent of
realism. He is also considered as father of IR.
But after the two world wars, faith on realism as the dominant perspective of IR eroded
which gave Liberalism, which was extension of Liberal political ideology, opportunity to
challenge the hegemony of Realism as the dominant perspective of IR. Liberalism views
IR as condition of interdependence, cooperation, and mutual progress. Instead of balance
of power, war and peace, the subject matter of Liberalism focuses more on trade, economy,
free flow of goods, services, people across national borders, interconnectedness, and
solution of shared global problems. Proper institutional design for global governance has
been the major focus in Liberalism.
The third dominant perspective on IR is Marxist approach, which views politics from the
lens of class struggle and class dominance. In Marxist view, dominance of the ‘core’
nations represented by capitalist western world over the ‘Periphery’ represented by poor
developing nations of 3rd world demonstrate the class division in global economic
structure. This perspective also visualizes alliance of elites in the core and the periphery to
exploit the masses in the periphery.
Thus, the 3 important perspectives to study, analyse, and understand IR are Realism,
Liberalism, Marxism. Some other perspectives in IR are Feminist, post-modernist,
constructivism, Neo-Marxism etc. They are called the critical theories.

Following are the brief explanation of the 3 dominant perspectives of IR:

• Realism:
• Visualize IR as constant Struggle for power among states.
 • In the anarchic state system, States are guided by their fear, instinct of self-
preservation, and self-interest.
• Statism: Sate centric approach: States are main actors of IR and International state
system is the arena (field, stadium) of IR.
• Self-help: International state system is anarchic; hence self-help is only way for
survival of states. No world Govt will come to save them.
• Balance of Power: In absence of world govt, for survival, Power must be balanced
by Power.
• Interests rather than morality guide state’s action: states are defined as rational
actors, pursuing their interests rather than agents of morality. Interests rather than
morality should guide actions of states in global politics.
• National Interest defined in terms of power is the concept on which autonomous
sphere of political science/IR is built.
• State pursue goal of ‘security maximization’ or ‘power maximization’ for its
survival.
• Examples of realism in practice: Many Instances of Mahabharat in ancient India,
war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece, Balance of power, Alliance
building, Behaviour of European states during inter war period, Cold war era, etc.
• Major proponents: Thucydides, Kautilya, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hans
Morgenthau (classical) , and Kenneth Waltz( neo-realism).
• Liberalism:
• Bound to its core ideologies of individual liberty, autonomy, and undeniable rights,
it believes in cooperation and interdependence to survive in anarchic world order.
• It focuses on building international organisations and institutional mechanisms to
promote cooperation, inter-dependence, and global governance.
• Positive view of human nature and states- Though states, like individuals, are
competitive, self-interested, and egoist, but they are rational actors. Most of the
time States behave rationally and responsibly- Optimistic view on nature of human
and nation-state.
• Refute realist proposition that national interests are defined solely in terms of
power. It asserts that National Interests are varied, and, therefore, cannot be solely
defined in terms of power. Power also has many dimensions, it includes joint
endeavour, co-creation.
• States are main but not the sole actor in IR. Inter-governmental organisations (
UN, World bank, IMF, WTO), International NGOs (INGOs), MNCs, International
Institutions, cobweb of people/groups linked through multiple channels of
interactions, international civil society and media, etc also play their part in IR.
 • Free trade, free flow of capital, Modernisation, Globalisation, Democracy, people
to people contact and cooperation, International treaties and Institutions, shall
bound/integrate nations towards cooperation and interdependence.
• Vision of less conflictual and more peaceful and progressive world joined by
common interests and bound by interdependence and integration.
• Major Proponents: Immanuel Kant (classical) , Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S.
Nye (neo-liberalism).

• Marxism :
• Viewing IR from the class lens, Marxism visualizes International state system as
exploitative capitalist design wherein capitalist class of the ‘core’ ( states of western
Europe & North America) in nexus with elite class of ‘periphery’ (3rd world states)
exploit the masses and natural wealth of the periphery. State act as instrument of
capitalist class.
• Following are core principles of Marxist perspectives in IR:
• International system is capitalist world order whose structure and dynamics
further the interest of dominant class
• Main actor in IR is dominant capitalist class; state, MNC, International
organization- UN, IMF, World bank, WTO- they all represent dominant class
interest in the global economic system.
• Structure of global capitalist system – Core, periphery, and semi- periphery
areas- Elites of core areas in alliance with the elites of periphery exploit masses
of the periphery ; Prosperous and developed regions in Periphery are like satellite
to the ‘Core’ regions. the core-satellite configuration leads to dependency of the
‘periphery’ on the ‘core’.
• IR is not interplay of Interest and power but reflection of global capitalist mode
of production and resulting socio-economic relation among states- global
economic structure determine global politics.
• Colonialism and imperialism were part of the process of capitalist expansion;
Globalization is nothing but global expansion of capitalism- new capitalist
imperialism.
• Dominant class/state not only use force but also its hegemony to make their ideas,
ideologies, worldviews as mainstream and commonly accepted by subordinate
class/states- soft power or cultural hegemony

We should note that none of the above perspectives give the real view of the conditions, issues,
and phenomena of IR under study. They all give different pictures of the same phenomena.
Phenomena and conditions of IR are too complex to be understood by a particular perspective.
Only by comparing the views emerging from different perspectives we can somewhat come closer
to understanding the phenomena of IR under study. It is like solving the jigsaw puzzle by
combining different parts of the puzzle. This is a kind of triangulation method in location finding
wherein we reach to exact point by triangulating or cross comparing positions/locations given by
different techniques. Hence, we should take perspective as a theoretical lens and frame of reference
to understand the dynamics of IR from different angles.

Q.5 : What do you understand by Westphalian State System? Relate it with the
emergence of modern state system in IR.

Similar Questions:
1.” International state system is nothing but Westphalian system”. Elaborate.
2.Explain the pre and post Westphalian phase of IR.

Answer Template:

Introduction:

Westphalian treaty of 1648 considered as beginning of modern international state system.

The treaty ended, to a great extent, rule of Empire and authority of catholic churches in
political system of Europe. The kings, who were under the emperor till then, became
autonomous rulers of their territories. Multiple layers of authorities, intermediaries, such
as, kings, smaller kings ( Raja in India and Baron/Lords in Europe), Zamindars/Jagirdars
or Knights, etc existed between the ruler ( the emperor) and the subject. The treaty also
allowed Kings to have their own state religion and standards of morality in political actions.
The treaty also gave rights of national self-determination, that is, the nations should have
its own state.
The treaty became the bedrock of the modern international state system. It gave the
Westphalian Template- Territorially sovereign and legally equal States interacting each
other through diplomatic relationship and following International law, treaties,
conventions. The Westphalian Template became the defining features of International state
system in modern times. Defining features of modern state system is sovereignty, territorial
integrity, and legal equality of states which interact with each other through diplomatic
relationship and in whose internal matter other states are not supposed to interfere. All
these defining features of modern sate system come from the Westphalian State System.
Foundational principles of United Nations are also based on the core principles of
Westphalian State System. In fact, many believe that International state system is nothing
but Westphalian system. In the language of IR, International state system and Westphalian
system are treated as synonymous.
 IR has a long history and traditions before the emergence of Westphalian State System in
1648. In the Ancient times small city states (Athens, Sparta, and other Greek and Italian
city states) and thereafter big Empires (such as Roman) , their interactions and
interrelations were defining features of the pre-Westphalian System in Europe. Medieval
period saw the emergence of vast empires (Hapsburg, Ottoman, Mughals) and feudalism.
The Empires included multi-nations, multi-regions, and peoples of multiple cultures,
language and traditions. Only a common bond between such diverse people was a common
emperor. The Emperor didn’t rule directly over his subjects. The Emperor ruled through
multiple layers of intermediate authorities, such as kings, smaller kings (Raja in India and
Baron/Lords in Europe; Separation of religion and politics was not neat and clean. Most of
the medieval states were theocratic states, that is, the state was based on particular religion.
As stated above, all these features of pre-Westphalian State System started to change after
the treaty of Westphalia and subsequent emergence of the Westphalian State System.
Evolution of modern nation-state and expansion of the Westphalian State System across
the world is called Post Westphalian phase of IR. Starting from 17th century, and still
continuing, the phase saw emergence of new concepts in the International state system.
Popular sovereignty, democratization, citizen’s right, nationalism, nation-states,
globalization, etc changed the nature and features of the International state system in recent
times.
In the post-cold war era, globalization and rise of supra-national International
organizations-UN, EU, WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc have put the Westphalian state system
under stress. In contemporary globalized world growing role of non-state actors-
MNC/TNC, International organizations, communities, social movements, opinion leaders,
International law, treaties/covenants, media, etc in IR has somewhat diluted the role of
states in IR. Despite this, the essential and defining features of the modern International
state system is nothing but the Westphalian State System with some adjustments as per the
changing times.
In the next section of the answer I will try to briefly explain the Westphalian treaty and
Westphalian State System, and its features. I will also explain in brief the pre and post-
Westphalian phase of IR, before concluding.

Westphalia Treaty- 1648

• Ended 30 years of war in Europe mainly between Roman catholic Habsburg (Holy Roman
Empire) empire and protestants kings of Sweden, Denmark, France, Netherlands.
• The Treaty was signed at Münster and later at Osnabrück (former the Roman Catholic city
and later one the Protestant city).
• Established commonwealth of sovereign, legally equal states; ended rule of Emperor
(layered & decentralized rule) and religious authority (protector of Christian
commonwealth) in Europe.
 • Considered as beginning of IR in modern period based on state system- sovereign, legally
equal states interacting through diplomatic relationship, and maintenance of international
peace by balance of power.
• The treaty also established IR norms of non-interference in the domestic affiars of one state
by other states and national self-determination.
• State could decide its religion, moral standards (for political actions) and its interest and
could inter into diplomatic relationship with other states on equal footing.
• The essence of modern nation-state became the Westphalian idea that political legitimacy
has to come from secular legal authority rather than from divine sanction as it was a practice
in the Middle Ages.
• The treaty and subsequent Westphalian State System laid foundation of modern state:
Centralized administration and government, big and powerful armies, taxation system,
absolute control on domestic affairs, political obligation, diplomatic relationship with other
states, etc.
Features of Westphalian State System:
• Provided a robust template for organizing political life in form of sovereign states in
modern era.
• Westphalian Template: Territorial sovereignty, legally equal status to each state despite
their size, power, capabilities, non-interference in domestic affairs, national self-
determination, diplomatic recognition and relationships, and adherence to International
laws/treaties.
• Westphalian State System also denoted Secular state, citizenship rights (subjects had
limited rights vis-a-vis the rulers), political obligation, national morality (different from the
universal moral standards), territorial integrity, national interest, and Balance of Power.
• Above features of the Westphalian State System became the bedrock (foundation) of the
modern International State system.
• State became the main, rather the sole, actor in global politics/IR.
• Westphalian State System came into being first in Europe, expanded to North America by
late 18th century, to Latin America in early 19th, and in Asia & Africa- in late 20th Century.
• Despite being Global political phenomenon, it is still highly Eurocentric.
• 3rd world countries, though included in state system, not treated equally in practice.

Pre-Westphalian phase of IR:

Following are some of the salient features of Pre-Westphalian phase of IR, that is, the IR before
the Westphalian treaty in 1648:
• The Greek city-state system, the Roman Empire, and big multi-national empires in Middle
Ages are the key developments in Europe leading to the Westphalian state system.
 • In the ancient world there existed small city states in Greece, India, Egypt, Italy, and
elsewhere. No concept of territorial sovereignty, equality, and non-interference.
• Thereafter, sprawling dynastic empires- Roman, Maurya, Han in china- emerged.
• Medieval period saw feudal system in Europe, and Multi-national empires - Holy Roman
Empire in Europe, Safavid Empire in Iran, Mughals in India, Ming in china ,Ottoman
Empire in Turkey, etc.
• Empires had layered and divided authority- Emperor- kings- lords/baron-nights-- serfs; In
Mughal India, the intermediate authorities were Big ‘Raja’, Smaller Raja, Zamindars, and
Jaghirdars. Thus, there was not direct rule of the emperor on his subjects.
• Separation between religion and politics was not neat & clean. Both the church and state
ruled the people. In Mughal India witnessed constant struggle between ‘Ulma’ (religious
authorities) and the Mughal King.
• Thus, even in Medieval period, there was no concept of sovereign states, non-interference,
national self-determination, and secular state.
• However, they had diplomatic relationship, trade & economic interactions, and some sort
of balance of Power.
Post-Westphalian phase of IR:
Westphalian State System in the beginning had the following features:
• Territorial sovereignty: The State was sovereign in all respect within its territory. No other
superior power to control it in domestic or global affairs.
• States ruled by Kings/princes having their own religion (Catholicism, protestants-
Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians).
• State had defined territory, population(subject/citizen), military power, centralized
Govt./administration.
• Non-interference in the domestic affairs of the states and their legal equality in the
international state system, which was limited to few states of Europe.
• Diplomatic relationship among states.
• Adherence to International law, treaties, covenants.
• Balance of Power and collective security.
• Non-recognition of political organization beyond Europe- non-European political system
(North America, Latin America, and 3rd world) were not members of the state system.

Later developments in the Post Westphalian phase in IR:

• Treaty of Utrecht (1713), Congress of Vienna (1815), and Treaty of Paris (1856) further
shaped concept of national sovereignty, nation-states, and Balance of power.
• French revolution was a paradigmatic shift in IR- notion of popular sovereignty, liberty,
equality.
 • The system that emerged after the Vienna Congress was a system of great-power hegemony
and known as the Concert of Europe- Britain, France, Prussia, Russia and Austria- took
upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining international order.
• Further rise of nationalism-nation-state and national self-determination in Europe.
• After the WWI in 1914, the membership of Westphalian State System reached to 43. For
the first time, the European exclusiveness ended; States from Latin America, Asia, from
Africa and from the Middle East were included.
• Second half of the nineteenth century: regular international conferences started taking place
for adopting conventions regarding the behaviour of states of the international state system.
• After World War II, De-colonized nations of Asia and Africa- post-colonial states- were
included in the Westphalian State System.
• 20th Century and beyond: Globalization, Supranational Regional alliances (EU, ASEAN),
International organizations( UN, WTO, IMF), growing role of non-state actors-
MNC/TNC, global political organizations, communities, social movements, etc. reveals
new trends which suggest that the Westphalian system of territorially sovereign nation-
states is on decline.
Post Westphalian IR in the Globalized era: Is Westphalian State System still
define the global politics?
• Rising role of Non-state actors and International organizations in IR.
• United Nations security system (UNSC) and the EU as two typical signposts of post-
Westphalian orders signal dilution in the prime role of Westphalian State System.
• More decision-making powers, overriding states, to International organisations who may
now interfere in domestic affairs- WTO, FAO, UNSC, EU, IMF, World Bank.
• Condition of anarchy in internationalized structure can be mitigate to some extent by a
proper institutional design, UN like international organisation, like a supra-national
government. Supported by other International organisations, treaties, conventions make
somewhat organised institutional structure. This further dilute the role and norms of
Westphalian State System which was conceived in totally anarchical world order.
• State sovereignty vs constitutional principles of democracy and rule of law. Pooled
sovereignty in place of individual state’s sovereignty.
• Horizontal (inter-governmentalism) vs vertical (supranational authorities) ( hierocracy of
International organisations) legal global order.
• Hence, many fear withering away(dilution or decreasing importance) of Westphalian State
System in the era of globalisation

Conclusion:
Westphalian treaty in 1648 is considered a watershed event in evolution of International
Relation. It signalled the start of international state system in the modern period. It is not
 that all what we associate with modern International system came all together after the
Westphalian Treaty. It took few centuries, and many events to crystallise the concept of
sovereign nation-state, which are equal members of the international state system.
However, the Westphalian treaty gave the foundational template to the international state
system, which more or less remained the same till now. These fundamental features of
Westphalian State System were : sovereign and legally equal states, non-interference in
domestic affairs, national self-determination, diplomatic recognition and relationships, and
adherence to International laws/treaties. Westphalian State System also ushered emergence
of nation-state ruled on secular legal authority, direct relation between the ruler and the
citizen, and rights of citizen vis-à-vis the rulers. Thus, in many respects, the Westphalian
State System gave the modernity and foundation to the IR as we see today.
However, in the globalization era the Westphalian State System is under stress. many
believe that Globalization has diluted the notion of state sovereignty. Two factors have
contributed to this situation. First, non-state actors, such as IGO (UN, EU, WTO, IMF),
INGO, MNCs, International civil societies, media, etc, are now having greater role in IR.
Second, states have virtually no control on many activities carried out within their
territories. For example, online financial flows, social media, e-commerce, and other
activities of World Wide Web and Internet. Many feel that globalization has compelled the
states to have pooled sovereignty, EU and ASEAN being the examples.
Westphalian State System is also criticized for being Eurocentric. Despite inclusion of 3rd
world post-colonial states into the Westphalian State System, it represents the western
institutional model (European style nation-state), ideologies (Liberalism), and worldview.
Many also assert that treaty of Westphalia is falsely glorified to usher modern IR and
International state system, whereas reality is that the international system coming out of
the treaty was rudimentary, limited to small part of Europe, and merely an outcome of
struggle for supremacy between the Emperors, Kings, and the Church. It took few centuries
and many supporting efforts and events to evolve the IR and international state system as
we know today.
Despite such criticism, the treaty of Westphalia and subsequent emergence of Westphalian
State System have been the landmark event in the evolution of IR in modern times. The
basic template of the International State System remained same as given by the
Westphalian State System. In fact, in common parlance, both the terms are used
synonymously. Here lies the importance of the Westphalian State System.

Q.6: Explain the level of analysis concept in IR.

Similar Questions:
How level of analysis approach help understand the dynamics of IR?
Introduction:
In IR research and studies, analyzing the same phenomenon, issues, events, etc from
multiple levels arranged in hierarchical order (from top to bottom) is called level of analysis
approach. In IR, these hierarchical levels are International state system, nation-state, and
 individual. In fact, the researcher focuses on a particular level in terms of components and
system, or in terms of parts and whole to understand the phenomenon under study.
Level of Analysis is very common approach in natural and social science research.
However, adoption of this approach in IR research is a recent development. Credit goes to
Kenneth waltz to popularize the level of analysis approach through his book ‘Man, the
State, and War’, as ‘Images’ to analyse the causes of war. Other prominent proponents of
this approach are Barry Buzan, David Singer, who wrote a Seminal Article- ‘The Level-of-
Analysis Problem in International Relations’ in 1961, and Morton A. Kaplan.
Different levels in IR studies- International state system, Nation-states, and individuals-
gives different perspective, frame of reference, and lenses to understand the dynamics of
IR. Thus, level of analysis is like the ideological perspectives- realism & liberalism, to
understand IR from different angles, or frame of references. But the differentiating factor
in level of analysis is not the ideology but the ‘level’ at which the analysis is focused.
In the next section of the answer I will try to explain in brief the three levels- International state
system, Nation-state, and Individual, along with the pluses and minuses of using them for IR study
and research.
International State System level: Systemic Approach
• Unit or level of analysis is International State System or Inter-state system in which each
sovereign state gets equal status as member of the system. It is a system level approach.
• It gives larger or macro picture of phenomena under study. Study focuses on inputs,
outputs, processes, and inter-relationship or interactions among the parts of the system.
Here the parts or units are the nation-states.
• At international system level, nation-states are treated merely a unit or part of the system.
They all are treated like same- guided by their national interest and relative power. Hence,
it called billiard board approach, in which the balls are like nation state and the billiard
table is like the international state system. The balls behave similarly when hit ( that is
force applied by external agency) On the same line, behaviour of the nation-states under
external force and stimuli is considered similar in this level of analysis. This is criticised
as one of its limitations.
• Typical Phenomenon under analysis: creation and dissolution of coalitions, frequency and
duration of specific power configuration in the global world order, global terrorism,
Environmental degradation, War, etc
• Advantages: Comprehensiveness, provide big picture, wholesomeness, as ‘the whole’ is
more than its ‘parts’, easy to comprehend because of uniformity of phenomenon at national
level- like uniform foreign policies, good descriptive and predictive capabilities. Thus, this
level is used mainly for descriptive analysis. Also used for predicting future course of
events likely to happen.
• Disadvantages: Insufficient explanatory capabilities, deterministic( as nation-states are
considered to behave similarly under external force and stimuli), treating nation-state as
black box ( it does not go inside the nation-state to understand the dynamics of domestic
politics and its impact on the foreign policy of a particular state), ignores variations at
 national level- undermine national autonomy and independence of choice of the nation-
state. Since there is a single global system of states, it lacks in comparative study. Hence,
study at this level is configurational, that is, having a single case study.
• Examples: Focusing on anarchic world order to develop theory of IR- neo-realism ;
Uniform foreign policies of nations guided by interest defined in terms of power; changing
nature of sovereignty in the globalization era, etc.

National level : Unit level analysis

• Unit or level of analysis is nation-state, internal dynamics of nations, its domestic politics,
its institutional structure, demography, political culture, etc and how all these affect the
decisions and actions of the nation-state in global politics and IR.
• Nation as actor analysis- nation-state is the prime Actor.
• It is also called unit level analysis, for basic unit in international state system is the nation-
state.
• In comparison to the international state system level analysis, it is unpacking the black box;
going inside the nation-state to understand the phenomenon from the perspective of the
state, the unit in the international state system.
• It is kind of medium range analysis. It is not as broad or macro as system level, neither as
micro nor detailed as individual level.
• Typical Phenomenon under analysis: National Foreign policies, National Interests,
National Ideologies, relation between the national govt. and civil society, Regime type in
nations, etc
• Advantages: More descriptive capabilities- more detailing, Comparative analysis possible
(nation-states can be compared), More explanatory capabilities, Unpack the ‘black box’.
Thus, this level is used for developing explanatory hypothesis and theories.
• Dis-advantages: Over emphasis on national differentiations make the analysis complex
and fragmented, may suffer from Ethnocentrism (judging policies and actions of 3rd world
nation-states from the cultural perspectives of western developed world), loses sight of big
picture, much more complex and time consuming than the system level analysis.
• Examples: To explain causes of World war II, analyzing ideology, motives, and actions of
key nations- Germany, Russia, England, France- as prime actors. Studying climate change
negotiations by analyzing policies and actions of USA, China, India; Studying currently
ongoing pandemic crisis by analysis responses ( policies, actions) of different nation-states,
etc

Individual level Analysis:

• Unit or level of analysis is key leaders, statesmen, opinion leaders, etc
• Individual as actor in global politics and IR.
 • This is micro level analysis. Hence, may be used to gather minute details of the
phenomenon under study.
• Only level where real human is under study. Since, individuals are able to articulate and
record their thoughts and views, this level gives much more authenticated source for the
research/study of IR conditions.
• Typical Phenomenon under analysis: Human nature and motives, ideology and world
view of the individual actors, role of individuals in shaping foreign policies of nations and
key events in International Relations.
• Advantages: Much deeper and Micro analysis, More explanatory and Descriptive
capabilities, more authentic source of information.
• Dis-advantages: Since individuals vary too much in their thoughts, worldviews, and
ideologies, universal theory building is difficult by using this level, Not possible to have
very comprehensive analysis, by going into too much details from each individual’s
perspective, loses sight of big picture, difficult to analyze individual motives, complex and
time consuming.
• Examples: To explain causes of World war II by analyzing nature, motives, and actions
of key Individuals- Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mussolini as prime actors; analyzing demise
of USSR from analyzing the motives, decisions, and actions of Gorbachev and Boris
Yeltsin, etc.

Conclusion:
Level of analysis approach in IR study and research is essentially focusing on one particular
level in the hierarchy of levels in IR system to better understand the phenomena under
study. The most popular levels used in the level of analysis approach in IR are international
state system at top level, nation-state at the middle level, and individual level at the bottom.
International state system level analysis uses the system approach, national level analysis
is like mid-range analysis at unit level, whereas Individual level is the micro analysis of
same phenomena.
Level of level of analysis approach is not unique to IR, it is extensively used in natural and
social Sciences. Like in any level of analysis approach, each level is like different lens or
frame of reference or perspective for viewing a particular real-world phenomenon and
therefore may give different picture of the same phenomena under study. Hence, none of
the analysis done by focussing on a particular level gives a complete or true picture. Only
by comparing, contrasting, and triangulating the views/pictures emerging from different
levels of analysis, the truer picture or essence of the phenomena under the study can be
understood.
 THEME 2: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES:
REALISM & NEO-REALISM

2.A: CBCS SYLLABUS:

• Main propositions, features, Pros & Cons of Realism as theoretical perspective of IR-
classical and neo
• Difference between classical and neo realism.

2.B: KEY POINTS:

• Since beginning, realism has been the dominant theoretical perspectives in IR. However,
it emerged in its present form during 1930s ( late inter war period) as counter to then
influential doctrine of idealism.
• In ancient period Kautilya’s Arthashastra, Thucydides’ ’Melian dialogue’, and during start
of modern period Machiavelli’s Prince, Hobbes political thoughts, etc. are some of the
classical examples of realist political thoughts.
• Realism is considered as the soul of IR. All other perspectives, such as Liberalism,
Marxism, etc, are considered challengers. But the prime position is always reserved for
realism.
• Realism view politics as the interplay of interest and power. Actors- groups &
individuals- involved in politics continuously try to protect and fulfil their interests by
using their relative power. In political arrangements, the individual or group who have got
more power prevail in the collective decision making which protect and further their
interests.
• Translating the same view of politics in IR, realism view IR as the constant struggle for
power among nations. In realist view, IR is the arena in which nation-states compete with
each other on the basis of their national interest defined in terms of power.
• Classical realism equates nature and behaviour of nation-state to that of the individuals.
Also, it takes a negative and pessimistic view of human nature, very similar to how Hobbes
described them.
• Thus, from the realist perspective, the state, like an individual, is self-interested,
competitive, and egoist and its behaviour may be bullying, nasty, and brutish.
• Realism takes human nature as constant and unchanging and therefore also take the nature
of IR as constant and unchanging.
• Realism bases its principles and theories on objective and unchanging human nature to
claim objectivity and eternity ( perpetuity) of realist propositions & hypothesis.
• In sum, in realist view, nature of IR shall always be the interplay of interest & power, and
therefore, competitive and conflictual,
• 3 S : Statism, Self-Help, Survival define the realist perspective in IR. In realist view,
States( nation-state) are the main actor in IR, Thus, realist perspective is state centric. It
undermines the role of non-state actors in IR.
• International state system is anarchic, that is, there is no world govt to protect states in
case of aggression by other states. Hence, self-help is the only way for survival of state; for
survival in the anarchic world order, power must be balanced by power. Hence, balance of
power is major theme in realism. State pursue goal of ‘power maximization’ for its security
and survival.
• Realism view politics independent of conventional morality. Political expediency
(requirements) and prudence (pragmatism) rather than conventional morality should guide
actions of states in global world order. Political and moral spheres are separate in realist
approach.
• States represent supreme moral good. To protect the interests of the state, any action is
justified. Political actions to protect the national interest cannot be judged on the basis of
conventional morality or universal moral principles. Also, national moral aspirations
should not guide foreign policy and judgement of other state’s actions in global arena.
Thus, NOT morality but national interest should guide state’s action in IR.
• Thus, realism also make politics autonomous of other human attributes, such as morality,
ethics, economic, etc. Interplay of interest and power makes politics unique. Hence, interest
defined in terms of power sum up the realist view of politics. In IR, National Interest
defined in terms of relative state power reflect the dynamics of global politics.
• Some classical examples of realism in IR are : several Instances in Mahabharat in ancient
India, Chankaya’s Mandala theory in ‘Arthashastra’; Machiavelli’s Prince, Hobbes’
thoughts on nature of man and absolute sovereign state (Leviathan), Balance of power
during cold war, and strategies of alliance building, hide ( hiding from the view of great
power), bandwagon( be with the super power) , defense, deterrence( like nuclear capability
may deter enemy state) , Hegemony( single dominant super power), etc.
• In modern times, Hans J Morgenthau has been the greatest proponent of realism in IR. He
is also considered as Father of IR; Six principles of realist political thought contained in
his seminal creation ‘Politics Among Nations, ’ published in 1948, became the backbone
of classical realism.
• Morgenthau 6 principles of classical realism are: 1. Human nature as the base of objective
and rational political theory; 2. Interest and power: placard of politics 3. Ever changing
meanings and contexts of Interest & power 4. Political actions are independent of universal
moral principles 5. Prudence and Not morality should guide political actions 6. Separating
‘Political Man’ from pluralist human attributes to make politics an autonomous discipline
• New or Neo realism emerged in 1980s with the publication of Kenneth Waltz's ‘Theory of
International Politics’ in 1979.
• Instead of basing its theory on human nature, neo realism is based on the structure of world
order which is anarchic, that is, without any world government and great variation in
relative power of nation states.
• Therefore, neo realism focuses on the unique structure of global political order to study
and analyse conditions of IR. Hence, it is also called structural realism.
• As per Kenneth Waltz, not the inherently self-interested, competitive, and egoist nature of
nation state represent the reality of the global politics, but the anarchic nature of the global
order without any world government and great variability in relative power among the
nation state are the root cause of IR being competitive and conflictual.
• Pluses of Realism: Simple, straightforward, and cogent, best explanation of cold war era,
adaptation to changing global political environment, and providing distinct academic
sphere to politics, etc
• Minuses of realism: Undermining co-operative and social nature of human and states,
ignoring non-state actors, profoundly masculine, status quoist, neglecting economic
aspects, poor explanation of peaceful, interconnected, and interdependent globalized
world, etc.
2.C ANSWER TEMPLATE OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER IMPORTANT
QUESTION

Q.1: How does realism explain international relations? Critically examine the
six principles of realist theory of Morgenthau.

Similar Question:
1.Critically assess the realist approach to the study of International politics.
2.Critically analyse the main features of political realism of Hans Morgenthau
3.Analyse the main principles of political realism in particular reference to Hans Morgenthau

Introduction:

• Since time immemorial, realism has been the dominant perspective in International
Relation (IR). Kautilya’s Arthashastra, Thucydides’ ’Melian dialogue’, Machiavelli’s
Prince, etc. are glowing examples of realist political thoughts in IR. It is considered as the
soul of IR. All other perspectives, such as Liberalism, Marxism, etc, are considered
challengers. But the prime position is always reserved for realism. However, in recent
times, realism, as the theoretical perspective of the academic discipline of IR became
popular in 1930s, late inter war period, as counter to then influential doctrine of idealism.
Realism view politics as the interplay of interest and power. Actors involved in politics
continuously try to protect and fulfil their interests by using their relative power. In political
arrangements the individual or group who have got more power prevail in the collective
decision making which protect and further their interests. Translating the same view of
politics in IR, realism view IR as the constant struggle for power among nations, In realist
view, IR is the arena in which nation-states compete with each other on the basis of their
national interest defined in terms of power.
Classical realism equates nature and behaviour of nation-state to that of the individuals.
Also, it takes a negative and pessimistic view of human nature very similar to how Hobbes
described them. Thus, from the realist perspective the state, like an individual, is self-
interested, competitive, and egoist and their behaviour maybe bullying, nasty, and brutish.
Realism takes human nature as constant and unchanging and therefore also take the nature
of IR as constant and unchanging. In sum, in realist view, nature of IR shall always be
competitive, and conflictual.
3 S : Statism, Self-Help, Survival define the realist perspective of IR. States( nation-state)
are the main actor in IR, in realist view. Thus, realist perspective is state centric. It
 undermines the role of non-state actors in IR. International state system is anarchic, that is,
there is no world govt to protect states in case of aggression by other states. Hence, self-
help is the only way for survival of state; for survival in the anarchic world order, power
must be balanced by power. Hence, balance of power is major theme in realism. State
pursue goal of ‘power maximization’ for its security and survival.
• Realism view politics independent of conventional morality. Political expediency
(requirements) and prudence (pragmatism) rather than conventional morality should guide
actions of states in global world order. Political and moral spheres are separate. States
represent supreme moral good. To protect the interests of the state, any action is justified.
Political actions to protect the national interest cannot be judged on the basis of
conventional morality. Also, national moral aspirations should not guide foreign policy and
judgement of other state’s actions in global arena. Thus, NOT morality but national interest
should guide state’s action in IR.
Thus, realism also make politics autonomous of other human attributes, such as morality,
ethics, economic, etc. Interplay of interest and power makes politics unique. Hence, interest
defined in terms of power sum up the realist view of politics. In IR, National Interest
defined in terms of relative state power reflect the dynamics of global politics.
Some classical examples of realism in IR are : several Instances in Mahabharat in ancient
India, Chankaya’s ‘Arthshastra’ and his ‘Mandala’ theory ; Machiavelli’s Prince, Balance
of power during cold war, and strategies of alliance building, hide, bandwagon, defense,
deterrence, Hegemony,etc.
In modern times, Hans J Morgenthau has been the greatest proponent of realism in IR. He
is also considered as Father of IR; Six principles of realist political thought contained in
his seminal creation ‘Politics Among Nations, ’ published in 1948, became the backbone
of classical realism.
In the next section of the answer I'll try to explain in brief the 6 principles of realism as
given by Morgenthau. I will also try to critically evaluate the realist perspective by listing
out some of its pros and cons before concluding.

Six Principles of Classical Realism by Morgenthau:

• Human nature as the base of objective and rational political theory:
o Realism view human nature as objective, unchanging, and rational. Hence, political
theory built on human nature shall also be objective, unchanging, and rational.
Realism equate nature and behaviour of nation-state to human nature and
behaviour. It also takes negative and pessimistic view of the human nature, like
what Hobbes thought about it.
o Therefore, in view of realist thought, nation-states are self-interested, competitive
and egoist. They constantly struggle and compete for more power making the IR
perpetually(constantly) conflicting in nature.
 o In the anarchic world order where there is no world government to help states in
case of aggression by other states, situation becomes similar to Hobbes’ ‘war of all
against all’.
o Thus. to survive in the anarchic world order self-help is the only way. State must
balance power by power to protect its interests and remain secured.
o In sum, realism try to give rational (and unemotional) theory of international
politics based on objective laws that have their roots in human nature.
• Interest and power: placard ( poster) of politics:
o Politics is nothing but interplay of Interest and Power.
o Only politics, as human attribute, has such prime role of Interest & Power. Hence,
Interest and power makes politics unique and autonomous of other human
attributes.
o In IR, Concept of (National) Interest defined in terms of relative power of states is
what gives (International) politics an autonomous sphere separates from
economics, ethics, or religion.
o In sum, national interest defined in terms of power define global politics and
International Relations.
• Meaning and content of both Interest and Power is not fixed, it is contextual.
o National Interest depends upon the political and cultural context with which foreign
policy is formulated. National interest, therefore, changes with time and changing
contexts. For example, India’s interest in having friendship with USSR and keeping
distance from USA changed in recent times. Now, having close relation with USA
servs India’s interest better.
o Content and manner of use of power are determined by socio-cultural and political
context. Thus, concept and meaning of power is also changes with time.
• Morality vs Prudence:
o Universal moral principles or conventional morality cannot be applied to judge
political actions of states.
o State represent highest moral good of the political community. To protect the
national interest, state may adopt any means, which cannot be judged on basis of
conventional morality or universal moral principles as applicable to individuals.
o Prudence, pragmatism, and political requirements and NOT morality or ethics
should be the basis of decisions and actions of states in IR.
• Political actions of states should not be guided by moral aspirations of the nation:
o No state should judge actions of other states on the basis of its own national moral
aspirations. Neither it should decide and act of other states on the basis of its own
national moral standards.
 o Political actions of the state should be only guided by its national interest. In
interactions and inter-relations with other states it should take the national interest
of those states, and NOT its own or other’s, national moral aspirations into
consideration.
o Instead of judging morally other nation’s action or taking actions based on its moral
aspirations, protecting one’s national interest and respecting other’s interests saves
the state both from moral excess and political folly.
o In sum, this principle highlights the moral relativism. Each nation’s moral
aspirations may be different and cannot be universalised. Political actions of the
state should neither be guided by its own national moral aspirations nor by other’s.
State’s action should be based only the on national interest defined in terms of
power. Such actions (based on national interest of its own and other’s) only can be
said to be prudent(sensible) and politically justified.
• Pluralist Human Nature and autonomous political sphere:
1. Human nature/attributes is plural, it has multiple facets (dimensions). Same
individual behaves as ‘religious man’, ‘economic man, ‘social man’,‘Moral and
ethical man’ and ‘Political man’ at different times.
2. Interplay of Interest and Power make politics unique and different from any other
human attribute.
3. To develop autonomous theory of political science, “political man,” must be taken
away and abstracted (separated, isolated) from other aspects of human
nature/attribute.
4. In sum, realism attempts to make politics as an autonomous field of study separate
from other subject domains such as economics, morality, ethics religion, etc .

Critical evaluation of realism as theoretical perspective in IR: its Pros and

Cons:
Following are some of the pluses or pros of the realist perspective in IR:
• Straightforward, simple, persuasive account of IR
• Many of the real-life IR events and conditions are best explained using realist
perspectives.
• It is easy to understand as it draws its principles of human nature. We can, therefore,
instinctively understand explanations based on realist perspectives.
• Better explained cold war era
• No other perspective could explain better than realism the IR dynamics during the
cold war era.
• Closer to real politics on ground
 • In our day to day observation, politics actually looks like interplay of interest and
power.
• For example, the party politics, struggle for power, and competition to grab power
to serve the interests of the political actors involved are facts of the real life politics
unfolding before our eyes.
• Flexible enough to adapt to changing environment of global politics
• Its two signposts- interest and power- changes its meaning and content with
changing time and context. Hence, realism can easily adapt itself to changing times
and contexts.
• In the post-cold war era, neo-realism emerged to explain the changed dynamics of
IR after the end of cold war.
• Even during the current globalized era, realism is able to explain IR conditions and
issues.
• Gave distinct and enduring ‘nature’ to politics- interplay of interest and power. It made
politics an autonomous domain of theoretical knowledge- distinct academic discipline.
Despite the above-mentioned positives and pluses, realism has been criticised on many
counts. Following are some of the criticism labelled on realism:

• Undermined co-operative, social nature of humans, and therefore the nation-states

• Since it held the negative and pessimistic view of human nature and because it
mapped the same nature to nation-states, realism undermined the cooperative,
social, benevolent nature of the states in global politics. Thus, it presents a negative
and pessimistic view of global politics and IR.
• Ignored non-state actors:
• Realism totally ignored the role of non-states actors in IR. Of late, roles of
International organizations such as UN, WTO, IMF, MNCs, global civil societies,
media, INGO, etc are becoming important in IR.
• Realism’s excessive focus on nation-state and counting them as the sole actor in IR
hamper its explanatory capabilities in the globalized world order.
• Neglected economic aspects
• Global economic structure greatly affects the power relation of states in IR.
• Realism’s excessive focus on separating politics from other domain, especially
economics harmed its ability to explain IR phenomenon, many of which are linked
closely to global economic structure.
• Status quoist
• Since human nature is constant and unchanging, political theory based on realism
also becomes status quoist or without any change.
 • Realism view IR in terms of constant and perpetual struggle for power among the
nation-states. There is no change in the nature and features of IR in view of realism.
Hence, it is status quoist.
• Profoundly masculine:
• Realist vision of IR as being competitive, rational, objective, struggle for power,
war etc. has overtly masculine overtones.
• Hence, women, their concerns and issues are either neglected or become invisible
in the realist view of IR.
• Poorly explains contemporary, interdependent, interconnected globalized world
• globalization has seen faster interconnectedness and interdependence of nation
states. Economics please an important role in globalization.
• As explained above, neglect of cooperative and interdependent behaviour of nation
state in IR and also its neglect of global economic structure, realism fails to fully
explain the IR conditions and phenomena in the globalised world.

Conclusion:
Realism has been the dominant theoretical perspective to explain IR. It developed during
later inter war period as counter to then influential doctrine of idealism. Classical realism
claims to provide scientific, objective, and rational theory of IR rooted in the objective laws
of human nature. Realism equate human nature to nature and behaviour of states in IR. It
also views human nature as self-interested, competitive and egoist. Therefore, realism
highlight competitive and conflictual nature of global politics in which actions of states are
guided by their national interests defined in terms of power.
Morgenthau 6 principles forms the backbone of classical realism. The 6 principles are : 1.
Human nature as the base of objective and rational political theory; 2. Interest and power
are the placard of politics 3. Meaning and content of Interest & power changes with
changing time and context 4. Political actions are independent of universal moral principles
5. Prudence and Not morality should guide political actions of states 6. Separating ‘Political
Man’ from pluralist human attributes to make politics autonomous discipline.
Simple, straightforward, and cogent, best explanation of cold war era, adaptation to
changing global political environment, and providing distinct academic sphere to politics
are some of the pluses of realism.
Realism is, however, criticized for undermining co-operative and social nature of human
and nation-states, ignoring non-state actors, profoundly masculine, status quoist,
neglecting global economic structure, poor explanation of globalized world order, etc.
Despite such criticism, realism is the soul of IR. All other perspectives who challenge
realism are meaningful only in relation to realism. Anarchic nature of the world without
any world government and the challenge of nation-state to preserve its security by self-help
gives realism unique advantage in explaining the global politics and IR.
2.Analyze the core concepts of Morgenthau's political realism and compare it
with Kenneth Waltz's theory of Neo-realism.

Similar Question: Compare realism with neo-realism in that study of international relations.

(Hint: For the first part of the question please refer to answer to question one above. Here, instead
of full answer template, only the comparison between classical and new realism is given.)

New or Neo realism emerged in 1980s with the publication of Kenneth Waltz's ‘Theory of
International Politics’ in 1979. Instead of basing its theory on human nature, neo realism
is founded on the nature of the structure of world order which is anarchic, that is, without
any world government and great variation in relative power of nation-states. Therefore, neo
realism focuses on the unique structure of global political order to study and analyse
conditions of IR. Hence, it is also called structural realism. As per Kenneth Waltz, not the
inherently self-interested, competitive, and egoist nature of nation state represent the reality
of the global politics, but the anarchic nature of the global order without any world
government and great variability in relative power among the nation state are the root cause
of IR being competitive and conflictual.

Following are some of the principles of Neo-Realism:

• Neo-realism focus on International state system, ignoring unit (state) level analysis.
Therefore, unlike classical realism it does not take perceptions of state leaders, state society
relationships, and motivations of states, etc into account for formulations of its
propositions.
• Since there are great variations in relative power and capabilities of states, self-help and
survival instinct determine state’s foreign policy in the anarchic world order.
• Goal of states is to ensure their security and territorial integrity. Power is means to achieve
the ‘end’/goal of Security. Hence states are ‘Security Maximizer’; But according one
variant of neo-realism called ‘offensive’ neo-realism, states are ‘Power Maximizer’, that
is, they aim to maximize power to maximize their security. In later view, gaining more
power itself becomes the goal.
• Security Dilemma: A condition in IR which is due to lack of trust between states. They
are not sure of each other’s motives. In relation to its competitor state, each state tries to
acquire more power and capabilities vis-à-vis the other. This may result into heightened
tension, without any increase in security of either nation.
• Balance of power:
 • It has two dimensions- internal and external ; State may increase their relative
power internally by faster economic growth, technological excellence, internal
peace and harmony, etc. Otherwise they may look outside for building alliance to
increase their relative power.
• It does rank ordering of states based on relative capabilities and power of states to
identify great powers. On that basis power structure of the world are categorized as
uni, bi, and multi-polar global order. For example, during 19th century, International
state system had multi-polar structure, during the cold war it became bi-polar and
uni-polar in post-cold war era.

Difference between Classical and Neo-realism:

Basis of comparison Classic Realism Neo-Realism

Theoretical base Equate state’s nature to human nature.
Both behave similarly in anarchic
order. Self-help and survival of state’s
in anarchic world order underpin
realist approach.
Not the state’s nature but
Structure of global state
system- anarchic and great
variations in relative power of
the states underpin the neo-
realist approach.

Nature More philosophical and normative More analytical and empirical

Timeline Oldest approach since beginning, Emerged in 1980s in the late

became quite popular during later cold war era
inter war period( 1930s)

Goal of the states Maximizing power; IR is constant Power is means to security,

struggle for gaining more power by which is the goal/end; hence
the nation-states. states are ‘security
maximiser’

Level of analysis Unit level or nation-state level- System level or International

Focuses on the motives, decisions, state system level. Instead of
and actions of nation-states in IR the nation-state, it focusses
more on the structure of global
state system.
Inter-disciplinary Stresses autonomy of politics Allows crossing of subject
separate from other subject domain. domain to make political
studies (and IR studies) multi-
disciplinary

Main proponents Thucydides, Kautilya (Chankya) , Rousseau, Kenneth Waltz ,

Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, E. John Mearsheimer, etc
H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, etc
 THEME 3: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES:
LIBERALISM

(Hint: in semester exam full questions are alternatively asked from realism and liberalism. Hence
you can prepare for one question from these 2 themes.)

3.A: CBCS SYLLABUS

• Theoretical Perspectives in IR: Liberalism

• Neo-liberalism
• Complex Interdependence

3.B: KEY POINTS

• Liberalism along with realism have been the two mainstream perspectives in IR.
• Liberalism is like the counterpart and mirror image to realism. It has almost opposite views
to realism on almost all aspects of IR and, therefore, with realism, helps to give more
holistic picture of the conditions, issues, and events of IR.
• Tied to core ideologies of liberalism as political ideology- individualism, normative values
of liberty, rights, toleration, and minimal state- it highlight cooperation, and
interdependence among multiple actors in IR to bring lasting peace and progress in the
anarchic world order.
• Liberalism takes somewhat positive and optimist view of human nature and translate them
to the nature and behaviour of nation-states in IR. In liberal view, nation-states, though
being self-interested and competitive, are reasoned and rational actors. Hence, they may
adopt multiple ways to maximise their interests, both through power and force ( as in realist
perspective) and through cooperation and interdependence.
• Liberalism also reject that national interest can only be defined in terms of power. In liberal
approach formulation and finalisation of national interest a complex process, dependent on
both domestic as well as international factors. National interest may have non power and
security dimensions and can be achieved through cooperation and interdependence in trade,
commerce, investment, and technology.
• Liberalism, therefore, believes in building trust, cooperation, integration through free trade,
expansion of free market economy, democracy, robust institutional design, and
international regime (international laws, treaties, covenants, compacts, norms, and
standards of behaviour)
• As member of international organisations, nation states cooperate to gain in absolute terms.
They're not concerned about relative gains, as in realist view. However, the problem of free
ride and cheating pose challenge to the co-operative endeavour.
• 4 strands of liberalism can be identified- Sociological, Commercial or Interdependence,
Republican, Institutional.
• Neo-liberalism, as the new version of classic liberalism in IR, emerged during 1980s to
become two of the most influential perspectives in IR along with neo-realism in
contemporary times.
• Neo-liberalism goes much closer to neo-realism by accepting the structure of global state
system as being anarchic and in which the units, that is, the nation-states have great
variability in capabilities.
• But instead of the structure, it gives precedence to the processes of the global state system
in terms of cooperation, complex interdependence, interconnectedness , functional
integration, robust institutional design and international regimes etc for developing
governance model to bring about lasting peace, progress, and stability without any world
government in the anarchic global order.
• Complex interdependence theory by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye is the
theoretical underpinnings of neo-liberal perspective in IR.
• Core principles of the theory is 1. Cobweb of multiple actors, both states, and non-states,
linked through multiple channels of interactions 2. social welfare/economic issue being as
important as security and power issues, and 3. cooperation is equally dominant
characteristics as conflict in IR.
• Having a positive and optimistic view, solution to problems of contemporary globalized
world, more focus on socio-economic issues, are its pluses;
• Complex to understand, fragmented, suffering from Euro and Ethno-centrism, failing to
stop and explain war, and neo-liberalism becoming too close to realism, etc. are its
minuses.
 3. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Critically analyze the core assumptions of liberalism in the study of IR

Answer Template:

Introduction:
Liberalism, as theoretical perspective to IR, has been the main challenger to Realism.
Liberalism in international relations is closely linked to core liberal ideologies -
universalism, individualism, rights, liberty, justice, toleration, minimal state, democracy,
institution building, etc. Translating these liberal ideas into IR, liberalism advocate
interdependence and cooperation rather than conflict and competition. Liberalism
highlights peace, progress, cooperation, and interdependence among multiple actors in IR.
It places greater emphasis on proper institutional design to have some sort of global
governance without any world Govt.
It believes in building trust, cooperation, integration through free trade, expansion of free
market economy, democracy, and international regime and institutions. Hence, liberalism
takes away focus in IR from power, security, competition, diplomacy, war, etc to material
and functional interdependence, integration, and institution building.
Liberalism believes that by proper institutional design at international level and setting up
robust international regime based on fair international laws, treaties, covenants, norms, etc.
lasting peace, and progress can be brought despite the anarchic world order.
Such positive view of IR originates from liberalism taking a positive and optimistic view
of human nature. Unlike realism, it views human nature as logical, rational, cooperative.
Translating them to the nature and behaviour of nation-states in IR, liberalism views
nation-states as self-interested and competitive, yet reasoned and rational actors. Hence,
nation-states may adopt multiple ways to maximise their interests, both through power and
force (as in realist perspective) and through cooperation and interdependence.
Liberalism also reject the realist view that national interest can only be defined in terms of
power. In liberal approach formulation and finalisation of national interest is a complex
process, dependent on both domestic as well as international factors. National interest may
have non power and non-security dimensions and can be achieved through cooperation and
interdependence in trade, commerce, investment, and technology.
Another realist principle that states are the sole actor in IR is also refuted by liberalism. It
highlights the rising role of non-state actors in IR. NGOs, MNCs, International Institutions,
cobweb of people/groups are linked through multiple channels of interactions to manage
the global governance without any world govt.
 From above it is evident that liberalism focuses more on economic, commercial, cultural,
technological, domains for cooperation, interdependence, and integration. It believes that
free trade, free flow of capital, Modernisation, globalisation, democratisation, people to
people contact and cooperation, international regime, and institutions, etc. shall
bound/integrate nations towards cooperation and interdependence.
Liberalism, therefore, deals mainly in the domains of ‘low politics’ that is related to
economy, ecology, sociocultural, technological domains. It leaves aside the ‘high politics’
subjects such as power, security, war, diplomacy etc to realism. This is one criticism
levelled against it.
In recent times new version of liberalism, that is, the neo-liberalism has emerged during
post-cold war or globalization era. In comparison to classical liberalism, neo-liberalism is
more analytical, value neutral, that is, less normative and idealistic, more rational and
somewhat more realistic. Complex interdependence theory by Robert O.
Keohane and Joseph S. Nye is the theoretical underpinnings( base) of the neo-liberalism.
Many charge neoliberalism going too close to neo-realism blurring the distinction between
liberalism and realism.
In sum, liberalism as theoretical perspective in IR has the vision of less conflictual and
more peaceful and progressive world joined by common interests and bound by
interdependence and integration. It also believes that by robust institutional design and
international regime, a governance model for lasting peace and progress can be established
without any world govt in the anarchic global system.
Having a positive and optimistic view, solution to problems of contemporary globalized
world, more focus on socio-economic issues, etc. are positives or pluses of the liberal
perspectives in IR.
However, the liberal perspective is criticized for being complex and fragmented, suffering
from Eurocentrism and Ethnocentrism, failing to stop and explain war, focusing only on
‘low politics’ subjects, and being idealistic, away from the real-politic of global political
system.

In the next section of the answer I'll try to explain in brief the features of liberal perspective in IR,
its comparison with realism and a critical evaluation of it by listing out its pros and cons before
concluding.

Features of Liberal perspective in IR:

• Liberalism is like a counter-part and main challenger to the realist approach in IR.
• Liberalism is like mirror image to realism. Both view the same anarchic world order in
exactly reverse way. Almost every aspects of realist beliefs- human nature, nature of global
politics, meaning of interest and power, role of states, etc. are exactly reversed in
Liberalism in comparison to realism.
 • Along with realism, liberalism act like twin pillars supporting the theoretical discourse on
IR. They are the mainstream IR perspectives.
• Newer versions of both the mainstream perspectives, neo realism and neo liberalism have
come much closer, blurring the differences between these two contending perspectives in
IR.
• As a theoretical perspective, liberalism may be close second to realism in popularity and
dominance, however, as condition and practice of IR, liberal ideology is having hegemony
in the post-cold war era.
• It is interesting to note that most of the liberal nation states, including USA, seems to follow
realism in their actual decision, actions, and reactions in global politics.
• Liberalism mainly deals with ‘Low politics’, that is, issues involving less of politics, such
as - economic, socio-cultural, ecological, technological.
• Liberalism leaves ‘High politics issues’- national security, war, diplomacy to be dealt in
by realism.
• We may identify 4 strands of Liberalism in IR – Sociological, Commercial or
Interdependence, Institutional, Republican; I will explain them below.
• Liberalism, especially neo-liberalism, is closely linked to liberal democracy- free market
capitalist economy, Democratic welfare state- and Liberalization, Privatization,
Globalization (LPG).

4 Strands of Liberalism in IR:

As Stated above, 4 different strands or variants of liberalism can be identified in IR. Following are
the brief of these strands.
• Sociological aspect of liberalism in IR
• Apart from relations between states, relation between individuals, groups, and
people/societies- transnational social networks, global civil societies- also
influences IR.
• Overlapping (interest which are common) and cross cutting (interests which are
different) interdependent relation between peoples of different nation-states
promote peace and cooperation.
• Commercial or Interdependence
• Greater interdependence and integration through trade, commerce, investment
• As happened in globalization era.
• Increasing the economic cost of withdrawal from cooperative venture
• Example: trade sanctions, banning manufactures/producers of a particular
nation-state.
 • Increasing role of MNC/TNCs, Multilateral organizations, economic rather than
military interests
• Multi-stakeholder global governance model.
• Theoretical bases: Functional Integration theory by David Mitrany; Complex
Interdependence Theory by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye.

• Republican
• Democratic peace theory: less possibility of war between democracies due to their
political culture of peaceful conflict resolutions, common moral values, common
ties.
• More say/voice to different groups/people in democracy act like check and balance
on the ruler in decisions, actions of the nation-state in global system.
• Institutional
• By proper institutional design, some sort of order, discipline, global governance
can be established in the anarchic world order which does not have any world
government.
• Institutions help build trust and cooperation among states in the anarchic world
order
• Help distribute gains of cooperation equitably and transparently. This further
promote cooperation. Institutions stop cheating and free-rider problems in
cooperative ventures at global level. Nation-states may trust and give their loyalty
to the international organisation based on robust and fair institutional design.
• International organisations/Institutions provide information, platform to debate,
express opinion, agreements, help settle disputes through dialogue.

Critical evaluation of liberalism as a theoretical perspective in IR: its pros and

cons:
Following are some of the positives or pluses of the liberalism as theoretical perspective in IR:
• Positive and optimistic views
• Liberalism takes positive views of human nature. Accordingly, it also views nature
of nation-state somewhat positively.
• It believes that both the human as well as the nation states, though self-interested
and competitive, are logical and rational entity. Given the choice, they would go
for peace, cooperation, and interdependence instead of conflict and war. Such
positive views give a kind of optimism and positivity to this perspective.
• Instead of war and power maximisation, it advocates peace, progress, development which
is good for the humankind.
 • Link global politics to domestic politics. Thus, it uses multi-level analysis. It analyses IR
from international state system, national level, as well as group and individual level.

• Explain both historical changes and continuity

• Unlike realism, which is status quoist, Liberalism believe in change and progress
towards betterment.
• Hence, it is better equipped to explain change.
• Practical solutions to deal with contemporary global problems
• Most of the global issues- environmental degradation, climate change, terrorism,
pandemic, migration, human rights, human security, etc- cannot be tackled by ‘hard
politics’ or ‘power politics.
• Liberalism by focussing on cooperation and interdependence is better equipped to
help solve these issues.
• Help build global institution and regimes
• strong belief of liberalism in proper institutional design as the solution of
governance in anarchic world order has given the world robust international
institutions, such as UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank etc.
• In fact, liberalism has been instrumental in helping 3rd world developing countries
build robust institutional structure for managing their domestic affairs which also
has a positive impact on IR.

Despite such positives and pluses liberalism has been criticised on many counts.
Following are some of those criticism or minuses:

• Complex- difficult to understand

• In comparison to realism, which is much straight forward and simpler to understand
liberalism has many dimensions, multiple strands and therefore not easy to
comprehend or understand.
• Limited to ‘Low Politics’
• As explained above liberalism has limited itself to ‘low politics’ issues such as
economic, trade, ecological, socio-cultural, etc. leaving aside the ‘high politics’ or
sensitive issues such as war, foreign policies, security, diplomacy etc. to realism.
• Therefore, in IR liberalism has itself left the real or core issues to realism by
focusing on side issues.
• Fragmented- multiple strand
 • As explained above, liberalism has multiple dimensions or strands . This makes its
approach divergent and fragmented.
• Neo-liberalism gone too close to neo-realism
• Neo-liberalism has gone much closer to realism. It has blurred the distinction
between these two mainstream perspectives in IR.
• Dilemma of Imposition vs restraint( toleration) in dealing with non-liberal and non-
western cultures/nations:
• As a political ideology, liberalism faces challenges and dilemma while dealing with
non-liberal people of different nation-states. Its belief in universal, normative
values of rights, liberty, equality, justice suffers from ethnocentric connotations and
hence makes it difficult to appreciate cultures, traditions and values of other
societies and nations. This is one of the biggest limitations of liberalism as a
perspective in IR.
• Couldn’t explain increase in inter-state wars
• One variant of liberalism, called idealism, became very popular during the early
inter war period (before 1930s). Establishment of League of Nations after First
World War was thought to provide eternal peace in global politics. But all those
dreams shattered with rise of Fascism in 1930s and World War II.
• Liberalism was unable to explain such conflictual relationship and war among
states which were following liberal ideologies. Similarly, it faced difficulties in
explaining the conflict and heightened tension during the Cold War era among
nation-states.
• Liberalism fails in situations of no common interest, life and death issues, concerns of
relative gains,etc.
• Liberalism also fails to explain a rising trend and popularity of right-wing politics and
nationalism in many countries.

Conclusion:
Liberalism is like the alter ego to realism as theoretical perspective in IR. Along with
realism, it make the mainstream IR perspectives and provide IR with theoretical
underpinnings ( support). Liberalism in IR is closely linked to liberal ideology in politics
which believes in universalism, individualism, normative values of rights, liberty, justice ,
equality, limited states, democracy, interdependence, cooperation, etc.
Liberalism takes somewhat positive and optimist view of human nature and translate them
to the nature and behaviour of nation-states in IR. In liberal view, nation-states, though
being self-interested and competitive, are reasoned and rational actors. Hence, they may
adopt multiple ways to maximise their interests, both through power and force ( as in realist
perspective) and through cooperation and interdependence.
 Liberalism also believe that nations ruled on liberal democratic principles have less chance
of indulging in war. Liberalism focuses more on economic, sociocultural, technological
cooperation, interdependence, and integration to bring about lasting peace, progress, and
development in global arena.
Liberalism also believe in proper institutional design and international regime for global
governance to tackle the challenge of anarchic world order without a world government.
Liberalism has given the world global institutional mechanism through UN, WTO, IMF,
World Bank, etc.
Neo-liberal ideologies having a hegemony in the post-cold War era has given a fillip to
liberalism in IR. The current globalised world went for privatisation, liberalization and
globalization by establishing closer cooperation, interdependence, and interconnectedness
between nation-states, especially in trade, economy, ecology, technology, investment,
commerce, and financial matters, etc. have given liberalism a strong backing as the worthy
challenger to realism in IR.
Despite such positivity and plusses, liberalism is criticised on many counts. It is considered
complex and difficult to comprehend; fragmented because of multiple strands, suffering
from both Euro and Ethno-centrism, accused of failing to stop and explain war even among
liberal democracies, and its dilemma in dealing with non-liberal peoples of different nation-
states.
Despite such criticism and minuses, liberalism has been a worthy challenger to realism in
IR. It also gives hope and optimism of lasting peace, progress , cooperation, global
governance model, etc. which enable the humanity to look forward positively and move
together hand in hand as global community; here lies the importance of liberalism as a
theoretical perspective in IR.

Q.2: Critically evaluate the Neo-liberal theory of international Relations with special
reference to the concept of "complex-interdependence“ by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane.

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Neo-liberalism emerged as the contemporary version of classic liberal perspectives in international
relations during the last phases of Cold War in mid of 1980s. Some influential writings such as
‘After Hegemony’ by Robert Keohane , ‘Rise of the trading state’ by Richard
Rosecrance, hegemonic stability theory of Stephen Krasner and the work of Charles P.
Kindleberger, etc helped make the neo-liberal perspective influential one in the contemporary
period along with neo-realism. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, who gave theory of
complex interdependence are considered the founders of the neo-liberal school of thought.
Core theme of neo-liberal approach to IR is on robust institutional design to mitigate the
condition of anarchic world order, without any world government. Neo-liberalism excepts
 structure of global state system as anarchic, in which the interacting units (of the system),
that is, the nation-states, have great variations in capabilities and relative power. However,
instead of focusing too much on the structure of the state system, neoliberalism focuses
more on the processes or interactions within and between the units ( nation-states) to
highlight the complex interdependence, multi-channel, multi-level transnational
interactions, and positive impacts of institutional mechanism to promote cooperation ,
peace and progress even in the anarchic world order.
Neo-liberalism view states as rational actor who wants to maximise their interests in the
global state system. But their interests are varied and cannot be solely defined in terms of
power. Multiple factors, including domestic one, affect the formulation and definition of
national interest. In neoliberalism perspective, states as rational actors are concerned more
with absolute gain from corporation, interdependence, and membership of global
institutions, then on relative gains. Also, the non-power gains and issues are also equally
important component of national interest.
Neo-liberalism comes much closer to neo-realism. Both the new versions of the two most
influential perspectives in IR emerged almost same time during 1980s. Both view the
global state system as anarchic in which the units (nation-states) have great variations in
relative power and capabilities. However, whereas neo-realism focuses more on this
anarchic structure of the system, neo-liberalism, on the other hand, focuses more on
processes in this anarchic system in terms of cooperation, interdependence, inter-
connectedness, free trade, investments, financial & functional integration, regional
cooperation, institutional mechanisms, and global regimes, norms, and standards of
behaviour, etc for mutual progress and development, and to solve shared problems. Neo-
liberalism believe that cooperation and complex interdependence along with robust
institutional mechanism, and supportive international regime (international laws, treaties,
norms, etc) may bring peace and stability in the anarchic global order even without any
world government.
Hence, in a sense both neo-realism and neo-liberalism are part of the same realist paradigm.
They differ on the processes whereas accept the structure of the anarchic global state
system. They both focus on the international state system or system level as the unit of
analysis. Both use empirical data, observations, other scientific tools and techniques to
have a positivist approach( scientific enquiry, testable hypotheses, etc) in theory building
enterprise.
In sum, neo-liberalism while accepting the anarchism and great variability in unit’s
capabilities in the structure of global state system, focuses more on the process of the
international state system in terms of cooperation, complex interdependence,
interconnectedness, functional integration, regional cooperation, institutional mechanism,
etc.to mitigate or minimize the impact of anarchic world system, without any world
government, in maintaining global peace, stability, and problem solving.

In the next section of the answer, I'll try to further elaborate on some of the points mentioned above
regarding basic principles of neo-liberalism and also explain in brief the complex interdependence
theory by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye as the core theme of the neoliberal perspective in
IR.

Core principles of Neo-liberalism perspective in IR:

• Focusses more on process of the global state system in terms of cooperation, complex
interdependence, interconnectedness, functional integration, regional cooperation,
properly designed and coordinated institutional mechanism and regimes, etc.to mitigate or
minimize the impact of anarchic world order.
• Properly designed International mechanism and international regimes (International
organizations, international laws, treaties, covenants, compacts, norms, standard of
behaviours, etc) may help develop a governance model without any world Govt..
• States are main, but not the only actor in IR. Multi-layer, multi-channel trans-national
interactions among people, groups, MNCs, INGOs, civil societies, etc influence IR.
• States are rational actor, seeking to maximize their interests- which are varied and cannot
be defined solely in terms of power. Formulation and definition of national interests
depends on many domestic as well as international factors.
• In cooperative venture, states are concerned with absolute gains, not relative gains.
However, states are concerned about free riding, and cheating by other states. For
example: suppose India, UK, and many other nations joins WHO in developing vaccine
for Corona Virus. After vaccination, suppose India reduced incidence of corona virus by
70 %, but UK by 90 %. India shall not be worried about its lower gains in comparison to
UK; it will be happy by its absolute gain of 70% reduction.
• State may shift loyalty and resources to global institutions if they are mutually beneficial
and fulfil interests of the state.
• Obstacle to cooperation: areas of no common interest (zero sum game- one party gains
only when other loses), cheating- no compliance by others, free riding ( few states comply,
but others don’t but gains are equal).
• Complex interdependence theory, explained below, by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S.
Nye is the theoretical underpinning( base) of the neo-liberal approach to IR.

Complex interdependence theory by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye:

Following are the main principles of the Complex interdependence theory:

 • Explained in their book ‘Power and Interdependence’ published in 1977. Further explained
in ‘After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy’ by Robert
Keohane.
• Interdependence in IR means mutual dependence in which actors/countries are affected by
actions and reactions of one another.
• Core principles: States are not the sole actor, social welfare/economic issue are as
important as security issues, and cooperation is equally dominant characteristics as conflict
in IR.
• Features of the Complex interdependence:
• Multiple and layered channels of interconnections:
• Inter-state: Formal interactions between nation-states through diplomatic
relations. This is what realist approach focusses.
• Trans governmental: Informal interactions among governments and other
Govt agencies.
• Transnational: Interactions among NGOs, people/groups/communities,
civil societies, MNC, etc
• Cobweb of multiple actors linked through multiple channels of interactions.
• In bi-lateral and multi-lateral interactions among states, absence of hierarchy
among Issues on agenda table. Not only the power but non-power issues, such
ecological, trade, commerce, etc, may also get preferences.
• Overlapping issues- no primacy to security/military issue.
• For example: suppose India and USA have high level dialogue, like 2+2.
Then the issues on agenda table don’t have any fixed hierarchy. It is not that
only the security, arms supply, and other ‘high politics’ subject gets higher
priority. Issues of trade, investment, technology transfer, checking
terrorism, etc may be higher on agenda table.
• Minor role of military power, force, and coercive diplomacy in resolving conflicts
and problems in globalized world.
• For example, the problems of terrorism, climate change, pandemic, etc can
only be solved by cooperation, and not by force and power.
• It has become core principle of neo-liberalism. It is halfway between realism and
liberalism, between power politics and cooperation, between high and low politics.

Conclusion:
Neo-liberalism, as the new version of classic liberalism in IR, emerged during 1980s to
become two of the most influential perspectives in IR along with neo-realism in
contemporary times. Neo-liberalism goes much closer to neo-realism by accepting the
structure of global state system as being anarchic and in which the units, that is, the nation-
states have great variability in power and capabilities.
But instead of the structure, it gives precedence to the processes of the global state system
in terms of cooperation, complex interdependence, interconnectedness, functional
integration, robust institutional design and international regimes, etc. for developing
governance model to bring about lasting peace, progress, and stability without any world
government in the anarchic global order.
Complex interdependence theory by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye is the
theoretical underpinnings of neo-liberal perspective in IR. Core principles of the theory is
1. Cobweb of multiple actors, both states, and non-states, linked through multiple channels
of interactions 2. social welfare/economic issue being as important as security and power
issues, and 3. cooperation is equally dominant characteristics as conflict in IR.
It is interesting to note that neo-liberalism as political and economic ideology is having a
hegemony in the today’s globalised world. Neo-liberalism perspective in IR though closely
linked to the neo liberal political ideology, is still second best or a worthy challenger to
neo- realism as the theoretical perspective in IR. In fact, both have come so close that many
consider them as part of the realist paradigm. Hence, it would not be wrong to say that
realism remains the soul of IR, and neo-liberalism its body.
 THEME 4: MARXIST PERSPECTIVES IN IR

(Note: from this theme only one type of questions, that is, to critically analyse the basic principles
of the Marxist perspective in IR, are asked. Hence, instead of giving separately the key points, the
answer template for the question has been attempted below. This pattern shall be followed for such
other topics/theme from which only one type of question is asked.)

Q: Critically analyse the Marxist approaches of international Relations.

Similar Question:
Q. Discuss the Marxist perspectives in IR

Answer Template:

Introduction:
The core idea of Marxism is that economic structure of the society, that is the mode and
forces of production, decides its superstructure, that is, the socio-cultural, legal, and
political system of the society. In other words, who owns the means and forces of
production decides the dominance and subordination in socio-economic relations in
society. The capitalist class, which owns the mode of production, becomes the dominant
class whereas the labour class, which is property less and sell their labour to the capitalist
class, becomes the subordinated class. Marxist perspective in IR is translation of these basic
tenets (principles) of Marxism in viewing and understanding the global politics.
Therefore, Marxist perspective in IR is viewing, analysing, and understanding the
dynamics of global politics from the class lens. In Marxist view, global politics is not
interplay of interest and power, as in realist view, but reflection of global economic
structure and resulting socio-political relation between the dominant western capitalist
nations and the subordinated 3rd world developing nations.
Thus, in Marxist perspective global production structure has created dominant western
capitalist nation, who owns and control the means & forces of global production, and
subordinated poor 3rd world developing nations, who provide cheap labour & raw
materials to the capitalist nations. The main actor, as per the Marxist view, in IR is
dominant capitalist class and not the state. Dominant capitalist class of western developed
nations set the tone and agenda in IR through political concepts and institutions originating
and controlled by capitalist ideologies. Thus, in Marxist view, nation-states, MNCs,
 international organizations. etc, act like institutional instruments of the capitalist class of
western nations in promoting their interests. Even the normative political values of rights,
liberty, equality, and justice are mere façade ( pretence, sham) to show capitalist class as
progressive and moral, whereas in reality all these political values are denied to the
subordinated class/nation.
In comparison to both liberalism and realism, Marxist prospective in IR belongs to different
paradigm. It is considered as a critical theory and not a problem-solving theory like realism
and liberalism. Bolshevik revolution in Russia, formation of USSR, expansion of socialist/
communist regime in many parts of Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa
during the Cold War era gave huge popularity to the Marxist perspective in IR. But after
the sudden demise of USSR and end of Cold War era and subsequent shrinking of
communist world, the perspective has lost much of its shine. Despite this, it gives entirely
new perspective to view an understand IR and was truly a paradigmatic sift in the
theoretical enterprise in IR.

In the next section of the answer, I'll try to elaborate upon some of the core principles of Marxist
perspective in IR, its features, its multiple strands, and pros and cons before concluding:

Marxist perspective in IR: Main Ideas/principles:

• In the global production structure, the capitalist class of western developed nations owns
and control the means and forces of production. Therefore, the western capitalist nation
represents dominant class whereas the 3rd world poor countries represent the subordinated
class, which sell their labour and raw material to developed capitalist nations.
• Above mentioned global economic structure results into the dominant-subordinate socio-
economic political relation between the developed capitalist nation and under-developed
subordinated 3rd world nations.
• International state system represents the capitalist world order whose structure and
dynamics protect and promote the interests of dominant class.
• Main actor in IR is class and NOT state; state, MNC, International organization-
UN, IMF, World bank, WTO- they all represent dominant class interest in the
global politics.
• IR is not interplay of interest and power but reflection of global mode of production and
resulting relation of dominance and subordination between western capitalist nations and
developing nations. Thus, global economic structure determines global politics.
• Colonialism and imperialism were process of capitalist expansion; Globalization is nothing
but global expansion of capitalism- new capitalist imperialism.
• Dominant class/state not only use force but also its hegemony (dominance in
superstructure- socio-cultural, legal, political system) to make their ideas, ideologies,
worldviews as mainstream and those of subordinate class/states as ‘other’. This represent
the soft power or cultural hegemony of the dominant western capitalist class/nations.
Four strands of Marxist Approach in IR
In due course, Marxist thought has been developed into multiple strands. At least four strands(
components) can easily be identified, Brief of the are as below:
• World System Theory and Dependency Theory
• World System Theory was given by Immanuel Wallerstein in late 1970s.
• Exploitative structure of global capitalist system – Core, periphery, and
semi- periphery areas- Elites of core areas ( western capitalist nations) in
alliance with the elites of periphery( 3rd world countries) exploit masses of
the periphery.
• Dependency Theory was given by Andre Gunder Frank in 1970s
• 3rd world developing nations becomes satellite of the ‘core’ western
developed world. Core-satellite configuration leads to dependency of
periphery on core.
• Such development is not autonomous, self-generating, sustainable, and
equitable. Actually, it is ‘development of underdevelopment’!
• Both these theories represent perspective of global south in IR.
• Theory of Hegemony by Antonio Gramsci:
• Hegemony- soft or cultural power-3rd dimension of power –manufactured consent-
moral, political, cultural values/ideas of dominant class accepted as their own by
subordinate/exploited class.
• Hegemony is created and maintained by civil society and network of institutions-
IGOs, INGOs, media, educational system, Movies, Music, etc.
• Through Hegemony, dominant class controls superstructure- socio-political-legal
system.
• In IR, hegemony manifest in dominant capitalist power/state controlling global
superstructure – internet, financial market, global trade- and manufacturing consent
on prevailing moral, political, cultural values/ideas- dress, food, entertainment,
leisure, worldview, etc.
• Critical Theories
• Developed out of the work of the Frankfurt School- Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen
Habermas, Andrew Linklater, etc
• Post-positivist, reflective, interpretive theory: question structure of world order and
its outcome.
• More focus on superstructure phenomenon- culture, bureaucracy, media, the
structure of the family, reason and rationality ,theories of knowledge. Doubted
proletariat revolution- their absorption in mainstream system- one dimensional
society.
 • Emancipation- more equal and just world, reconciling with nature, not
Domination/control but dialogue, understanding ;
• Habermas: emancipation through widest possible participation in words and deeds-
radical democracy; communicative rather than strategic actions; discursive ethics,
etc.
• Cosmopolitanism: expansion of the moral boundaries of a political community:
Rights and justice crosses nation-state’s boarder. For example, Rawls principle of
justice should not be limited to borders of western nations. Similar justice should
be attempted at global level.
• Example: EU represent progressive or emancipatory tendency in contemporary
world politics

• Neo-Marxism
• Going back to original ideas of Marx- historical materialism, and focus on
economic base- mode of production and resultant socio-economic relations.
• International relations are part of a broader pattern of global social relations. As
social relation changes, IR also changes.
• Mode of production decides social relationship which in turn decides inter-state
relations- thus economic base is the building block of IR.
• With time, mode and relation of production changes, changing IR; hence timeless
theory based on ‘Political man’ i.e. realism is illusion.
• Current wave of Globalization should be explained and theorized from Marx idea
of global expansion of capitalism after demise of USSR.
• Major Contributor: Justin Rosenberg

Critical evaluation of Marxist perspective in IR; its pros and cons:

Following are some of the positives or pluses of the Marxist perspective in IR:
• Analyzing IR from class perspective, it raises fundamental issue of unequal and
exploitative world order.
• Reveal hidden sources of Power- cultural hegemony, and economic dominance of capitalist
class in western nations.
• Emancipatory and Transformative
• Marxist perspective has vision of more just, equal, and free world; freedom from
dominance and exploitation of majority of world’s people, what it advocates, makes
it emancipatory.
 • Re-formulate IR principles to make world more equitable, harmonious, and less
exploitative.
• It wants to change, fundamentally, the global economic and political structure.
Hence, it is transformative.
• Highlight aspects of deliberation- communication and dialogue, cosmopolitanism, world
citizen and world community.
• This perspective changes the entire paradigm in IR, whereas both realism and liberalism
belong to same paradigm which represents the western ideology and worldview. Hence,
Marxist perspective gives a refreshingly new and alternative perspective in IR.

Despite such positives and pluses, the Marxist perspective in IR has been criticised on many
counts. Some of them are as below:
• Excessive focus on Economic aspects- Economic Determinism
• This comes from its core assumption that economic structure (base) determine the
superstructure ( the socio-political-legal system).
• Hence, non-economic aspects are undermined in Marxist perspective.
• Excessive focus on class; Undermined other identities- race, gender, caste, disability
• In many societies, such as India, class identity is not so much defined and important
in political system.
• Marxist focus on class is typical condition of the Industrial societies of western
capitalist nations, not directly applicable in non-industrial societies of 3rd world
countries, where many other identities dominate the socio-economic relations.
• Fragmentation: multiple strand
• As was explained above, it has fragmented or diverged into multiple strands.
• Couldn’t develop unified explanatory theory of IR
• Essentially it is a critical theory and not problem-solving theory like realism and
liberalism.
• Utopic vision of property less, state less world: largely unrealized
• Poor performance and totalitarian tendencies of states ruled on Marxist ideologies
eroded faith in Marxist perspective in IR.
• Gap between theory and practice:
• Instead of transformative and emancipatory regimes, communist states, following
Marxism, gave rise to authoritarian regimes and tensions of cold war.

• Undermining role of state in IR

 • Its assertion that class not state is the main actor in IR is criticized as over obsession
with class. The critics contend that States are the main actor in IR and they are not
simply the instruments of dominant class, as viewed in this perspective.

Conclusion:
Despite such shortcomings and criticism, there's no doubt that Marxism has been one of
the most influential perspective in IR during the 20th century. It brought a paradigm shift
in the theoretical discourse of IR. By viewing and analysing the conditions of IR from the
class lens, Marxist perspective was able to reveal unequal, unjust, and exploitative nature
of international state system. It gave a rallying point to 3rd world under-developed nations
to struggle for distributive justice (more equal distribution of wealth, income) at global
level.
However, main problem with Marxist perspective in IR has been its excessive focus on
economic structure and the production system. Also, the Marxist diagnosis of the problems
of class dominance and exploitation was typical of the industrial societies in western
capitalist nations. Applying the Marxist principle which was developed from the
perspective of society in western nations to global level made this perspective somewhat
out of sync with the reality of IR in many parts of the globe. Also, the poor performance
and authoritarian tendencies of communist states robbed much of esteem from Marxist
principle in general, and Marxist perspective in IR in particular.
Despite all these minuses, Marxism and Marxist perspective in IR have been the most
remarkable theoretical enterprise in political science and IR during 20th century.
 THEME 5: FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES IN IR

ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Critically evaluate feminist perspective of international relations with

reference to J. Ann Tickner.
Similar Questions:
1. How does the feminist perspective explain women’s subordination in the realm of global
politics?
2. ‘War is in the minds of men’. Analyze this statement in light of feminist debate in IR.

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Feminist perspective views the conditions and issues of IR from the gender lens to reveal
the overly masculine structures and processes of the global politics. Feminist perspective
highlights the marginalisation of women, their issues and concerns in global politics.
Feminist perspective consider realism as soul of IR and therefore specifically attacks on
the realist approach to IR to have excessive focus on interest, power, security, war,
diplomacy etc to help construct overtly masculine discourse in IR. Feminist perspective
also blame realism to have created the personal-political dichotomy and confining women
to personal domain. They see this dichotomy translating into personal vs international
dichotomy in IR. Issues in personal domain having gender dimensions are reflected in the
structure and processes of global politics. Also, the processes of global politics have
implications for the gender issues at personal level. Hence, feminists gave the slogan-
‘personal is international and international is personal’. They broke the glass wall
between the personal domain ( family, household) and international domain( global
politics, international state system).
Not only feminist perspective dissects and reveals the gender dimension and discrimination
in IR, but also reformulates and redefine the principles of IR to make them gender sensitive
and neutral. While doing so the feminist perspective in IR also redefine the concepts of
power, security, national interest, politics versus morality, etc.
 Thus, feminist approach in IR provide alternate perspective on structure and processes of
global politics to make the world more peaceful, engaged, interconnected and less
exploitative, and conflictual.
However, feminist perspective in IR has been criticised on many counts. Some of these
are: Micro and qualitative analysis, fails to get the whole or big picture, less quantitative
and empirical, fragmentated- having multiple strands, overemphasis on gender identity,
failure to give explanatory theory of IR, etc.
Despite such criticism, feminist perspective gives an entirely new approach to understand
IR and solve global problems. By raising the voice of half of human population, it certainly
makes global politics more gender sensitive, equal, just, less conflictual and less
exploitative.

In the next part of the answer I will try to elaborate upon the main principles of feminist perspective
in IR, Feminist re-formulation of 6 principles of realist approach to IR by Hans Morgenthau, and
pros & cons of the feminist perspective before concluding.

Feminist perspective in IR: main principles:

• ‘Personal is International’
• As stated above, gendered personal domain( for example male domination in vital
decisions of family/household) are reflected in global politics ( males making vital
decisions at global level). Also, the processes of global politics ( for example,
diplomacy) affect the gender dimensions in personal domain( for example, women
as diplomatic wives).
• Feminists reject both personal-political and Personal -International dichotomy by
announcing personal is political and personal is international.
• Thus, International processes are not gender-neutral, and gender relation are not
insulated from international factors.

• Theory and practices of IR are guided by Masculine world view

• Interest, power, security, competition, war, diplomacy, etc are conceptualized in
overtly masculine way.
• Masculine world view in IR: Power seeking rational and amoral state, national
interest defined in terms of power, power defined as domination, security defined
as having maximum power, etc. are overtly masculine way of viewing and
presenting IR.
 • Question invisibility and marginalization of women in IR- where are the women?
Feminists ask.
• In IR women are pushed into background or are given insignificant, low value jobs
such as diplomatic wives, nursing & caring at war fronts, even sex services to
armies.
• Women’s issues and concerns are kept low in hierarchy and on agenda items in IR.
• ‘Militarization’, overemphasis on brute power, war, conflict, interests further
pushes women to the margin of IR.
• Thus, excessive masculine nature of IR has marginalized women, their issues and
concerns in IR.

• Redefining concepts and components of IR from feminist perspective will make world
more peaceful, interconnected, co-operative, moral, and less exploitative, inequal,
conflictual.

Feminist re-formulation of 6 Principles of Morgenthau by Ann Tickner:

Ann Tickner, an Anglo-American feminist international relations theorist, attempted to

reformulate the 6 principles of realist theory of IR by Hans Morgenthau from feminist perspectives.

Following are the brief of the reformulated 6 principles of IR from feminist perspectives:

1. Dynamic objectivity: Objectivity, culturally has been a concept having masculine

attributes (males are objective, women subjective). Realist not only base their political
theory on human nature, but also selectively take only its masculine attributes; that is, self-
interested, competitive, egoist nature of human as well as nations. Feminist opposes this.
In their view human nature is dynamic having both masculine and feminine attributes.
Hence, feminists advocate reformulation of political theory based on dynamic objectivity-
more connected and less dominant nature of human.
2. Dynamic and contextually dependent national Interest which cannot be defined solely
in terms of power: Current global problems- terrorism, climate change, pandemic, human
security - demand cooperative rather than zero sum solutions, that is, power politics, as
proposed by realism.
3. Realist meaning and content of power is distorted: realist conception of power is to align
it to masculinity; Power is not always domination and control. Power should be defined as
collective endeavor, co-creation ( doing and creating together in concert), and
empowerment.
 4. Separation of morality and ethics from political actions is not acceptable. Making
politics amoral was to assign it masculine attribute. All political actions have moral
significance. Political actions should conform to universally accepted moral principles of
Justice and fulfilment of basic needs necessary to ensure social reproduction.
5. Accept Difference between moral aspirations of a nation and universal moral laws; Also
accept that political actions of a nation should not be guided by moral aspiration of the
nation or moral judgement on actions of other nations. But we must find common moral
elements in human aspirations which could become the basis for de-escalating
international conflict and building international community. Also, in the name of moral
relativism (that is each society/community has its own standards of morality), rights
of girl child and women should not be suppressed.
6. Realism give autonomy to politics by abstracting (separating) the ‘political man’ from the
composite or plural human nature. Feminists oppose this separation. They view autonomy
of political sphere as a masculine construct. Confining politics around narrow boundary
of ‘political man’ excludes women, their concerns, and contributions in political life. They
suggest reformulation of politics as more inclusive, interactive, engaged, and equitable
social arrangements. Politics should not be taken merely as interplay of interest and power,
as viewed in realist approach.

Critical evaluation of feminist approach to IR:

Following are some of the positives or pluses of the feminist perspectives in IR:
• Dissect IR from gender lens to bring out its overtly masculine approach.
• Reveal the gender bias in IR which makes women, their issues and concerns either invisible
or marginalized.
• Re-Formulate IR principles to make global politics more gender neutral & sensitive and
world more peaceful, engaged, and less exploitative and conflictual.
• Establish connection between gendered humanity and IR by raising the slogan ‘personal is
international.’
• Bring women/femininity into center of IR to make it holistic, inclusive, and integrated.
• Highlight aspects of cooperation, deliberation- communication and dialogue, shared vision,
co-creation and world community.
Despite such positives and pluses as stated above, the feminist perspective in IR has been criticised
on many counts. Some of the minuses of the feminist perspective in IR are listed below:

Negatives or Minuses of the feminist perspective in IR:

• Micro and qualitative approach
• Feminist approach focuses on smaller (micro) issues, fails to see the big picture.
• It is much less quantitative and empirical, and considered less scientific.
 • Therefore, its hypotheses are not scientifically testable.
• They deal in ‘low politics’ ( ecology, human rights, gender issues, etc) domain.
• Undermine other identities- race, class, caste, disability, sexuality
• In deriding masculinity, lost balance
• IR should have both masculine and feminine attributes. No purpose would be
solved in making it overtly feminine.
• Couldn’t provide explanatory theory
• As stated above, it failed to provide testable hypothesis.
• Fragmented approach
• Feminism has multiple strands- liberal, radical, post-modernist, eco, green, black,
etc
• This makes its approach divergent and fragmented.
• Also suffers from Eurocentrism
• Most of feminist thinkers are from western world, their idea, worldviews are guided
by western culture. They fail to appreciate the dynamics of gender identity and
gender issues in 3rd world countries.
Conclusion:
By dissecting and understanding IR from gender lens, feminist perspective reveals the
overtly masculine nature of both theory and practice of IR. It also attempts to reformulate
the realist principles of politics and IR and in doing so also redefine the concepts of power,
security, interest, diplomacy etc. All these feminist endeavours(efforts) are definitely
making the IR and global politics more gender sensitive, less inequal and exploitative to
women's and their concerns.
Despite this, feminist perspective has been downgraded to ‘low politics’ areas such as
ecology, environment, gender issues, human security, human rights, etc. It is still struggling
to be accepted as the mainstream IR perspectives like realism and liberalism. It is ironical
that the challenge what women face in their personal and public life is also being faced by
the feminist perspective in IR. It has been relegated to ‘low politics’ and marginalised.
But there is no doubt that IR need to take into consideration the woman and their issues to
make global politics more inclusive, engaged, equitable, less competitive, and less
exploitative. Women need to be given leadership position in global decision making.
Women and their issues, concerns should be brought from margin to centre of IR. And
towards these goals feminist perspective in IR has a big role to play.
 THEME 6: AN OVERVIEW OF TWENTIETH CENTURY IR HISTORY
WORLD WAR I: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER IMPORTANT

QUESTIONS

Q.1: Analyse the consequences of First World War on the international

relations during the Inter war period.

Similar Question:
1. What were the main causes and consequences of World War One?; Discuss.

Introduction:
World War 1, which was fought in 1914 on the European soil, primarily among the great
European powers, was the first war of global nature. The war became global in its spread
because of joining of USA, Russia, Japan and colonial nations of third world which ware
dragged into the war by their colonial master in Europe. The war, therefore, had global
consequences.
Historical period just before the War one was one of churning ( agitation), turmoil,
transition in Europe. 2 big multi-national empires- Ottoman empire based in Turkey,
Austro-Hungarian Empire based in Austria- Hungry were under great strain to hold their
territories. Other two big empires- German and Russian, had rising imperial aspirations.
German empire was rising as new superpower in Europe after unification of Germany in
1871. Germany felt that it was left behind in the colonial race in comparison to England
and France. Russian empire had aspirations of a pan Slav nation in Europe. England and
France were great colonial powers. This created conflict between the rising German empire
and the well-established powers of England and France in Western Europe
Interests and aspirations of these empires clashed. That resulted into a very conflictual and
tensed inter-state politics in Europe during the first decade of 20th century. Nationalism
was rising in Europe and it was becoming increasingly difficult for the multinational
empires such as Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian to maintain their multi-national empire.
Militarization, glorification of war as the quick and less costly way to increase national
power, prestige, and resources, realist approach to IR by having excessive focus on spying,
secret diplomacy, alliance building as preparation of war, etc were other reasons for
 development of a situation which required only a spark to turn the tensed condition into a
full-fledged war.
And that spark came in the form of the assassination of Prince Archduke Ferdinand of
Austro-Hungarian in June 1914 in Sarajevo, Bosnia by a Serbian ultra nationalist group
‘Black hand’. Austro-Hungarian empire declared war on Serbia. Russia and Germany
joined on side of Serbia and Austria-Hungary respectively starting the so-called World War
One.
With the help of USA, the allied powers of England, France, and Russia defeated Germany,
and Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the war, Germany was humiliated through the one
sided Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed on Germany by the victors of the war.
The biggest consequence of World War One was that instead of bringing lasting peace by
taking lessons from the devastations of such deadly war, it created the ground for even
more devastating Second World War barely 20 years after the first one. This was largely
on account of the decisions and actions of victors of the World War one. The victors-
England, France, Russia, and Italy under the guidance of the rising superpower USA forced
the defeated Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles which was so one sided and harsh
against Germany that it badly bruised and pricked the pride of the German nation. Hitler
took full advantage of this to establish his Fascist (ultra-right-wing nationalism) regime in
Germany. History of Inter war period was nothing but the story of rise of fascism in
Germany, Italy, and in other nations including Japan and how it created the situation for
Second World War.
In the next section of the answer I will try to explain the main causes/factors behind the first world
war, how the war unfolded, outcome, and consequences of the war before concluding.

Main factors behind the world war one:

Pin-pointing exact causes of the war is not possible. However, we may identify several
factors/conditions which might have become the causes of the world war one. Some of the
important factors are as below:

• Rise of German Empire after its unification in 1871

• Otto Van Bismarck unified more than 39 smaller Prussian states to create an
integrated mighty German Empire in 1871.
• Unified German Empire rose fast to become a big power in Europe. This Disturbed
balance of power in Europe. Especially England and France felt threatened.
• Imperial aspirations of the European powers:
• England and France had maximum numbers of colonies. Germany also joined this
race. This intensified the rivalry for colonization. Russian empire dreamt of a pan
Slav nation (Slav were ethnic/linguistic people spread in Russia, Poland, Hungary,
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc) in Europe.
 • Thus, competition for more colonies, and clash of imperial ambitions between the
great powers of Europe made the inter-state politics very tensed and conflictual
during the first decade of 20th century.

• Militarization
• Great European powers went for power maximization by building huge army,
equipping them with modern weapons.
• Industrial-military complex: Factories of Industrial revolution were used to produce
war weapons- Machine Guns, tanks, Fighter planes, Submarine, Torpedo, Chemical
weapons, etc.
• Offensive alliance Building centered on possibility of war
• ‘Triple Entente’ (Allied powers)- England, France, Russia and ‘Triple Alliance’
(central powers) of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy.
• These were offensive alliances and strategy to prepare for wars.
• Ideological preference of war for national Interest
• Realism was becoming the dominant perspective in IR.
• Excessive focus on power, interest, security, war, secret and coercive diplomacy,
etc.
• Glorification of war, past experience of war yielding quick dividends.
• Huge numbers of young adults were forced to join army in the European countries.
• Nationalism
• Rise of nationalism in Europe.
• Multi-national Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire faced challenge in
maintaining vast multi-national empires.
• Movement for pan Slav nation in Europe and active role of Russian Empire in this.
• Intermingling of race and nationalism: racial supremacy and linking it to national
superiority made nationalism a very emotive and divisive concept.
How the War unfolded and its outcomes:
Following is the event trajectories of the war in very brief. This also highlights its outcome.
• June, 1914: assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo,
Bosnia by a Serbian ultra nationalist group ‘Black hand’. Bosnia was part of the
Austria-Hungary empire and Serbia became independent of it and was rallying for
a Pan-Slav nation in Balkans (a geographic area in and around the Balkan
Mountains in southeastern Europe).
 • July, 1914 (July Crisis): Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia
supported Serbia for many reasons, mainly in the name of supporting the Slav
people. Germany, as alliance partner of Austria-Hungary, declared war on Russia.
• August, 1914: France, always susceptive of German’s war motives, joined the war
against Germany as alliance partner of Russia.
• Germany attacked France through neutral Belgium; Great Britain, an ally
of France, declares war against Germany. By then, all the big powers of
Europe joined the war.
• October 1914: The Ottoman Empire entered the war by carrying out a surprise
attack on Russia's Black Sea coast. Ottoman forces fought the allied powers in the
Balkans and the Middle East.
• 1915-16: Prolonged trench war on western and eastern front without much
headway.
• 1917: USA joined war against Germany; Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; Russia
pulling away from the war.
• 1918: Renewed vigorous war, but no headway; Retreat of German and Austria-
Hungary armies; Germany Surrendered

Outcome of the war:

• June 1919: Treaty of Versailles( a place near Paris) between Germany on the one side
and France, Italy, Britain and other allied powers ( the victors) on the other.
• One sided treaty forcing Germany for reparation (paying for war), virtually disarming
it, and taking away both its territories and oversee colonies.
• Re-drawing the Map of Europe:
• Cutting East Prussia from Germany, New nation state of Poland re-constituted.
• A new nation-state-Czechoslovakia- was created by check lands from Habsburg
Empire and Slovak and Ruthenian country from Hungary.
• Serbia gained Bosnia from Austria and Slovenia from Hungary, and tribal areas
of Montenegro to become new nation state of Yugoslavia.
• Belgium, Denmark, Romania, Italy and France gained territories; Rumania
became almost double of its size.
• Finland, and Baltic nations- Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia- carved out from Russia
as new nations

Consequences of the World War One:

Following were the main impacts and consequences of the World War I:
• Fall of great Empires
• Fall of German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires.

• Redrawing map of Europe

• New nation-states of Austria, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia,
Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc. came into existence.
• Territories of Germany taken away and given to France, Poland, Romania.
Germany became smaller country by area.
• Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia were carved out from Russia.
• Rise of Fascism in Germany, Italy, many parts of Europe, and in Japan and
elsewhere in 3rd world nations.
• Even before the war, nationalism was on rise. After the war it turned into ultra-
right wing militant nationalism, manifested in form of Fascism in Italy and
Nazism in Germany.
• Fascism, as political ideology, became popular in Spain, Portugal, Japan, and
in many parts of 3rd world.
• Rise of two superpowers- USA and USSR
• Allied powers in Europe won only because of the economic might of USA.
USA emerged as new super power.
• After the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, Russia became the lead nation in the
15-nation communist federation called USSR, which became the second
superpower.
• Bolshevik revolution in 1917 in Russia itself was one the consequences of
world war one.
• Weakening power and influence of Europe
• The war devastated Europe. France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary all were
either defeated or economically ruined. Power & prestige of British empire also
badly bruised.
• Global power shifted from Europe to North America( USA) and Eurasia(
USSR).
• Nationalism and anti-colonial movements in 3rd world
• World war one busted the myth of civilisation mission of European nations
through colonisation. It revealed the barbaric and demonic face of the western
nations. The aura of superior European culture and civilisation, built over the
centuries by cultural hegemony, got dimmed.
• Rise of nationalism also engulfed the colonial nation. This turned into anti-
colonial movements.
 • Creation of League of Nations
• Under the rising popularity of Idealism (against the discredited realism) as
perspective in IR, whose greatest supporter was Woodrow Wilson( President of
USA), League of Nations was set up in 1920 with the aim to bring lasting peace,
progress based on cooperation and collective security.

Conclusion:
World War I in 1914, was actually war among European powers. It was largely fought on
European soil. But since Europe was the center of global power then, it was called World
war. Hence, naming a European war as World War denoted the eurocentrism in IR. Since
Europe were the colonial masters, they forcibly involved their colonies, such as India, into
the World War One. In later phases of the war, USA and Japan also got involved. This
made this war somewhat global in its nature and impacts.
Rise of unified Germany after 1871 and its rising imperial aspirations, disturbed balance
of power in Europe. Rise of Germany and its imperial aspirations, militarization, rise of
nationalism, offensive alliance building, glorification of war under the realist approach to
IR, etc. were main factors behind build up to the war.
Prolonged Trench warfare, use of new science & technologies in warfare (machine guns,
air plane, tanks, submarines with torpedo, and chemicals weapons, etc ), huge loss of life,
stalemate on both east and west fronts, were some of the features of the World War I
Fall of great Empires- Ottoman, Austria-Hungary, German, Russian- , redrawing of Map
of Europe, coming up of several new nation-states in Europe, Bolshevik revolution in
Russia, rise of USA and USSR as new superpowers, weakening power and influence of
Europe, rise of militant nationalism, creation of League of Nation, and start of anti-colonial
movements in 3rd world country were major consequences of the first world war..
However, greatest consequence of post-world war I events, especially the Treaty of
Versailles, was humiliation of Germany which gave rise to Hitler and his Nazi regime.
Nazism was a form of Fascism which became popular ideology in the inter-war period.
This ultimately became the root cause of World war II, barely 20 years after the World War
I. Hence, seeds of World war II were sown in the post-world war I events, especially the
Treaty of Versailles.
 THEME 7 :
RISE OF FASCISM / NAZISM

ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER IMPORTANT

QUESTIONS

Q. Discuss the rise of Fascism during the inter-war period, highlighting its
causes and consequences.

Similar Questions:
1. what were the major consequences of the politics of the victors of the first world war during
the inter-war period.
(Hint: in its language this question may look different from the above question. But in essence
it is asking the same thing. You need to explain the causes of rise of fascism and its
consequences. You need to highlight the one sided and unjust treaty of Versailles (near Paris
that's why it is also called Paris treaty))
2. what are the causes of fascist upsurge in Europe in the inter-war period?
3. “the seeds of WWII were sown in the Paris peace conference” in the light of the above
statement discuss the emergence of Nazism in Europe.

Answer Template:

Introduction:
Fascism, as defined by William Ebenstein, in ‘today’s isms’(1980) , is the totalitarian
(control and intervene in all aspects of private & public life of individual) organization of
state and society by a single party dictatorship, ultra-nationalism, racism, militarism, and
imperialism.
As a political ideology, Fascism rejects both liberalism and socialism/communism.
Fascism believes in complete, unconditional obedience of individuals to the state which
represents the highest moral good of an organic society. Hence it rejects individualism-
individual autonomy, rights and liberty.
In contrast to reason and rationality of liberal enlightenment, Fascism relies on faith,
loyalty, emotions, symbols and myth. Faith on the supreme leader, extreme loyalty to the
nation and motherland, emotions and symbols of communal bonding, myth of racial purity
and superiority, etc were important ideological dimensions of Fascism.
 Fascism was against the principles of liberal constitutional democracy. It generated intense
emotion, popular and mass support for the supreme leader, who ruled the state as dictator.
It was a single party rule like communist state. The supreme leader was head of the ruling
party. However, in opposition to socialism, it rejected social ownership of means of
production, class war, and dictatorship of proletariat. Fascist rule adopted capitalism
without liberal democracy.
Though started as revolution against established system, fascism was anti-revolutionary,
against the socialist revolution sweeping Europe after the first World War.
Fascism first appeared in Italy in 1920s. Mussolini established a fascist regime in Italy in
1922. Soon it spread to Germany, Spain, Japan, and many countries across the globe.
Despite its origin in Italy, where it got its name, Fascism is best manifested in Hitler’s Nazi
Germany during 1933-39. Soon fascism spread to Spain, Portugal, Japan, and many others
nations of Latin America and 3rd world.
main factors behind Fascist upsurge in Europe were: sense of disillusionment, loss, and
uneasiness after the world war I, treaty of Versailles and Bruised ego of German nation,
Economic Slump of 1920s, Declining influence of Liberalism, and growing fear of
communist revolution, etc
Rise of fascism had devastating consequences. It led to World war II, holocaust (genocide
of the European Jews), and ideological war during the inter-war period. Fascism also forced
coming together of Liberalism (led by USA) and Communism ( led by USSR) during the
second world war.
After the World War II, Fascism as political ideology saw its sudden demise. Today,
Fascism is a discredited slang word which generates extreme negative emotions. But it
showed the world the devastation caused if national egos are hurt by unjust/unequal
treatment in international relation.

In the next section of the answer I will try to list out some of the causes and consequences of
Fascist upsurge in Europe and elsewhere during the inter-war period.

Factors supporting Fascist upsurge in Europe and elsewhere during the inter-
war period:
• General sense of disillusionment, loss, and uneasiness after the world war I
• Devastation of First World War left a deep scar on people’s mind in Europe. People
lost faith in prevailing ideologies, regimes and global order.
• The fall of great empires also give a sense of loss to the people. They lost their
bearings; they were not knowing with whom their loyalty rested with. Entire
generation was lost in the war, this created a kind of social vacuum.
• In this situation of loss, emptiness, and disillusionment, people were badly
searching for messiah (saviour) like leader who can make everything look rosy and
up-beat again.
 • Such situation gave an opportunity to the Fascist ideology to fill the vacuum and
became popular.

• Treaty of Versailles ( also called Paris treaty):

• The treaty was extremely one sided, unjust and harshly imposed on defeated
Germany. It was a kind of harsh punishment given to Germany. The pride and
esteem of German people and nation was badly bruised and pricked by this treaty.
• Italy, which shifted side to the victors during World War One, also felt cheated.
There was sense of deep resentment in Italy against the allied power for the raw
treatment given to Italy in the treaty.
• Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany took full advantage of people’s anger and
resentment against the treaty to establish the fascist totalitarian regimes.
• Economic Slump of late 1920s
• western capitalist world faced its worst economic crisis in the form of great
economic depression during late 1920s. This resulted into loss of job, hardship,
frustration.
• This added into the sense of hopelessness and disillusionment as explained above.
This helped Fascism as an alternative ideology to gain ground.
• Growing fear of communist revolution:
• Bolsheviks revolution in Russia in 1917 and rise of USSR raised the fear of
communist revolution in Western Europe.
• It may be noted that Karl Marx was from Germany and he predicted communist
revolution first in western capitalist nation of Europe.
• Conservative Elites, landowners, capitalists felt threatened by rise of communist
movements.
• All these situations of fear helped Fascism to rise quickly in Germany, Italy, and
elsewhere in Europe.
• Diminishing influence of Liberal ideologies
• Two core components of liberalism-liberal democracy and free market capitalism,
both were discredited during the inter-war period.
• Liberal democracies were involved in world war one. This busted the theory of
democratic peace.
• Great depression of late 1920s discredited capitalism as magic wand for rapid
economic growth and employment.
• Fascism was benefitted by fall from grace of Liberalism as dominant ideology. It
filled the gap to become the most popular ideology during the inter-war period.
Tracing the Fascist upsurge in Europe:
• Italy:
• 1915: Fascist Revolutionary Party (PFR), founded in Italy.
• 1921: National Fascist Party (PNF) under Benito Mussolini started aligning with
conservative ‘right’ and became influential.
• October 24, 1922: ‘march to Rome’: ‘Black Shirts’ of Mussolini terrorised Rome,
King Victor Emmanuel III forced to appoint Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy.
• 1922-43: Totalitarian, coercive, single party fascist Govt. in Italy.
• Germany:
• 1919: Anton Drexler formed a new political party "German Workers' Party “.
• 1920-23: Hitler joined the workers’ party, renamed “National Socialist German
Workers' Party(Nazi)”; rose in its ranks, and took control of the Nazi party.
• 1923: Munich Putsch (march to Munich): failed , Hitler arrested, Nazi party banned
• 1929-33: Great Depression- hyperinflation, unemployment, social unrest- Nazi
grew in popularity
• 1933: Hitler was appointed Chancellor, led the coalition govt, by series of
manoeuvre/manipulations, and using strong arm tactics became legal dictator.
• 1933-39: Rise of German power; Volksgemeinschaft (people's community),
Lebensraum (living space for the nation), Aryanization, and Anti-Semitism became
the ideological planks of the Nazi rule.
• Spain
• fascist movement, the ’Falange’, founded in 1933 by José Antonio Primo de
Rivera; military dictatorship of Francisco Franco displayed many fascist
characteristics.
• Other Nations in Europe:
• Poland anti-Semitic Falange, led by Boleslaw Piasecki.
• The National Union party in Portugal led by the Dictator António Salazar
• The Arrow Cross Party was the Hungarian fascist organization
• In Romania the Iron Guard was Fascist organisation.

Fascism in other parts of World:

• Japan
• Ultra nationalist, and expansionist, rule by military elite under the dictatorship of
Emperor Hirohito had many fascist tendencies.
 • Also spread to Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), Africa (South Africa), and Middle
East (Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon)
• Even in India, during that period, extreme nationalism became popular. Subhash Chandra
Bose formed ‘Azad Hind Army’ and allied with Japan and Germany to free India from
British rule.

Consequences of Fascist Upsurge in Europe:

• Holocaust
• Genocide of about 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany and German occupied Europe.
• This was mass murder of one community based on the myth of racial superiority
and need to make German race pure by eliminating the impurities such as Jews
people intermingling with German race in Germany.
• World War II
• Second World War is considered to be the direct consequence of imperialist
aspirations of Nazi Germany.
• More than 60 million people died in the most devastating war.
• Coming together of Liberalism and Communism which fascism field
• USA, England, France representing liberal ideology came together with communist
USSR to face the Fascist powers of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
• This was first time in history that liberalism and communism came so close to fight
the 3rd ideology.
• Linkage of strong negative meanings with Fascist Ideology for all time to come
• Everything associated with Fascist ideology- expansionism, Jingoism (militant
nationalism), Imperialism, Racism, Ultra-nationalism, etc were discredited forever.
Fascism acquired pejorative (derogatory) meaning. It actually became a slang word.
• Liberalism gained ground as dominant political ideology in western world
• The fall of fascism became the gain for liberalism. Sudden demise of fascism after
Second World War made liberalism the only dominant ideology in the western
capitalist world.
• Also, by linking Second World War to rise to Fscist ideologies, liberalism
somewhat absolve itself from the blot of its linkage with First World War.
• Only socialism/communism remained to challenge liberalism.

Discussion and Conclusion:

Fascism as political ideology became quite popular during the period between two world
wars (inter-war period). Taking its name from the Fascist party of Mussolini in Italy during
1920s, Fascism denoted ultra-right militant nationalism. It promoted extreme loyalty to
one's nation and motherland, myth of greatness of one’s race and nation, and emotional
communal bond. Public display of cherished symbols and gestures were also part of Fascist
ideology. Extreme love and passion towards a supreme leader, who represented the
community/society/state also became part of Fascist traditions.
The Fascist regime in Italy and Germany were totalitarian, that is, the state was supreme,
like organic whole of which individuals were like integral part; and therefore, the state had
right to guide, control, and intervene in all aspects of individual’s life- both public and
private.
Fascism as an alternative ideology to dominant liberalism and rising socialism became
popular because of many supporting factors after the World War One. A general sense of
disillusionment(disappointment) from the liberal world order which could not stop the
devastating World War gave credence to the alternative ideology. Treaty of Versailles and
bruised ego of German nation and feeling of being cheated by the treaty in Italian people,
great economic depression in late 1920s, declining influence of Liberalism, and growing
fear of communist revolution, after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, etc. were other
factors behind the Fascist upsurge in Europe and elsewhere.
We should appreciate that as an ideology Fascism in itself was not bad. In fact, the ideas
on which it was based came from the political thoughts of great thinkers like Plato,
Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, etc. In all these thoughts, State was considered
supreme political institution and prior to individual. State was considered must for happy
and fulfilled life of the individual. State is like organic whole of which individuals are
integral part. Individuals are supposed to sacrifice their self-interest for the common good
of society/ state. These ideas also cherished loyalty to one’s community/society/ nation.
However, manifestation of these ideas in form of Fascist regime, especially in Italy and
Germany, genocide of Jews people, and its devastating consequence in form of World War
II, made this ideology a slang word in contemporary times. This ideology became linked
with genocide of Jews in the name of racial purity and purging( abolition of unwanted one),
totalitarian regime which forced regimented life on its citizen, ultra and militant
nationalism which gave primacy to force, strong arm tactics, and violence in IR, and
imperialist tendencies of the fascist regimes which resulted into Second World War. Hence,
today Fascism is used as a slang world in political discourse.
 THEME 8:
WORLD WAR II: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER IMPORTANT

QUESTIONS

Q. Discuss the causes and consequences of World War 2.

Similar Question:
Q. Analyse the causes of Second World War in the light of the events during the Inter war period.

Introduction:
In the First World War Germany was defeated. The victors, that is, the allied powers
consisting of England, France, Russia, supported by USA, imposed a one sided, unjust,
very harsh, and humiliating treaty of Versailles on Germany. Under the treaty, Germany
was forced to pay for the cost and losses in war, its territories were cut and taken away by
France, Poland, Romania, etc; its overseas colonies in Africa were snatched and it was
force to be disarmed. Such harsh and unjust treaty hurt the national ego and pride of the
German people and nation. This gave rise to Fascism in Germany. Hitler established a
totalitarian fascist regime in Germany which was ruled by a single party- Nazi party. Hitler
pursued with passion his single mission to become the superpower of the mainland Europe
and take revenge of the humiliation done to Germany by the victors of the World War one.
Italy was also felt cheated by the Treaty of Versailles. Italy felt that it was not given the
territories and other rewards for changing its side to be part of the allied power during the
World War one. Mussolini took advantage of this deep anger and resentment in Italian
people to establish a fascist totalitarian regime in Italy during 1920s.
Japan, after world war one, under the militarised rule under dictatorship of Emperor
Hirohito adopted fascist principles. Fascism also spread in Spain, Poland, Hungary,
Romania, and many other nations of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. This created a
triangular ideological conflict between liberalism championed by USA and Western
Europe, fascism followed by Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Japan, etc. and communism
led by USSR and communist bloc nation of eastern Europe and other parts of the world.
The fascist regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan were imperialist, adventurist and
belligerent in international relations. They had little respect for international law, treaties,
pacts, etc. In particular, Nazi Germany under Hitler broke its promises and treaties with
impunity (without any check) to attack on Rhineland (a buffer zone between France &
Germany), Annexed Austria and merged it into Germany, attacked and annexed
Czechoslovakia and Poland. Similar acts of aggression and belligerence (hostility) was also
shown by the fascist Italy and Japan.
 Thus, the story of inter war period was the story of rise of fascism and how it created a
situation where the Second World war barely after 20 years of First World War became
unavoidable.
But we should remember that the seeds of second world war were sown by the victors of
the world war one. Their actions helped rise of Fascism in Germany by bruising the pride
and ego of German nation/people by imposing the one sided, unjust, and harsh treaty of
Versailles on Germany. Allied powers ignored and looked other way, under the policy of
appeasement, when Hitler was breaking the treaties and annexing neighbouring territories
and nations. This further encouraged the fascist powers and created a situation where the
allied powers were not able to remain passive onlooker. They had to declare war against
Germany when it attacked Poland in September, 1939.
Hence, if we try to trace the causes of Second World War, the policies, decisions, and
actions of the victors- allied power- of World War One would be the main culprit. First, on
count of imposing a very harsh, one-sided, unjust treaty on Germany, and second, failing
in controlling the Nazi Germany’s aggressions and adventurism during the Inter war
period.
Some of most noticeable features of World War II were: first truly global war, huge loss
of life-more than 60 million died, German Blitzkrieg (encircling and defeating enemy army
with lightning speed by the German army and air force), war prolonged for next 4 years
despite Germany winning almost entire European mainland by July 1941, Germany,
against its strategy, forced to fight simultaneously on western and eastern fronts, and First
and till date last Nuclear war.
World war II had major consequences for the global politics, international order, and IR.
Start of Cold War, though, was its most important consequence.
In the next section of the answer, I'll try to explain in brief the factors or causes which led to Second
World war, how it unfolded, and its consequences, before concluding:

Factors (Causes) Behind World War II:

• Unjust Treaty of Versailles
• As explained above in detail, the one sided, unjust, and harsh treaty of Versailles
was forced on Germany. This badly hurt the pride and ego of German nation/people
and helped rise of Fascism under the Nazi party of Hitler.
• This became the single most factor behind the start of world war II.
• Fascist upsurge in Europe; Rise of Fascist Italy, Germany, and Japan
• As explained above, Fascist Italy, Germany, and Japan adopted very adventurous,
expansionist, and Imperial policies during the inter-war period. They attacked and
annexed neighbourhood territories and nations disregarding international laws,
treaties, pacts.
• Nazi Germany of Hitler was most belligerent and adventurous. Some of its military
adventures and accesses during the inter-war period were as below:
 • 1936: Germany attacked and Occupied Rhineland- a demilitarized zone
between France & Germany.
• March 1938: Attacked Austria and unified it with Germany
• October 1938 -39: Attacked and occupied Czechoslovakia
• 1st September, 1939: Attacked Poland , which triggered the second world
war.
• Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, Albania in 1939, and in 1940 attacked and
conquered British Somaliland.
• Fascist Japan, in 1931, attacked and took away Manchuria, in 1937 attacked China,
in 1941, it attacked on Hong Kong, which was then a British territory, and attacked
the United States Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory. This event forced
USA to enter into the war.
• Appeasement Policy of Britain and France
• Inclined not to involve in another world war, Britain and France allowed Hitler do
whatever he wanted.
• This further encouraged Hitler and he went on attacking and annexing
neighbourhood territories and nations.
• Finally, when it attacked Poland, Britain and France were forced to declare war
against Germany, starting second world war.
• Idealism in IR during the inter-war period:
• During the early part of inter-war period Idealism was the dominant IR perspective.
• Idealism as perspective in IR stressed on peace, cooperation, and shared aspirations
among nation-states. Idealism was supported by American President Woodrow
Wilson in his 14-point principle and followed by Britain & France.
• Idealism overlooked the real-politic of inter-war period. Germany took advantage
of such misguided perspective on IR by the allied power.
• Failure of League of Nations
• Based on idealist approach to IR, the League of Nations was set up in 1920 to bring
about lasting peace and progress.
• Despite being based on President Woodrow Wilson’s idea, USA never joined
League of nation, USSR & Germany were not allowed to join, Japan broke from it
in 1933.
• Thus, the experiment of League of Nations failed completely to check attacks and
annexation of neighboring territories by Hitler and other fascist regimes.
• Imperialism
 • Imperialist aspirations of Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy and its clash with the
imperialist aspirations of Britain, France, and even USA created the situation for
second world war.
• Ideological Tussle
• Fascism, as political ideology, was challenging both Liberalism and Communism.
• Both Liberalism and communism were felt threatened by the rising popularity of
Fascism during the inter-war period.
• Hence, both USA, the champion of Liberalism and USSR, leader of Communist
world, joined hands to fight the fascist powers led by Nazi Germany.

How the World War II unfolded? Event Trajectories in brief:

• 1st Sept, 1939: Germany attacked Poland.
• 3 Sept, 1939: Britain and France declared war on Germany; world war II began.
• Sept 1939-May 1940: Phony War, which denoted only offensive gestures and behind the
scene strategies with very little war activities on ground.
• 1940: German Blitzkrieg (Lightening war)
• Germany’s Military Blitzkrieg won Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Denmark,
Norway, Luxembourg, and Romania.
• Germany started air strikes on London (Britain), Britain retaliates.
• Germany, Italy, and Japan signed a joint military and economic agreement, became
Axis powers.
• Italy invaded Egypt, which was controlled by the Britain, Albania, and Greece.
• 1941: By July 1941, Germany won almost entire mainland Europe except Russia
• Germany invaded and won Greece, Yugoslavia, island of Crete; Axis forces
regained north Africa.
• 22 June 1941: Operation Barbarossa: Hitler attacked Russia breaking no
aggression treaty signed with Russia after first world war.
• Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, invaded Burma, Hong Kong (then under British
control), and the Philippines.
• USA and Britain declared war on Japan.
• 1942-45
• War prolonged in Russia; Sept, 1943: Italy surrenders to allied forces.
• Jan 1944: The siege of Leningrad was lifted by the Soviet army
• 6 June, 1944: the D-day: War of Normandy: First Victory of Allied Forces against
Germany
 • March 1945: Germany was squeezed from both West & East- The Allies crossed
the Rhine while Soviet forces were approaching Berlin from the East.
• 30 April, 1945: Hitler clearly facing defeat commits suicide, few days later
Germany Surrendered.
• August 1945 : 6 and 9 August 1945, Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Japan Surrenders on 14th August ; World war 2 ended.

Consequences of the World War II:

World war II had profound impact on global politics, world order, and IR. It changed the world in
many ways. Some of the consequences are as below:
• Fascism, as political ideology, was dead
• Everything associated with Fascist ideology- expansionism, Jingoism (militant
nationalism), Imperialism, Racism, Ultra-nationalism, etc were discredited forever
• Fascism acquired such negative connotations (meaning) that it is used as slang in
political language.
• Division of Europe by Iron Curtain
• Ideological as well as physical separation (by boarder, barbs, boundary wall)- iron
curtain- between the capitalist Western and communist Eastern Europe.
• This phrase, Iron Curtain, was coined by Winston Churchill who said in his speech
in 1946 that an iron curtain has descended in Europe.
• Economic devastation of Europe:
• Economically Europe was in ruins.
• USA helped re-build Europe’s economy by pumping huge aids through the Marshal
Plan.
• Start of Cold war
• The most significant consequence. A prolonged hostility, heightened tension, and
military conflicts between the USA led western alliance (NATO) and USSR led
eastern alliance( Warsaw pact) started after the world war II. This was called Cold
War.
• End of the second world war with virtual division of Europe into capitalist and
communist bloc, what Churchill called the iron curtain, signalled start of the cold
war which lasted till 1990.
• Bi-polar World
• Fall of Germany, and British Empire left only two superpowers- USA and USSR.
 • On ideological front also only two ideology- Liberalism and
Socialism/Communism remained.
• De-colonisation and end of Colonialism/Imperialism
• Decline in power & prestige of Europe in the world war II accelerated the
decolonisation process.
• In next 25 years, almost all the colonial nations got their independence.
• Emergence of 3rd world
• Decolonisation added large numbers of nation-states in the international state
system, which till then was largely Eurocentric.
• Emergence of post-colonial states of 3rd world added new dimension to the global
politics and IR.
• From east-west, the focus in IR shifted to geo-politics of North-South.
• Creation of United Nation
• Despite the failure of league of nations, UN was set up with active support of USA.
This time USA joined the UN. All other major powers also joined UN. They were
given veto power.
• As it turned out, UN became a success in promoting peace and progress and
cooperation among the nation-states.

Conclusion:

Happening barely 20 years after first world war, the second world war was more
widespread, brutal, and devastating. It was truly a global war which was fought not only in
European soil, as the first world war, but also fought in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and
elsewhere. Unlike protracted trench war during first world war, most of the battles in
second world war were short, swift, and decisive. German Army’s tactics of Blitzkrieg won
Hitler almost entire mainland Europe by July 1941. But the war between Germany and
Russia was prolonged.
Unjust Treaty of Versailles, fascist upsurge in Europe, especially in Germany and Italy,
Failure of appeasement policy by Britain and France, Misguided idealism in IR, Imperialist
tendencies of major powers, Militarization, Failure of league of nation, etc were main
factors behind second world war.
Engulfing the entire Globe, huge loss of life and properties, German Blitzkrieg, Germany
fighting on two fronts against its strategy, first nuclear war, etc were some of the
characteristics of the World War II.
Death of fascism, Division of Europe by Iron Curtain, Economic devastation of Europe,
start of Cold war, Bipolar World, Decolonisation, Emergence of 3rd World, creation of
united nation, etc. were its major Consequences.
 THEME 9:
COLD WAR : CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

(Note: this topic is very important for exam purpose. One full question and one
note are expected, Hence, 4 questions from the theme have been attempted. Also,
key points are given)

9.A: CBCS SYLLABUS

• cold war: causes and consequences
• Different phases of the cold war

9. B: KEY POINTS:
• Cold war was a prolonged phase of geopolitical hostility, competition, and conflict,
just sort of open warfare, that existed between the Soviet bloc led by USSR and the
Western powers led by USA from 1945 to 1990.
• As per one definition, cold war is state of political hostility between countries
characterized by threats, propaganda, and other indirect measures short of open
warfare( hot war).
• It was cold in the sense that the two superpowers never actually had open or hot
warfare between them. But it was otherwise war like situation, in which both camps
made military alliances, heavily armed and weaponized their armed forces,
developed nuclear weapons, deployed them on the long-range missiles directed
towards enemy’s territories, mobilized confrontation, supported rivals in armed
struggle in 3rd world, spied on each other, and ran propaganda war against each
other.
• Cold war also denoted the ideological war between capitalism with liberal
democracy on one side and Socialism and communism on the other side. Cold war
saw ideological competition and One-upmanship in aspects of types of Govt (liberal
democracy vs single party communist rule), science & technology(especially in war
weapons and space exploration), normative values( limited vs welfare govt,
negative vs positive liberty and rights ; equality of opportunity vs equality of
outcome ; individualism vs collectivism), dress, foods, entertainment, etc.
• Some of the causes attributed to the cold war are division of world in two camps –
West and East in the post second world war period, mutual fear and suspicion
between the West and the East, decolonization and subsequent rivalry between the
West and The East to have their influence in the newly independent nations,
ideological tussle between liberalism and socialism/communism, offensive security
 alliances (NATO and Warsaw pact), war psychosis and ecosystem of Industrial-
Military complexes.
• Proxy, phony, and propaganda war, Asymmetric balance of power, Arms Race,
NAM, Golden period of 20th Century, Manifestation in science/technology, Space
research, Sports, Arts/culture, etc. are some the characteristics of the cold war.
• On the basis of major events, changing dynamics of interactions between the rival
camps, and leadership changes, the cold war is divided for study into different
phase. Some of the cold war phases are named as containment phase, Cuban missile
crisis phase, Détente phase, New Cold war, and the last phase, etc.
• Cold war had profound impact on the global politics and IR. It provided somewhat
peace, global governance structure (UN, IMF, GATT, World bank, Bretton wood
exchange system, protected sea lane, etc). It acted like a soothing thick buffer ( of
about 50 years) between the devastating two quick world wars and the
contemporary globalised era.
• World witnessed unprecedented economic growth and reduction in poverty during
the cold war period. But it also accelerated the arm race, stockpiling of nuclear
bombs, and nuclear missiles, hot wars in different parts of world, mostly in 3rd
world in which rival parties were supported by the competing superpowers, division
of world into two camps, and lurking (waiting) fear of nuclear war.
• Disintegration and demise of USSR in 1991 signalled the end of cold war. This also
denoted victory of liberalism as political ideology over communism.
• Thus, liberalism remained the sole dominating political ideology in post-cold war
world. This was called ‘end of history’ (That is, the end-point of mankind's
ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the
final form of government) by Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist.
 9. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: what do you mean by cold war? What were its major characteristics and
impacts on global politics and IR?
Similar Question:
1. Discuss the major characteristics of Cold War. How did it impact international peace and
Security?
2. Evaluate cold war as a major phase of contemporary international politics in the light of
ideological conflict.

Answer Template:
Introduction:

Cold war was a prolonged phase of geopolitical hostility, competition, and conflict, just
sort of open warfare, that existed between the Soviet bloc led by USSR and the Western
powers led by USA from 1945 to 1990. As per one definition, cold war is state of political
hostility between countries characterized by threats, propaganda, and other indirect
measures short of open warfare. It was cold in the sense that the two superpowers never
actually had open or hot warfare between them. But it was otherwise war like situation, in
which both camps made military alliances, heavily armed and weaponized their armed
forces, developed nuclear arms, deployed them on the long-range missiles directed towards
enemy’s territories, mobilized confrontation, supported rivals in armed struggle in 3rd
world, spied on each other, and ran propaganda war against each other.
Many view it as cold peace. Cold war signaled abandonment of war as an instrument of
foreign policy. This was because both camps had nuclear bomb capabilities. They knew,
from the experience of nuclear warfare in world war II, that both parties shall be destroyed
in nuclear warfare. This was the concept of mutual assured destruction ( MAD). Hence,
both camps did everything to the enemy bloc to make it uncomfortable except open
warfare.
Cold war also denoted the ideological war between capitalism with liberal democracy on
one side and Socialism and communism on the other side. Fascism as political ideology
met its sudden death with the end of second world war. To defeat the fascist forces, both
the long-term rival ideologies- liberalism and socialism- joined hands during the second
world war. But after demise of Fascism, ideological war between the two remaining
ideologies started. Thus, cold war also saw ideological competition and One-upmanship in
aspects of types of Govt ( liberal democracy vs single party rule), science & technology(
 especially in war weapons and space exploration), normative values( negative vs positive
liberty and rights ; equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome ; individualism vs
collectivism), dress, foods, entertainment, etc.
Cold war had profound impact on the global politics and IR. It provided somewhat peace,
global governance structure (UN, IMF, GATT, World bank, Bretton wood exchange
system, protected sea lane, etc). It acted like a soothing thick buffer (of about 50 years)
between the devastating two quick world wars and the contemporary globalised era. World
witnessed unprecedented economic growth and reduction in poverty during the cold war
period. But it also accelerated the arm race, stockpiling of nuclear bombs, and nuclear
missiles, hot wars in different parts of world, mostly in 3rd world in which rival parties
were supported by the competing superpowers, division of world into two camps, and
lurking( waiting) fear of nuclear war.
Disintegration and demise of USSR in 1991 signalled the end of cold war. This also
denoted victory of liberalism as political ideology over communism. Thus, liberalism
remained the sole dominating political ideology in post-cold war world. This was called
‘end of history’ (That is, the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the
universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government) by Francis
Fukuyama, an American political scientist.

In the next part of the answer I will try to list out some the features or characteristics of the cold
war and its consequences before concluding.

Characteristics of the Cold War:

• No direct hot war between the superpowers but multiple arenas of hot wars, mostly
in 3rd world:
• Wars between north & south Korea( 1953), Cuban Missile crisis( 1962), Congo
Crisis(1960-65); Arab-Israel Conflict (1970s), Iranian Revolution of 1979,
Hungary(1956), Vietnam: 1955-75, and Afghanistan(1979-88), etc were the arenas
of hot war during the cold war period.
• In all these hot wars, USA & USSR supported the rival parties. Thus, they became
the proxy war between the superpowers.
• Except Berlin and Hungary, these arenas were in 3rd world.

• Proxy, phony, propaganda war: more drama, gesture then substance:

• Since, it was also an ideological war, both superpowers used their soft powers to
down their rival.
• Propaganda and perception management was part of the ideological war.
• Uneven and Asymmetric balance of power between the two superpowers:
 • USSR was no match to technological and economic might of USA. USA emerged
from the two world wars economically, technologically, and militarily stronger. On
the contrary, USSR lost 30 million of its people and was ravaged (devastated) by
the great wars on its soil.
• But USSR had power in conventional sense. In land war it had an advantage of
deep inhospitable landmass, very harsh winter in which no enemy army could fight,
conventional weapon (tanks), Large Land Army, Secret Resolve, decisive govt
which was not transparent and accountable as democratic Govt in USA.
• Thus, Uneven and Asymmetric power balance between the two rival superpowers
was an interesting feature of the cold war.
• Arms Race and Militarization:
• Both camps went for arms race- both conventional, new, and nuclear.
• Both camps built large stock of Nuclear Arsenals, fitted them on long range missile
and deployed them facing rival territories.
• Military-Industrial Complex cropped up, which produced huge amounts of arms
and ammunition. They developed economic interest in keeping the tension alive.
• Arms and weapons were supplied all over the world, were used in the hot war in
the arena of cold war, and also reached in the hands of peoples fighting guerrilla
warfare with their state/govt, anti-social elements, Naxals, terrorists, etc.
• Thus, cold war militarized the world. It was manifested in force and violence in day
to day life. Feminist perspective in IR assert that militarization further made IR
masculine during the cold war.
• Multiple dimensions of the cold war:
• Manifested in competition between the capitalist and communist camps in Science,
Space Research, Sports, Arts & culture, Industrial-military production, Economy,
and assistance to 3rd world
• For example: Olympic became the arena of cold war competition between USA
and USSR, East and West Germany, etc.
• Golden period of 20th Century:
• As explained in the introduction, the cold war period help maintain general peace
& Stability.
• A progressive global governance structure (UN, IMF, GATT, World bank, Bretton
wood exchange system, protected sea lane, etc) was put up in the leadership and
guidance of USA.
• This was the period of impressive economic progress, advancements in science &
technology, arts & culture.
• Emergence of 3rd world in IR:
 • Decolonisation resulted into large numbers of post-colonial states joining the
international state system to make it truly global.

• Cold War rivalry between two superpowers gave opportunity to the newly
independent 3rd world nations to obtain benefits from either camp for its support.
• for example, even the small island nation of Cuba became important for
both the camps because of its strategic location near to USA. Similarly, even
the tiny island nations became important for both the rival camps for their
support in the ideological war.
• Many large 3rd world nations, such as India, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Ghana, Indonesia,
etc. founded non-aligned movement (NAM) which gave an independent voice to
the 3rd world nations. NAM, during the Cold War era, become the largest group of
nations in global politics.
• From the East-West the focus in later phases of Cold War shifted to geopolitics of
North - South. First time in IR, perspective of global South got its voice in
International state system.

Consequences of the Cold War:

Cold war had profound impact on the global politics, international relations, global governance
structure, and future world order. Some of its consequences were listed in the introduction above.
Following are the list of consequences which can be attributed to the Cold War.

• Eliminated, or overshadowed all rivalry except between USA & USSR

• Unlike during the great war period, instead of multi-lateral and multiple actor
conflict and rivalry, the cold war reduced it to rivalry between two superpowers.
• It eliminated Europe from the scene of conflict/war.
• Stabilized the global order after the WWII
• This was explained in detail above. It gave somewhat workable global governance
structure.
• Excess Supply of deadly arms all-round the globe:
• Militarisation and weaponization of the world were the major consequence of arm
race during the cold war.
• Over supply cold war era arms and weapons still affect our day to day life in form
of armed naxals, terrorists, gun culture, etc.
• Indirectly helped continuance of totalitarian communist regimes
• Fear of cold war prolonged the totalitarian communist regimes in many countries.
 • Non-Aligned Movement
• NAM was direct consequence of cold war.
• Basis of NAM was neutrality from the superpower rivalry.
• In fact, end of cold war took away the relevance of the NAM.
• Gave leeway( scope for benefits) to smaller, less powerful new 3rd world nation-states
• As explained above, superpowers outmanoeuvred each other to gain support of
even tiny island nations.
• This gave opportunity to smaller and less powerful nations to serve its national
interest by shifting their loyalty from one to other camp.
• Made United nations largely ineffective
• Veto power to 5 great powers and superpower rivalry made UN largely ineffective
in providing collective security.
• But UN was successful in socio-economic and cultural fields.
• Affected popular culture- art, cinema, literature, dress, entertainment, psyche, sports,
science & technology, etc.
• For example, movies and literatures based on superpower rivalry, intense rivalry in
Olympics, space research, etc

Conclusion:
Cold war, which consumed about half of 20th century, was prolonged geo-political,
military, and ideological tussle between Capitalist and Communist world led by two
superpowers after second world war.
Open warfare (hot war) didn’t happen between the two superpowers but hot wars under the
shadow of the cold war were fought on 3rd world soil in which rivals were supported by
USA and USSR.
Cold war was also a tussle to expand zone of influence by both the superpowers in newly
decolonized nations. Thus, it can be considered as a version of shadow Imperialism.
Some of the important characteristics of the cold war were :Proxy, phony, and propaganda
war, asymmetric balance of power between USA and USSR, Arms Race, NAM, Golden
period of 20th Century, manifestation in multiple dimensions-science/technology, space
research, sports, arts/culture, etc.
Mutual fear and suspicion, decolonization, ideological tussle between the liberalism and
communism, division of world in two camps, defense alliances, war psychosis and
ecosystem, etc. were some the factors which helped setting up the cold war after the end of
second world war.
Stabilizing the world order after two devastating wars, excess supply of arms, emergence
of 3rd world in IR, largely defunct UN in providing collective security, continuance of
 totalitarian communist regimes, and affecting popular culture, etc. were some the
consequences or impacts of the cold war.
In sum, we can say that Cold War was the most important phase of 20th century world
history and International Relation. It had a profound impact on almost all aspects of life
across the globe. Even during the contemporary globalised era, the shadow of Cold War
can be felt. Such was its deep impact on the world order and IR.

Q.2: Discuss the different phases of the Cold war era.

(Hint: in the answer to this question, you should explain the meaning and importance of the Cold
War before delineating(demarcating) or listing out the different phases of it. You should refer the
answer to question one above for meaning, definition, and different aspects of Cold War. Here
only the different phases of Cold War are given.)

Different phases of the cold war:

• 1946-53: Start of the cold war: The ‘containment’ phase

• The ‘Truman Doctrine’ define this phase. The doctrine aimed checking the spread
of communism in other parts of world.
• Under the doctrine USA would provide political, military and economic assistance
to all democratic nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian forces.
• Main actors were USA president Harry Truman, and USSR General Secretary
Joseph Stalin
• Main events during this phase: Berlin Blockade (1948), ‘Iron Curtain’ between
east and west Europe, USSR tested Nuclear Bomb (1949), Rise of Communist
China (1949), Korean War (1951-53), etc.
• 1953-69 : Heightened Tension, Crisis, Escalation
• Main actors: US presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and USSR General
Secretaries Khrushchev and Brezhnev
• Main events during this phase : Warsaw Pact (1955), Hungarian Revolution(1956),
Berlin Crisis(1958-61),Cuban Missile Crisis(1962), Congo Crisis (1960-65),
Vietnam Crisis(1955-75), Arm race, space race, etc.
• 1969-79 : De-escalation in conflict : Détente phase
• Détente denoted the policy of relaxing tensions between the two superpowers
during the cold war.
• The era was a time of increased trade and cooperation between the ‘west’ and ‘east’
and the signing of series of arms reduction treaties.
 • Détente was promoted by US presidents Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and
USSR general secretary Leonid Brezhnev. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in
1979 ended the détente phase.
• This phase is also known for emergence of ‘North’- ‘South’ dimension in global
geo-politics. The newly emerged nations of 3rd world- the South- combined under
inter-governmental organizations such as NAM and G-77 to demand for new
International Economic Order (NIEO).
• Main events during this phase: US-China Détente, Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty (SALT I& II) (1972), Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (S.T.A.R.T), Anti-
Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Space cooperation, increased US-USSR and US-
China trade, Crisis in Middle East (1973):Arab-Israel conflict, Oil crisis, Vietnam
War(1965-75), North- South dialogue in the forum of UNCTAD, etc.
• 1979-85: New cold war :
• Phase of Renewed Conflict, Arms race, Heightened tension
• This phase started with USSR sending its troops to Afghanistan to support the
communist regime and USA helping the ‘Mujahidin’ fighting the communist Govt.
• Main actors: US presidents Jimi carter and Ronald Reagan, and USSR General
Secretary Brezhnev.
• Main events during this phase: Afghanistan Crisis(1979), Islamic Revolution in
Iran(1979), US Strategic Defence Initiative- Star War (1983), Olympic Boycotts
(Moscow Olympic1980 by the ‘West’, and Los Angles Olympic 1984 by the
‘East’), NATO military exercise(1983), US navy fleet Exercises(1983), renewed
arms race & new Missile Deployments.
• 1985-91: Last Phase; The End
• This phase started with Mikhail Gorbachev becoming USSR General Secretary and
initiating political and economic reforms -‘Glasnost’ and ‘Perestroika’.
• The Peacebuilders were US presidents Ronald Reagan and USSR General
Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. Role of both the leaders, especially Gorbachev was
significant in ending the cold war.
• Main events during this phase: 3 summits between two superpowers to bring peace
and cooperation- Geneva Summit (1985), Reykjavík Summit (1986), Washington
Summit (1987); INF Treaty, East European Revolutions, Fall of Berlin wall (1989),
USSR dissolved (1991), and end of cold war.

Q.3 : what is cold war? Discuss the major arenas of cold war, highlighting the
events of the Cuban missile crisis.
(Hint: for the first part of the question, please refer to the answer to question one above. Here only
a brief of the arenas of cold war is given, highlighting the Cuban Missile crisis.)
Arenas of the cold war:
There was no direct open warfare between the two super powers in the cold war era. But
there were many armed conflicts (hot wars) in different parts of the world, mostly in the
3rd world, during the cold war era. The super powers supported the rival parties in these
hot wars. These armed conflicts and hot wars elsewhere under the shadow of the cold war
were called the arenas of the cold war. These arenas were also the site of proxy war between
two rival super powers. It was in these arenas where cold war manifested in its varied
forms. It was also part of a strategy under which, the superpowers, instead of directly
confronting each other did it through their alliance partners in the 3rd world.

Following are some of the important arenas of cold war. Theses arenas also denote the major events
during the cold war.
Arenas of Cold War:
• Berlin : 1948-61
• 1948-49: Blockade of West Berlin, which was encircled from three sides from the
communist controlled east Berlin, led by USSR
• 1961: Berlin Crisis: Rival forces were seeing each other in their face. Very tensed
situation. But it never escalated to war like situation. Erection of Berlin wall by
East Germany to divide the city of Berlin into east and west Berlin.
• Breaking of this wall in November 1989 signaled end of the cold war era.
• Korea : 1953
• Korea was Japan’s colony; after defeat of Japan in second world war, it was divided
into North and South Korea along 38-degree latitude; North Korea was Communist
whereas the South Korea was Capitalist.
• 1953: War between north & south Korea supported by USSR/China and USA
respectively.
• Hungary (1956)
• 1956: There was a nationwide revolution against the Hungarian People's
Republic and its Soviet-imposed policies, It was the first major threat to Soviet
control on its satellite nations of east Europe during the early phase of the cold war.
Naturally, capitalist bloc supported the revolution much to the discomfort of USSR.
• Congo Crisis (1960-65);
• 1960: Immediately after Congo, in Africa, became independent from Belgium the
entire country was engulfed into a series of civil wars which lasted for about 5
years.
• The Congo Crisis was also a proxy conflict in the Cold War, in which the two
superpowers supported opposing factions in the civil war.
• Cuba: 1962: ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’
 • Cuba became a communist nation overthrowing the USA backed regime under the
charismatic leadership of Fidel Castro in 1959. USA, of course, became concerned
about an island nation strategically located just 100 miles off its Florida coast going
into the communist camp. USA, therefore, attempted, unsuccessfully, to dislodge
the Fidel Castro government. This move of USA was retaliated by Fidel Castro by
entering into a secret pact with USSR to deploy nuclear missile in Cuban territories
directed towards USA.
• Naturally, there was a big political issue raised in USA on deployment of Cuban
missile by USSR. USA took offensive action by blocking movement of naval ships,
especially of USSR, in and around Cuban island. The US announced that it would
not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the
weapons already in Cuba be dismantled and returned to the Soviet Union.
• Actions of USA heightened the tension between the two superpowers. Many feared
impending nuclear war between the rival super powers. This was definitely closest
to hot war situation between the two superpowers during the entire Cold War
period.
• After several days of tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between US
president Kennedy and USSR general Secretary Khrushchev. It was agreed that the
USSR would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the
Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public
declaration and agreement to avoid invading Cuba again. Thus, sanity returned to
both superpower and war was avoided.
• ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ is considered as the high point of the Cold War because this
incident brought USA and USSR on brink of hot war. Such war between two rival
superpowers could have triggered Nuclear World War. This could have been
catastrophic for entire world. This crisis demonstrated the tensions, rivalry, and
confrontation backed by nuclear weapon. In a way Cuban Missile Crisis defined
what cold war was.

• Vietnam: 1955-75
• Vietnam (Indochina) was French Colony. During second world war Japan attacked
and took over Indochina.
• 1955: France left Indochina; new states of North & South Vietnam were created
along 17- degree Latitude; North Vietnam was Communist; whereas South
Vietnam was Capitalist.
• 1965: USA sends massive land troops to south Vietnam to fight the Communist
forces of north Vietnam; war lingers till 1975; Communists won; Vietnam was
united as communist nation;
• Vietnam was embarrassment and humiliation for USA. It had huge negative impact
on USA as a superpower.
• Afghanistan (1979-88)
 • 1978: Communist coalition toppled centrist Govt in Afghanistan; USA became
concerned. It helped ‘Mujahedeen’ who were opposing the communist Govt.
• USSR sent a large troop to protect the communist regime; proxy war between
USSR and USA started which lingered for 9 years
• 1988: Gorbachev, the USSR General Secretary, decided to pull out from
Afghanistan.
• Afghanistan crisis signaled start of ‘new cold war’- a renewed phase of heightened
confrontation after the Détente phase.
• Arab-Israel Conflict (1970s)
• USA and the ’West’ supported Israel whereas Arabs got support from the USSR
and communist camp.
• This was followed by the oil crisis, in which the oil exporting nations of middle
east substantially increased oil prices, sending shock waves to energy markets
across the globe.
• Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979:
• Fundamentalist Islamic forces under the charismatic leadership of its spiritual
leader Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the USA supported Shah dynastic rule. Iran
became an Islamic republic.
• Iranian revolution unfolded in the shadow of the cold war and superpower rivalry.
USA supported the toppled Shah regime, whereas communist bloc supported the
revolution.

Q.4 : discuss cold war as a major consequences of WWII. How did it affect the
North-South dialogue?

(Hint: for the first part of the question, please refer to the answer to question one above. Here only
a note on North South dialogue during the Cold War era is given. This theme may also be asked
under note writing.)

North south Dialogue:

After World War II, national independence movements in Asia and Africa led to sudden
decolonization. Many post-colonial nation-states emerged in 3rd world due the
decolonization process. Membership in the United Nations had risen from 51 countries in
1945 to 100 in 1960 and 150 by 1979. Most of these 3rd world nations were producers of
industrial raw materials, agriculture commodities, and oil (middle east countries). Along
with the Latin American countries, which were hugely dependent on export of their
agricultural produce and raw materials, these developing nations became increasingly
concerned about the highly unequal and unjust global economic and financial system, and
production and distribution structure.
Most of the 3rd world poor countries were geographically located in southern hemisphere,
whereas the developed nations were in the northern hemisphere; hence they were called
‘South’ and ‘North’ respectively.
In 1961, non-aligned movement (NAM) was established. India was one the founding
members of the NAM. NAM was essentially a political association of 3rd world countries
but increasingly it also took the economic, trade, and development related issues
concerning the ‘South’.
In 1964 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was
established. G-77, a group of 77 developing countries was also formed in the first session
of UNCTAD in 1964. UNCTAD became the forum through which the nations of the
‘South’ engaged into the dialogue with developed ‘North’ on issues of trade, development,
economic policies, etc. to make the world economically more equitable and just. This
engagement and discussion between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’ through the forum of
UNCTAD in 1970s was termed as North South dialogues.
The term “North-South Dialogue” was used to distinguish economic & development issues
between the developed and developing nations from the political & ideological conflict of
East (communist world)-West (capitalist world) during the Cold War, and to stress the
point that development issues of the poor 3rd world countries were just as pressing as the
ideological conflict between the communist and the capitalist nations.
The emergence of Intergovernmental organizations such as UNCTAD, G77, and NAM,
whose orientation was focused on promoting the economic interests the ‘South’, was the
characteristic of the North-South dialogue in world politics during the later phases of
Cold War. This phase was concurrent with the Détente phase of cold war era, which laid
more focus on peace, cooperation and development.
While the broader political agenda of the South was primarily set and promoted through
the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the economic agenda was driven primarily by the
expanding Group of 77 (G-77) members and the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD). By 1973, these two parallel processes had converged with
the call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) at the NAM summit in Algiers.
The vision of NIEO was to have a more equitable economic development in the world.
Since most of the ‘South’ were dependent on export earnings from industrial raw
materials and agricultural commodities and were purchaser of manufactured goods from
developed country, they demanded from ‘the North’ fair and stable prices of the raw
materials and commodities, less tariff barrier on these item by developed countries, more
technological and development assistance from the North to South, and more say of the
‘South’ in global financial governance structure (IMF , World Bank, GATT, etc)
Following were the main goals of the NIEO
(i) give the ‘the South’ control over their natural resources exploited by the developed
Western countries,
 (ii) Obtain access to Western markets so that the ‘the South’ could sell their products and,
therefore, make trade more beneficial for the poorer countries.
(iii) Reduce the cost of technology from the Western countries, and
(iv) provide the ‘the South’ with a greater role in international economic institutions.
By the late 1980s, however, the NIEO initiative had faded, mainly because of the stiff
opposition from the ‘North’ who acted as a united group while the ‘the South’ struggled to
maintain their unity in the face of this opposition from the ‘North’. Falling commodity
prices in 1980s also eased the pressure on ‘North’ to accept the demands of ‘South’. Thus,
despite expectations, the North-South dialogue produced few results and the world
remained as unequal and unjust as before.
 THEME 10 :
POST-COLD WAR DEVELOPMENTS AND EMERGENCE OF
OTHER POWER CENTERS

ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q: Discuss the evolution of the post-cold war world order with reference to the
emergence of new power centers in International Politics.

Introduction:

In the post-cold war era the international state system, global politics, and in general the
world order had seen profound changes. With the demise of USSR, communism had
virtually lost the ideological battle with liberalism and capitalism. In the post-cold war era
neo-liberalism represented by liberal democracy and free market economy is having the
ideological hegemony in the new world order. This this is what was termed as ‘End of
History’ by Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist, who asserted that the
humankind has achieved its ideological end in form of liberal democratic governance
structure in the post-cold war era.
USA is the undisputed hegemon of the unipolar world order in the post-cold war era. Its
hard, soft, and structural power is unprecedented and unmatched. Despite such hegemonic
power of USA, the new world order is witnessing emergence of new power centres, both
states as well as non-state regional organisations. China, EU, BRICS, ASEAN, India are
some of these alternate power centres. But except China none of these emerging powers
are giving real challenge to the hegemony of USA.
Despite China now being the largest trading power than USA, having more PPP GDP, and
second largest nominal GDP, is having its own challenges especially in structural and soft
power domain to replace USA as the new super power. Similarly, the EU, BRICKS, the
ASEAN, and India have their own issues to overcome before they actually challenge the
hegemony of USA. Hence, these emerging powers are giving somewhat a sense of
multipolar world order in which USA is the leader by a good distance.
Globalisation has been the most remarkable event in post-cold war period. Globalisation
has brought about substantial changes in global structure and processes. Globalisation, in
post-cold war era, is viewed by many as worldwide expansion of neo-liberal economic and
political ideology. Even the erstwhile communist nations of Russia and Communist China
have adopted the globalisation and the neoliberal ideology in the post-cold war era. Thus,
world order has changed substantially in the post-cold war era.
 In the next section of the answer I will try to present in brief the new emerging power centres in
international politics which are giving some challenges to the hegemony of USA in the post-cold
war World order.

New power centers in International Politics:

Before presenting the new emerging power centers, let us see the range and extent of hegemony
of USA in the globalized post-cold war era. This will give an idea as to what challenges awaits the
emerging powers before they can match USA.

USA : Undisputed hegemon of the Post-cold war world order.

• USA possesses disproportionate amount of hard, soft, and structural power vis-à-vis any
other state/regional alliances:
• Hard power: Military Dominance- both absolute & relative; it spends more on its
military capability than the next 12 powers combined. Lead NATO – the most
formidable Military alliance.
• Structural Power :
• International state system, global economic order, global ICT all are hugely
dependent on USA;
• International governance and institutional mechanisms: UN, WTO, IMF,
World bank, etc. are located, dominated and supported by USA.
• Provider of global public goods- Sea lines of communication (SLOC),
global satellite network- GPS, Internet, Monitory system- Bretton Wood,
USD as reserve currency, global peace maker, etc.
• Soft Power: Socio-cultural hegemony: Hollywood, Bestselling Novels, Netflix,
Amazon, Apple, Twitter, Food- Macdonald, KFC, Pizza hut, Coke, Pepsi; Dress:
Jeans, T-shirts; Academics- MBA, Top universities, most Nobel winners;
Ideologies: Liberal democracy, free market economy, rule of law, Individual’s
right and liberty. The first pharmaceutical company to develop Corona vaccine,
Pfizer, is an USA multinational pharmaceutical company. Thus, its soft power is
unprecedented.
• Largest Economy – about 21 Trillion USD in 2019 ; lead NAFTA ; Privileged alliance with
EU ; 2nd only to china in trade volume.
• Attracts best talent pool of the world; largest numbers of startups and unicorns; dreamland-
associated with good life and personal success.
• Challenges: Slowing economy, huge deficit, burden to provide world public goods and
maintain global structure, pluralism and openness which slow decision making, State
sceptic society (credo of limited state in liberalism), Rising alternate powers, Confrontation
with Islamic world, target of terrorism, Gun culture, etc.
Emerging Power Centers:

EUROPEAN UNION ( EU): Model of non-state emerging power center:

• The Non-state regional organization is indicator of future global order led by regional
groups of nations.
• EU is economic and political union of 28 Member nations which consists of all western
European nations plus many erstwhile communist eastern Bloc nations, 3 Baltic states,
Balkan states- Croatia & Slovenia, Poland, Romania, Czech and Slovakia, etc.
• 1992: Treaty of Maastricht was signed establishing the European Union (EU); European
parliament, Euro- common currency, single market, Schengen Visa.
• 2nd Largest Economy – 18.5 Trillion USD in 2019 - slightly less than USA; but much less
GDP per capita than that of USA ; Much better use and spread of the wealth- social
democracy.
• Share in world trade- 30%- almost equal to China but more than USA, prosperous and
technologically advanced, top trader, lawyer, and repository of occidental culture-
language, art, architecture, science, low-profile diplomacy and the emphasis on the rule of
law.
• Its combined military might and expenditure is only second to that of USA, largest political
union, common market, single currency, largest aid donor.
• Political and diplomatic clout: 2 of its members- Britain & France- are permanent members
of UN Security council.
• Challenges: it is not a state; no common foreign and defense policy, ‘Euro scepticism’,
Brexit, euro crisis, midlife political crisis, divergence in national and EU policies.

CHINA: The Next Superpower?

• Fastest growing economy for decades, projected to overtake the US as the world’s largest
economy by 2040s.
• Largest population, 4th largest area, largest export/Import, 2nd largest GDP, 2nd Largest
Military expenditure, Veto power in UN
• Unique in being communist politically and capitalist economically
• BRI (Belt and Road Initiatives)- reviving old Silk route and trade, Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)-50 %
world population, 40% GDP
• In comparison to USA: faces less threat from terrorism and antagonism with Muslim world,
less trade deficit, and less pluralism but lack the soft and structural power.
 • Challenges: Demographic- aging, gender imbalance, Non-Democratic, Poor HDI,
Environmental degradation, Regional rivalry- Japan, Russia, India, less favorite destination
for global talent pool, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability, etc.

ASEAN: Association for South East Asian Nations.

• Established in 1967 by— Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand-
Bangkok Declaration.
• Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Myanmar (Burma) and Cambodia joined later
• One of the fastest growing economic regions- part of East Asian Miracle
• Better quality of life, health care, education, efficient public services, stable pro-
business economic policies, unleashing women’s economic potential
• ‘ASEAN Way’: a form of interaction that is informal, non-confrontationist and
cooperative. No desire for supra-national Institution like EU; respect for national
sovereignty of member nations.
• ASEAN Security Community, the ASEAN Economic Community and the ASEAN Socio-
Cultural Community is making it more like EU.
• Challenges: Small area and population, very less hard, soft, and structural power,
surrounded by potential superpowers- China, Japan, India.

BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa

• Acronym coined for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa
• Formed in 2009, S. Africa joined next year
• 3.1 billion people, or about 41% of the world population, 27 % of area, combined GDP of
US$18.6 trillion- about 23.2% of the world’s GDP; expected to be largest economic block,
surpassing G7, by 2050
• Planned to create currency reserve pool (CRA) and BRICS development bank
• Political and diplomatic clout: 2 of its members- Russia & China are permanent members
of UN Security council;
• ‘Locomotive of the South’; ‘south –south Dialogue’ ; cooperation in ICT, digital economy,
transnational crime, trade, and investment.
• Challenges: Geographic, Ideological and political divergence, no political or trading
alliances, India-China Rivalry, lack coherent political stand, etc.
Discussion and Conclusion:

Post-cold war world order has changed in significant ways. Ideological war has definitely
been won by liberalism and its component ideologies liberal democracy and capitalism.
Neo-liberalism has been the ruling ideology of the post-cold war era. In fact, the
globalisation in post-cold-war era is considered as worldwide expansion of neo-liberal
political and economic system.
Instead of cold war focus on ‘West’ versus ‘East’ political and ideological conflicts the
focus in post-cold war era has shifted to ‘North’ versus ‘South’ dynamics of trade,
economic development, and more equitable distribution of global wealth and income.
The post-cold war era also saw emergence of states, regional groups and alliances which
emerged as new power centres in the globalised world. European Union (EU) is the best
representative of such regional associations. ASEAN and BRICKS are another regional
group which are emerging as alternate power centres. All these are non-state power centres
in the post-cold war world order. China as a fast rising state actor is presenting a formidable
challenge to hegemony of USA in the new global power structure.
Globalisation itself has been the most significant event which fundamentally changed the
global structure and processes in the post-cold war era. Instead of excessive focus on
territorial sovereignty of nation-state during the cold war, the post-cold war era is
witnessing the concept of pooled sovereignty and regionalisation with the emergence of
regional groups such EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, African Union, USAN, SAARC, etc.
Economic and trade groups such as G8, G20, BRICS, Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership, Trans pacific Partnership, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
(RCEP), etc have also emerged as new alternative power centres in the post-cold war era.
ICT revolution has brought the globalisation and also define it. Today’s world has become
a global village of information society. Problems of the globalised world has very different
dimensions than those of the cold war era. Terrorism, Climate change, Global
poverty/hunger, Energy crisis, Human Rights, Human security, Pandemics, etc has
emerged as new Global challenges.
In the body of the answer I have tried to present in brief the emerging power centres who
are making the Global order somewhat multipolar by giving challenges to the hegemony
of USA in post-cold war era. These rising alternate power centres are China, EU, BRICS,
ASEAN, INDIA. But we should appreciate that none of these emerging power centres are
actually in a position to challenge US hegemony, accept China which is giving challenge
to US hegemony to some extent. USA undisputedly has unprecedented hard, soft, and
structural powers. It is, in real sense, the hegemon of the Global Village in the globalised
world order.
THEME 11 : EUROCENTRISM AND PERSPECTIVES FROM THE
GLOBAL SOUTH

ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q. Discuss Eurocentrism in IR and Perspectives from the Global South.

Introduction:

Eurocentrism means viewing and judging the nations/people of world, their norms, value,
and practices from the perspective and worldview of ‘Europe’. Here ‘Europe’ means the
developed western world which includes USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia , and
New Zealand.
Eurocentrism denotes worldview and ideologies which assume culture, norms, and values
of ‘Europe’ as mainstream, centre, and superior and those of Asia/Africa/Latin America
(the ‘South’) as ‘other’, peripheral, and inferior. It also implies hegemony of ‘Europe’ in
socio-cultural, scientific, technological, economic, and almost all domains.
Eurocentrism is closely related to ‘Ethnocentrism’- visualizing and judging other
culture/traditions from one’s own culture’s lens (perspective). It is also related to
colonialism and Imperialism. Globalization led by neo-liberal ideologies of free market
economy and liberal democracy are manifestation of Eurocentrism in present times.
In sum, Eurocentrism is not only viewing the world from ’European’ lens but also with
feeling of natural superiority of the everything ‘European’ and treating inferior everything
related with ‘others’ or the 3rd world.
In IR, Eurocentrism denotes paradigm, theories, and practices of global politics and IR
constructed from the European or Western worldview and ideologies. As the poet Stephen
Spender said in one his poem “They (Europe) gave the world its world”. All the mainstream
theories of IR such as realism, liberalism, Marxism, and even feminism constructed within
the paradigm of western culture, worldview, and ideologies. For example, realist
perception of human nature as competitive, self-interested, and egoist comes from western
thought (of Hobbes and Locke) about nature of Man. We can cite several such examples
in Eurocentric overtones in IR; some of them have been given below:

Eurocentrism in IR:

• Distorted Maps to give more importance to the ‘North’:

 • Mercator’s Projection (to view the 3 dimensional globe on two dimension as in
maps), which was made popular by European navigators, distorts Northern nations
of Europe and America, to show them much bigger in size, on top, and at center.
For example, in Mercator’s map, UK looks of same size as Madagascar whereas it
is actually twice as large as the UK. Greenland appears the same size as Africa,
when in reality Africa's is 14 times larger than Greenland.
• European climate, the temperate climate, is considered healthy and better suited for
industriousness and progress. Climate of the ‘South’ is derided (ridiculed) as hot,
humid, and unhealthy.
• Even the conception of North and South is Eurocentric. North is directed
towards top and South towards the bottom in Maps. Whereas there is no such rule;
it could have been reverse also. But it shows the ‘North’ on top of the ‘South’. The
Eurocentric overtone is quite clear here.

Theories and principles of IR are based on western worldview and ideologies:

• As stated above all the mainstream theories in IR derived its core principles from the
western thoughts and philosophy. All the political concepts and normative values such
as justice, rights, liberty, equality, power, interest, etc. are defined in terms of western
norms, beliefs, values, and practices.
• Even the meaning of politics is what is given by the western classical philosophers such
as Plato and Aristotle. In modern times political thoughts of Hobbes, Locke, Rosseau,
Kant, Hegel, etc have underpinned (gave support) the liberalism which is the ruling
political ideology in contemporary world.
• Even the paradigm of IR, that is, its over-arching norms of study and research,
approaches, methods, etc. are conforming to the western thoughts. Since most of the
IR researches are carried out in universities of the ‘North’, hence, eurocentrism is
continuously produced and reproduced in the researches done even by the scholars of
the ‘South’.
Eurocentrism in structure, processes, and practices of global politics:
• Despite overwhelming majority of the nations from the global South, still the
international state system is nothing but the expended Westphalian state system.
Original template of the Westphalian state system has been adopted by the United
nation and accepted by the 3rd world (the South) as natural and given.
• The global governance structure- UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, Bretton wood system,
etc- are all dominated by the ‘North’ and most of time processes in these institutions
seem to work in the interest of the ‘North’.
• The history of global politics in last 300 years has been dominated by thoughts,
decisions, and actions of the global ‘North’. History of IR was thus unfolded in form
of first colonialism, then decolonisation, democratization, industrialization,
 liberalization, and finally globalization in the 21st century. In the 20th century major
events in IR, such as two world wars, rise of fascism, the cold war, and new liberal era
in the post-cold war period were carried out, studied, and understood from the
perspective of ‘North’ or ‘Europe’.

Perspectives from the Global South in IR:

North versus South perspective in IR appeared as a new dimension in IR during the Détente
phase of the Cold War during 1970s. As stated above the poor countries of the 3rd world
were called the ‘South’ to denote their geographical location in the southern hemisphere.
The term ‘South’ itself has Eurocentric overtones. It is shown below the ‘North’ in the
map.
In the backdrop of such over backdrop of IR being overwhelmingly Eurocentric, the
perspective of ‘South’ in IR neither could be articulated well nor became effective.
We can visualize the perspective of the ‘south’ in both theory and practice of IR. In theory,
the dependency theory, world system theory, orientalism, and concept of Hegemony were
from the perspective of south. In practice or processes of IR, the North-South Dialogue and
the vision of New International economic Order (NIEO) put forward by the ‘South’ can be
taken as the perspective of global South.

North-South Dialogue and the vision of New International economic Order (NIEO):
The ‘south’ were producers of industrial raw materials, agriculture commodities, and oil
(middle east countries). Along with the Latin American countries, which were hugely
dependent on export of their agricultural produce and raw materials, these developing
nations became increasingly concerned about the highly unequal and unjust global
economic and financial system, and production and distribution structure.
In 1961, non-aligned movement (NAM) was established. India was one the founding
members of the NAM. NAM was essentially a political association of 3rd world countries
but increasingly it also took the economic, trade, and development related issues
concerning the ‘South’.
In 1964 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was
established. G-77, a group of 77 developing countries was also formed in the first session
of UNCTAD in 1964. UNCTAD became the forum through which the nations of the
‘South’ engaged into the dialogue with developed ‘North’ on issues of trade, development,
economic policies, etc. to make the world economically more equitable and just. This
engagement and discussion between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’ through the forum of
UNCTAD in 1970s was termed as North South dialogues.
The term “North-South Dialogue” was used to distinguish economic & development issues
between the developed and developing nations from the political & ideological conflict of
East (communist world)-West (capitalist world) during the Cold War, and to stress the
point that development issues of the poor 3rd world countries were just as pressing as the
ideological conflict between communist and capitalist nations.
 The emergence of Intergovernmental organizations such as UNCTAD, G77, and NAM
whose orientation was focused on promoting the economic interests the ‘South’ was the
characteristic of the North-South dialogue in world politics during the later phases of
Cold War. This phase was concurrent with the Détente phase of cold war era, which laid
more focus on peace, cooperation and development.
While the broader political agenda of the South was primarily set and promoted through
the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the economic agenda was driven primarily by the
expanding Group of 77 (G-77) members and the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD). By 1973, these two parallel processes had converged with
the call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) at the NAM summit in Algiers.
The vision of NIEO was to have a more equitable economic development in the world.
Since most of the ‘South’ were dependent on export earnings from industrial raw
materials and agricultural commodities and were purchaser of manufactured goods from
developed country, they demanded from ‘the North’ fair and stable prices of the raw
materials and commodities, less tariff barrier on these item by developed countries, more
technological and development assistance from the North to South, and more say of the
‘South’ in global financial governance structure (IMF , World Bank, GATT, etc)
Following were the main goals of the NIEO
(i) give the ‘the South’ control over their natural resources exploited by the developed
Western countries,
(ii) Obtain access to Western markets so that the ‘the South’ could sell their products and,
therefore, make trade more beneficial for the poorer countries.
(iii) Reduce the cost of technology from the Western countries, and
(iv) provide the ‘the South’ with a greater role in international economic institutions.
By the late 1980s, however, the NIEO initiative had faded, mainly because of the stiff
opposition from the ‘North’ who acted as a united group while the ‘the South’ struggled to
maintain their unity in the face of this opposition from the ‘North’. Falling commodity
prices in 1980s also eased the pressure on ‘North’ to accept the demands of ‘South’. Thus,
despite expectations, the North-South dialogue produced few results and the world
remained as unequal and unjust as before.
Perspective of ‘South’ in theory and Principles of IR:
The perspective of South in theory of IR appeared during 1970s in form of Dependency
Theory by Andre Gunder Frank, World System Theory by Wallerstein, and Orientalism by
Edward Said. Gramsci’s concept of hegemony can also be included in the theoretical basket
of the southern perspective in IR.
The dependency theory highlighted how the export led growth of the South, especially in
Latin American countries, is highly dependent upon the North. Developed regions of the
South function as satellite to the developed capitalist regions of the North. Such
development, Frank asserted, of the South is not endo-genetic (from within/inside) and
sustainable. This was actually development of underdevelopment, he said. In the World
system theory, Wallerstein presented the economic structure of the world consisting of the
‘core’ which is the ‘North’ and ‘periphery’ which is the ‘South’. The periphery is exploited
by the core. It is source of raw material and commodities for industrial complexes of the
North. Edward Said’s concept of ‘Orientalism’ reveal how study and research of culture,
norms, and values of the South by the scholars of North is done not to understand them but
to discredit and deride (ridicule) them. This he called ‘Orientalism’. Gramsci, through his
theory of Hegemony, explained how through its control of the superstructure of world
order, the ‘North’ manufacture the consent of its norms, values, worldview, and ideologies
by the ‘South’. Thus, the ‘South’ starts to believe in the worldview and ideology of the
‘North’ as natural, given, and as their own. This he termed as cultural Hegemony.
Conclusion:
Since beginning, the paradigm, theory, practices, processes and structure of global
politics and IR have been suffering from Eurocentrism. Not only IR was theorised
and practices wearing ‘European’ Lens but also anything other than ‘European’ was
discredited and derided as ‘other’ and inferior. Even the ‘other’ i.e. the Global
South (poor countries of 3rd world) started to believe in the western thought,
worldview, norms, and values as mainstream, normal, and as their own. This is
what Gramsci called’ manufacturing of the consent’ by the powerful through their
soft power and cultural hegemony.
Global south, however, started to raise their voice during 1970s through
organisations such as NAM, G-77, and UNCTAD. They demanded fair price for
raw materials and commodities, less tariff barrier to their exports by the ‘north’,
more equitable distribution of global wealth & income, and establishment of new
international economic order (NIEO). However, most of their demands fell on the
deaf ears of the ‘north’.
In the contemporary times the ‘South’ is trying to assert more and more in global
politics and IR. With the rise of China and India as regional powers, the global
power is shifting slowly but surely from the North to the South. The South, now
led by China, India, Brazil and South Africa, is negotiating hard with the North in
global forums such as WTO, IMF, and climate change negotiations.
Thus, we can see that the perspective of South in IR is slowly emerging as important
and being acknowledged by the North. But still the mainstream theory and practices
of IR are overwhelmingly dominated by the perspective of the ‘North’. Hence, it is
long way to go before the IR can overcome the challenge of Eurocentrism.
 NOTES ON SOME OF THE REMAINING THEMES, FROM WHICH
FULL QUESTIONS ARE NOT EXPECTED.

1. Notes on significance of the Bolshevik Revolution; Causes and consequences

(Note: On this theme a detailed note is given below. It is purposely done to enable you to write a
full question on this theme if asked in the exam. You need not write so much for the note. Notes
should be Witten in about 500 words.)

Bolsheviks, literally meaning "Ones of the Majority", were the dominant group in
grassroots community assemblies called 'Soviets', which were dominated by soldiers and
the urban industrial working class, during the period of World war one. Vladimir Lenin, a
revolutionary communist thinker, was leading the Bolsheviks.
Bolshevik Revolution was series of events starting in February 1917 and ending in October
1917 (called October revolution), after which the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsarist regime
(the king in Russia was called Tsar) and established a socialist/communist government led
by the communist party under the leadership of Lenin.
Soon, Bolsheviks were successful in establishing communist govt in independent republics
of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine. Bolsheviks brought these republics
into unification under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922. By 1940, 15
republics, including Russia became part of USSR. Thus, USSR was founded as the direct
consequence of the Bolshevik revolution.

Significance of the Bolshevik Revolution:

Bolshevik revolution was one of most significant events in the history modern period. It
had profound impact on global politics, international relation, and world order.
Following are some its consequences which also indicate its significance:
• Realization of Marxist vision of communist rule:
o Karl Marx predicted overthrowing of capitalist regime by the working class
and establishment of socialist rule. He predicted this happening in
industrialized capitalist nations of west Europe.
o But, in reality, first communist revolution took place in poorly developed
capitalist system in Russia, which had weak bourgeoisie (capitalist class)
 existing with an exploited class of industrial workers and landless
agricultural labourers.
o Bolshevik revolution was first realization of the theoretical proposition of
Marx. This was unique in the theoretical enterprise in political science,
where a theoretical prediction is realized on ground.

• Rise of USSR as superpower:

o As stated above establishment of USSR was direct consequence of the
Bolshevik revolution.
o USSR soon rose to become a superpower to challenge USA as other
superpower. This began the cold war after World War II.

• Emergence of the Communist bloc or the ‘East’:

o By the active support and initiatives of USSR, communist regime was
established in almost all the nations of eastern Europe, including east
Germany. They became the satellite nations to USSR. Along with USSR
they became the Communist bloc or the ‘East’.
o after the second world war, the communist ‘East’ was separated from the
capitalist ‘West’, physically as well as ideologically. This is what Churchill
called ‘iron curtain’ had descended( fallen) between the ‘West’ and the
‘East’.

• Cold war:
o Prolong confrontation, competition, and rivalry between the ‘West’ led by
USA, and the ‘East’ led by USSR, the cold-war after the second world war
was also a direct consequence of the Bolshevik revolution.
o Cold war was not only the territorial and military rivalry between two
superpowers but also an ideological battle between liberal democracy and
capitalism on one side and single party ruled communist Govt. model and
socialism/communism as economic model on other side.

• Popularization of socialism/communism in newly independent nations of 3 rd

world:
o Bolshevik revolution inspired many 3rd world mass leaders who led the
national independence movements in their nations against the colonial
powers.
o Many of these newly independent countries, under the leadership of the
mass leader, adopted socialist or mixed mode of economic model.
 o This further intensified the ideological war between the Liberalism and
Socialism/communism.
• Totalitarian single party ruled govt, model:
o Bolshevik revolution and subsequent set up of USSR also gave a model of
single party ruled totalitarian state/Govt.
o The state/govt was considered supreme and as organic whole, individuals
as its integral part. State/Govt was justified in interfering and controlling all
aspects of individual’s life- both public and private.
o Such totalitarian communist Govt also encouraged other popular leaders of
the 3rd world to establish an authoritarian Govt in the name of socialism.
o This was a negative consequence of the Bolshevik revolution

• Politics of force and violence:

o Another negative consequence of Bolshevik revolution was politics based
on brute force, violence, elimination of opposition, secrecy, spying, plotting
and planning for coup/revolt, etc.

In sum, Bolshevik revolution was one of the most remarkable events in history of mankind.
It realized the Marxist vision of rule by the working class. However, it turned out to be a
totalitarian rule based on force and violence. Though it made USSR superpower which
balanced the power of USA after second world war, yet it fared miserably on socio-
economic front. It forced millions of people under communist regime to live a poor life
without socio-political rights and freedom. Its fall was also dramatic.
Socialism/Communism lost the ideological battle with liberalism. Despite this, Bolshevik
revolution shall always be remembered as one of most significant events of world history
for many reasons, some of which were explained above.

2. Notes on Disintegration of USSR: Causes & Consequences

(Note: On this theme a detailed note is given below. It is purposely done to enable you to write a
full question on this theme if asked in the exam. You need not write so much for the note. Notes
should be Witten in about 500 words.)

Answer Template:

If the rise of USSR post Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 was extraordinarily
impressive, its fall was even more spectacular and dramatic. In 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev
 took charge of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He was
radical reformist within the ranks of top communist leader in USSR. Within few days of
his taking charge as head of the USSR, Gorbachev initiated 2 landmark reforms. First was
Glasnost- policy of openness in political processes and governance; and second was
Perestroika -economic liberalisation and restructuring. Glasnost and Perestroika,
however, proved to be the main causes behind quick disintegration of USSR. Within next
6 years USSR disintegrated, Communist Govt were overthrown in all the Eastern bloc
nations of Europe, communist party was banned in most of these nations. Almost all the
erstwhile communist nations, including Russia adopted democracy and free market
economy.
Following are the Event Trajectories of disintegration of USSR:
• 1985
• Mikhail Gorbachev took charge of USSR as its general secretary and top leader;
He Initiated ‘Glasnost’- Openness in political domain and ‘Perestroika’-
Restructuring in economic sphere.
• 1989 :
• 1989 Revolution in Eastern Europe, starting in Poland and then spreading to all
eastern bloc nations including east Germany. It led to demise of communist state
one by one.
• USSR, under the leadership of Gorbachev, adopted a passive policy. As earlier, it
didn’t intervene to protect the communist regime in its satellite nations. USSR was
seen as indifferent and aloof in protecting the communist regime.
• Fall of Berlin War; unification of Germany; USSR withdrew from Afghanistan.
• first openly contested elections for new Congress of People's Deputies in Russia.
• 1990
• Boris Yeltsin became president of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet
Federative Socialist Republic. In simple term he effectively became top leader of
Russia.
• 1991:
• Open, democratic election to Presidency: Boris Yeltsin became president of
Russian Republic. He became the most popular leader in Russia.
• August 1991: Coup by hardliner communist leaders who attempted to bring back
hard-core communism of Stalin model in USSR; the coup failed by street protest
led by Boris Yeltsin.
• September 1991: Baltic Republics- Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia- declared
independence from USSR.
• November 1991: Communist party was banned in Russia.
• December 25, 1991: Gorbachev Resigned, USSR was dissolved.
Factors behind disintegration of USSR
Following were identified as the main causes of such dramatic disintegration of USSR:
• Social changes
• Demographic changes, Rise of middle class, growing awareness of western cultural
openness and economic prosperity.
• Unrest among people under the totalitarian state. Many of the young people started
dreaming of open, exciting, and high standard of living in western capitalist nations.
• Critical Thinking within Communist party
• Many young leaders, Gorbachev being one of them, thought in new way. They
wanted to reform the state socialism to make it more open, modern, and
progressive.
• Transformational leadership of Michael Gorbachev
• Single most important factor. By his twin policies of Glasnost and Perestroika, he
accelerated the fall of Soviet system. By this twin open policies, he got the Genie
out of the bottle. Though he never wanted to disintegrate USSR, but he couldn’t
control the forces which only he ignited.
• Economic problems
• Stagnant economy, low productivity, low quality, lower living standard, etc in
comparison to western capitalist world.
• Rise of Nationalism in Republics of USSR and Eastern European nations:
• In the 15 federating states of USSR, people resented being subordinated to Russia.
• In the eastern European nation, communist regime was imposed by the USSR.
People resented the hegemony of Russia/USSR. Nationalist feeling was always
present, but these were suppressed by force by USSR.
• With the changed attitude of USSR under Gorbachev, feeling of nationalism grew
into revolution against the communist regime.
• International Factors:
• Reagan-Thatcher doctrine, which helped improve west-east relations.
• Lessening of cold-war rivalry.
• Soviet-Yugoslav split: it was big jolt to unity of nations based on communist
ideology.
• Economic Reforms in China, which adopted state capitalism in 1980s.
• Success of mass oppositions/demonstration in eastern bloc countries-chain effect.
Consequences of disintegration of USSR:
Disintegration of USSR was a dramatic and landmark event in IR. This event had many
consequences for the global politics during and after the cold war era. Some of these are as below:
• End of the cold war:
▪ Fall of USSR signalled the end of the Cold War. The world entered a new phase
- the post-cold war era.
• Uni polar world:
▪ With the sudden demise of USSR, the power balance in global politics changed
suddenly. USA remained as the only superpower. This made the world uni-
polar. There was no balancing power to USA, which acquired that the status of
hegemonic power.
• Liberalism becoming un-contested ruling ideology in the post-cold war era:
▪ With the disintegration of USSR, communism as an ideology also lost the
ideological battle with liberalism. All the erstwhile communist bloc nations,
including Russia, adopted liberal democracy and free market economic policy.
Even the communist China was compelled to adopt capitalism and free market
economy in the globalised era. This made liberalism the ruling ideology in the
post-cold war era.
• Globalisation:
▪ disintegration of USSR suddenly removed the ‘iron curtain’ dividing the East
from the West in Europe. This led to faster globalisation. Under the active
support of USA as the harbinger(champion) of neoliberal ideology -liberal
democracy and free market economy- neoliberal political and economic
ideology had its worldwide extension. This made globalisation happen
extremely fast. This would not have been possible had USSR been still existing.
• Emergence of many new Nation-states in Europe:
▪ Disintegration of USSR resulted into its 15 republics becoming 15 independent
Nation-states. Subsequent disintegration of Czechoslovakia into Czech and
Slovak republics, Yugoslavia into five independent nation-states etc. created
large numbers of new independent nation-states in Europe. This changed the
dynamics of IR, especially in Europe.
• Shock therapy and garage sale in USSR and in eastern bloc nations:
▪ under the active initiative, guidance, and support of USA, Russia an all its
component and satellite nations suddenly adopted capitalism and free market
economy. They privatised most of the public enterprises in a short span of time.
 Such sudden change in economic policy from state socialism to free market
economy was termed as ‘shock therapy’.
▪ The large-scale sale of public enterprises was called the ‘garage sale’, for the
valuable public sector enterprises were sold at dirt cheap price to private
entrepreneurs. The shock therapy and the garage sale virtually ruined the
economy of the erstwhile communist bloc nations.

In sum, the rise of USSR after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia was spectacular
and impressive. It gave alternative socio-economic ideology to the world. USSR soon
became the leader of the communist world in direct confrontation with USA which was the
leader of the capitalist world. This started the cold war in post-world war II era. But the
fall of the USSR was even more spectacular and dramatic. Within the span of only few
years, after Gorbachev became the top leader of USSR, the Soviet Union fell like the house
of cards. One by one 15 republics under USSR declared their Independence. The satellite
states of USSR in eastern Europe abandoned communism and adopted democracy and free
market economy. By 1991, USSR itself was disintegrated, Germany was united, and
socialism as an ideology lost the battle against capitalism, and with this new post-cold war
era started in IR.

3. Notes on Multipolar world

Multipolar world implies global power structure in which there are multiple power centres,
but none of them being the superpower. Bi-polar world is the condition of two global
superpowers maintaining balance of power, as during the cold war era. Uni-polar world is
what we are witnessing in contemporary times in which a single superpower act as global
hegemon (supreme power).
In IR, condition of multi-polarity was manifested (displayed) during 19th century Europe.
Then, after the Vienna Congress in 1815 (treaty after defeat of Napoleon), 5 big powers
emerged. They were called ‘the concert of Europe’. These powers were: Brittan, France,
Prussia, Russia and Austria.
During the 20th century, till second world war, the global power structure was multi-polar.
Big powers during the war period were Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and USA.
However, after the second world war, the global power structure changed from multi-polar
to bi-polar. USA and USSR emerged as superpower in the post second world war era. This
was also the cold war era. After sudden demise of USSR, the world entered into uni-polar
phase, which is still continuing.
After having explained the meaning and tracing the Global power structure in past few
centuries, in the next part of the note I will try to discuss two questions: first, weather in
near future the world will again become multipolar or not? second, weather multi-polarity
is good for the world or not?
 Chances of world becoming again multipolar is not very bright. In past few years, multiple
alternate power centres have emerged to challenge the hegemony of USA. China has risen
quite remarkably to become the largest trading nation and second largest economy.
European Union, though a non-state actor, has emerged another power centre having multi-
dimensional influence. BRICS Nations consisting of Brazil, India, China, Russia, and
South Africa, is an important economic power. India is also rising fast and with China
becoming the Global power centre in Asia. ASEAN nations have shown one of the fastest
economic growth and development in human index. But except China, none of these
emerging power centres seems to challenge the superiority of USA in near future. Hence,
utmost the world, in near future, may again became bipolar with USA and China as two
superpowers. Possibility of its becoming multipolar in the same way as it was during 19 th
and 20th century does not seem possible in near future.
Now let us take the second question whether multi-polarity is good for the world or not.
History gives us a clear indication that balance of power diplomacy, confrontation,
competition, and conflict among multiple power centres gave intensely conflictual,
confrontationist and tensed world order. The world has seen two of the worst wars during
the period when it had multipolar power structure. The cold war era which was bipolar in
nature was the prolonged period of peace, stability, order, progress and development. Even
the unipolar word in the post-cold war era is of relative peace and order. In fact, USA as
the sole superpower do not need to assert its force and power to any of its rivals; also, none
of its rivals has the courage to show force and power to USA. Even at other arena of
conflict, USA as global hegemon, intervene to maintain peace and order. This situation
leads to less use of force, power and violence in settling global disputes and problems. But
when there are multiple power centres, having almost balanced power, possibility of use
of force and violence in global politics increases. Hence, perhaps multi-polarity is not good
for peace, order and tranquillity in global politics and IR. Instead of multi-polarity,
complex interdependence, in which multiple actors- state and non-state- who are linked
through web of multiple channels and multi-layer of interconnections in the global system,
as proposed by Keohane and Nye may be the better way for a peaceful world order in 21st
century.

4. Notes on Détente

Détente was the name given to cold war phase during late 1960s and 1970s. Détente
denoted the policy of relaxing tensions between the two superpowers during the cold war.
This phase of cold war witnessed increased trade and cooperation between the ‘west’ and
‘east’ and the signing of series of arms reduction treaties.
Détente was promoted and supported by progressive policy decisions and friendly gestures
by US presidents Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and USSR general secretary Leonid
Brezhnev. However, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 ended the détente phase.
 Détente was characterised by series of arms reduction treaties between the rival
superpowers. Some of these treaties were:
• Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT)- 1963
• Banned nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water.
Signed by the US, UK and USSR in Moscow on 5 August 1963.

• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- 1968

• Allowed only the nuclear weapon states (which became nuclear before 1967)
to have nuclear weapons and stopped others from acquiring them.
• Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)- 1972
• It was agreed to have only two ABM complexes with each superpower. Each
ABM complexes was to be limited to 100 anti-ballistic missiles.
• Strategic Arms Limitation Talks: SALT I and SALT II – 1972 & 1979
• ABM was part of SALT I; also limited strategic offensive arms.
• Helsinki Accords: 1975
• Pact signed by all European states, US, and Canada (35 nation-states) in an
attempt to improve the Détente between the Soviet bloc and the West.
• Washington Summit of 1973
• Meeting of two superpowers to further advance mutual and international
relations through discussion, dialogue, diplomatic cooperation, and continued
discussion regarding limitations on nuclear weaponry
• This phase is also known for emergence of ‘North- South’ dimension in global geo-politics.
This shifted focus from ‘East-West’ to North-South. Former was dominated by security
issues and de-escalation of tensions between the rival camps whereas the later was focusing
more on economic development and equitable distribution of global wealth and income.
The newly emerged nations of 3rd world- the South- combined under inter-governmental
organizations such as NAM and G-77, demanded for new International Economic Order
(NIEO).
• Other notable events during the Détente phase was US-China Détente, Space cooperation,
increased US-USSR and US-China trade, Crisis in Middle East (1973): Arab-Israel
conflict, Oil crisis, Vietnam War(1965-75), and North- South dialogue in the forum of
UNCTAD, which was briefly explained above.
• Humiliation of USA in Vietnam war in 1975, and invasion of Afghanistan by USSR army
ended this peaceful and cooperative phase of the cold war. Both the superpowers adopted
offensive and conflictual stance towards each other. This ignited the cold war tensions and
confrontations. This was called ‘New Cold war’.
5. Notes on New Cold war:

The term new Cold War is used for different phases of heightened confrontation and
tension in global politics including one specific phase of the cold war during 1980s in
which the conflict, and tensions between the two rival superpowers increased after a brief
interlude (pause) of the Détente phase. During the Détente phase tensions between two
superpowers relaxed to a great extent with signing of multiple arms reductions, and, peace
and cooperation treaties. But after détente phase, the Cold War re-entered into a phase of
offensive gestures, use of force and violence, especially in Afghanistan, renewed arms race
and heightened tension between the two rival camps of West and East.
The new cold war phase started with USSR sending its troops to Afghanistan to support
the communist regime and USA helping the ‘Mujahidin’ fighting the communist Govt.
Another factor for the new Cold War was perception of decrease in relative power of USA
after the humiliation in the Vietnam War in which the communist forces successfully
resisted The US offensive in Vietnam. Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, in which USSR
supported revolution, overthrew the USA supported Shah dynastic rule. This also gave a
perception of decreasing power of USA in forcing its agenda on 3rd world countries. The
eastern camp led by USSR started to believe its superiority in terms of success in hot wars
under the Cold War shadow. USSR’s invasion into Afghanistan raise the alarm bell in
USA. USA retaliated with series of offensive responses which led to start of the new Cold
War between the two rival camps.
Later, new Cold War was also used to denote heighten tension between Russia and USA
during the post-cold war era. Recently, the term new Cold War has been increasingly used
to denote conflict and tension between USA and China. In recent years China has risen fast
to become the largest trading nation and second largest economy. In United Nation, China
is asserting more and more as rising superpower to much of the discomfort to USA. Both
the countries are engaged in a bitter exchange of offensive gestures on issues ranging from
trade, investment, technology, spying and even on the spreading of Corona viruses. Hence,
this is also termed as new cold war between USA and China. Thus, the term ‘ new cold
war’ has become a generic term to denote competition, conflict, and rising tension between
two power centres in global politics and IR.
 SECTION 2

SAMPLE
PAPERS
 SAMPLE PAPERS
SET 1

Total 8 questions. Attempt any four questions:

Q.1: What do you understand by International Relation? Discuss the nature, scope, and
significance of IR as a discipline.

(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answers at page 7 and 11)

Q.2 : Q.1: Discuss Level of Analysis as an approach to study IR.

(Hint: Refer answer at page 27.)

Q.3: “Realism is the soul of IR” critically examine the statement by discussing the realist
perspectives in IR.

(Hint: refer answer at page 34. For the statement, you should highlight how realism is like a
paradigm in IR. Realism is based on simple truth of anarchic world order without any world Govt.
Hence, states must help themselves for survival. This is basic truth in IR, which no other
perspectives can deny. Hence, the realist thought become the overarching paradigm within which
different perspectives take somewhat different stance. But since realism has taken the core position
by focusing on the bare truth of IR condition, it is the soul of IR.)

Q4: Critically analyze the liberal perspectives in IR. Compare it with realist approach.
(Hint: For first part of the question, refer to Key points at page 45 . For second part, you will find
enough differences by carefully reading the answer at page 45, you may also refer to Pol Sc Help
the video on Liberalism.)
Q5: Critically examine the feminist perspective in IR. Also examine feminist reformulation
of 6 principles of Morgenthau by J. Ann Tickner.

(Hint: Refer to answers at page 62)

Q.6: “The seeds of WWII were sown in the Treaty of Versailles” in the light of the above
statement discuss actions of the victors in WWI which became the factor behind the WW II.

(Hint: refer answer at page 79)

Q.7: What do you mean by Cold War? Discuss its causes and consequences.

(Hint: refer answer at page 87; in the answer causes are not explicitly explained, but you can find
them on careful reading.)

Q.8: “With the emergence of new power centers the world is moving towards multi-polarity
in 21st Century” Do you agree? Analyze the statement and give reasons in support of your
view.

(Hint: refer to answer at page 99 and notes on multi-polarism at page 115 ; I have taken a view
that multi-polarism may not be reality in near future, but you may take another view and defend
that)
 SAMPLE PAPER
SET 2
Total 8 questions. Attempt any four questions:

Q.1: Discuss the evolution of IR as an academic discipline. What are the major issues in IR?
Discuss.

(Hint: refer to answer at page 14. Issues in IR can be explained in two ways; one is what are the
global issues or problems dealt in by IR. It is like asking what is the scope of IR? Second way is to
highlight the challenges IR faces as academic discipline, such as searching for its distinct identity,
eurocentrism, linkage between theory and practice, etc. I have taken the first view and explained
in detail what global issues or problems are dealt in by IR )

Q.2: What do you mean by Westphalian State System? How is it related to the International
state system?

(Hint: refer answer at page 22)

Q.3: Critically examine the six principles of realist theory of Morgenthau.

(Hint:. refer answer at page 34)

Q4: Critically examine the Neo-liberal perspectives in IR with special reference to the
concept of "complex-interdependence” by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane.
(Hint:. refer answer at page 51)

Q5: Critically analyse the Marxist perspectives in IR.

(Hint:. refer answer at page 56)

Q.6: Discuss the factors behind rise of fascism during the inter-war period and its
consequences.
(Hint:. refer answer at page 73)
Q.7: “Cold war was not only interest and power-based conflict, it was also an ideological
battle” Analyze the statement by highlighting the characteristics of the cold war.
(Hint:. refer answer at page 87)

Q.8: “IR is still overtly Eurocentric” discuss the problem of eurocentrism in IR in the light
of the statement.

(Hint: Refer to answers at page 104)

.
 SAMPLE PAPER
SET 3

Total 8 questions. Attempt any four questions:

Q.1: Discuss major theoretical perspectives in IR. Which in your view give better account of
contemporary conditions of IR? Give reasons in support of your views.

(Hint: refer answer at page 19; for second part, I have taken the view that neo-liberalism better
explains the current globalized world order. But realism is and will remain its soul, neo-liberalism
is like its body. You may take different position and defend that.)

Q.2: Why treaty of Westphalia is considered as watershed event in IR? Discuss the pre- and
post-Westphalian phase of IR.

(Hint: refer answers at page 22.)

Q.3: Discuss the realist approach to IR. Compare classical realism with neo-realism.
(Hint: refer answers at page 34)

Q.4: Compare Liberalism with neo-liberalism as perspectives in IR. Also compare neo-
liberalism with neo-realism.
(Hint: refer answers at page 40, 44, 51; you will get enough points to answer this question.)

Q.5: Discuss the Perspectives in IR from the Global South. Has it helped IR overcome the
challenge of Eurocentrism?
(Hint: refer answers at page 104.I have taken the view that despite growing voice of South in IR it
is still overtly Eurocentric. You may take different or opposite view and defend that.)

Q.6: Analyse the causes and consequences of Second World War.

(Hint: refer answers at page 79.)
Q.7: “Cold war was prolonged period of relative peace, order, progress, and development
after the two quick devastating world wars” Discuss the consequences of cold war
highlighting some of the positive aspects of Cold War in light of this statement.
(Hint: refer answers at page 87.)

Q.8: “Locus of IR in contemporary times shifting from ‘West’- ‘East’ to ‘north’- ‘South’.”
Analyze the statement by highlighting perspective of the global south in IR and how it
changing its dynamics in recent years.

(Hint: refer to answer at page 96, 98 and 104; you will get enough points to answer this question)
 SECTION 3

ANSWER
WRITING TIPS &
TRICKS
 Scoring Answer Writing Tips

How to Write Best Answers in University

Exam?
BA Hons Pol Sc Exam Help

• Yes, one may score better marks by writing strategically. Essay type answers require
different skills than MCQs. Structure (Template), organization, flow, and style matter in
essay types of answers. Here are my Tips:
 First Tips : Analyse Past Year’s papers

Select the topics asked

Topic wise analysis of
repeatedly- select
3-4 year’s question
topics to cover at least
papers shall reveal the
70%- 5-6 questions for
question pattern
sure

• This I have done for you. I have analysed past four year’s paper of DU on Indian Political
Thought. Provided standard answer template on all of those questions.

• In fact, the questions cover the entire syllabus. Thus, only by reading the answers in this
guide carefully and repeatedly, yes at least 7-8 times, you will be covering the entire
syllabus.

• When exam is very near, you may leave some of themes/topics by an intelligent guess.
 2nd Tips: Make Intelligent Guess !

Yes, by carefully
analysing past papers Do it with
you can guess confidence!
expected questions.

• Yes, you should do it. Examiners set paper by going through past 3-4 year’s paper. They
have to meet 2 conditions; 1st, the question should be within the syllabus and 2nd, they
should be on similar pattern and difficulty level as asked in earlier years. Hence, the paper
setter normally set questions very similar to one asked earlier. They also alternate the
theme/topic. Thus, if a topic is asked in 2017, they repeat that in 2019, and like that.

• Therefore, you can guess!

 3rd Tip: use the question as answer clue!

Answers are
Attentively read Provide standard
expansion of ideas,
question at least 3 Answers to twisted
issues stated in the
times, yes 3 times! questions
questions

• Answers are hidden in the Questions!

• While framing the question, the examiner is thinking about the answer. Hence, by carefully
and on multiple reading you can visualize the answer hidden in the question.

• And, yes, also read the Hindi translation of the question. Sometime, you may not know
exact meaning of the key word in the question. Hindi translation may give the meaning.
Also, many a times, wording of Hindi question disclose more about the hidden answer.
This is due to translation issue. Take advantage of questions in two languages.
 4th Tips: cleverly organise your answers

Write 1st answer on your best Choose 2nd best topic as last
prepared topic question

Because examiners pay more

Least prepared topics as 2nd attention to your first
and 3rd answers; Why? question, then the last, and
least to middle answers…yes!

• Yes, examiners actually browse through your answer, they don’t read word by word.

• Also, they assess your standard by your 1st answer. 2nd and 3rd answer may not change
your assessment. They assign you marks in range in accordance with the bracketing they
do in the 1st answer.

• Hence, write your best prepared topic as 1st answer. 2nd best as last, why? Because
examiner try to put some attention while browsing your last answer. Make use of his
attention. He may revise the marks bracket he decided while reading your 1st answer.
 5th Tip : Strategic writing?

How many words per

question? No fixed rule- Use standard answer
Normally, 800-1200 words structure (template)
(4-6 pages)

Numbered or bulleted Sprinkle and underline key

points in ‘Body’ phrases

• How many words to write?

• Actually, it shouldn’t matter. But unfortunately, in our country it does matter.
• Average writing speed is 25 words per minute. In a 180 minute (3 hour) exam, one may
write for about 160 minute, leaving 20 minutes for reading paper and organizing thoughts.
Therefore, in 160 minutes, maximum 4000 words can be written. This comes to 1000 words
per question.
• Write in bigger font, maximum 200 words in one page. Use bullets/number and
indenting. Leave good space between paragraph. They consume space.
• Examiners are used to see answers written in a particular template(structure). Follow them.
Carefully observe how I have tried to write in a fixed structure. I have given a standard
structure in next slide.
• Yes, insert standard phrases in your answer, sprinkle (scatter) them across your answer.
Why? Examiners are interested in seeing the key words/phrases in your answer, this help
them quickly browsing your answer. If the found them they assume that rest of your answer
is also okay.
• And finally, repeat key phrases. Yes! You may write the key phrase in Introduction, in
body and in the conclusion. Why? Simple, because examiners are compelled to note the
key phrase/concept in your answer even if he is browsing through the answer. Hence, don’t
hesitate to repeat. It pays.
• Points, bullets or paragraph? No fixed rule! You may choose any one or mix them, even
in same answer. You may also insert tables, and flow chart. These days examiners don’t
mind them.
 Answer Template: Example: “Write an essay on
Eurocentrism in IR”
• Introduction- 20 % of the total words in answer
• Introduce the topic , e.g. Eurocentrism, its meaning, how it is liked to ethnocentrism
• Establish the linkages between ethnocentrism and IR
• Give a brief about the issues and examples of eurocentrism in IR
• Give hint of your view whether in recent years IR has overcome the challenge of
eurocentrism or not. Only hint, not full arguments.
• Body: 60-70 % of the total words in answer
• Elaborate on the points made in the introduction.
• Explain in brief the features and examples of Eurocentrism in IR, its
consequences/impacts.
• Analysis and Discussion
• By giving the perspectives of global south in IR, try to highlight how IR has tried to overcome
the challenge of Eurocentrism.
• Provide your own view – crux of your answer
• Conclusion: 10-20% of the total words in answer
• Summarise key points: Paraphrase introduction
• State your final view and concluding remarks

• Introduction is where you should focus most. Why? Because examiner read first few lines
of Introduction carefully. It is here he is putting you in a bracket or grade for marking.

• Conclusion is basically introduction in other words (paraphrased introduction). Both give

an overview/summary of the theme, explain a bit about the question asked and give very
brief of their final argument. Difference is in wording. Introduction says I will explain or
as explained below, whereas conclusion say, as I have explained above and so on.

• You can break the body of the answer in two parts. One informative and other analytical.
In the latter part you may critically analyse the statement or theme in context of the
question. You may even merge these two parts into one.

• You may combine discussion with conclusion. In this case, analysis and discussion follows
conclusion under the heading ‘Discussion & Conclusion’. I have done so in many answers.
Plz note them.