COURSE 5: INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND

ORGANIZATION

Chapter One
Basic Concepts, Evolution and Actors of International Relations

1.1. Understanding IR
A. What constitutes the field of IR?

International Relations impacts our day to day lives: from the price we pay for shopping, to the
laws governments legislate

Different scholars consider various issues and identify various actors that play roles in the
International system. Hence, different scholars define the term in different ways.

 IR is a discipline that studies the interactions between and among states and also and
other actors; and more broadly the workings of the International system as a whole.

It is a multidisciplinary subject. It gathers together the international aspects of politics,

economics, history, geography, law, sociology and many others.

B. List of definitions for IR

 “IR is the relations between and among states”

By 'states‘ we are referring to the interactions of state who are sovereign, territorially bounded
political units.

This is a narrow definition. It limits and identifies the subject matter clearly. However, it
excludes many important issues like actors of IR. Taking a brief glance at the world around us we
find that some of the principal actors in world politics, the agents of IR that make up the political
landscape of our subject area are not nations at all; we see GOs like UN or IMF interacting with
states; Regional Organizations like EU or AU; Important NGOs like the Red Cross and Amnesty
International.

 “IR is the study of who gets what, when and how in matters external to states or in
matters crossing international boundary lines.” Hunderson (1998)
This definition is state centric and the terms in the definition have the following meanings:

205
  Who: actors of the IR
 primarily focuses on States in IR; but it also recognizes non-state
actors like NGOs, IGOs and Churches

 What: the goals of the states

 the goals can be political, ideological, cultural, economic or social
 When: the time dimension of actors (the continuous endeavor of states
to serve national interest. NI is not a one time interest; it is a continuous
strives)
 How: the means or instruments that actors use to serve a national
interest.
 The means can be: military, diplomacy, economic and propaganda
 “IR is concerned with the study of the nature, conduct and influence upon relations
among individuals or groups operating in a particular arena within the framework
of anarchy”
Here a definition is made to IR in comparison with domestic system; it is argued that the
international system is basically anarchic in nature. In IR anarchic is chosen to describe world
relations because there is no world government which possesses authoritative law making,
interpreting and enforcing power.

 Why is it the international system assumed to be anarchic?

There is no central government each state is sovereign and autonomous, responsible for
their own fate (though they may not be fully able to control it) states exercise legitimate
control and authority over their own territory and answer to no higher power.

There is no international government that maintains international peace and security.

 There is no single legislator in IR. Rather a coalition of states‘, has absolute

control over the entire system.
In the domestic system, there is an authority called government that makes
the laws, enforces the laws and settles disputes. But in the international
system, there is no international government or legislature that makes laws
applicable to all states. Rather states have to consent to the international
laws individually either by entering into treaties with other states or by
creating customs through their behavior. The General Assembly of UN is
composed of delegates from all the member states, but its resolutions are
not legally binding.

 There is no „world court‟ with a binding power

206
 There are many international tribunals, like ICC, ICJ and the like; but
none of them has compulsory jurisdiction to decide on the rights and
duties of states. Rather states must first consent to the jurisdiction of an
international court before the court can make a decision about those states‘
rights and duties. There is no independent institution able to determine the
issue and give a final decision.

The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate
and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed
by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court
by the UN Security Council. The ICJ can only decide cases when both
sides agree and it cannot ensure that its decisions are complied with.

 There is no worldwide entity with an „executive power‟

There is no international government with the authority to command states.

– The Security Council of UN is effectively constrained by the veto power of

the five permanent members.
Thus, comparing the international system with the domestic one, the international affairs
can be seen as a series of bargaining interaction in which states use power capabilities as
leverage to influence the outcome. Henderson (1998) argues that the line between
domestic and international relations has blurred, bringing the two kinds of relations closer
together. Scholars supporting this, claim that the International system is not nearly as
anarchic as some might suppose. The absence of a world government does not
necessarily lead to disorder and violence. This is because states frequently choose to
avoid war; hence, they follow the norms and rules of International law. Sometimes
ironically the anarchic domestic systems are settled by the involvement of UN.

 “The study of IR describes all aspects of relations between states. Political or

nonpolitical, peaceful or war like, legal or cultural, economic or geographic, official
or non-official.”
This a broad definition in terms of scope. It points out that IR involves not only political but also
non-political issues like economic social and cultural. It indicates that the relations between
states are characterized by peaceful and non-peaceful. Conflict, Competition and Cooperation are
the normal behavior of IR. They are non-avoidable

 “IR encompasses all kinds of relations crossing state boundaries, no matter whether
they are economic, legal, and political or any other nature, private or official. It also
includes all human behavior originating on all side of state boundary, and affecting
human behavior on the other side of state boundary.”

207
This is a very broad definition; it is relatively inclusive. It includes cultural and social type of
relations that crosses boundary such as athletics and the activities of non-state actors like that of
Amnesty International. It claims that IR is a social sciences which considers the world people as
a whole.

 “IR refers to the relations among the world‟s state governments and the connection
of those relations with other actors (like the UN, MNCs, Individuals) and with other
social relationships (including economics, culture and domestic politics) and with
geographic and historical influence.”
This definition goes beyond the relations between and among sates and encompasses the
relations of states‘ with non-state actors on different global issues. It also recognizes the interplay
between domestic and international affairs. IR is affected by the domestic conditions and vice
versa. The external affair is the reflection of domestic situations in states.
 In general:
• IR refers to the study of the nature, conduct and influence upon relations among
groups and individuals that transit national boundary, concerned with aspects of
economic, political, legal, social and cultural.
• It is the sum total of the transactions, interactions, and exchanges among states
and others actors, in the economic, social, cultural and political spheres.
• It is related to a number of other academic disciplines, including political
science, geography, history, economics, Law, sociology, psychology.
– it also touches on diplomacy, diplomatic history, international law,
international political economic, international finance and economies ,
communications, globalization, ecological sustainability etc.

C. IR VS other concepts like International politics, International Law and World History

I. IR VS International Politics (IP)

IR and IP are often used interchangeably; but they are not the same things. There is a slight
distinction between them. IP is narrower in scope than IR.

 IP is concerned with political relations (official actions and reaction among

governments acting on behalf of their states).

208
 IR may include all aspects of relations (political and non-political like trade,
telecommunications, transport, culture, tourism, environment etc.)

II. IR VS International Law (IL)

 IL is concerned with the legal aspects of inter sate relations.

 IR goes beyond legal aspects.

For example, Students of IR do not stop merely studying the legality of Russia vs. Ukraine
dispute but go beyond and study: the factors that influenced Russia‘s and Ukraine‘s policies in
this respect. Their state of preparedness for conflict, sources of the benefits for the principal
policy makers in Russia and Ukraine, regarding whether or not there would be any limited or
prolonged war fare between them on this issue. And the extent of the domestic pressure on their
policies.

 IL on the other hand focuses on the legality of the actions taken by both states in the
affairs.

III. IR VS World History

IR is wider than world history and current event. historians study the past developments and their
causes and effects, IR does not only study what happened in the past, It also tries to evaluate and
analyze what is happening at the present; and does so from a wider angle. Additionally it also
tries to predict the future.

209
D. Why study IR?

IR is a reality; there are interactions between and among the separate societies of the world;
sovereign states interact with each other intensely and on a huge variety of matters.

The economic security of states, and the need for the physical safety of states make IR a
necessity. And technological developments of the 20 th c have made it possible for some states to
do harm to others)

IR is concerned with issues which have a significant and maybe crucial impact on people‘s lives.
We live in a world with scarce resources; no state in the world is fully self-sufficient. A state
cannot produce all goods, services and protection which their society demands and expect
without the assistance of other states. Even the richest states have limited amount of natural
resources, manufactured goods, money and jobs that can be shared by the population. Scarcity is
the driving force for states to interact with each other. States enter into relations with others to
satisfy the demands of its society.

There are series of border transcending problems like international conflicts, civil war, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, widespread of human rights abuses, poverty,
environmental degradation, HIV, terrorism, Covid etc. a single state cannot solve these problems.
These problems are borer transcending; they are not limited to national borders. Thus to solve
them, states need to cooperate with each other. There are also positive trends and events that give
rise to interdependence between and among the people of the world like: the end of cold war, the
spread of democracy, the advancement of international trade and economic cooperation, the
extraordinary achievements of science and technology, development of widening cultural
correlations among people of the world. Additionally, the internet and the web led to the rapid
growth of international economic cultural and political linkage. International travel for business,
tourism and other purposes increased significantly contributing to closer connections among the
people of the word.

Interdependence between states has two dimensions:

I. Sensitivity: the degree to which states are sensitive to changes taking place in another
state.

II. Vulnerability: the distribution of costs incurred as states react to such changes

Two states may be equally sensitive to changes but they may not be equally vulnerable to it. For
example, all states may equally be sensitive to oil price increase; but they may not be equally
vulnerable as a result of it. The oil price increase as a result of the Russian vs Ukraine war has
equally made both Ethiopia and Germany sensitive to the price change. But the level of

210
sensitivity that the two states face as a result of the price increase is totally different. In Ethiopia,
the price increase in gas has intensified the inflation; in German it is not felt as much.

The degree of interdependence vary from state to state. Some states are highly dependent on
others.

1.2. Evolution and Growth of IR

A. The Practice of IR

History of IR is often traced back to the history of the establishment of separate society. IR is as
old as the state itself. As an academic field of study, its origin is very young. The practice of IR
has passed various stages of development: Ancient, Middle, Modern and Contemporary.

I. Ancient

History of IR between independent states traces back to 4000 years during the Mesopotamia
periods. 2100BC, a solemn treaty was signed between the rulers of Lagash and Umma (city
states located in the area known as Mesopotamia): the agreement was about establishing a
defined boundary to be respected in both sides.

Chou dynasty in china (1122BC-221BC): during this time, china had diplomatic, trade and
commercial interactions among the different units in china. It was also a formal form of
subversion and interaction in other states‘ internal affairs as methods of achieving their
objectives.

Greek city states around 400BC: the city states were carrying out sophisticated trade relations
and warfare with each other in a broad swath of the world from the Mediterranean through India
to East Asia. Diplomacy has been practiced since the first city sates were formed millennia ago.
The Arab Empire (600AD-1200AD) played asocial role in the IR of the Middle East

Ethiopia has had extensive diplomatic and commercial contacts during the Axumite period
(700800AD) with other states. Adulis used to be the thriving spot for international trade, making
it one of the leading harbors of the world back then.

II. The Middle Ages

IR in the middle ages was dominated by the Roman Empire. Modern diplomacy is traced back to
the states of Northern Italy in the earl Renaissance period. The first embassies were established
in the 13th C. the practice of presenting ambassadors‘ credentials to the head of state started out
in Italy and spread to the other European powers. In 1455 Milan sent a representative to the
court of France.

By 16th C, permanent missions became customary.

211
III. Modern Period

Roughly since the 17th C on wards the modern IR history began. This period is associated with
the development of the territorial sovereign state. Modern history of IR is often traced back to the
Peace of Westphalia of 1648. This was a treaty that ended the thirty years war and recognized
the independence of many European states from the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman
Catholic dynasty. This treaty instituted the legal concept of sovereignty-meaning the sovereign
had no internal equals and no external superiors)

Sovereignty is believed to be a key to understanding IR. Sovereign state in a loose term can be
understood as a territorially defined political society that is recognized as being solely
responsible for the governance of that territory and, on the international stage as independent
from any political or religious superior. Sovereignty is a political doctrine that captures the ideas
of freedom, independence and self-determination that are the primary claims of existing states
and the major aspiration of many subnational, cultural, ethnic and religious groups who are
subsumed in the territory of existing states.

Basic characteristics in the post-Westphalia system:

• States became the primary actors in the international system-this has continued to the
present day

• The domination and shaping of the international system by the west (Britain, France and
other European states advanced to take control of the North and south America, Asia and
Africa)

• Multi- polar system reached its zenith.

• The establishment of the concept of popular sovereignty marked a major change in the
notion of who owned the state and how it should be governed. The divine right of kings
in 1700s and 1800s gave way to the idea that political power comes from the people.

IV. Contemporary

The contemporary International system was consolidated through decolonization during the Cold
War (CW). CW was the state of conflict, tension and competition that existed between the US
and USSR; and their respective allies from the mid1940s- early 1990s.

CW was an intense struggle for power between the superpowers. There was tension, armed
conflict, and a zero sum relationship between the superpowers-hence the term war. The term cold
refers to the presence of factors that allegedly restrained the confrontations and prevented a hot
war.

In this period the rivalry between the two superpowers was expressed through military coalitions,
propaganda, espionage, weapons development, industrial advances and competitive

212
technological development. Both powers spent a lot on defense, conventional and nuclear arms
race and proxy wars.

US ad USSR were allied against the Axis Powers during the WWII, but the two sharply
disagreed sharply after the war on many topics particular over the shape of the postwar world.
The war left the two states as the two super powers-bipolar world. Other states were prompted to
align themselves with one or the other for the super power blocs. Following this in the 1960s a
Non-Alignment Movement has also emerged.

CW witnessed both periods of heightened tension and relative calm. Wars like the Korean war
(1950-53), the Vietnam war (1959-75) the soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-89); and other events
like the Berlin Blockade (1948-49), Berlin Crisis of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis raised
fears of a Third World War.

There were also periods of reduced tension as both sides sought detente. Direct military attacks
on adversaries were deterred by the potential for the mutual assured destruction using deliverable
nuclear weapons.

The CW drew to a close in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the coming to power of Ronald
Regan US increased diplomatic, military and economic pressure on the USSR. By then USSR
was already suffering from severe economic stagnation. USSR‘s leader Mikhail Gorbachev
introduced agenda for economic reform (perestroika) which increased freedom of the press and
the transparency of state institutions. USSR collapsed in 1991.US became the sole super power
in the new unipolar world.

• Characteristics of the Contemporary period:

I. WWI-WWII

• The outbreak of the WWI changed the pre 1914 principal issues

• Versailles Treaty served as spring board for the creation of the first universal
international organization the LON.- a new IR actor

• Characterized by multipolar system at the early period; major powers formed

allies.
II. Post WWII – End of CW Period

• There were as series of changes in the system

• The structure changed from multipolar to bipolar

• East west axis were established (NATO in 1949andWaRSOpactin 1955)

• New states emerged due to decolonization process

213
 • New issues like HR and Environment started being given emphasis

B. IR as a Field of Study

Aspects of IR have been studied as early as the time of ancient Greek historian Thucyddides. IR
attained the first academic position only after WWI. However, as a separate and definable
discipline, IR dates from the early 20th c. when the first organized efforts were made to find
alternatives to war in nation-state international behavior.

1919, the department of International politics was established at the university of wales.

The study of IR grew out of the belief that wars were the greatest problem that humanity faced
and that something must be done to ensure that there could no more be devastating war.

 Two schools of thought quickly developed.

1. The first school of thought aimed to strengthen IL and IOs to preserve international
peace (this is known as a normative position in line with the assumptions of
idealism)

– The study of IR has always been heavily influenced by normative

considerations like the goal of reducing armed conflict and increasing
international cooperation.

2. The second school of thought was of the assumption that nations will always use their
power to achieve goals and thus the key to peace is a balance of power among
competing states. This is known as realism. It stressed seeing the world as it really is,
rather than how we would like it to be.
Basically IR theories can be classified into two epistemological camps:

I. Positivist theories: aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analyzing the
impacts of material forces they focus on features of IR like state interactions, size of
military forces, balance of powers etc.

– Positivist theories (realism/neo-realism) offer causal explanations (why and how

power is exercised. Positive theories make a distinction between facts and
normative judgments or values.

II. Post positivists: reject the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value
freeway. It rejects the central ideas of neoliberalism/liberalism, such as rational choice
theory, on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be allied to the social world and
that a ‗science‘ of IR is impossible.

214
 Post positivist theories focus on constitutive questions like what is meant by power, what
makes it up, how it is experienced and how it is reproduced. These theories explicitly
promote a normative approach to IR by considering ethics.

The assumption that war could be prevented was short lived as the world dove into WWII, in
the after math of WWII, there were renewed efforts to organize the peace with the birth of
another IO- the United Nations (UN) - replacing the League Of Nations (LON).

After WWII, by the initiative of UNESCO, there was conference of all university
representatives with the aim to motivate universities to establish the department of IR. Later
the subject began to expand to states of Africa, Asia and Latin America. In Ethiopia the
department of Political Science and IR was founded when AAU was established in the 1950s.

1.3. Actors in IR

1.3.1. Actor: Definition

Actors are set of organized entities capable of taking independent decisions and actions at the
international level that influence the behavior of other actors in the international arena.

A political actor is an individual or a group that seeks to achieve goals by either conflicting or
cooperating with others in a policy context.

 Who are the actors in IR?

Actors in IR are the sovereign states. IR scholars study the decisions and acts of
sovereign states in relation to other sovereign states. But in reality, the international stage
is crowded with actors large and small who are intimately/closely interwoven/interlinked
with the decisions of states. Old and new actors strongly undertake roles alongside the
state on the international stage.

Basically we have three sets of actors in IR: States actors, Sub-state actors, and Non-state
actors

A. The State, as an actor in IR

 What is a state?

1933 Montevideo convention on the Rights and Duties of states laid certain criteria of states.
Article 1 provides that the state should possess the following qualifications:

1) permanent population

2) defined territory

3) A government and

215
 4) A capacity to enter into relations with other states (recognition).

 State and Government, are they the same thing?

The two terms are used interchangeably but they are not the same. A state is an abstract and
symbolic concept while a government is a concrete and tangible one. A state cannot conclude
treaty, enact, interpret or enforce laws by itself; in the name of the state, it is the concrete body
(government) that makes and enforces laws. State is more comprehensive than government.
Government is one element of state (State encompasses all the four elements including
government but government is just an element of the state).

State is relatively static, it stays for longer periods of time compared to governments.
Government is dynamic, volatile and changeable in its forms and orientations.

States are said to be the main actors in IR as it is sovereign states who set rules for economic
interaction, communication, technologies, political and diplomatic relationships as well as rules
for foreign policy. States are actors in the formal diplomatic and legal network of relationship.

As a state is an abstract entity, Government of a state formally acts on behalf of state. The
government makes decisions, formulates policies and reacts to the decisions and policies of other
governments.

State is a strong actor in the performance of important political functions. Some of its functions
include: maintaining territorial integrity of the state, promoting economic development,
providing for national security, protecting national prestige, maintaining world order, establishing
order peace and stability, organizing and mobilizing members of the society towards the common
values; and defending interests and values of societies form any external threat

 What is sovereignty?

Recognition is related to sovereignty: Sovereignty can be internal or external.

Internal sovereignty indicates that the state has the final authority within its defined territory
over individuals, citizens and others. The state is the only ultimate power holder legitimate for
the control and administration of the territory, population and its objects.

External sovereignty: the power and ability of the state to conduct foreign relations and the
freedom from subjection to or control by outside state. It is the recognition in international law
that a state has jurisdiction over its territory and populations. External sovereignty is the most
important thing in IR. The state is independent or at least theoretically, we are talking about the
‗equality of a state‘ with other states. It signifies that all states are equal in the international
system regardless of their differences in different aspects like economic development, military
power and so on. No one state has the right to give order to other state.

216
Sovereign states are equal, and sovereign equality is the basis upon which the UN operates. This
principle is what guarantees equal participation by all states in IR. Sovereign equality has the
following elements as a content:

• all states are legally equal

• every state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty

• every state is obligated to respect the fact of the legal entity of other states

• the territorial integrity and political independence of a state are inviolable

• each state has the right to freely choose and develop its own
political ,social, economic and cultural systems

• each state is obligated to carry out its international obligations fully and
conscientiously and to live in peace and with other states.
Sovereignty is not entirely absolute. States can have international obligation to respect
international norms and conventions. They accrue these obligations when they enter into
international treaties and agreements. Of course states are free not to enter into these agreements
to begin with, but once they do, they relinquish a certain measure of sovereignty to the
international community

 Are all states practically equal?

Legally speaking all states are equal. All states are sovereign and independent. But in reality due
to various factors, states are not actually equal. Based on their degree of influence in the
international stage there is hierarchy of states. This is because states reflect much diversity in
their major characteristics. Some of the causes that create diversity among states include:

– Military Power:
• high military power (superpower states) vs. low military powers

– EG: Comoros (1955 a handful mercenaries took over Comoros, taking the
president a prisoner; stayed in charge of the 500,000 population
until French Soldiers charitably came to the rescue.)

– Ideological difference:
• secular vs. non-secular; capitalist vs. socialist vs. Developmental state

– Economic Status:

• World economy is dominated by a few states.

217
 – US alone accounts for 1/5th of the world economy; together with six
other great powers it accounts for more than half. A few of these large states possess
economic strength and influence world politics. The richer states play crucial role in IR –
Population Size:
• Both the quality and quantity of the population is important in IR.

– But the quality of the people is more crucial (rate of literacy, know how etc.)

– Territorial Size and Location of the State:

• Territorial size is important in IR. Large size is important for defense.

– Rough States:
• These are States that regularly violate international standards of acceptable
behavior. They are States that are inimical to the norms and the rules of
international society.

• This is when a state is considered to be a threat to international peace, highly

repressive, xenophobic and arrogant and which has no regard for the norms of
international society. It is the leadership that is roughened not the general
populace; however, it is the people who ultimately pay the price when the
international community takes collective action against the rouge state.

• There is no general agreement as to who is a rough state and who is not. A

state considered as a rough state by one state might not be considered as such
by another. For example, in the eyes of USA, Iran and North Korea are rough
states; in the eyes of Arab states, Israel is a rough state.

In general, States with large population, large, economies or military capacities play important
roles in international affairs. Small and weaker states are also important but taken singly most of
them do not affect the outcomes of IR nearly as much as the major states do.

Until 1920s states continued to be the dominant actors in IR. This was because during this period,
the success or failure of states in pursuit of their national interest was mainly determined by how
they could manipulate the support of one country or another.

 What changed after 1920s?

– Bitter world experiences,

– technological advancements, expansion of communication, and ever increasing

economic interdependence,

218
 – The number of actors in IR has increased tremendously. Varying actors with varying
interests and purpose came about.
The proliferation of non-state actors has led some observations to conclude that the states are of
declining importance and that non-state actors are gaining in status and influence. For example,
MNCs are ushering in a world economy; Mangers of the corporate giants make daily business
decisions that have more impact upon our lives than governments do;

MNCs and other non-state actors are said to change and weaken the state centric concept of IR
politics and replace it with transitional world in which relationship is more numerous and
complex than just traditional state to state ones.

Three sets of relations developed between states and non-state actors in IR:

• State deals with one another directly or as member of International

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)

• States deal with NGOs

• NGOs deal with one another.

However states still remain the primary actors in IR

 Why are states the primary actors in IR? What are the reasons?

1. Since WWII the proliferation of new states has increased fourfold.

2. Without states, it will be impossible for non-state actors to function.

• States are the ones with territories and MNCs need the territory of a state
to make profit

• Non-state actors cannot enjoy benefits without at least the acquiescence

and active support of the state.

3. states are sovereign and are the ones who make rules for economic,
communication and diplomatic relationship

4. The state is the only principal user of legitimate force.

• It can enforce decisions at home and can decide whether to go to war, and
when.
• The state possesses some sovereignty, greater authority and even greater
control capacity over its people and entities (has jail, courts and
executioners, passports, armies and weapons)

B. Sub-State Actors in IR

219
National governments may be the most important actors in IR, but they are strongly conditioned,
constrained and influenced by a variety of sub-state and non-state actors.

Sub state actors are groups or interest groups (could be political parties and individuals) within
the state that influence the state foreign policy. They are essentially domestic actors pursuing
their goals through transnational activities. Some scholars call such a merger of domestic and
international political activity intermestic politics: a mixture of domestic and international affairs.
Domestic actors‘ actions may cross a state‘s border and affect others outside the state. In all
states, societal pressures influence foreign policy.

The actions of sub-state actors (interest groups, companies, workers, ethnic groups, investors)
helps to create the context of economic activity against which international political events play
out, and within which government must operate.

The sub state actors play various role which take place in what is clearly a world economy- a
global exchange of goods and services woven together by a worldwide network of
communication and culture.

 Who are considered as sub state actors?

1. Interest Groups: coalition of people who share a common interest in the outcome
of some political issues and who organize themselves to try to influence the
outcome.

• EG: environmental activists; HR Activists

2. Ethnic Groups: a group that feels strong emotional ties to their relatives on other
counties:

• Because the rest of the population generally does not care about such
issues one way or the other, even a small ethnic group can have
considerable influence on FP towards a particular country.

• EG: Ethiopian diaspora in USA

3. Cities: local governments of varied types have become transnational actors; at

least for commercial reasons.
EG:

– in Ethiopia, the regional states and the two administration cities

compete over foreign investors and send trade delegations overseas
to generate businesses.

220
 • Cities around the world also routinely practice ―citizen diplomacy‘ by
passing their national foreign ministries to make trade arrangements: pass
resolutions on every imaginable subject

– (EG: opposing nuclear bomb testing by China and France and

establish ‗sister city‘ programs to offer advice and material aid to
cities in other countries.)

• Cities adjacent to one another but separated by a border can have special
problems and relations.

– EG: Ethio-Sudanese and Ethio-Kenyan boundaries have worked out

agreements concerning roads, bridges and water management.

4. Individuals: there are two types of individuals.

– 1st: individual actor that is empowered with the resources of an

institution like the state and may face dynamic situations that bring
opportunities and dangers requiring bold steps.

– 2nd: an individual actor that becomes important as the symbol of a

moral cause.

• ( the 1st is a public actor and the 2nd is a private actor)

– EG: Henry Kissinger vs Archbishop Desmond Tutu

C. Non-State Actors in IR

1. International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)

These are institutions established by two or more states. They act under a constituent instrument
like treaty/charter/covenant. These treaties provide the purpose and functions of the organization,
the structure and decision making process of the organizations, provisions for regular meetings, a
permanent headquarters, and staff the organization.

States often take actions through, within or in the context of IGOs whose members are national
governments. For example: UN, AU, EU, the Arab League, NATO, IMF, IGAD, COMESA are
non-state actors through which states take actions.

The scope of IGOs are either broad (encompassing economic, social and economic issues EG:
UN, AU) or specific (dealing with limited issues like that of the WTO, WHO, UNICEF). IGOs
can also be either regional or global. Universal/global IGOs are IGOs whose membership is
open to all; aspire to universal or near universal membership inviting in principle all states to
join. Example could be IGOs like: UN, WTO, WHO.

221
Limited/regional IGOs are IGOs that aim to organize activities in a certain geographical region,
are open to only states from within that specific region. Examples could be IGOs like that of EU,
AU. The limitedness of such organizations is not only reserved to geography. For example OPEC
is a limited organization, but its membership spans the globe; the scope is limited to only those
states who are economically oil producing states.

IGOs have a number of objectives. Some of the objectives are:

– Maintain international peace and security

– Encouraging states to develop friendly relations and cooperation among

themselves

– Raising international agenda, publicizing problems, and proposing solutions to

those problems

– Saving the environment and threatened animal species on earth

– Treatment of refugees, and observance of fundamental HRs

– Regulating trade in the world

– Facilitating communications and transportations among states

– Increasing production and improving food distribution and marketing

– Promoting the safety and peaceful use of atomic energy

– Promoting employment and improving labor conditions and living standards

– Promoting cooperation on technical matters affecting international shipping

– Aiding the attainment of the highest possible level of health; and many others

2. Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs)

NGOs base their membership on groups and individuals acting in a private capacity that may or
may not have a political agenda. They draw membership from individuals and private
associations located in several countries. Some have considerable size and resources, they
interact with states and sub-state actors; as well as with MNCs and other NGOs. NGOs are
increasingly being recognized in the UN and other forums, as legitimate actors along with states
(although not equal to states).

NGOs act under a written instrument which set forth agreed purposes and procedures as well as
structure and a central office of the NGOs. NGOs are made up of private individuals, both paid
and unpaid, and are committed to a vast range of issues, including protection of the environment,

222
improving the level of basic needs in the Third world, stopping HR abuses, delivering food and
medicine to war zones, advancing religious beliefs and promoting the cause of women. They
establish intricate networks and links between individuals across the globe. They are a force not
to be reckoned with; they have huge memberships, budgets and the power to influence and shape
government policy.

Scholarly argument concerning the criteria for determining which organizations should be
classed as NGOs and which should not.

– For some any transnational organization that is not established by a state is an

NGO;

– For others, an NGO is any transnational actor that is not motivated by profit, does
not advocate violence, accepts the principle of non-interference in the domestic
affairs of states, and works closely with the UN and its agencies.
The policy network between IGOs and NGOs are particularly strong in the areas of HRs and
Development. NGOs also exert significant influence over other NGOs too. By lobbying
politicians, exposing bad practices through the media and organizing mass rallies NGOs can put
other NGOs under check.

NGOs acting as IR actors is an evidence that a global civil society is emerging. The growth of
NGOs highlights the growing significance of people power in IR. This has come about mainly
because states have filed to respond to the immediate social, political, environmental and health
needs of individuals

3. Multi-National Corporations (MNCs)

These are profit making business organizations. They are also called Multinational Enterprises
(MNEs) or Trans-National corporations (TNCs). These are powerful actors that carry out
commercial activities for profit in more than one country. They view the world as a single
economic entity and their impact on the global economy is immense.

They influence almost all areas of human life. For example, they control more than 2/3r of the
world trade, much of which takes place between their own subsidiary firms. The largest 100
MNCs are estimated to account for about 1/3 rd of global FDI. Globally there are over 53,000
MNCs, most of the top 500 MNCs have their headquarters in Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) member states.

MNCs are the most controversial of all non-state actors. There are two views regarding the role
of MNCs in IR.

1. they are predators;

223
 They are accused of toppling elected governments, exploiting under developed
countries and engaging in illegal activities.

MNCs extract irreplaceable natural resources, draw off capital out of the host
state, bring in technology unsuited for the hosts development plans; hire skilled
people away from local business, cause host governments to restrict human rights
and willfully damaging the environment. States also deny the right to organize
labor unions, keeping wages low to attract MNCs.

2. MNCs do more good than harm.

They are engines of progress, innovative in research and development, a

modernizing force in IR, and the best hope for overcoming the chronic
underdevelopment and poverty in 3rd world.

MNCs are boom to economic development by defusing technology, capital and

experience throughout the world. They are tools of development, producing jobs
and tax revenue. They introduce technology and so on.

Good effects of MNCs:

• Introduce technology
• Encourage economic growth
• Encourage interdependence
• Elites learn to regulate
• Promote HRs
• Protect the environment
• Economic actors
• Promote a cosmopolitan world
Bad effects of MNCs:
• Offer ill-suited technology
• Retard economic growth
• Cause dependency
• Elites become compradors
• Harm HRs
• Hurt the environment
• Political actors
• Damage the National culture

224
 Chapter Two Theories of International Relations
There are variety of different theoretical perspectives within the academic study of IR. The major
theories of IR are: Realism, Transnationalism/Idealism, Structuralism/Marxism, Feminism,
Constructivism and Postmodernism

These theories refer to an attempt to explain something (an event or activity in IR). For example,
the theories try to explain the cause of war, under what conditions states engage in cooperative
trade through different world views/lenses.

2.1. Realism

Assumes the world is made up of unitary and sovereign nation-states that operate in a
competitive self-help environment (anarchy). States act rationally, in the national interest in order
to maximize power and thus ensure survival. The political interests of states (power) should
always be prioritized in relations with other states and the route to power is almost always
defined in terms of military capabilities. The world of politics is made up of states with
competing power interests, thus there is a certain inevitability that states will go to war with one
another.

Realism is traced back to antiquity; it is claimed to be found in important works from Greece,
Rome, India, and China. The intellectual origins for realism are traced back to Thucydides.

Realism has two variant forms: Classical Realism and Neo-Realism

A. Classical Realism: Human Nature and the State in IR

Classical Realists usually characterized as responding to the then dominant liberal approaches to
International Politics; they disagree on how widespread liberalism was during the interwar years.
They assume that the desire for more power is rooted in the flawed nature of humanity, hence,
states are continuously engaged in a struggle to increase their capabilities. The absence of the
international equivalent of a state‘s government is a permissive condition that gives human
appetites free reign.

Classical Realism explains conflictual behaviour (war) by human failings. It explains wars as
acts that are caused by aggressive statesmen or by domestic political systems that give greedy
parochial groups the opportunity to pursue self-serving expansionist foreign policies. For these
theorists, international politics can be characterized as evil: (bad things happen because the
people making foreign policy are sometimes bad)

 Famous Classical Realists:

– Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Max Webber, George Kennan,
Edward Hallet Carr and Hans Morgenthau

– Morgenthau‘s book ―Politics among Nations: The struggle for Power and
Peace‖ is considered as the standard bearer for political realism

225
 Thucydides: discussed about the Peloponnesian War, he argued that the cause for the war
between the Athenians and the Spartans (around 420BC) was an increase in Athenian military
power and the insecurity that it created among the Spartans. He wrote: ―what made the war
inevitable was the growth to Athenian power and the fear which this caused in
Sparta‖. Sparta was wary of the innovative and dynamic nature of Athenian Society, which
was growing and modernizing both economically and militarily. Sparta began to strengthen
its position military in response to the vitality of Athens. The Athenians then grew fearful of
their rival‘s arms build-up and responded in a similar fashion. War between the two erupted
shortly thereafter.
By providing this observation about state behaviour Thucydides begun one of the main
traditions of thinking about IR

 Niccolo Machiavelli: claimed that politics should be described as it is not as ought to be. He
claims that politics should be separated from ethics. Unlike individuals, rulers are not bound
by individual morality. Any action that can be regarded as important for the survival of the
state carries with it a built in justification. He argues for a strong and efficient ruler for whom
power and security are the major concerns. He emphasized the importance of military power
and national security. The survival of the state is the most important goal in politics.
He argues that it is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is not; or
that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. He claims
that leaders who neglect a national security do so not only at their own risk but also
jeopardize the security of the state as a whole.

The origins of the realism theory can be traced back to these ancient writers; however, the writers
did not actually consider themselves as realists. The theoretical formulation of realism as an
approach in IR is a relatively recent development beginning in the late 1930s and 40s. Some of
the prominent scholars from this era include:

 E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau: are crucial figures in the development of realism as
an IR theory. They were among the first scholars to use the term realism and to elaborate its
fundamental assumptions by comparing it with idealism which prevailed during the interwar
period. They claim that there was no natural harmony of interests among the states and that it
was foolish and dangerous to hope that the struggle for power among states could be tamed
by international law, democratization and international commerce.

 Hans Morgenthau: politics should be considered distinct from law, morality and economics
and we should focus on the basic concept of political interaction (power) as opposed to the
basic concepts of law, morality or economics. Claims that politics is somehow more realistic
than the other disciplines. Claims that insecurity, aggression and war are recurring themes of
international politics and that these themes are ultimately rooted in human nature. On a
fundamental level, conflict is driven about by political ideological differences as much as
man‘s desire to dominate his fellow man. So he suggested that the statesmen think and act in
terms of power. He assumes that all states have a tendency to behave as rational actors.

226
 The rational actor assumption claims that states pursue attainable, prudent goals that are
commensurate within their power/capability to achieve. i.e., state strategies are understood as
having been decided rationally after taking costs and benefits of different possible course of
action into account. Hence, a state‘s foreign policy is based on wise calculations of national
interest.

In a system consisting of individual states struggling for power, Morgenthau suggest that the
ever present threats of large scale violence had in the past and could in the future be
contained by pursing a balance of power strategy. This means if two or more coalitions of
states maintain a roughly equal distribution of power, no single state can be confident in its
ability to win a war. Hence, all states would be reluctant to initiate conflict-and so balance,
order and peace would in theory be preserved.

B. Neo-Realism

In the 1960s, classical realism faced increasing scrutiny. The realist world view was revived and
revised with the publication of Kenneth Waltz‘s book (Theory of International politics, 1979).
This book replaced Morgenthau‘s ‗Politics among Nations‘ as the standard bearer for realists.
Waltz argues that systems are composed of a structure and their interacting units.

Neo-realism shares many core assumption of classical realism regarding the state, the problem of
power and the pursuit of interests. However, neo realists place more emphasis on the anarchic
structure of the international system. Neo realism claims that we do not need to look inside the
states to understand their behaviour (this is referred to as ‗black box‘ view of the state). The
black box view of the state is based on waltz‘s proposition that we can scientifically understand
IR only by looking at how the international structure (anarchy) effects on the behaviour of states.

The anarchic international system generates a climate of uncertainty compelling all states to be
distrustful of the intentions of other states. Thus, states seek to ensure that they have as much
power as possible relative to other states. This characterization of the world politics seemed to fit
extremely well with the reality of the Cold War. During CW, there were two very different states:
USA and USSR, yet both states were pursuing broadly similar foreign policies and international
politics was characterized by a climate of distrust between the two states and their allies.

Some states are more capable than others in this pursuit of power. Hence, weak states, in order to
enhance their position in international politics relative to other states, might form alliances with
other states (The extent to which these states can ever really trust their alliance partners is limited
though.)

There are a variety of alliance formations, but neo realists argue that a situation of bipolarity (two
major centres of power in the international system each of whom have forged alliances with
weaker sates) brings considerable stability to the international system because it involved a
rough balancing of power to international politics. The balancing of power between USA and
USSR during the CW was seen by neo realists as bringing stability and order to international
politics

Some prominent Neo-realist scholars are:

227
  Kenneth Waltz: is known as the founder of neo-realist theory. He Suggest that the lack
of central authority is a key to understand the international system and international
relations theory. There is no central world government to enforce peace, states exist in a
self-help system. The anarchic nature of the international system leaves ―every state for
itself‘. The type of self-help situation leads to a security dilemma.
 What is the concept of security dilemma?
Efforts to improve national security have the effect of appearing to threaten other
states, thereby provoking military counter moves. It rests on the assumption that
security is something for which sates compete. The security dilemma encapsulates
one of the many difficult choices facing some governments. Governments can
relax defence efforts in order to facilitate peaceful relations. The problem is that
by doing that they may make their country more vulnerable to attack.

The security dilemma is the result of fear, insecurity and lack of trust among
states living in anarchic international system. States arm themselves in order to
pursue the rational goal of self-preservation. But by arming themselves, more fear
and insecurity is created among other states. These states in turn also increase
their armaments.

Even when a state is arming itself for purely defensive purposes, this process
make all states within the system, less secure and fuels an arms race.

The security dilemma is said to have led to WWI. And it arises primarily from the
alleged structure of the international system rather than the aggressive motives or intentions of
states assumed by the classical theorists. Classical realists argue that human nature causes states
to act in certain ways. Neo-realists on the other hand argue that the system of international
politics is the causal motor of world politics. C. Common Features of Classical and Neo-
Realism:

Both forms of realisms have the following common characteristics:

1. States behave in self-interested manner

2. Sovereign states are the key actors in IR; and they are motivated by national interest
while conducting foreign policy

3. Power is a key factor in understanding IR: both theories assume that global politics is
considered as a contest for power among states. A state‘s power is measure primarily in
terms of its military capabilities. International diplomacy is based on power politics
4. IR is inherently conflictual.
Both theories agree with the aggressive intent of states combine with the actor of world
governments that conflict is an ever resent reality of IR.

 Why will conflict be inherent? There are three conflicting answers:

228
 1. Human beings are selfish; act only for their own interests even if that means to
disadvantage/harm others and cause conflict; this nature of human being cannot
change.
2. In IR, the pursuit of national interest inevitably leads to naturalistic clashes with
other states.
3. The problem is not of human nature, but the lack of any central authority in the
international realm to control it. This gives rise to anarchy and insecurity and
states are forced to act prudently and in a manner which puts the national interest
first.
5. Order can only be achieved in the international politics through balance of power;

– that is the only way to overcome the international anarchy (which is caused by the
continual struggle for power and security among states)

2.1.2. A Critique of Realist Theory

The theory of realism has both strength and weaknesses.

 Strength:
1. From a practical standpoint, it offers a set of simple, straight forward principles that have
guided states men in their decision making for many years. It focuses on how nations
actually do behave in the international system both individually and collectively.

2. It has a valid strength from a historical, scholarly standpoint. There is a certainly wide
body of historical evidences to support the realists'‘ supposition that states are locked in a
struggle for that can and often does lead to war. Examples of such can be: the conflict
between Athens and Sparta, the series of events and decisions preceding world war I and
II, and the conditions that led to the cold war

 Weakness:

1. It is simple and understandable; yet it‘s claimed to be too simple, it is claimed that by
reducing the complex reality of the world politics to a few general laws which are said to
be applicable over time and space and which omit much of interest and importance from
our analysis. Hence, realists are said to take the substance of IR to be great power
politics, the high politics of state completion, war and aggression. This is of course a key
part of IR but it is not the only aspect we need to look at. This infers that the study of IR
is the study of security. But there are a wide array of hallmarks of international life and
competition and cooperation other than war; in IR we also study economic relations,
international development or international law.

2. In its emphasis on conflict, it tends to ignore the current expansion of cooperation

between states.

3. Realists accept that great powers rise and fall, and wars come and go, but insist that the
basic rules of the game cannot be changed. Hence they fail to embrace the idea of
229
 substantive changes. As a result, realism is inherently conservative and anti-innovative.
Whether intentionally or not, realism also serves to justify injustice on the ground that
nothing can be done to change things

4. It ignores or significantly downplays the degree to which states might have collective or
mutual interest. So it underestimates the scope for cooperation and purposive changes in
international relations.

5. States are no longer the only important actors on the international stage. IOs and NGOs
perform important functions in marinating stability and expanding cooperation
worldwide.

2.2. Transnationalist (Liberalist or Idealist) Theory

This is a theory that considers that the individual is at the centre of IR instead of the state. States
are considered s ―necessary evil‘ in the functioning of the IR system. This is so because it is
assumed that the existence of large, unrepresentative, undemocratic states fuels the path to war.

This theory Considers that individuals are rational, they are concerned with maximizing utility:
they wish to make things as good as possible for themselves. Individuals share a deep rooted
harmony of interests. These interests include things like: personal freedoms; human rights;
opportunities to engage in wealth creation.

States that are organized around principles of democracy and free trade enable the individual‘s
interests to be reflected in inter-state relations. Such states are less likely to go to war with one
another because going to war goes against the individual‘s ‗harmony of interests‘.

The Core characteristics of this theory claims that what unites human beings is more important
what dives them. This theory dominated the world of IR from the end of WWI till 1930s. It is
considered as a theory that is futurist and seeks a perfect world.

There are various strands of this liberal thought of IR. Some of these variants include: Idealism,
Interdependence, Liberal Internationalism and Neo-liberal Institutionalism, Economic
Transnationalism and Institutional Transnationalism.

Transnationalism is an all embracing ideology. It has something to say about all aspects of all the
human life. It focuses on the idea of promoting global order through expanded political and
economic ties. This theory claims that realism fails to offer adequate explanation for the order
that we see within our ‗presumably anarchic system‘. It argues that states cooperate as much if
not more than they compete. State cooperation is in the common interest of all; cooperation
results in prosperity and stability in the international system. It argue that states are not solely
motivated by national interest which is defined in terms of power. It Claims that international
politics can no longer be divided in to high and low politics. While the high politics of national
security and military power remain important, the economy and social and environmental issues
or low politics have become priorities on the international agenda.

Four major factors determine the establishments and successes of international order. These four
factors are: the role of international institutions, the international rules and norms for behaviour
230
of states, the increasing economic interdependence between nation, and technological
advancements and the growth of global communication.

These 4 factors can neither create nor enforce the type of stable international order that might be
provided by a strong world government. But these elements play an indispensable role in
constraining or regulating the behaviour of nation-states within the system, as well as shaping the
international environment as a whole; in building incentives for cooperation, in enhancing thrust
between nations and in promoting negotiation rather than military confrontation as a means to
resolve disputes between states.

 The transnatioalist theory can be distinguished in two branches: A.

Institutional Transnationalism
Institutional transnationalism is also known as idealism. It focuses on institutionalizing global
cooperation. This theory calls s for the creation of a new global power structure supported by
creating and empowering a variety of international organizations. It believes that global
cooperation is founded upon three primary factors:

i. enhancing the role and influence of international organizations

ii. instituting collective security and

iii. International law.

All the three factors can be viewed as prescriptions for how states should behave with an ultimate
goal of reforming the anarchy of the international system and forging a harmonious community
of nations.

Idealists believe that the relation between states in the international system needs to be
fundamentally reformed to ensure future wars might be avoided.

Woodrow Wilson, a prominent scholar from this branch of transnationalism, believed that the
power primes which are considered to be so critical in realist theory, was unlikely to produce a
stable international order. He wanted to build an international community of nations; (assumed
that having such institutions could solve the problem of power politics). He assumed that based
on international law and specific rules and norms of behaviour would be regulated by
international institutions. To this effect, he suggested that order within the community could be
preserved through collective security.

 What is Collective security?

It is a system in which states stand together to safeguard the territorial independence and
security of one another against aggression. Collective security differs from balance of
power politics. Collective security is not directed against a specific nation but against any
state that threatens the status quo. Enforcing international law would be a collective
responsibility for the good of all states within the community

B. Economic Transnationalism
231
This branch of transnationalism is also known as interdependence model. It emphasizes
economic ties between nations as basis to establish and preserve order within the international
system. Similar to idealism, it highlights the transnational ties or linkages between states.
Different to liberalists, these theorists identify the increasingly integrated nature of the global
economy as a major force in promoting those linkages.

Under this theory, Interdependence is a pivotal part of economic transnationalist theory. States
are increasingly interconnected or interdependent as a result of the merging of the international
and domestic economic interests. In this theory, expansion of global trade and investment has
blurred the distinction between domestic economics of individual states and of international
economy as a whole.

The more states interact with in the global marketplace, the more their prosperity depends on the
political and economic cooperation with other states. Interdependence is based on three general
assumptions:

– States are not the only key actors in IR.

 IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, economic cartels, religious groups and the like take
positions on the global stage

– The agenda of IR is more complex and diverse than in the past.

 New issues like trade, technology and the environment can be as important
as traditional national security concerns

– Military force plays less of a role in contemporary international politics.

 Economic interdependence along with expanded political ties have

increased the value of cooperation and decreased the utility of force.

– Power is no longer measured solely in terms of military strength.

 Power to influence is often the result of economic flexibility or

technological innovation, and leadership; it involves negotiating expertise
and economic coordination.

– Interdependence has dramatically increased the incentives for cooperation not

only among states but among all international actors.
All forms of transnationalism Claim that the harmony of interests among states can be attained.

 What is Harmony of interests?

This is the belief that the interest of all states coincides with economic transnationalists and
focuses on the mutual advantages of cooperation between nations.

For institutional nationalists, harmony of interests emphasizes that the security of all nations is
enhanced by international cooperation. For economic transnationalists, harmony of interests

232
revolves around how the growing economic interdependence of nations brings security of all
nations. For both branches of this theory, the utility of power and military force as instruments of
FP has been marginalized by greater linkages and expanded cooperation-political or economic-
among all nations of the international system.

2.2.2. A critique of Transnationalist Theory

1. This theory emphasizes too much on harmony of interests.

– Cooperation between states (political, economic or military) is subject to a number

of international and external pressures, making success much more problematic
than transnationalists might imply

2. Regarding human nature, realist critics suggest that the transnationalism underestimates
the conflictual aspect of state interests and that the benefits of cooperation can often be
outweighed by fear and mistrust
3. It fails to take into account the powerful role of nationalism in world politics.

– Both ancient and contemporary human history shows clear examples where religion
or ethnicity formed the basis for conflict between nations.

1. (EG: crusades, events in Rwanda; all show human nature offers more
complex questions that transnationalist theory is prepared to answer in this
regard).

2. Nuclear weapons may have deterred super power confrontation but

conventional conflict between smaller states still occurs.
3. Since east-west coalitions have loosened, states now pursue their own
narrow interests– guided by ethnic or nationalist ideals.
4. The state cannot be expected to pursue collective gains on a consistent
basis.

– Maintaining long term cooperation between nations is more problematic than

transnationalism implies.

– Like individuals, states can be attracted by relative gains, settling for less gain but
more control and self-reliance than the broader cooperation of transnationalism
necessitates.

– The goal and prioritise can also change making such an arrangement too
confining or inappropriate under new or altered circumstances.

5. The theme of national interest (as opposed to transnationalism‘s collective interest) is

evident in many past and contemporary conflicts throughout the world.

6. Small countries with limited economic or geopolitical value to the major powers rely on
collective security only at their own considerable peril/risk.

233
 7. This theory is viewed as western centric;

– Critics view interdependence as exploitative of rather than beneficial to less

developed countries.

– Interdependence affects countries differently. For example, ddeveloping nations

like Ethiopia are more vulnerable to the economic shifts and cultural intrusion or
imperialism associated with interdependence that richer industrialized state like
the US.

2.3. Structuralism, Marxism or Class Theory

Marxism is an ideology derived from Karl Marx critique of Capitalism. It is a dialectical

theoretical approach (an approach based on the cognitive and material struggle to overcome the
social contradictions of the accumulation of wealth)

2.3.1. Structuralism: Basic Concepts

Structuralism is also known as the radical, globalist or Neo-Marxist theory. This theory argues
that it is classes and the division between them that define and determine the course of IR (hence
also known as Class System)

This Based on 4 important concepts:

1. economic factors are the driving forces of IR

• Political and military power are the direct result of the underlying economic
strength or the dominant class.

2. Focuses on the development of the capitalist world economy and how it both
creates and perpetuates uneven development between advanced capitalist states
and poor less developed states

3. Points to an international class structure in which the advanced industrialized

states (the center/core of the world capitalist system) dominate and exploit poorer
states (the periphery of this system.)

4. Transnational class coalitions represent the primary actors in international politics.

• States are important but only as agents of the dominant class.

• Non-state actors most notably MNCs allow capitalist elites to maintain the
exploitative economic links that bind core countries with those on the
periphery
Proponents of the theory argue that global economic relations are structured so as to benefit
certain social classes, and that the resulting world system is fundamentally unjust.

Structuralism resembles realism in a sense that both emphasize conflict as a central process of
IR. To this effect, Neo-realism and structuralism share the view that conflict is structural because
of the framework in which interstate /economic relations take place. However, unlike realism
234
( which claims that states only pursue national security interests), this theory argues that states
act in accordance with the wishes of the dominant economic class within the state. Structuralists
say that the capitalist class is the dominant class, and the Foreign Policy of the state will
therefore be oriented to enhance the wealth and influence of the capitalist class.

Structuralism also shares common ground with transnationalism. Both theories emphasize the
profoundly interconnected nature of international economic relations and the importance of
nonstate actors. But structuralism stresses the conflictual nature of the global economy and
structural relations of the domination and dependency, rather than the anarchic nature of the state
system or complex interdependence. For structuralists economic forces are key parts of the
framework of their theory. Unlike economic transnationalists, structuralists emphasize the
exploitative nature of international economic ties between states. They believe there is a system
wide hierarchy of classes and states that is rooted in the unequal distribution of wealth. For them
the structure and process of IR is largely the result of the struggle between rich and poor
countries (North-South Conflict). Conflict is assumed to occur by the clash of opposing
economic interests namely the clash between capitalist and non-capitalist states. War is the result
of capitalist states attempting to increase their wealth and power through imperialist foreign
policies in which strong capitalist states seek to exploit non-capitalist states. Such conflicts will
continue until the international status quo is radically altered, socialism replaces capitalism as the
dominant socio-economic system and a more equitable distribution of wealth among nations is
attained.

However, the change will not be an easy one. This is mainly because the capitalist world system
beneficiaries (the dominant capital class) have a stake in preventing such radical change and
preserving the current arrangement, keeping the rich wealthy and the poor poorer.

This theory highlights the connection between politics and economics. It acknowledges that
states are important actors, but also emphasize that the dominant class exerts significant
influence and often controls government policy makers.

In this theory, Non-state actors like MNCs and IOs are considered to have a great role as they
foster transnational class coalitions. The idea of transnational class coalitions suggests that
economic classes form close ties across nation‘s boundaries.

Transnational class coalition is very different from transnationalism theory. Under this theory
MNCs are considered to be mechanisms by which capitalist class penetrates the poor countries.
MNCs exploit lesser developed countries as a source of cheap labor and inexpensive natural
resources. Then, they transfer profits from the lesser developed state to the base of operations in
advanced capitalist states. These profits enable the capitalist class to increase global influence
and sustain a dominant position in the world.

Why doesn't the capitalist society show a more selfless attitude more broadly? Why are some
counties rich and some poor? In trying to answer these questions, structuralism claims that
human nature tends towards self-interest and the need to dominate other. And the answer here is
similar to the assumptions in realism theory. But unlike realism, this theory believes that if

235
society were based more on an equal distribution of wealth, the aggressive and negative aspects
of human nature might be reformed and perfected.

 Main features of the Strucutralist perspective include the following points:

• The nature of IR is profoundly shaped by the structure of the capitalist world economy or
capitalist world system

– Capitalism is fundamentally unjust social and economic order which generates

conflict and disharmony

– Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the poor by the rich.

• IR is shaped by or even determined by economic actor

• The main actors are states, MNCs and transnational corporations and transnational social
classes

• The state reflects the interests of dominant classes rather than the existence of the genuine
national interest

2.3.2. Variants of the structuralist theory A.

Dependency theory:
Advocates of this variant of the Marxist theory include: Theotonio, Doe Santos and Immanuel
Watllerstein. This theory tries to explain the underdevelopment in wealth between poor and rich
countries. It claims that trade, foreign investment, and foreign aid between advanced and
industrialized courtiers and poor, less developed states is inherently exploitive, works to the
disadvantage of the poor nations and perpetuates the dependency of these less developed
countries.

Dominant core countries have a stake in preserving this cycle of dependency and exploitation
that exists with periphery and semi-periphery states and pursue foreign and domestic polices to
further that goal. Poor and less developed countries are virtually class coalitions,

B. Class Theory
This variant of the Marxist theory argues that strong capitalist nations have allies in these poor
nations. Small groups of capitalist elites in the peripheral states act as liaisons (links) to the
partners with leaders, policy makers and businesses executive in the core countries. These elites
have more in common with the capitalists of foreign nations than with the underclass of their
own state. They too then have a stake in preserving the status quo of dependency; and exploit
their own country.

2.3.2. A critique of Structuralism

1. It exaggerates the role that the world capitalist system plays in limiting development;

• It ignores the impact that policies adopted in the less developed states
themselves have on their own economic development.
236
 • Dependency theory can only account for countries that have failed to
develop.

• Rapid and successful industrial development in Taiwan, Singapore, Hong

Kong, South Korea and Brazil is difficult for structuralism to explain or
dismiss.

– Contrary to the suppositions of structuralism, capitalism can be beneficial and bring

prosperity to developing countries.

2. Structuralism relies on case studies that conform to and confirm their particular paradigm.

– States that fall outside these parameters tend to be ignored.

– This is a theoretical blind eye;

• It is particularly true with respect to the weakness of communist nations.

While focusing on North and South relations, class system theorists fail to
account for a significant percentage of the global.

• The former USSR and Eastern Europe states, even china, present some
difficulties for the structuralism paradigm.

• Certainly during the CW era, the USSR maintained policies of imperialism

in the subjugation and exploitation of Eastern,

– Imperialist domination of other stats is evidently not limited solely to capitalist

powers.
3. It is reductionist:

– It reduces all phenomena (war, economic crisis, inequality, aspects of identify and
the like) to the dynamic of capitalism and to social class and class struggle.
• This means structuralists have failed to ask a whole range of questions about
gender, ethnicity and identities of other sorts.

– They have reduced a highly complex situation to one which is wholly explained by
class, when in fact, patterns of oppression are multi-faceted and overlapping ones,
4. The way interests are understood in the theory may be questionable:

– Is it really possible that interests are so fundamentally determined by social class?

– Are interests really this fixed?

In spite of these flaws the theory still provides important insights into the economic development
process and remains a highly popular explanation of global politics

2.4. Feminism

Feminism is the study of a movement that calls for women not to be seen as objects but as
subjects of knowledge. Until 1980s, the role of gender in the theory and practice of IR was
237
generally ignored. After 1980s, Feminism has emerged as a key critical perspective with in the
study of IR

The main aim of this theory is to challenge the fundamental biases of IR; and highlight the ways
in which women were excluded form analysis of the state, international political economy and
international security. It argues that the current system fails to promote the interests and roles of
women in the world community.

It considers IR as one sided, masculinist and not fully representative of women's contributions
and issues. Feminists draw attention to the way in which we construct certain ideas about male
and female characteristics: Men are viewed as: strong, violent yet rational while Women are
viewed as: passive, caring and emotional.

Both the theories of realism and neo-realism claim the world is full of rational states struggling to
survive in a hostile and violent world. Feminists claim that this clearly shows that the world has
been conceived with masculinist assumptions in mind. Feminists criticize the realist and
neorealist theory saying that the two theories overemphasis on violence, aggression and
competition is wrong. They say that this is androcentricism (taking characteristics associated
with masculinity and universalizing them).

As to the feminists, the way in which the state has conventionally been understood in much IR
theories is wrong. IR simply assumes that international politics is something that is conducted by
sovereign states. This is wrong for the feminists.

Jill Steans, a proponent of the feminist theory, says: ―this obscures the extent to which things
happen below the state, effectively assigning the study of gender relations to a domestic realm
that has no place in the high politics of the international realm‖. Jill says, by doing so, IR scholars
are able to maintain the useful fiction of gender neutrality because gender is not seen to have a
legitimate place within the study of international politics.

But feminists point out that understanding the state as ‗gender neutral‘ obscure extent to which
states have acted to institutionalize gender inequality throughout their legal and bureaucratic
structures and policy practices. The dominance of male scholars within the academic discipline
of IR is manifested in the androcentric bias of the discipline. The attachment to rational
objective of social scientific method found in mainstream positivist IR theory is indicative of the
male bias within the discipline. Positivist approaches in IR generate a discipline that is all about
objective scientific values rather than the ways in which international politics touches down and
impacts on the everyday lives of ordinary people.

Some consider this ontological revisionism (a process whereby scholars go beyond accepted
definitions to show how these definitions mask and disguise gendered power relations). One
benefit of feminist IR is that it has opened up a space for the voice of the disadvantaged to be
brought into the discipline.

Feminism is an umbrella term; it embraces a wide range of critical theory aimed at examining the
role of gender in IR. There is: Liberal feminism, Radical feminism, Marxist feminism,
PostMarxist or Socialist feminism, Postmodernist feminism, etc.
238
Feminism is sometimes equated with idealism and they have themselves been criticized for
ignoring men in their eagerness to promote the emancipation of women.

 The basic assumptions of feminist theory:

• Employs gender as a central categories of analysis

• Regarded gender as a particular kind of relationship

– Believe that women have been subjected to discrimination and unequal treatment

• Contemporary feminist theory does not solely focus on the lives of women but is an
analysis of the socially and culturally constructed category: gender

• Most feminists in IR would probably regard male scholars and students as ‗good
feminists‘ when they engage seriously with feminist ideas and arguments and incorporate
feminist concepts and analysis into their own work
• Challenge the idea that the nation state is the principal referent of security.

– The degree to which people feel or actually are threatened varies according to
their economic political, social or personal circumstances.
– Gender hierarches and inequalities can be shown to constitute an obstacle to the
achievement of genuine security

2.4.2. A Critique of Feminist Theory

1. It fails to provide a comprehensive theoretical construct for analyzing IR.

– It focuses much on how the situation in world politics and the study of world
politics might be changed; it doesn't supply explanatory and theoretical tools to
construct a thorough analysis
2. These theorists risk reinforcing the same gender stereotyping they are trying to overcome.

– They use selective characterization of women

• women presented as more cooperative peaceful and men as violent and

aggressive
3. Gender may not provide a sufficient explanation for past and contemporary international
politics.

– Large forces shape the behavior of various actors on the world stage, irrespective of
gender

• EG: forces like: human nature, disparities in wealth and power, anarchic
world system etc.

239
 • Critics claim that even when women have assumed leadership positions
and confronted the same global problem that men have confronted, women
have acted in a similar fashion

4. Feminism does not take into account other major divisions between women based on
social class or ethnicity.

– Feminism relies upon the notion that there is a universal category of ‗women‘ and
that women share certain common experiences or interests.

• But what women experience and the social meaning ascribed to gender
differences is different from society to society and from culture to culture.

2.5. Constructivist Theory

This is a distinctive approach to IR; it emphasizes the social or inter-subjective dimension of

world politics. It believe that all knowledge of the world is ‗socially constructed‘. It claims that
knowledge reflects our own prejudices, ideas and assumptions rather than some kind of objective
social reality

This theory starts by mentioning how IR cannot be reduced to rational action and interaction
within material constraints or within institutional constrains at the international and national
levels. State interaction is not among fixed National Interest, but must be understood as a pattern
of action that shapes and is shaped by identities over time. The theory argues that states fulfill
their goals depending upon their social identities (how states see themselves in relation to other
states in international society).

Constructivists assume that States may have many different social identities that can be
cooperative or conflictual and that the states‘ interests vary accordingly. States define their
interests in the process of interpreting the social situations in which they are participants.

 Basic characteristics of the constructivist theory:

• Draws on sociological theories; stresses the societal aspect of IR instead of the
mechanistic qualities of the international system in neo-realism
• Concerned with how interests are constructed in IR

– Do not deny the role of interests in policy making, but try to understand how these
interests are constructed

• Interested in the role of ideas, norms, institutions, identity and culture in IR.

– Norms are crucial in the process of socialization.

• Similar to individuals, states become socialized into the particular form of

international society

• Understands that social sciences cannot operate like the natural sciences; however,
insist on the possibility to theorize and empirically analyze IR as a reality
240
Constructivism is interested in how actors define their National Interest (NI); threats to choose
interests and their relationships to one another. For realists state interests are given, but for
constructivists IR is put in the context of broader social relations- examining questions
surrounding identities. For example, why is Great Britain‘s nuclear power not a threat to USA
while North Korea‘s is? Constructivists say this is because of the shared history, alliance ad
norms between USA and Great Britain tell USA that Great Britain cannot be an enemy.

For consturctivists, State identities are complex, challenging and arise from interactions with
other states; through a process of socialization. Over time states can conceptualize each other in a
way that there becomes no danger of a security dilemma, arms race or the other effects of
anarchy. The international system consist of social relationships as well as material capabilities.
Social relationships give meaning to materiel capabilities.

Constructivists understand international institutions as much more than actual organization. They
regard it as a stable set or structure of identities and interests. Institutions are fundamentally
cognitive (imaginary) entities that do not exist apart from actors‘ ideas about how the world
works. Institutions embody the constitutive and regulative norms and rules of international
interactions; like shaping, constraining and giving meaning to state action and in part define what
it is to be a state. Constructivists assume that Institutions continue to exist because states produce
and reproduce them through practice; state identities and interests (how states relate to one
another) can be changed at the systemic level through institutionally mediated interactions.
Constructivists focus most of their attention on institutions that exist at a fundamental level of
international society like international law, diplomacy and sovereignty.

Regimes are also important in this theory. Regimes reproduce constitutive as well as regulative
norms. They help to create a common social world for interpreting the meaning of behavior. A
regime‘s proper functioning presupposes that the more fundamental institutions are already in
place, making its activities possible. Regimes therefore do not create cooperation; they benefit
from the cooperative effects of much deeper structures.

2.5.2. A Critique of Constructivist Theory

1. Most of the concepts that constructivists operate with are rather unclearly defined.

• Some analyses for instance talk about identity, culture, norms and
institutions, and it can be rather difficult to separate them.
2. As a theoretical approach, it is difficult to employ.

• It does not predict any particular social structure to govern the behavior of
states. It rather requires that a given social relationship be examined,
articulated, and ultimately, understood.

» When this is done, then it may be possible to predict state

behavior within that particular structure.

241
 – But if these predictions prove false, it could be that the governing
social structures were not properly understood or have simply
changed.

2.6. Theory of Postmodernism

This is a broad approach to scholarship that has left its mark on various academic disciplines,
especially the study of literature. It is an approach that is based on the questioning of knowledge
claims, and focused on exposing the linkages between knowledge creation and power. It emerged
in the 1980s

Characterized by three main themes.

 1st theme: attacking metanarratives

Postmodernists are hostile towards claims to universal or absolute truth. The theory assumes that
there can be no objective knowledge of the world- no basis upon which we can make these
claims to a universal position of truth. They reject the idea of an external reality independent of
our perceptions and the language we use to express those perceptions and therefore they claim to
undermine the traditional distinction between theory and practice.

Postmodernists argue that all truth claims are based on metanarratives (background worldviews),
according to which particular claims to truth or value are legitimated or rejected. Central to the
postmodernist approach is an attack on metanarratives- theories tied to a particular set of truth
claims about the world.

The theory claims that we should be wary of the claims of the dominant metanarratives of
modernity, the competing accounts of universal human nature, knowledge and historical progress
that constitute the various streams of the enlightenment project, notably those of realism,
idealism, Marxism and modern scientific methods.

 2nd theme: Emancipatory narratives are oppressive.

Post modernists seek to unmask ‗supposedly emancipatory‘ grand narratives as oppressive. They
say that particular liberations have given birth to new forms of caging. For example, they say:
Liberalism has emancipated us from feudalism only to deliver us to capitalism; and that Marxism
has merely replaced capitalism with Stalinism; and also, Modern Science has neglected and
marginalized pre-modern forms of human knowledge.

The conception of the metanarrative excludes, as its shadow, a conception of the ‗other‘ that
does not fit that particular category. The excluded other can then be legitimately oppressed. And
so postmodernists say that truth itself is a mask for power.

 3rd theme: Respect for difference

242
Postmodernism might be summed up as ‗respect for difference‘. We should be wary of any large
scale programs of liberation. Rather than revolution, our focus should be resistance at a local
specific level. We should turn away from Universalist understandings and principles towards a
heightened respect for and fostering of otherness.

The central idea of postmodernism is that there is no single, objective reality but a multiplicity of
experiences and perspectives that defy categorization. For this reason, postmodernism by itself is
difficult to present in a simple or categorical way.

From a postmodern perspective, realism cannot justify its claim that states are the central actors
in IR and that states operate as unitary actors with coherent sets of objective interests (which they
pursue through international power politics). No ‗one set of values or interests‘ applies to all
states. There is nothing objective about state interests, and certainly nothing universal about it (as
is claimed by realism)

Postmodernism calls in to question the whole notion of ‗states as actors‘. States have no tangible
reality; they are fictions that we construct to make sense of the actions of large numbers of
individuals. The stories told about the actions and policies of states are just stories.

At the core of postmodernist thinking is a belief that the person studying international relations
cannot be separated from the object of their studies. So where as some theorists of IR
(neorealism in particular) placed emphasis on the need for the scholar to look at the world from
an impartial value-free objective standpoint, postmodernists claim that the goal for value free
neutrality can never be attained. Things like the social class, race and ethnicity gender and
nationality of the author all impinge in some way on how knowledge is created. For them,
orthodox students of IR are forever in search of some elusive ideal (order, stability, freedom, and
equality).

Theories that present themselves as value free and scientific do so because being described as
such adds legitimacy to the work of a scholar; but postmodernists argue instead that these
theories are as unscientific, subjective and full of values and opinions as any other set of theories.
In the study f IR, scholars inspired by postmodernism draw our attention to the ways in which
knowledge and power are indivisibly connected in the theory and practice of IR

2.6.1. A critique of Postmodernism

1. It gives us no way of distinguishing between good and bad forms of knowledge

2. If we cannot grasp life from a single perspective, and power is everywhere,

ultimately this means we cannot judge the validity of different discourses

3. Accused of being a little more than a trendy manifestation of cognitive and ethical
relativism.
• For example, the postmodernist critique of modern reason world seem to
exclude it from participating in any renewal of normative arguments about
a just world order. By reducing truth and ethics to power, the postmodern
deconstruction of realism ends up by reaffirming the view that power
243
 cannot be controlled to serve emancipatory human interests, assuming that
they exit of course.

Chapter Three Understanding National Interest, Foreign Policy and

Diplomacy

3.1. Defining National Interest (NI)

It‘s the main driving force that determines the contents of foreign policy. But there are
controversies on the exact meaning, scope and contents of what is meant by ‗NI‘. It amounts to
the set of values, orientation, goals and objectives that a country wants to achieve in its
international relations. NI is the raison de`tat (reason of state) to justify its actions and policy
towards other states at the international level.

Different scholars define it differently:

A.K. Holsti defines NI as follows: “NI is an image of the future state of affairs and future set of
conditions that governments through individual policy makers aspire to bring about by wielding
influence abroad and by changing or sustaining the behaviors of other states.‖ Thus for him, NI is
something related to the ambition of governments; what they wish to fulfill in future interactions
with other states; and power/the ability to influence the behaviors of other states is a primary
instrument to implement NI

Seabury defines NI as a set of purposes which a nations should seek to realize in the conduct of
its foreign relations. He says that NI amounts to those purposes which the nation/state through its
leadership appears to pursue persistently over time.

Colmbis has provided a multiplicity of criteria used in defining NI: A.

Operational Philosophy:

There are two ways of operation in Foreign Policy Decision Making (FPDM).

1. Synoptic Orientation of Decision Making: this amounts to acting in a bold sweeping

fashion (upon taking office, introduce major new practices, policies and institutions and
discontinue others). In this form of decision making, the decision maker assumes that he/she has
enough information about an important issue to develop a major policy with some confidence
that its consequences can be predicted or controlled.

2. Incremental Orientation of Decision Making: this is when the decision maker acts in
caution, probing and experimental fashion, following the trial and error approach. Decision
maker assumes that political and economic problems are too complex to proceed with bold
initiative without worrying about their consequence. Thus, seeks to perfect existing legislations,
policies, institutions and practices

B. Ideological criteria

244
NI may be shaped by underlying ideological orientations of the regime in power. Ideology serves
as a litmus paper for identifying friends or enemies in IR as governments use ideological criteria
to establish their relations with other states. For example during the Cold War period, ideology
was used to identify friends from foe in the bipolar world system of the time.

C. Moral and Legal Criteria

Sometimes states are expected to act morally (acting honestly and making public decisions
accordingly). Moral behavior in international politics involves: keeping your promise; living and
letting others live; standing up for the principles to which you are morally committed and that are
widely accepted in your culture

Acting legally in the international system amounts to abiding by the rules of international law.

D. Pragmatic Criteria

This criteria tells that matter of fact in shaping your National Interest is your orientation. You
look at issues and events around you and the world with sense of prudence (carefulness) and with
sort of rationality. Decisions are made based on scientific analysis of cost and benefit or merit
and demerit to your country's interest.

Normative issues, issues involving judgment are not considered while making FP decisions.

E. Professional Advancement Criteria

The FPDM can be affected by the desire for one‘s own personal success; thus the NI might
become the action of the decision maker which he/she choses to promote his/her professional
survival and growth. The leaders (decision makers) might choose conformity to either to popular
pressure or

F. Partisan criteria

The success of your country might be equated with the survival and success of your political
party/ethnic origin/religious origin; thus you may use bureaucratic criteria to prioritize the policy
issues. The interest of your organization/group might be equated with the NI of the state.

G. Foreign Dependency Criteria

This form of National Interest creation applies to less developed states who fell for colonialism
and have now kept ties with their ex masters in spite of gaining political independence. They still
depend on their ex masters for technical aid, expertise and technology; and even security. Thus
the state will have a hard time to promote its NI as a result of their dependence on external
powers.

National interest can also be defined in different ways based on the theoretical assumptions of the
different theories of IR.

 What do realist think about NI?

245
Hans Morgenthau, one of the famous scholars supporting the idea of realism,defines NI in
terms of pursuits of power. For him, Power is about establishing control or influencing the
behaviors of others (either diplomatically or by using coercion). He says that international
politics is a struggle among states; the main interest of state is survival and security. So he claims
that NI in a competitive and anarchical international environment, should be defined objectively
in terms of ensuring survival and security of a state. And so, ideological concepts like legal,
moral and justice should not have a place to define NI.

Morgenthau warns leaders of states to be cautious enough in calculating the range and scope of
their countries NI. The scope of NI and their foreign policy should be proportional to their
capabilities. For him, a good diplomat is a rational diplomat; a rational diplomat is a prudent
diplomat; where Prudence is considered to be the ability to assess one‘s needs and aspirations
while carefully balancing them against the needs and aspirations of others. Realists fail to
recognize and prescribe solutions for addressing global problems

 What do idealists think about NI?

Idealists feel strongly about the relevance of legal, ideological and moral elements. They claim
that specific actions and objective of FP have often been derived from general moral and legal
guidelines and principles. And it is agreed in this theory that Moral and legal grounds are used to
justify policies like: the formation of alliance, declaration of war, covert foreign intervention,
humanitarian intervention, foreign aid and others.

NI reflects the marriage of different criteria that include legal and moral criteria, ideological
criteria and prudence or pragmatism (practical necessities on the ground) for the idealists. They
believe on the prevalence of common problems of human beings; and call for global solutions for
such problems (than local /national solutions). They also believe that the establishment of new
intuitions with global orientation may play vital role in addressing global problems and that
states could no longer be the only viable actors in addressing such problems by themselves.

3.1.2. Classification of National Interest NI

can be classified in to 5 as follows:

1. Primary Interest: are vital and core interests of a state. Examples of such interests
include the interest for security and survival.

2. Secondary Interest: these are vita but not critical interests. Some examples for these
types of national interests include: protection of citizens aboard and ensuring diplomatic
immunities of the diplomatic staff
3. Permanent Interest: these are long term interests of states which rarely change.

4. Variable Interest: these are vital interests of a state within a certain circumstances. These
are interests that are influenced by different factors like institutions personalities, ideas,
time and place

246
 5. General Interest: shared or common interests shared between many states. Examples of
such interests could be: trading, diplomatic relations and commercial contacts.

3.2. Understanding Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Behaviors

3.2.1. Defining Foreign Policy (FP)

Foreign Policy is understood as the sets of objectives and instruments that a state adopts to guide
its relations with the outside world. FP is something that a state would like to achieve in its
external relations with others. It involves the general purposes and specific strategies a state
employs to achieve or promote its NI.

Different scholars try to define the concept in various ways. For example, according to Rochester
FP is defined as follows: ―FP is the set of priorities and percepts established by national leaders
to serve as guidelines for choosing among various courses of action in specific situations in
international affairs.‖ For him, NI is the set of objectives, visions and goals that a state aspires to
achieve. And all states want to aspire their NI as their capability or power allows them to do. And
according to Mortnthau, the basic minimum goal for NI is survival. Every state tries to protect
their: Physical identity (maintaining territorial integrity), Political identity (preserving existing
politico-economic system) and their cultural identity (ethnic, religious and linguistic and
historical norms of the people in the state).

FP involves specific instruments and tactics to realize the NI of a state. The instruments/tactics
include: diplomatic bargaining, economic instruments, propaganda, terrorism (sabotage), and use
of force/war. These instruments are used to affect the behaviors of other states.

3.2.2. Foreign Policy Objectives

Security and survival of a state are the basic priorities among various FP objectives. K.J. Holisti
categorizes FP objectives in to 3 as: Short Range Objectives (core interests and values), Middle
Range Objectives, and Long Range Objectives. These classifications are based on a combination
of three criteria:

1. The value placed on the objective

2. The time element placed on its achievement

3. The kind of demands the objectives imposes on other states in

international system.

A. Short Range Objectives (Core Interests and Values)

These are goals for which most people are willing to make ultimate sacrifices. They are usually
stated in the form of basic principles of FP and become article of faith that society accepts
without any questioning. These goals that are sacrosanct (untouchable) by entire people residing
in the state. And they are usually related to: self-preservation of political and economic systems,
the people and its culture, and the territorial integrity of a state.

247
The exact definition for what constitutes Short Range Objectives depends on the attitudes of
those who make FP. Some put great values on controlling or defending neighboring territories.
This is called Extra territoriality; which means when the NI and claims of a country are projected
beyond the limit of its geographic boundary. Some put great value in protecting the interests and
the security of their citizens or kin ethnic or religious groups living in the neighboring states and
other states.

The most essential objective of any FP‘s core interests and values is:

– To ensure the sovereignty and independence of the home territory; and

– To perpetuate (continue) a particular political, social and economic systems based on

that territory.

B. Middle Range Objectives

Middle range objectives vary across states due to the difference in the level of: economic and
technological progress and their military capability

What a state likes to achieve in its medium term may include: to take a course of actions that
have the highest impact on the domestic economic and welfare needs and expectation. This
includes attempt of governments to meet economic betterment demands and needs through
international action.

To satisfy domestic needs and aspirations that amount to their middle range objectives, states
would have to interact with other states (Interdependence). Trade, foreign aid, access to
communication facilities, sources of supply and foreign market are necessary for a state to
increase its social welfare.

C. Long Range Objectives

These are plans, dreams and visions concerning the ultimate political or ideological organization
of the international system, and the rules governing relations in that system. Long range
objectives may have international outcomes as far as they are complemented by the capabilities
and powers.

Even the middle powers and developing states have their own long range objectives. Every
country has its own visions and ambition proportional to its relative strength and capabilities to
be realized in the long run.

Long range objectives differ from middle range objectives in terms of the time element that both
need and also in terms of scope. In terms of scope, middle range objectives make particular
demands against particular interests; while in the long range objectives states normally make
universal demands ; and their purpose here is to reconstruct an entire international system
according to a universally applicable plan or vision.

3.2.3. Foreign Policy Behavior: Patterns and Trends

248
Foreign policy behavior refers to the actions states take towards each other. Usually, these actions
are not ends by themselves. The actions are tied to some form of purpose or objective that leaders
hope to achieve in their dealings with other countries.

Arnold Wolfers: identified 3 FP patterns for the foreign policy behavior of states:

A. Self-Preservation (maintaining the status quo);

• EG: USA after the WWII shaped international organizations like the IMF,
WTO, World Bank to serve the global interest of the USA- which is to
remain the world hegemon.)

B. Self-Extension (revising the status quo in one‘s own favor)

• EG: BRICS states and other newly emerging powers compete to restructure
the international institutions and different regimes to create enabling
environment to promote their NI

C. Self-Abnegation (revising the status quo in someone else‘s favor)

• EG: Least Developed Countries (LDCs), usually fail to defend and promote
their national interest in their external relations as they are dependent on
others. Thus they face the challenges of compromising their long lasting
national interest for temporary and immediate benefits.

3.2.4. Foreign Policy Dimensions

FP behavior can change over time and with different style of leaderships and circumstances.

Based on these dimensions FP behavior can be analyzed in terms of:

1. Alignment

A country‘s alignment behavior can vary from time to time in response to changing
circumstances and policy decisions

 There are 3 alignment tendencies

I. Alliance: this is when formal agreements to provide mutual military assistance; by doing
so, they carry legal weight and certain benefits and risks. Positive sides of alliance include
the fact that allied states can pool their military resources, acquire access to foreign bases;
while the negative side of alliance includes the fact that states risk interference by allies in
its domestic affairs as well as generating potential enemies and counter alliance

II. Neutrality: this is stance of formal non partnership in world affairs. It may also refer to
describe the general affective orientation of a country; countries can tilt towards one side or
another in some strategic issues without necessarily becoming part of formal alliances. For
example, Israel is not a formal ally of US; but sides with the US on many issues. By

249
 avoiding alliance, states may avoid some of the problems associated with alliances (the
possibility of generating potential enemies and counter alliances).

III. Non alignment: is a pattern followed by most of the developing states during Cold War.
They disregarded both the West and East bloc politics and alliances; and they called for the
South-South cooperation

2. Scope
The scope of a country's activities and interests is also a FP dimension. The scope of contact of a
country can affect the outcome of disputes and crises. In terms of scope, there are three patterns
of FP behaviors:

I. A state acting in Global terms:

Major Powers in IR define their interests in global terms. For example, USA defines its national
interest in global terms (it has a strong military and diplomatic presence across the world)

II. A state acting in Regional terms:

Most countries in the world fall in this category as they interact primarily with neighboring states
in the same geographical area (exceptionally making frequent contact with major actors for
economic issues like trade). For example, Ethiopia is a regional actor in East Africa; has trade
and economic ties with the major actors like the US and China.

III. A state acting in terms of isolationism: in the age of interdependence this has become a
less viable FP orientation. It refers to narrow FP scope of a country as a result of key
weaknesses or geographic remoteness. A good example of a state following this FP
orientation can be Burma in 1960s and 70s

3. Mode of Operation (Modus Operandi)

I. Multilateralist: these are states that chose to rely on multilateral institutions to address
different issues in their FP objectives. Most developing countries use this multilateral approach
to address many issues of concern.

Multilateral forum would enhance collective bargaining power of developing countries vs.
developed countries. In spite of power and capability, some countries may choose to use
multilateral frameworks as the best strategy to address issues with the spirit of cooperation and
peace. For example, Scandinavians and Germany are known to use this mode of operation;

II. Unilateralist: this refers to states that chose to rely on unilateral means of settling
different issues with other countries. They use carrot and stick diplomacy to affect the outcomes
of events; they use intervention, threat of use of force and sometimes force to influence the
behavior of other states. But even these states would mostly use multilateral institutions to settle
problems

 Factors that influence FP:

250
 A. Power

Power refers to states‘ capacity to control or at least influence other states or the outcome of
events. There are two dimensions of power: Internal dimension of power which amounts to
autonomy; and capacity for action (a state is powerful to the extent that it is protected rom
outside influence or coercion while formulating and implementing policies); and External
dimension of power, which refers to the capacity to control the behavior of others; to enforce
compliance.

Power is situational; that means the resources necessary for the exercise of power change from
time to time by nature or by humans. And also, national power is dynamic not static. Power can
also be actual, potential or perceived.

There is also the concept of Fungiblity of power, which refers to the ability to change one form of
power in to another. For example, economic power can easily be changed into military power for
a state. Power might be permanent in nature or it might change in the course of time.

B. Domestic /Internal Factors

1. Elements of National Power can influence the FP for states.
These national powers can be physical factors like that of Geography, Climate, Natural resources,
and Population. It can also refer to Economic Factors which include: GDP; military strength;
technology; Investments in Foreign Land. And it also includes Political Factors that include:
military alliance and strength; Leadership and quality of diplomacy

2. Previous FP decisions of states

On the basis of the effect of past policies, there could be decision to be taken for policy
adjustment or new policies.

C. External/International Environment
International factors like that of: Regulations or International law; Structure of the system
(unipolar; bi-polar or multipolar); Policies and Actions of the other Actors; Global and Regional
Problems (like poverty, hunger, development issues, terrorism, political issues in the world;
environmental issues) are also significant factors in shaping the FP of states.

2.2.5. Instruments of Foreign Policy

Of the various types of foreign policy instruments, two of the major ones are discussed below:
diplomacy and economic instruments.

A. Diplomacy

Can be seen as a structured communication between two or more parties. It can be traced back to
at least 2500years back where envoys used to travel between neighboring civilizations. This form
of envoy exchange lacked many of the characteristics and commonalities of modern diplomacy.

251
For example, there were no embassies, International law and professional diplomatic services
during ancient civilizations, however, political communities usually found ways to communicate
during peacetime. The benefits of envoy exchanges in those times was that conducting
diplomacy through envoy exchange can promote exchanges that enhance trade, culture, wealth
and knowledge.

Formally diplomacy can be defined as a process between actors (diplomats representing a state)
who exist with in a system (IR) and engage in private and public dialogue to pursue their
objectives in a peaceful manner. Diplomacy is a complex game where the goal of the practitioner
is to influence the behaviors of others according to ones‘ interests. Diplomacy is different from
FP in that Diplomacy is an instrument in FP (part of FP). A state‘s FP is a combination of the
actions and strategies that a state follows in its interaction with another state/states. This
interaction usually takes place between government personnel, through diplomacy. Interacting
without diplomacy limits a state‘s FP actions to conflict or espionage. Hence, diplomacy is an
essential tool required to operate successfully in today's international system.

The practice of diplomacy has evolved throughout its long historical development. Diplomacy in
the past, used to be practiced in a formalistic and somewhat rigid manner which was limited to
the bilateral relations of countries as being represented through the ambassadors hosted in
foreign soil. The bargaining process and other diplomatic process were the business of
ambassadors. The ambassadors acted under closed and secret manner.

The more recent type of diplomacy that is being practiced nowadays is different from the old
diplomacy in many aspects. Diplomacy nowadays, After WWI, and formation of the LON, the
old style of diplomacy has been drastically reformed. A new form of diplomacy emerged
(multilateral diplomacy; public diplomacy; summit diplomacy). In the modern context,
diplomacy is practiced mostly between states; but it also involves powerful non-state actors.
These non-state actors in IR partake in areas of diplomacy and often materially shape outcomes.
For example, International NGOs like that of Green Peace and Intergovernmental Organizations
like that of UN, and EC can shape the outcomes of diplomatic negotiations among state.

Even if the nature of diplomacy has changed somehow from the old days, the essence still
remains to be based on bargaining. Bargaining is a means of settling differences over priorities
between contestants through an exchange of proposals for mutually acceptable solutions. Some
sense of conflict is a necessity for bargaining to take place (if there is total agreement there
would be nothing to bargain about). Diplomatic bargaining is used primarily to reach agreements,
compromises and settlements where governments objectives conflict.

It involves the attempt to change the policies, actions, attitudes and objectives of other
government and their diplomats by persuasion, offering rewards, exchange concessions, or
making threats. Hence, diplomatic bargaining espouses an element of power or influence.

 Rules of Effective Diplomacy:

There are some basic rules for effective diplomacy practice:

1. Be Realistic: have goals that match your ability

252
 2. Be careful about what you say: plan out and weigh words carefully

3. Seek common ground: find common grounds that ends the disputes which led to the
negotiation

4. Understand the other side: appreciate an opponent‘s perspective even if you do not agree
with it

5. Be patient: being over anxious can lead to concessions (agreements) that are unwise and
may also convey weakness

6. Leave avenues of retreat open: important to leave yourself and your opponent an ‗out‘

Generally states consider using a ‗carrot and stick‘ approach for conducting diplomacy. Carrot
refers to the promise and reward; Stick refers to threats and punishments.

 Types of Diplomacy:
There are various types of diplomacies in our contemporary world. Some examples can be:

 Bilateral diplomacy: a diplomacy that is conducted between two states‘

representatives (ambassadors).
 Trilateral diplomacy: a diplomacy that is conducted between the representatives of
three states.

 Multilateral diplomacy: a diplomacy that is conducted between various states‘

representatives; usually under the umbrella of IGOs.

 Summit/ Leader to leader Diplomacy: a diplomacy that is conducted by the direct

involvement of the leaders of different states.

 Functions of Diplomacy:

• Representing state interests

• Promoting and protecting the interests of nationals
• Information gathering
• negotiation
B. Economic Instruments of FP

Modern states are politically and technologically interdependent; they rely on each other for
resources and commodities that enable them to develop and sustain viable economies. No state is
self-sufficient. There is a considerable degree of dependence upon trade among states. But this
degree of dependence varies across states. Some states are strong and capable as compared to
others. States often use their economic muscle to influence the behavior of others; use economic
instruments to achieve their FP objectives.

Economic instruments include: tariffs, quotas, boycotts, embargos and aid. Holisti claims that
trade instruments in FP are normally used for 3 purposes:
253
 I. to achieve any FP objective by exploiting need and dependence, and offering
economic rewards, or threat, ending or imposing economic punishments

• While using rewards or economic punishments, 2 conditions must be

fulfilled:
a) the target of the influence or act must perceive that there is a
genuine need for the reward or for the avoidance of the punishment b)
no alternative market or source of supply must be easily available to
the target

II. to increase a state‘s capability or deprive a potential enemy‘s capabilities

III. to create economic satellites (guaranteed markets and resources of supply) or

help maintain political obedience in satellites by creating a relationship of
economic dependence

• Below are a list of the most common types of economic instruments that help states to acheie
their FP goals in international relations:

1. Tariff:

• Taxing foreign products coming in to a country for the purpose of: revenue generation,
protecting domestic producers from foreign competition, or any other domestic economic
reasons.

• Tariffs can be used as an inducement or punishment

2. Quota:

• Used to control imports of some commodities.

• Foreign suppliers are allowed to send their goods in to the country at a favorable price,
but are only allowed to sell a certain amount in a given period of time

3. Boycott:

• this amounts to eliminating the import of either a specific commodity or the total range of
export products sold by the country against which the boycott is organized

4. Embargo:

• This is when a government deprives another country of good.

• When a government prohibits its own businessmen from conducting transactions with
commercial organizations in the country against which the embargo is organized.

• It could be on specific category of goods or on the total range of goods that private
businesses normally send to the country that is being punished

5. Loans, credits and currency manipulations:

254
 • rewards: favorable tariff rates and quotas or granting loans,

• Manipulation of currency rates can also be used to create more or less favorable terms of
trade between countries.

6. Foreign Aid:

• Foreign aid refers to the transfer of money, goods, or technical advice from donor to
recipient. The main type of aid includes: military aid, technical assistance, grants and
commodity import program and development loans. Military Aid is the oldest type of aid.
States give military aid with the objective of safeguarding their own security by
strengthening the military capabilities of allies
• Foreign aid is often used for achieving political and economic objectives of the donors. It is
not usually undertaken for solely humanitarian purposes. For example, India, Pakistan, Israel
and Egypt are large recipients because of their strategic and symbolic importance in world
politics.
• Not all aid policies and commitments have an immediate or exclusive political and security
objective. Some aid programs are also designed to achieve remedy for suffering or solve
some kind of economic catastrophe. However, economic development is seldom considered
by the donors as an end in itself; aid is thus tied with some package designed to change the
domestic or foreign policies of the recipient countries. Donors can easily manipulate
economic and military aid program to change the internal and external policies of a
government.

Chapter Four Levels of Analysis in International Relations

Kenneth Waltz came up with levels of analysis as a method for examining IR; based on three
different ‗units of measure‘: Individual Level of Analysis, State/Unit Level of Analysis and
System Level of Analysis. These levels are associated with levels emphasizing the
characteristics, conditions and explaining world events; and relations between states.

4.1. Individual Level Analysis

This is a level of analysis in IR that focuses on identifying general characteristics of human

decision making, and the patterns in the way that humans make decisions. This includes
gathering information, establishing goals, pondering and making policy options. Decision
making is complex process that is related to human traits and organizational setting. This level of
analysis is an approach to understanding IR that focuses on roles and impacts of particular
individual, or looks for expectations based on ‗human nature‘ or common characteristics of all
individuals.

This level of analysis analyzes humans as actors on the world stage. The human role in the
system could be addressed from three different perspectives:

255
 A. Nature of Mankind,

B. Organizational Behavior,

C. Humans as Individuals

A. Nature of Mankind Approach

The concern of human nature perspective is how fundamental human characteristics influence
policy. Humans have limited and defective decision making abilities because they are unable
intellectually and physically to learn and process all the information required for making fully
rational decisions. Humans have emotions that wrap their judgments. These human limits apply
to political leaders as well. The limits on rational decision making could be caused by: Cognitive
factors, Psychological factors and Biological factors.

I. Cognitive Factors

Refers to the case where human necessarily make decisions within the limits of what they
consciously know and are willing to consider. Also called bounded rationality since there are
many internal and external barriers to what a decision maker knows or even can know. Internal
boundaries for cognitive limits on decision makers Intellectual and Physical limits. No decision
maker has the vast intellectual or physical capacity to analyze completely the mass and
complexity of the information that is available.

Emotions are the other internal boundaries for cognitive factors. This is so because people
regularly ignore unwelcome information or reject a policy object that they find emotionally
unacceptable.

External boundaries that affect the cognitive capacity of human beings include factors like
missing information and inability of any decision maker to know for sure what decision makers
in another country are thinking or how they will react to various policy options.

II. Psychological Factors

Human behaviors and limits of rationality are guided by certain psychological theories.
Psychological traits help to explain political behavior. Frustration- Aggression theory is an
example of a psychological theory that claims that frustrated societies sometime become
collectively aggressive. III. Biological Factors

Human behavior and rationality are governed and explained by biological theories. Nature verses
Nurture: the degree to which human actions are based on animal instincts and other innate
emotional and physical drives (nature) or based on socialization and intellect (nurture) amount to
biological factors that can influence the individual‘s decision. Bio-politics is another biological
factor that tries to link political and physical nature of human beings. Cultural environmental and
genetics determine behavior of bio politics.

There are a number of bio-political approaches that can be illustrated by examining ethology and
gender. Ethology studies animal behavior and draws similarities with human behavior. For

256
example, territoriality- the drive to gain, maintain and defend the right to property is considered
as a biological theory that can be taken to explain political behavior of individuals.

Gender is also another biological factor that has an influence on how people make decisions and
understand different circumstances. Differences in behavior on bases of gender are also linked to
process of decision making in world politics. The gender difference in political attitudes and
actions due to behavior is learned rather than instinctual. For example, power seeking is taken as
a particular male sexual impulse.

B. Organizational Behavior

This approach tries to examine how people act in organizations. The pressure of positions and the
dynamics of group interaction affects how one behaves. The behavior of human in a group is
related to the nature of human being rather than politics.

There are different factors that determine how human beings behave in organizational settings.
These factors include: role factor; and group decision making factor. I.

Role factor:

Roles are attitudes and behaviors that we adopt depending on the position we hold. Roles
influence how you think; how you act varies depending on whether you are in class, on a job or
in a family situation.

Decision makers play a definite role on the basis of what others expect out of them and what they
want to project not personally but as leaders. Self-expectations are one important source of role.
Behavior in a given position is based partly on what an individual expects of him/herself.
Expectations of others are the second important source of role behavior. We behave in certain
way because what others expect of us in a particular role.

II. Group Decision Making Behavior

People behave differently in organizations than they would act if they were alone. In
organizational decision making there is a high tendency towards groupthink. Primary cause of
group think are: the pressure within decision making groups to achieve consensus. Group think
creates an atmosphere in which discordant information or devise is rejected or ignored. Those
who dissent are at risk of rejection by the group and its leaders.

C. Humans as Individual Approach

This approach assumes that characteristics of leaders have a great role in decision making and
different leaders may take different decisions under similar conditions. Decisions are guide by
individual traits of leaders. Studies of psychology, biography and motivations of decision makers
using sophisticated methodologies are made to unravel the basic views of leaders as they see the
world. Psychological history of leaders is given due consideration.

4.2. State level Analysis/ Unit Level Analysis

257
Both state and system level analysis recognize that states have long been and continue to be the
most powerful actors on the world stage. However the two are different as state level contends
that states are relatively free to decide what policies to follow; while the system level assumes
that the international system pressures states to behave in certain ways.

This level of analysis is an analytical approach to IR focusing on the domestic or internal causes
of state actions. Attempts to explain IR by emphasizing the internal workings of the state itself.
The internal forces affecting the policies of a state are part of a nation‘s political culture and are
referred to as a country‘s internal political actors. The forces in the states interact affecting the
foreign policy of states: FP making is subject to the political system, situations and issues
prevailing in the nation.

4.2.1. The State, Nation and Government

State is an abstract entity encompassing four major elements: population, sovereignty,

government and defined territory. If one is missing, then there is no state.

Nation is a cultural term, referring to a group of people who identify with each other on the basis
of commonality of characters like shared history, language, culture, religion and race. The
demarcation between ethnic group and nation is not well defined. However, a nation has real or
potential political aspirations.

Government is often considered that a state‘s regime type can dictate the way that state interacts
with others in the international system. For example, in democratic peace theory, it is assumed
that democratic governments will not go to war with each other. Democracies externalize their
norms and only go to war for just causes; democracy encourages mutual trust and respect. Or in
Communism; a world revolution is justifiable as it would lead to peaceful coexistence based on a
proletarian global society.

4.2.2. Foreign Policy and Domestic Political System

The making of FP is less singular (it is not something that is usually made by presidents, prime
ministers or dictators). Even presidents, prime ministers or dictators are not totally free to decide
policy. The decisions are taken under constraints of human facts operating ‗murderously
complex‘ web of governmental and social constraints that make up a modern state.

There is no single FP process. There are multiple processes. And so the question is, what decides
FPs? The answer to this is: the type of domestic political system, the intensity of situations and
the nature of issues.

A. Domestic Political Systems:

Domestic political systems can be classified in to:

i. Democratic system: many participate with extensive rights to oppose and compete
for power.

258
 • HR, secularism prevail; supremacy of the constitution and sovereignty of
people respected.
ii. Undemocratic systems: only few can participate in the decision making

process; • Rights of people are minimal to oppose policy or compete for

power.

B. Policy issues and Situations

FP making varies under varied nature of situations.

i. Policies during Crisis:

• During crisis, policy makers are surprised by events, feel threatened and
have a short time to make the decision.

• Such decisions are made by inner few among leadership and the decisions
strive to take rationality under the command of leader.

ii. Innovative policy:

• Significantly changes the direction of policy, evokes dissent (opposition) and

involves wider sub national actors

iii. Consensual policy:

• confers decisions passed on entrenched (deep-rooted) principles

iv. Incremental policy:

• Changes causing less dissent (opposition). Decisions conform or nearly

conform to past practice,

• Such policies are not made by political leaders alone but at time by
bureaucratic actors.

C. Political Culture

Political culture or the history and value affects the FP of a state. The political culture is an
imprecise term referring to long term fundamental practices and attitudes. Political culture does
not make specific policy but is suitable to apply pressure to take a given line of policy. Political
culture can be divided into national attitudes about:

– 1. protecting and enhancing national territory and population

– 2. creating and maintaining world order

– 3. Projecting values and converting others.

D. Religion

259
Religion can have an effect on the way a state acts within the international system. Religion is
visible as an organizing principle particularly of Islamic states, where as secularism sits at the
other end of the spectrum with the separation of state and religion being responsible for the
liberal tradition.

4.3. The System Level Analysis

Formulation of FP is partly accomplished outside the state dealing with realities of world system
and helplessness of countries under stress. The international system influences states on merit of
its power. Less powerful states are affected than powerful states. This level of analysis attempts
to explain international relations by focusing on the structure of international system (global
distribution of resources among states).How it shapes or constrains the action of state.

IR can be explained by factors that influence the system as a whole and by characteristics and
proclivities (tendencies) of the system itself.

4.3.1. What is the system level overall?

We are all part of many overlapping systems that influence our behaviour. These systems range
from very local like family and school classroom too much larger and seemingly more remote
systems like that of a country and the world. System is a complex combination of interdependent
parts that relate in a manner that causes a change in one part to influence other parts. This
approach is a top down approach to studying world politics in which countries and other actors in
a global social, political, economic and geographic environment and specific characteristics of
the system helps to understand the pattern of interaction among the actors.

This level of analysis believes that any system operates in somewhat predictable way (that there
are behavioural tendencies that the actor countries usually follow.) System is also used very
loosely, as little more than a synonym to ―environment in which states operate‘.

Two conditions need to be met for the system to exist:

– One cannot infer the outcomes from the attribute and behaviour of the actors‘
alone. Iinterconnections are present (with the result that changes in some parts of
the system produce changes in other parts.) These two conditions lead to the
major characteristic feature of systems

– The consequence of the behaviour of states are not expected or intended by the
actors.
In a system, the whole is different from the sum of its parts. This is to imply that complete
knowledge of actors (their characteristics their goal and their intention) do not allow
understanding the system.

 How is the whole different from the sum of the parts?

The whole might be symmetric, that is equal or horizontal in spite of its parts being
asymmetric or horizontal or vertical. The whole might be unstable in spite of its parts are

260
 stable in themselves. A system may be unipolar, bipolar or even multi-polar but actors
cannot be. A system cannot be described by adding up the policies of individual states or
summing up their bilateral relations.

4.3.2. Interconnectedness and unintended consequences

A system is interconnected. Whether actors ally with or oppose each other is influenced by
factors outside of their bilateral relationship. Events in one area influence other areas. Changes in
relations between two states lead to alternations in the relation between other states.

Interconnectedness is the relation between two actors depends in part on the relations between
each of those actors and other actors in the system.

Systems vary in how interconnected they are. Everything is interconnected but some things are
more interconnected than others. This means a great power is more tightly interconnected to
larger number of other states than is small power because it has involvement all over the world.
For example, conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia would not affect a small power country like
that of Lesotho or Burundi. But it sure will affect a big power like the USA. Many
interconnections are not direct but involve links through regional powers or great powers. For
example, although most states had no direct concern in Vietnam, they were affected by what
happened there because of changes in USA policy that the war produced. The US did not
anticipate that it would be defeated. The US pull back from being a policeman, took the lead off
the local conflicts and encouraged regional powers to play a great role.

4.4. System Level Actors

Systems range from very local ones like family and school classroom to much larger systems
such as a country and the world.

 All systems operate based on four factors:

1. Structural Organization

All systems have identifiable structural characteristics. These include:

I. Authority organization: the international system has a horizontal authority

structure.

• States are sovereign; do not answer to anyone in the international system:

hence the international system is anarchic

– The authority structure is changing now though. This is because

sovereignty is declining. We can observe that even the most
powerful states are subject to an increasing number of authoritative
rules marked by international organizations and by international
law. Countries are no longer totally free to make internal policy on
even purely domestic matters.
II. Actors: national actors (states) and super national actors
261
 III. Scope and Level of Interaction: scope and level of international interactions are
very much higher now than were during the 1800s or even in the first half of the
1900s. Current international system is characterized by growing interdependence;
mutual responsibility and dependency on others.

2. Power Relationship

The distribution of power within a system affects the way the system operates. Polarity in IR
refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. The pattern of interaction
varies in the international system according to the number of power poles. As a result, we have a
world system where there could be a unipolar, bipolar or multipolar power structure and
relationship.

3. Economic Patterns

Economic interdependence is one pattern that affects the international system. The operation of
the international system is in part the product of its economic patterns. We can understand it
better if we look at the impacts of these patterns by seeing interdependence, natural resource
location and use and mal distribution of development. The pattern of where natural resources are
produced and consumed also influences the operation of the system. The mal distribution of
development is another economic pattern that has influence on the international system.

4. Norms of Behavior

Systems develop norms for two reasons:

i. Various psychological and social actors prompt humans to adopt values to define what is
ethical and moral.

ii. Humans tend to favor regularized patterns of behavior because of the need to interact and
to avoid anxiety and disruption caused by unwanted behavior of others

Chapter Five International Organizations

5.1. Characteristics and Classifications of IGOs

IGOs are institutions which are established by two or more states. They are organizations which
have two or more member states. But not all IGOs are created by states. Sometimes, IGOs
themselves can create and/or be a member of an IGO. For example, EC (European Commission)
is a member of the FAO, and a founding member of the WTO.

IOs act under a constituent instrument such as treaty, charter or covenant. These documents set
forth: the purposes and functions of the organization, the structure and decision making process
of the organizations, provisions for regular meetings, a permanent headquarters and staff
organization.
262
States often take actions though, within or in the context of IGOs whose members are national
governments.

 Essential characteristics of IOs: A.

Membership:

An IO should draw its membership from two or more sovereign states. Though membership
need not be limited to states or official state representatives B. Aim:

The organization is established with the aim of pursuing the common interests of all the
members. It may end up not undertaking this task or favoring the interest of one member
over that of another, but it should not have the express aim of pursuit of the interests of only
one member, regardless of the desires of others. C. Structure:

The organization should have its own formal structure and continuous nature established by
an agreement such as a treaty or constituent document.

The nature of the formal structure may vary from organization to organization, but it should
be separate from the continued control of one member. It is this autonomous structure that
differentiates number of international organizations from a series of conferences or
congresses.

IOs can get into treaties like that of states. For example, UN has entered into a treaty with USA,
to establish it‘s headquarter in New York. But this doesn‘t mean that IOs have the same status as
states in the international system.

And so how are IOs different from States? IOs are the creation of states and their powers are
limited to the powers that the constituting states have given them. States have privileges and
immunities that are general whereas IOs have only such privileges and immunities as are
necessary to carry out the organization's functions. An IO cannot invoke ‗sovereign immunity‘
(immunity from liability in foreign courts in cases involving official acts) because an IO is not a
sovereign. Only states can appear before the ICJ in contentious cases. IOs have to resort to other
international tribunals to resolve their disputes.

5.1.2. Classification of IOs

A. Classification Based on Membership: Universalism vs Regionalism

 Universal/Global IOs: IOs which all interested parties can join.

• Also known as open IOs: There are universal organizations which have membership
drawn from practically all the sovereign states in the world (EG: UN, WHO,
WTO).

 Regional/Limited IOs: IOs with limited kind of membership (specifically designed to

exclude some countries).

• The limit may be geographical as in the case of:

263
 • EU, AU, IGAD, COMESA etc;

• Or the limit can be based on other criteria as in the case of:

• OPEC (a limited organization with membership that spans the globe

including the Middle east, Latin America and Africa) or;

• OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development:

members from Western Europe, Americas, Asia and Oceania) or;

• NATO (the members are drawn from Western and Southern Europe and
USA and Canada.

• Francophone: unified French speaking states

B. Classification based on Functions: Aims and Activities

Most IOs usually have their aims stated in the basic document by which they have been
established. This doesn't mean that the organization would not have other aims except the ones
stated in the establishing document. Other aims could be included as further treaties between the
member states etc.

IOs cover a huge range of issue areas. Issues include: peace and security, human rights,
International economic issues, international environmental issues, nutrition, public health and
telecommunications or fisheries conservation, the coordination of international aviation or
broadcast standards etc.

Based on their activities IOs can be divided into:

i. Political organizations- those concerned with the preservation of international peace and
security.

ii. Administrative organizations- those having more limited aims that the political
organizations.
However, based on their activities, states IOs are further classified into different other types of
classifications by different scholars as well.

C. Classification based on the nature of decision: Intergovernmental or Supranational

 Supranational IOs: IOs with the power to bind member states by their decisions.
The EC is said to be a good example of a supranational IO. This is because EC possess a
few features that distinguish it from other IOs. These features are:

1) Based on majority vote, binding decisions can be passed over member states.

2) EC law attains supremacy over conflicting domestic law regardless of what

the laws of the member state stipulate and regardless of which one was
enacted later.

264
 3) EC law may be directly effective in legal orders of the member state against
his or her own government or in relations with employers or other relations of
private nature.

 Because of these factors, some people argue that EC members have transferred parts of
their sovereignty to EC.
 Intergovernmental IOs: IOs that cannot make binding decisions upon their member states.

5.2. Roles of IOs

1. Instrument: IOs are taken to be instruments for the policies of individual governments,
means for the diplomacy of a number of states.

• Myrdal: IOs are used by nations primarily as selective instruments for gaining
foreign policy objectives.

• EG: UN in its first 8 years of existence is often characterized as being an

instrument of US diplomacy.
2. Arena: IOs can be arenas within which actions take place.

• The IOs provide a meeting place for members to come together to discuss, argue,
cooperate or disagree.

• Arenas in themselves are neutral: they can be used for a play, a circus or a fight.

3. Actor: IOs are autonomous actors in the international system.

5.3. Functions of IOs

At present IOs perform many functions and their functions are constantly increasing. Some of
their functions include:

1. Articulation and aggregation: IOs perform the task of interest articulation and
aggregation in international affairs just as national associations of likeminded
people do within a national political system.

• EG: OPEC in the mid-late 1970s behaved like an oil exporters‘ trade
union
2. Norms: IO chargers and treaties provide a set of values for the international system.

• EG: UN charter provides the following values in its preamble: ―we the
people reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in equal rights
of men and women and of nations large and small and determined to
promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. In
its chapter 1, the charter it provides the principles of international law,
peaceful settlement and international cooperation.

265
 3. Recruitment: IOs have an important function in the recruitment of participants in
the international political system.
Other functions of IOs include but are not limited to: Socialization, Rule making, Rule
application, Rule adjudication and so on.

5.4. Approaches to IOs

There are a number of different ways in which one can approach the phenomenon of IOs within
the world order:

A. The Rationalist Approach:

This approach emphasizes the notion of a world order of states that is moving towards the more
sophisticated types of orders found within states. It is progressive in that it believes in the
transformation of society of sates into a true world community based upon the application of
universally moral and legal principles. IOs have a profound substantive as well as procedural
purpose, and are intended to function above and beyond mere administrative convenience. The
rationalists emphasis the role of such institutions as active performers upon the world stage rather
than a mechanisms to greater efficiency. B. The Revolutionary Approach:

According to this approach, the primary aim of IOs is not the evolution of a world community of
states based upon global associations as perceived by the rationalists, but rather the utilization of
such intuitions as a means of attaining the final objective whether it be the victory of the
proletariat or the rearrangement of existing states into for example continental units C. The
Doctrine of Realism:

This approach centers its attention on the struggle for power and supremacy and eschews any
concern for idealistic views. The world stage is seen as a constant and almost chaotic
interweaving of contentious state powers, and international institutions are examined within the
context of the search for dominance. Both the LON and the UN were created to reinforce the
status-quo established after the world wars, it is stressed although the later institution is now seen
as reflecting the new balance of power achieved within the growth of influence of the states of
the 3rd world.

Realists see the role of the IOs as reinforcing that balance and enabling it to be safely and
gradually altered in the light of changing patterns of power; although to be accurate, their overall
attitude to such IOs is usually characterized by cynicism, as the inherent weaknesses in these
organization have become apparent. D. The Functional Approach:

This approach is a more hopeful way of looking at the IOs. It concentrates upon those areas
where the interdependence of states has impelled them to crate viable organs for cooperation.
This approach is a cross between the nationalist and the realist trends and is one much examined
in recent years.

266
It emphasizes the pattern of intuitional behavior and the operations of the relevant bureaucracies,
including the way in which the tasks set for the organization are identified and completed.
Decision making analysis is another useful tool in this area.

267