Are History of international relations,

Global history and Transnational history

all doing the same thing?
To answer this question, we must first dwell into what we mean by national and international
history. National history is the study of specific countries and how they formed to become a
country as well as studying their social, cultural and economic developments [1].
International history on the other hand is the study of political, economic, social, cultural
relations between countries [2]. The key difference between these two approaches is that
national history focuses on the impact a historic event had on one specific country and how it
was affected socially, economically and politically while international history primarily
zooms in on the impact the same historic event had on the relations between two or more
different countries socially, politically and economically. Historians may be inclined to an
international history as it posits a wider view on historic events, and therefore may allow a
historian to gain a deeper understanding behind certain events. However, we must also
consider the branches that stem from international history as there are many approaches
towards international history, For the purpose of this argument we will primarily focus on
three approaches, which would be History of International Relations, Global History and
Transnational History. It would be correct to argue that these three approaches are similar as
they all focus on international history, but this does not mean that they are the same as they
all have different styles on viewing certain events. For example, let’s apply the Spanish civil
war to each approach and see how each approach has a different view on this event. By using
the history of international relations, one may look at how this event shaped Spain’s
relationship with countries such as USSR and Nazi Germany. By using Global history, one
might look at how this one event may have impacted the whole world and how it
foreshadowed WW2. Finally, by using transnational history; one might look at the many
social movements that were involved in the civil war such as communism. From this
summary, it is clear to see that by using each different approach we are looking at different
things that occurred in the civil war which is why it is correct to argue that History of
international relations, global history and Transnational history are not the same thing as it
posits different views on historic events. [3]
In the rest of this essay, we will look at how each of the three approaches international history
as well as explaining their historical subjects, research questions and methodologies with
reference to Latin American History. We will also compare these approaches and look at their
differences and similarities and finally I will conclude this essay with my personal view on
this question.

[1] LSE handbook page 8 and Encyclopedia.com- National history article

[2] LSE handbook page 8
[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War
[4] LSE handbook page 8
[5] LSE handbook page 19
[6] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/09/the-chilean-coup-at-50
Let’s start with looking at how history of international relations, global and transnational
history would approach certain events. We are going to do this by looking at their historical
subjects; what questions they would ask to conduct their research and the methods they
would use to answer those research questions. Global history looks at events that had an
impact on humanity as a whole or processes that brought different societies into contact. The
historical subjects that may be involved is globalisation or empires. The research questions
that go into this may be: How did global events impact humanity as a whole? How did global
processes and ideas bring different societies into conflict? To answer these questions
historians may use methods such as: looking at processes over the long term and events
across a wider scale; material; international archives; insights from science, archaeology and
anthropology.
Transnational history places emphasis on historical phenomena that are not shaped by nation
states so this would be organisations or the movement of people or ideas. Their historical
subjects may be non-state actors or transnational practices. The research questions may
include: How did people share their ideas and culture between borders? How did these
experiences shape the development of individual countries and society as a whole? The
methods used to answer this question may be tracing networks of people who crossed
national borders, archives of international non-governmental organisations (NGO) and they
may use publications.
Finally, history from international relations is the study of nation-states and non-
governmental organisations in fields such as politics, economics and society. The historical
subjects that a historian may be interested in may be international relations, diplomacy, war
and peace. The research questions may be: how do we explain the origins of war? How and
why did some nations become more powerful than others? The methods to answer these
questions may be to look at foreign policy, diplomatic records, archives of international
organisations, press sources and visual materials. [4]
From analysing the different historical subjects, research questions and methodologies each
approach uses we can clearly see similarities and differences in how they approach a historic
event. For example, all three approaches are somewhat similar as they all look at the impact
historic events had on the relations between different countries and their methodology in
answering their research questions are somewhat similar in that they all look at international
archives. Additionally Transnational and history of international relations both look at the
impact NGOs had on certain events whilst Global events do not. However, this does not mean
that one is more different than the other if we analyse each approach at a deeper level, the
individual differences do become apparent. This is demonstrated through the research
questions as each approach wants a different answer to a historic event, for example if we
take the Cuban Missile crisis and we apply each approach; we can see the different questions
they may ask. If a historian was to take the global history approach, they may ask questions
such as: how the Cuban missile crisis impacted the whole world on their view on nuclear

[1] LSE handbook page 8 and Encyclopedia.com- National history article

[2] LSE handbook page 8
[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War
[4] LSE handbook page 8
[5] LSE handbook page 19
[6] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/09/the-chilean-coup-at-50
weapons and if the Cuban missile crisis encouraged other countries to build nuclear weapons
for defence purposes as they have seen how powerful it could be. A historian looks at it
through the lens of transnational history may ask if the Cuba inherited the soviet communism
influence once they were made allies. Finally, someone who is looking at it from the
perspective of history of international relations may ask how this event impacted the relations
between USSR and the USA. Using the Cuban missile crisis, it is evident to see how each
approach wants completely different answers from the Cuban missile crisis. Therefore, it is
correct to say that Global, Transnational and History of International Relations are not all the
same as they want different answers to the same historic event despite looking at it from an
international perspective.
Furthermore, another reason why transnational, global and history of international relations
are different is due to their historical subjects and by looking at what each approach wants
and requires in order to look at past events it is clear to conclude that they are not the same.
To explore the historical subjects each approach requires we will use the example of the
Chilean Solidarity (1970s) to see how they will apply it in context. The Chilean solidarity
started when President Salvador Allende was killed at the presidential headquarters on 11 th
September 1973 and the country was violently seized by a military junta, led by the General
Augusto Pinochet, as he was not happy with the move towards socialism that President
Salvador Allende was applying in Chile. As a result, there were international outcry from
various individuals and organisations in the UK who rallied to Chile’s aid. The Chile
solidarity campaign (CSC) was eventually set up in September 1973. The CSC committee
and the Chile campaign for Human Rights (CCHR) both lobbied the British labour
government directly for the release of political prisoners. At the same time General Pinochet
was forcing exile as it was part of his strategy to rid Chile of Socialism. Between the 1970s
and 1980s from 250,000 to 1.2 million people were barred from entering their own country.
As a result, 3000 Chilean refuges between 1974-79 arrived in Britain. In 1979, any
humanitarian aid stopped as Thatcher was a friend and ally of General Pinochet and after
1979 very few visas were granted to Chilean refugees [5]. Considering this, the historical
subjects that someone would consider; looking from the perspective of history of
international relations is the international relations between UK and Chile and how it changed
from giving aid to completely stopping due to the emergence of Margaret Thatcher. It may
well also possibly look at the conflict when General Pinochet overthrew President Salvador
Allende.
However, on the other hand a historian using the transnational history approach consider the
non-state actors involved such as CSC and CCHR, trade unions, church groups and other
human rights organisations and from that they may research their impact on the Chilean
Solidarity. Additionally, they may also look the transnational practices. In this event of the
Chilean Solidarity, the transnational practice may have been the exchange of ideas and norms
across borders as well as staying informed of social developments in people’s country of
origin. From this, historians may research the possible impacts of the Chileans migrating into
[1] LSE handbook page 8 and Encyclopedia.com- National history article
[2] LSE handbook page 8
[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War
[4] LSE handbook page 8
[5] LSE handbook page 19
[6] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/09/the-chilean-coup-at-50
the UK and how that may have shaped or changed UK society as a whole. One example of
this happening is in October 1973 when seamen in Liverpool refused to cruise ships going to
Chile. Therefore, from this perspective you could say that the Chilean solidarity almost
produced the same effect of the Spanish Civil war in the sense that it inspired other people to
fight for what was right [6].
On the contrary, a historian using the global history approach may consider the impact this
event had on the humanity and the world. For example, they may do extensive research on
how attempting to eradicate socialist influence in Chile may have had an influence on
neighbouring countries or countries around the world. The fact that Chileans refused to
accept defeat and still fought for their freedom may have inspired other countries to try to
also fight for what they believe in and may have boosted socialist movements around the
country.
Overall, it is correct to argue that History of international relations, Global history and
Transnational history. Some may argue that it is broadly similar in the sense that they all help
historians look at every single event in the wider context and consider the impacts of other
countries. By doing this, all three approaches prevents historians to undermine countries from
other continents which was commonly done in European history. Despite this, what
differentiates these fields of study is the way they look at events. Global history looks at the
effects of events on all countries whether that is in Europe, Africa, Asia etc. By doing this, it
prevents the discrimination or undermining the impact other countries had or the impact other
countries faced in a historic event. History of international relations on the other hand looks
at the political, economic and social relations between countries and how it may have
changed due to a change in leadership or change in events. This equally crucial as it helps us
look at the reasons on why certain events occurred. For example, in the Cuban Missile crisis,
the reason USSR attempted to move their nuclear arms to Cuba was to threaten USA as they
now had enemy weapons and nuclear arms right next to them. This was due to the high
tensions going on at the time between USA and USSR. Finally Transnational history focuses
primarily on the exchange of materials, ideas, social norms across borders as well as the
impact migrants may have on countries. Therefore, Transnational history goes deeper than
just looking at what the government did; it also looks at the impact of ordinary people and
non-governmental organisations and how they had an impact on an event. Therefore, to
conclude this essay it is correct to say that Transnational, Global and history of international
relations are not the same thing, though they may have similar characteristics, if we look
deeper, we can see that they have their own individual perspectives on how they perceive
certain historic events.
Abyan Mohammed

[1] LSE handbook page 8 and Encyclopedia.com- National history article

[2] LSE handbook page 8
[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War
[4] LSE handbook page 8
[5] LSE handbook page 19
[6] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/09/the-chilean-coup-at-50
[1] LSE handbook page 8 and Encyclopedia.com- National history article
[2] LSE handbook page 8
[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War
[4] LSE handbook page 8
[5] LSE handbook page 19
[6] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/09/the-chilean-coup-at-50