Professional Documents
Culture Documents
One can better define International Relations if one clarifies in which aspect it is required
to be defined. International Relations is beyond a comprehensive definition because of its
multidimensional approaches. Scholars however devised their own kinds of definitions
depicting the sense in which they take IR. As Palmer and Perkins used these words to
define IR;
"International Relations is the objective and systematic study of international life in
all its aspects."
This is a relatively general definition yet beyond the width of International Relations as a
discipline.
Central Point of all Efforts made to define International Relations
in nearly all definitions proposed for International Relations, scholars share one point in
common that works as the central idea behind this discipline. That idea is of 'nation
states' and the relationships between them.
IR in its very first sense name of the relationships between the nation states of the world.
The internationality is subject matter of the discipline. Modern nation state system evolved
from the Peace of Westphalia Treaty signed in 1648. Today, in the complex structure of
world states working on varying ideologies, International Relations helps to study them in
a unanimity of thought.
IR studies International Law in the context of how international rules define and
govern the relations between states.
IR embodies its scope with the inclusion of not only states but also the non-state
actors in international relations.
Conclusion
International Relations has a wider scope. The points elaborated above as its scope are not
final. This discipline broadens its scope with the changing events of the world and new
dynamics of international relations. It is a subject along with being a practical course
adopted by nations of the world and the international institutions.
Population as a nation
Nation state system provided the fundamental unity for giving this world an international
society. This society of states faced various phases of peace and war to evolve into its
contemporary shape. Today, international society is more powerful and strong under the
shadow of international law than it was ever before in the past. Conflicts and frictions in
the relations among states however undermine the concreteness of international society at
different levels of interaction.
What is International Society?
International society can be defined as 'community of world states gathered under an
agenda that may be in the shape of international law at a universal organization in order
to sort out the ways for achieving common goals and averting common threats thus
primarily fulfilling the aim of a peaceful world'.
Elements shaping International Society
The definition carries following elements that establish an international society;
Nation states
International organization
International law
Common Agenda
UN survives even today after having passed through the bumpy decades of the Cold War
between the US and the USSR. The organization represents an international society with
the gathering of 192 states as its members.
UN & the Evolution of International Society
In the contemporary state of affairs, the evolution of international society can be seen and
assessed in terms of the evolution of the UN.
The UN as universal body of nation states pledges for the world peace and to avoid any
possibilities that might lead the world into another major conflict.
International society today has evolved to discuss and deal with the modern day problems
of global climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and so on. It is dealing with the issues
of regional and civil conflicts as well to prevent them from escalation. As has been the case
with Libya and Syria today where UN interfered to stop the wars.
Conclusion
From the origin of nation state system to the establishment of the League of Nations and
then its successor the United Nations, International Society is endeavoring in one way or
the other to infuse more rational ways to deal with the global problems and global crisis.
The community faces dilemmas and debacles in their efforts but overall prevent the world
system from disintegrating.
Immanuel Kant
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Locke
These above mentioned names were of classic scholars. The modern scholars included;
Alferd Zimmer
Norman Angell
Woodrow Wilson
Fundamental Points of Liberal Approach in IR
The fundamental principles devised by the Liberal Approach in International Relations can
be studied in following points;
Realism
Realism is the approach of International Relations that works as anti - thesis to
Liberalism. Realism focuses on the more realistic, power oriented and state centric
principles that play important role in international relations. Realism lays emphasis upon
gaining national power to pursue national interests at all costs.
Proponents of Realism Approach
Among the classic proponents of Realism, also regarded as its founders, following names
fall;
Nicola Machiavelli
Thomas Hobbes
Clausewitz
Modern scholars that favor Realism as a better approach in International Relations are;
Hans Morgenthau
George F. Kenan
E. H. Carr
Origin of Realism as Approach of International Relations
Formal origin and incorporation of Realism as an approach in the International Relations
was seen at the end of the Second World War. Liberalism failed in all its utopian schemes
to bring peace to the world. States fought another Total War. Following that the approach
of Realism sought grounds. If seen in the distant past, Realism finds its origin in writings
of Machiavelli as well as Thomas Hobbes.
Fundamental Postulates of Realism
Following were the fundamental postulates drafted by various scholars under the umbrella
of Realism;
National power and national interests determine the relations between states.
States need to compete each other for seeking relative gains in the international
realm.
National power
State centrism
National interests
Autonomy
Survival
national interests at the costs of world peace. The theory is realistic but leads the world
states into an anarchic position where everyone is at war against the other. It does not
eliminate war as an option in the international relations.
Conclusion
International Relations seeks Realism as among the influential classical approaches.
Realism talks about the aboriginal and realistic basis of international relations. It is
criticized for its extreme version but the theory completely rejects the utopian postulates of
idealism. Realism does not take cooperation as an option because according to its
proponents, world is anarchic where intense competition is inevitable to maintain national
power.
Neo-Realism
'Neo' means new or the latest. Neo-Realism is more refined and advanced strand of
Realism. Neo-Realism unlike the original Realism is more moderate form in International
Relations.
Origin of Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism originated in latter part of 1970s. It was the reactionary product of NeoLiberalism which once again posed serious threat to the Realist idea of state centrism. It
was the work of Kenneth Waltz with the title of 'Theory of International Politics' which gave
birth to neo-realism.
Exponent of Neo-Realism
Among the modern exponents of neo-realism the name of Kenneth Waltz echoes. He is
regarded as founder of this theoretical approach in the International Relations. Waltz
sticking to the traditional ideas of Realism, infuses a new spirit in this approach by not
utterly rejecting the possibilities of cooperation among the states of the world.
Postulates of Neo-Realism
Postulates of new-realism are the same as that of realism. They differ in a few points which
are explained as following;
World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in
international relations.
Possibilities of cooperation between the states need not to be overlooked when they
are serving the interests of a state.
It is not the cooperation however but the 'Balance of Power' that actually prevent
the states from large scale war.
Still the theory is extreme and regards state as the sole actors of international
relations.
It admits cooperation now but it has not yet rejected war as an option.
The theory of Neo-Realism gives a mixed vision not a clear cut one. It is not inclined
on a single side.
Conclusion
Neo-Realism is actually the reaction to the action posed by Neo-Liberalism. The theory has
not given up the basic postulates of Realism but it is still moderate as compared to its
original version. Neo-Realism is brainchild of Kenneth Waltz who believed neither in
extreme liberalism not in extreme realism. As a consequence, he devised a middle way to
meet the ideals in international relations.
Neo-Realism
'Neo' means new or the latest. Neo-Realism is more refined and advanced strand of
Realism. Neo-Realism unlike the original Realism is more moderate form in International
Relations.
Origin of Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism originated in latter part of 1970s. It was the reactionary product of NeoLiberalism which once again posed serious threat to the Realist idea of state centrism. It
was the work of Kenneth Waltz with the title of 'Theory of International Politics' which gave
birth to neo-realism.
Exponent of Neo-Realism
Among the modern exponents of neo-realism the name of Kenneth Waltz echoes. He is
regarded as founder of this theoretical approach in the International Relations. Waltz
sticking to the traditional ideas of Realism, infuses a new spirit in this approach by not
utterly rejecting the possibilities of cooperation among the states of the world.
Postulates of Neo-Realism
Postulates of new-realism are the same as that of realism. They differ in a few points which
are explained as following;
World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in
international relations.
Possibilities of cooperation between the states need not to be overlooked when they
are serving the interests of a state.
It is not the cooperation however but the 'Balance of Power' that actually prevent
the states from large scale war.
Still the theory is extreme and regards state as the sole actors of international
relations.
It admits cooperation now but it has not yet rejected war as an option.
The theory of Neo-Realism gives a mixed vision not a clear cut one. It is not inclined
on a single side.
Conclusion
Neo-Realism is actually the reaction to the action posed by Neo-Liberalism. The theory has
not given up the basic postulates of Realism but it is still moderate as compared to its
original version. Neo-Realism is brainchild of Kenneth Waltz who believed neither in
extreme liberalism not in extreme realism. As a consequence, he devised a middle way to
meet the ideals in international relations.
The situation worsened when the Core states reached high levels of industrialization and
technology but they did not share this advancement with the periphery states.
Conclusion
The approach of World System is criticized for being not a theory in real sense. It is single
dimensional perspective that explains how developing states are dependent upon the
developed states. The theory did not carry enough weightage in the theoretical realm of
International Relations.
Feminist Theory
Feminism is a non-traditional and modern theory of International Relations. The theory
highlighted the aspects of international relations from the point of view of women of the
world. The theory propounds how this gender has been sidelined in deciding international
relations despite being its direct victim every time. Feminism is the broadest example of an
effort for women empowerment.
Origin of Feminism as Theory of International Relations
Origin of Feminism is actually the consequence of several world conferences convened to
empower women across the globe. Some of the prominent conferences that played role in
this regard are;
Efficacy of Feminism
Feminism is right in its reservations but it is utopian scheme. It is not practicable to
secure the share for women in international relations in a way as demanded. Feminism
just like World System Theory explains one dimensional aspect of international relations.
Though there is a vast change observable today in the status of women in world. They have
been empowered greatly. But there are cultural, social and historical barriers to enhance
their role in international relations that are difficult to overcome.
Another point which proves that women are now more active in international relations
more than they were in the past is that they can be seen as heads of the states, chief
diplomats, ambassadors, head of delegations at UN.
Conclusion
Feminist theory is more a reservation than an explanation how international relations are
regulated. It rarely gives any clear cut mechanism to regulate international relations. It has
however helped in empowering women.
All other states shall work jointly to contain or defeat the aggressor
Arrangements shall be made in future to bring the aggressor state into mainstream
Effectiveness of Collective Security
Effectiveness of 'Collective Security' depends completely upon the eagerness of states to
play their respective roles in this regard. More the willing states would be the more
effective Collective Security can be perceived.
Collective Security & the League of Nations
League of Nations established on the principle of collective security failed in its mission
due to inappropriate and nationalistic approach of certain states like Germany, Italy, and
France. It carried the principles to preserve the world peace which collapsed after the
Great Depression and finally led world to Second Great War of the century.
Collective Security & the UN
UN succeeded the League. In its very first Article, the UN Charter pledges to maintain
international peace. Chapter 7 of the charter further clarifies the course of action that
states need to adopt in cases of Breach of Peace.
Conclusion
Collective Security is the idea that works as the concept of security in 21 stcentury. This
concept is working contemporarily along with several flaws it carries.
What is Power?
In simplest terms of understanding, power is the capacity to get a thing done from
someone who would not have done this otherwise.
What is National Power?
National power refers to the capacity of a state to use its influence, force or authority upon
another state.
Realists' View of National Power
Realist school of thought view national power as ultimate as well as the immediate goal of
a state. According to them a state must never give up accumulating national power after
all it is in competition with friends as well as foes.
Elements of National Power
Elements of national power are the factor which determine the power of a state. Status of
these elements is basically the parameter that may enhance or decline the national power
of a state. Some of the major elements have been elaborated below;
A. Geography
Geography does not only include the size and location of a state which determine national
power but also strategic position, climate, topography etc. Role of geography can be seen in
terms that the USSR and the USA had been super powers of the world and both carried
vast territories. But that is not always the case. Britain has small territory of its own but
its control on seas empowered it to rule over the world.
B. Economy
In the contemporary world order, the thing which matters the most is the powerful and
stable economy of a state. China is a clear example which due to its economy emerges out
to be the next world super power. Even the USA which is super power now has a vibrant
economy.
C. Military
With economy, military might be also essential to enhance national power. China might be
an economic giant but it has limited military capacity as compared to the US. Thus the
USA surpasses it in national power.
D. Technology
Technological advancement emerges out to be another modern element of national power.
Technology is something that is shared in every field whether it is military, science,
agriculture or another department of state. A state technologically advance shares
superiority over the other. For instance, during the Cold War, the USA shared
technological superiority over the USSR.
E. Natural Resources
Natural resources are another element of national power. What matters in real is not the
presence of natural resources but it is their exploitation. If exploited to the maximum
benefit, natural resources can be helpful in enhancing national power.
F. National Unity and Population
Population type and its skills determine national power. And if the population of a nation
is united, it empowers the nation better.
G. Ideology
Ideology is traditional element of national power. It matters less but still matters to
determine national power. This is because of the reason that ideology plays role in
determining structure of state.
Balance of Power
Balance of power is the classical realist concept that preserved peace of the pre - world
wars world. It is concept that marks its practical implementation in 18 th century. In the
contemporary world, balance of power theory has little role to play but it cannot be ignored
utterly due to its historic role. Even during the Cold War, a balance of power was present
between the two Super Powers which prevented from escalation of any conflict to the total
war.
Defining Balance of Power
It has been noted that unlike most of the topics of international relations which lack
concrete definitions, 'Balance of Power' is actually the one which has multiple
interpretations. In simple terms, Balance of Power refers to 'the mechanism which the
states adopt in order to maintain a certain level of equilibrium in their relative powers'.
Balance of Power as a General Social Principle
International Relations' Realist Morgenthau see the 'Balance of Power' as a general social
principle. According to this perspective, 'Balance of Power' exists among states just as it
exists among individuals in society to maintain the social peace and equilibrium.
Pre - Requisites of 'Balance of Power'
Balance of power requires following essentials;
International anarchy
world states utilizing one or the other method. Some major tools or techniques of achieving
balance of power are elaborated as following;
A. Alliances & Counter Alliances
This is the chief way to maintain or bring balance of power. In the 18 th century world and
also during the Cold War, balance of power was kept by establishing Alliances. A common
example is 'NATO' & 'Warsaw' during the Cold War. Both the alliances, each led by rival
superpower, maintained a level of balance between them.
B. Buffer States
These are the states which geographically work as barrier between two or more rivals. For
instance, Afghanistan has been a buffer state between British held Indian colony and the
Soviet Union. Similarly, Tibet served as buffer states between India and China.
C. Armament and Militarization
Armament and militarization by one nation leads the rival states to do the same. This
maintains balance of power between them. India and Pakistan present this type of case.
Both the states maintain a level of deterrence through militarization and nuclear
armament.
D. Disarmament
During Cold War, particularly in its later part, rapid disarmament agreements were
concluded between the US and the USSR. These agreements were like SALT, NPT at global
level, etc. These helped to restore balance of power by reducing dreadful arms.
E. Intervention
Intervention is also an option to bring balance of power. The US & USSR' interventions in
Korean War, Vietnam war are its examples. Both the powers maintained balance of power
between them by fighting proxy wars at foreign lands.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a modern day aspect of the International Relations. It is actually linked with
the aboriginal concept of the nation - state system. Before the origin of the nation state
system, the idea of sovereignty was vague. Later it evolved gradually to assume the
contemporary manifestation.
Defining Sovereignty
Sovereignty is defined in terms of 'unrestricted and unlimited authority of a state within its
territory and on its population'. In another meaning of sovereignty, it is taken as the
supremacy of state. This supremacy is meant to control and command everything inferior
to it.
Population
Territory
Government
Sovereignty
Sovereignty as an element of state is the most important one in abstract sense. Without
sovereignty the idea of population and territory can be perceived but the idea of
government control on both these things remains impossible. So, sovereignty is actually
the name of that control as well which government being the working agency of state
exercise over its people.
Various Dimensions of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is understood in different dimensions or types. Some are explained below;
A. Domestic Sovereignty
Domestic sovereignty means that the state is sovereign to rule over and decide for all the
internal matters within its territory or related to its population.
B. Interdependence Sovereignty
Interdependence sovereignty means that state shall have control the international
boundaries it shares with the neighboring states. No one is permitted to cross the borders
of the state without due permission.
C. International Legal Sovereignty
This sovereignty is linked to the recognition of other sovereign states which have fulfilled
the criteria of being the nation states.
Exclusivity and Absoluteness in Sovereignty
Exclusiveness and Absoluteness are two important features of sovereignty. Exclusivity
means that the state is sovereign excluding all other agents that may tend to exercise
control. In simple terms it excludes these agents from sharing state's sovereignty.
Absoluteness of sovereignty of state means that the supremacy and authority of state is
absolute and final. It will govern not only all the geographical parts of the country but also
decide for the people. This feature makes the modern nation state as central institute of
power.
Internal & External Sovereignty
Internal sovereignty deals with the internal affairs of a state. This idea is most of the time
also linked with the concept of legitimacy of government. The way in which a government
National Interest
National interest is a tricky topic of modern International Relations. It is something taken
as an impetus behind every state action relative to another state. National Interest serves
as the determinant of state's foreign policy along with depicting the nature and policies of
political government ruling the state.
Defining National Interest
it is a common perception that national interest has no concrete and definite words that
can define it absolutely. It is a fluid aspect of International Relations. The definition of
national interest lacks universality because the national interest is not shared common by
all states. Secondly, there are the factors which determine national interest of a state for a
specific period of time. These factors also vary from state to state.
But in a very safe and simplest attempt to define national interest following words can be
used; "National Interest is the name of those goals and objectives of a state which are
pursued to seek the maximum benefit in a given set of circumstances".
Fluidity of National Interest
National interest lacks definite outlook. The variables which prevent national interest from
seeking a concrete shape are following;
Varying circumstances
Political traditions