Understanding International Relations

Chapter One: Understanding International Relations

Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations, and States
Nationalism:
The doctrine asserting the nation as the basic political unit for organizing society.
It is a powerful force in international affairs, driving revolutions, wars, the collapse of
empires, border changes, state emergence, and regime reshaping.

Paradoxical Qualities of Nationalism:

Enables nations to seek self-determination and statehood.
Provides justification for states to maintain national unity.
Allows minority or ethnic groups to challenge state authority by questioning legitimacy,
which in democratic systems rests on self-determination and popular sovereignty.
Ironically contributes to the formation, survival, and dismemberment of nation-states.

Nation:
A large group of people bound by shared language, culture, history, heritage, religion, or race.
A common language is often crucial for nationhood.
Nations are psychological fixations and do not necessarily coincide with political
boundaries.
Nations can exist without territorial control.

State:
A geographically bounded entity with a central authority that makes and enforces laws within
its boundaries.
It is a legal entity recognized under international law, with membership in organizations
like the UN granted to states, not specific governments.
Essential elements of a state include:
1. Population
2. Government
3. Sovereignty
4. Territory
5. Recognition

Nation-State:
A state whose inhabitants consider themselves a nation.
It is a geographically bounded legal entity under a single government, where the
population shares a psychological connection.
Modern states are commonly called nation-states, even if they don't perfectly fit the
definition.
A nation can exist without statehood (cultural identity without sovereign territory).
A nation-state has borders where the cultural borders of a nation match the borders of the
state.
Understanding International Relations (IR)
Relevance: IR is increasingly important due to globalization, interconnectedness through
trade, migration, the internet, and global environmental concerns. It requires trained
professionals to understand complex interactions and craft solutions.
Definition:
The study of foreign affairs and relations among sovereign states within the international
system, including the roles of states, Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs), and Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
It examines how countries relate, cooperate, and conflict.
It encompasses a range of interactions between individuals, groups, firms, associations,
parties, nations, and states, as well as with governmental and non-governmental
international organizations.
Events like international conflict, global warming conferences, and international crime are
fundamental to its study.

Inescapability: No individual, people, nation, or state can exist in isolation. Progress and
survival often depend on contributions from foreigners or foreign states.
Nature of IR: Involves both conflict and cooperation, intermingling in political, economic,
cultural, and technological interactions by governmental and non-governmental actors.
Areas of Study: Diplomacy and diplomatic history, international law, international
organizations, international finance and economics, and communications.
Interdisciplinary Nature: Considered a branch of political science but also studied by
historians, economists, legal scholars, and philosophers.
Historical Development:
While aspects like war and diplomacy have been studied since Thucydides, IR became a
formal academic discipline in the early 20th century.
Earlier Approaches: Focused on political relationships like war, alliances, diplomacy, and
trade between nations.
Contemporary IR: Deals with multifaceted interactions on diverse issues like globalization,
state sovereignty, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic
development, human security, terrorism, organized crime, human rights, and population
and development.
Contemporary Actors: Characterized by a multiplicity of actors, including multinational
corporations, international organizations, and international civil society movements.

Domestic vs. International Politics:

Domestic Law: Generally obeyed, enforced by police and courts.
International Law: Rests on competing legal systems, lacking common enforcement.
Domestic Force: Government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force.
International Force: No single entity has a monopoly of force, leading to a "self-help"
system.
Community Sense: Domestic politics has a stronger sense of shared loyalty and
agreement on justice/order; international politics often involves divided peoples with
differing loyalties and views.

Domestic Events with International Relevance: Incidents like SARS, avian flu, and COVID-19
demonstrate how domestic events can become international, influencing foreign policy.
Value of Studying IR: Provides tools to analyze events, understand policy-maker challenges,
and comprehend the reasoning behind actions and outcomes.
Scope of IR:
Broad, encompassing economic, social, political, and transnational relations between state
and non-state actors.
 Methods: Uses a multidisciplinary approach incorporating politics, economics, decision-
making theories, geopolitics, etc., not just military power.
21st Century Inclusions: Gender, environment, and international civil society movements,
in addition to power and diplomacy.

The Nature and Evolution of International Relations

The Modern State: Emerged around the 17th century, replacing medieval Europe's overlapping
jurisdictions and loyalties with a system based on sovereignty.
Peace of Westphalia (1648):
Marked the end of the Thirty Years' War and the Holy Roman Empire's effective power.
Inaugurated the modern European state system.
Established a framework of sovereign nation-states.
Instituted the notion of sovereignty: rulers recognized no internal equals or external
superiors within defined territories.
Encouraged the rise of the nation-state and the institutionalization of diplomacy and
armies.
States rejected subservience to the Pope and the Catholic Church.
Sovereignty became increasingly important, signifying the state's primacy over its territory.

Attributes of Modern States:

Can be viewed as institutions, territorial units, historical entities, or philosophical ideas.
A community of people permanently occupying a definite territory, independent from
external control, with an organized government to which inhabitants habitually obey.
Politically organized society.
Essential elements: Population, Government, Sovereignty, Territory, Recognition.

Actors in International Relations

Actors: Persons or entities with the capacity to impact international relations.
Categories of Actors:
1. National Actors (State Actors): Traditionally, IR focused on interactions between states.
States are sovereign entities with capitals, armies, foreign ministries, flags, and national
anthems, claiming exclusive right to govern their territories. They engage in war, peace, and
treaties.
2. International Actors: Global and continental Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs) like
the UN, NATO, IMF.
3. Transnational Actors: Business firms, mainly Multinational Corporations (MNCs)/
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) with cross-border operations.

Non-State Actors:
Influence everyday life and necessitate broader investigation beyond states.
Include NGOs, INGOS, MNCs, terrorist groups, religious groups.
Examples of their influence: Exchange rates determined by money markets.
Many global interactions (finance, travel, migration, terrorism) no longer occur solely via
state channels, marking a shift from inter-state to trans-national relations.
NGOs: Non-profit, citizen-based groups functioning independently of government.
INGOs: Provide relief and developmental aid.
IGOs: Provide services states are unable or unwilling to provide (e.g., UN, NATO, IMF).
MNCs: Corporate organizations owning or controlling production in multiple countries.
 Terrorist Groups & Religious Groups: Can exert significant influence.

Levels of Analysis in International Relations

1. Individual Level Analysis:
Focuses on how perceptions, choices, and psychology of individual leaders and decision-
makers shape foreign policy and international outcomes.
Argues that understanding state actions requires looking at the people in charge and the
implications of human nature, emotions, fears, visions, and access to information.
Examples: Hitler (WWII), Reagan and Gorbachev (End of Cold War), Trump and Xi Jinping
(Trade War).

2. State Level Analysis:

Focuses on internal characteristics, structures, and politics of individual states shaping
their foreign policy.
Views states as central units of analysis ("black box").
Considers states as having defined preferences and acting accordingly.
Examines how states interact, build on suggestions, react to developments, and cooperate.
Requires consideration of state order (political), geographical position, historical ties, and
economic standing.

3. System-Level Analysis:
Examines the structure and characteristics of the international system as a whole,
determining state behavior and world politics outcomes.
Argues that understanding international events requires looking at the global context.
Key factor: Distribution of power (unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity).
Assumes an "anarchic" international system lacking a central government or international
sovereign.
States rely on their own resources or alliances.
Provides a comprehensive macro view, arguing the whole is better than the parts.

The Structure of the International System

Distribution of Power:
Political power is distributed into three main system types, reflecting the number of powerful
states competing and their hierarchical relationships.
1. Uni-polar System:
One state possesses the greatest political, economic, cultural, and military power,
controlling others.
The hegemonic actor acts as a "Police Agent of the World," preventing or resolving
conflicts.
Essential Rules: Maintain dominant power, intervene to prevent threats to international
peace.
General Features: Power concentrated in one superpower; hierarchical structure; no
alliances as one center of power rules. Similar to an interstate structure governed by a
single government.

2. Bipolar System:
Dominated by two contending superpowers influencing other states and the
 international system.
Essential Rules: Maintain alliances, maximize capability for balance, compete for
influence over neutral actors, establish military alliances.
General Features: Two coalitions/alliances headed by superpowers; ideological ties
within blocs; hierarchical alliances; conflict between coalitions/bloc leaders. Example:
Cold War (USA vs. USSR).

3. Multipolar System:
Comprises four or more powerful actors with relatively equal powers.
General Features: No significant hierarchy; blocs/coalitions formed with limited
cooperation within and limited conflict between them.
Essential Rules: Increase capability through negotiation rather than fighting; fight rather
than fail to increase capability; stop fighting rather than eliminate a major power;
oppose dominant coalitions/powers; oppose supranational principles; treat all major
powers as partners; permit defeated powers to re-enter the system.
Instability: Systems with more poles (especially four or more) have a higher probability
of war; systems with five poles are considered most unstable.

Power and Anarchy in International Relations

Power:
The currency of international politics; determines the relative influence of actors and
shapes the international system structure.
Often defined as a struggle for power (Morgenthau).
Relational Definition (Robert Dahl): Power is 'A's ability to get 'B' to do something it would
not otherwise do.
Capability Aspect: Power is also related to material capabilities.
Example: During the Cold War, the US and USSR had balanced capabilities, leading to a
stalemate. A slight increase in capabilities for one nation could translate into a major
power advantage. The US emerged as more powerful than Russia after the Soviet Union's
demise, influencing Russia's actions.

Anarchy:
Absence of authority (government) at the national or international level.
In international relations, it means a decentralized power system with no shared
institutions to enforce common rules.
States must rely on their own resources or alliances for security.
Power balances are precarious, incentivizing aggressive wars and leading to constant
tensions and threats of war.

Sovereignty
Definition:
An expression of:
A state's ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal sovereignty).
A state's involvement in the international community (external sovereignty).

Denotes: A state's claim to autonomy in foreign policy and independence in domestic affairs.
Theories of International Relations
1. Idealism/Liberalism:
Assumptions:
Community of states, international institutions, norms, and laws constrain anarchy.
Multiple interdependent actors exist.
No hierarchy among issues; power is changeable.
Multilateral interaction channels exist; no strict power distribution or balance.
Absolute gains (mutual benefits) are prioritized over relative gains.
Dominant issues include security, human welfare, and environmental concerns.
Military power is not the sole form of power.
Human nature is rational, not purely self-centered; negotiation is a problem-solving
mechanism.
Optimistic about cooperation; international institutions facilitate cooperation and war
avoidance.
Individuals and states are basic units of analysis.
Institutions and regimes constrain anarchy and help achieve common goals.

2. Realism:
Rooted in 'realpolitik' (power politics) and 'raison d'etat' (reason of state).
Assumptions:
Anarchy characterizes the international system; no world government.
States are the principal and most important actors; sole rational actors.
National interest (military, strategic, economic) defines state goals.
System structure is defined by the distribution, balance, and hierarchy of power.
Relative gains are more important than absolute gains (one state's gain is another's
loss).
State behavior depends on power capability.
Dominant issues are military and political (high politics); economic and social issues
are low politics.
Military and diplomacy are dominant actions.
Pessimistic about international cooperation due to states striving for national interests.
International institutions cannot limit anarchy; no superordinate authority over states.

Differences from Liberalism:

Human Nature: Realists see humans as selfish and prone to domination; Liberals
believe in inherent goodness and potential for good.
World View: Realists focus on war and conflict (domination); Liberals focus on
cooperation and progress (optimistic).
State Perspective: Both see states as dominant, but Liberals include non-state actors.
Realists believe states participate in international organizations only when it serves
their self-interest.

3. Structuralism/Marxism:
Argues capitalist society is divided into bourgeoisie (business class) and proletariat
(working class).
Human nature is motivated by self-interest, egoism, and a desire to dominate, leading to
exploitation and inequality.
 Assumptions:
Classes are more important than society and states.
National interest is an illusion; states reflect the interests of the dominant class.
International cooperation among the proletariat can create a just system.
Proletarian internationalism is needed to seize power and achieve peace.
Hierarchy exists in the international system; dominant states (and their dominant
classes) rule others.
Economic power is crucial for domination.

Dependency Theory: Focuses on dependency, exploitation, and the international division of

labor, which relegates many to poverty. States are subjugated by economic forces.
Imperialism and unequal exchange create international inequality, with center-periphery
relations. Economic interdependence is seen as a basis for inequality, debt, violence, and
instability, rather than cooperation.

4. Constructivism:
Emphasizes shared ideas, norms, and identities as the most important forces in world
politics, rather than just military power or money.
Key Assumptions:
"Anarchy is what states make of it" (Alexander Wendt): The international system's
character depends on state beliefs; it's not inherently hostile.
Identities determine interests: What a state wants depends on its self-perception (e.g.,
democracy, rogue state).
Norms govern behavior: States follow unwritten rules to be seen as legitimate members
of the international community.
Change is possible: New ideas can transform the system.

Core Idea: International relations exist in the interactions between people (agents of
states). If anarchy is perceived as a principle, its qualities can change. Ideas and norms
have power. IR is a continuous journey of change reflecting accumulated and emerging
norms.
Example: The West's unified response to Russia's war in Ukraine is motivated by the shared
idea that borders should not be changed by force, demonstrating the power of defending
shared norms like sovereignty and a rules-based order.