Chapter One: Understanding International Relations
Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States
Nationalism is one of the modern ideologies that has influenced international affairs,
political and social movements.
It expresses the state of being national, national affection, and nationality.
It is a set of ideas that members of a particular state, nation, society or region may collectively feel
towards their nation.
It argues that a group of peoples who share similar culture, history, psychological makeup should
have their own government or state - ethnic nationalism.
Nationalism in Europe has caused for source of conflict and the disintegration of European
multinational Empires.
Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs. Because:
It has caused the outbreak of revolutions and wars across the globe.
Appeared a factor for the collapse of age old empires.
Marked the emergence of new borders.
A powerful component for the emergence of new states and it is used to reshape and
reinforce regimes in history.
Nationalism’s triumph is the coming of the nation-state as key actors in world politics-
accepted as ultimate, legitimate and the most basic form of political entity.
Nationalism is the doctrine that asserts the nation as the basic political unit in organizing
society (Heywood, 2014).
Erroneously, ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘country’ are used interchangeably
Nations are historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar ethnic
communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs (Heywood, 2014).
The revolutions that took place in Britain’s North American colonies in 1776, and in
France in 1789, provided models for other nationalists to follow.
Nationalism in the first part of the 19th C was a liberal sentiment concerning self-
determination – the right of a people to determine its own fate.
The idea of self-determination undermined the political legitimacy of Europe’s empires.
1
Yet it was only with the conclusion of the First World War in 1918 that self-
determination was acknowledged as a right.
After the First World War most people in Europe formed their own nation-states.
The Finns wanted an independent Finland; the Bulgarians an independent Bulgaria; the
Serbs an independent Serbia, and so on.
Westphalian Treaty of 1848 – will be discussed subsequently.
In international politics, nevertheless, the implication of nationalism and its essence is
highly questioned.
Especially in the contemporary period, nation states are put under pressure and their role
in world politics is significantly challenged.
However, there is also an emerging narrative which advances the idea that a revival of
nationalism is happening across the world with the post-cold war assertions of religion,
culture and ethnicity as potent forces in world politics – hence we have S.P. Huntington’s
‘clash of civilizations’ as an alternative to Francis Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’ thesis
on world politics.
Subject Nationality: is a nationality that has not achieved independence. Ex. Catalan, Basque,
Kurds. Scottish Nationalism.
Chauvinism: is an extreme nationalism that exaggerates one nation, culture, civilization and
contribution. Ex. Nazism, Fascism
It is an excessive and unreasonable patriotism, similar to jingoism.
Jingoism - extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.
The word chauvinism is derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a French soldier who,
satisfied with the reward of military honours and a small pension, retained a simpleminded
devotion to Napoleon.
Nation, State, and Nation-State
The ‘state’ was combined with a ‘nation’ forming a compound noun – the ‘nation-state’ –
which was organized differently and pursued different goals.
2
A nation, by contrast, constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and
by common social practices.
The nation was a soul added to the body of the early modern state machinery.
Nation state is a vague concept. Its definition remained elusive by and large
“the state is the government and its institution: the nation is best described as some kind of
grouping of people who identify with each other, be it for cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or
historical reasons. The nation-state is the marriage of the two ideas” (Delanty, 1996:1).
Understanding International Relations
A term first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1798
The carnage of the First World War marked its essence.
Covers a range of interactions between people, groups, firms, associations, parties, nations
or states or between these and (non) governmental international organizations.
These interactions usually take place between entities that exist in different parts of the
world – in different territories, nations or states.
Events such as international conflict, international conferences on global warming and
international crime play a fundamental part in the study of international relations.
In its approach, IR appeared both normative and empirical.
Normatively - IR seeks to provide a set of values that policymakers, diplomats, and other
actors of IR should follow in order to better the human condition.
Empirically- IR theory seeks to explain the underlying causes of political events.
IR is also about maintaining international order.
But that order has to be maintained in an anarchical world.
Thus, the arena of IR seems to be continually expanding.
When the United Nations Charter was signed in October 1945, 51 states signed it.
IR is meant to serve all states, but political power is unevenly distributed among member
states. That is why power, coercion and bargaining still hold sway.
Participation in IR or politics is also inescapable.
IR, therefore, is too important to be ignored but also too complex to be understood at a
glance.
3
Engaging in IR provides the necessary tools to analyze events, and to gain a deeper
comprehension of some of the problems that policy-makers confront and to understand
the reasoning behind their actions.
Scholars and practitioners in IR use concepts and theories to make their study more
manageable.
This, however, was complicated due to the emergence of major philosophical disputes
about the fundamental nature of IR:
The Hobbesian versus the Lockean state of nature in the seventeenth century; and the
Realist versus Idealist debate of the first part of the twentieth century.
The Nature and Evolution of International Relations
The rise of the sovereign state in medieval Europe consisted of a complicated pattern of
overlapping jurisdictions and loyalties.
In medieval Europe there were two institutions with pretensions to power over the
continent as a whole – the (Catholic) Church and the Empire. The Church was the
spiritual authority, with its centre in Rome.
As the custodian, from Roman times, of institutions like the legal system and the Latin
language, the Church occupied a crucial role in the cultural and intellectual life of the
Middle Ages.
14th C onwards - this system was greatly simplified as the state emerged as a political
entity located at an intermediate level between the local and the universal.
The new states simultaneously set themselves in opposition to popes and emperors on the
universal level, and to feudal lords, peasants and assorted other rulers on the local level.
Italy - Florence, Venice, Ravenna and Milan began playing the pope against the emperor,
eventually making themselves independent of both.
Later in Germany, France, and England – the same thing happened.
16th C onwards - the states established the rudiments of an administrative system and
raised armies, both in order to fight their own peasants and in order to defend themselves
against other states.
The European states emerged in the midst of struggle and strife, and struggle and strife
have continued to characterize their existence.
4
The Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648 which has founded the Westphalian treaty, was the
bloodiest and most protracted military confrontation of the era.
The Thirty Years’ War is often called a religious conflict since Catholic states confronted
Protestants.
The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of warfare, has come to
symbolize the new way of organizing international politics.
International politics was a matter of relations between states and no other political units.
All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the exclusive right to rule their
own territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw fit.
All states were formally equal and they had the same rights and obligations.
Taken together, the states interacted with each other in a system in which there was no
overarching power.
Once these states had made themselves independent both of the pope and the emperor,
they soon discovered that their relations had become vastly more complicated. In order to
avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts, the different rulers began dispatching
ambassadors to each other’s courts.
This diplomatic network provided a means of gathering information, of spying, but also a
way of keeping in touch with one another, of carrying out negotiations and concluding
deals.
19th C - relations between Europe and the rest of the world were irrevocably transformed
- ‘industrial revolution’.
End of 19th C - Colonial possessions became a symbol of ‘great power’ status, and the
new European nation-states often proved themselves to be very aggressive colonizers.
After Second World War- era of decolonization - all new states had a familiar form with
the Western one.
They had their respective territories and fortified borders; their own capitals, armies,
foreign ministries, flags, national anthems and all the other paraphernalia of European
statehood.
5
Actors in International Relations
Basically, we have two actors in IR: State Actors and Non- State Actors
State Actors
States are primary and most powerful sovereign actors of IR.
The power and capability of state is different or asymmetrical.
Some states have large territory, economy, military, advanced science and technology and
quite large number of populations; while still others are poor, small, underdeveloped and
have a very tiny and thousands of populations.
The diffusion of power and capability among states is asymmetrical and the way in which
power is distributed among them is key variable in determining the structure of their
relationship.
In IR the most powerful states dominate in establishing rules and regulations of the
international system.
Non-State Actors
Are non-sovereign international influential players which act individually or in group beyond their
state of origin.
Non- State actors include:
Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are profit oriented transnational business
companies that operate in multiple countries other than their origin.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are non-for-profit civil society
organizations that operate globally to provide humanitarian assistance.
Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) these are supra national but non sovereign
actors which are established to solve various problems of the world e.g. UN, AU, EU, AL,
NATO, IMF, WB, IGAD,
International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) these are international private
philanthropic organizations founded to provide help for the needy.
Individuals: individuals with influential personality paly greater role to solve global
problems.
6
Terrorists: terrorist use violence against civilians to advance their political goals or
desired changes. In contemporary world terrorism by small groups have undermined the
capacity and sovereignty of states.
Media: media in international relations has assumed big role by increasing people’s
awareness in their religion, culture and place in the world. By this media have become an
integral parts of the world politics.
Levels of Analysis in international relations
Levels of analysis tries to explore the “why” and “how” actors of IR decide in complex problems.
In IR there are three levels of analysis.
Individual
It focuses on the individual who takes decision.
It is concerned about the perception, choice, behavior, personality, background, health,
psychology of leaders and policy and decision makers in foreign policy.
State level/domestic level
It is the dominant unit of analysis in IR.
It is aggregation of individuals’ decision within the state that influence state action in the
international arena.
Factors that affect domestic issues include: ethnic conflict, government status
(authoritarian, democratic, parliamentary v. presidential), level of democracy, public
participation or opinion, the presence of pressure groups, state stability and other
domestic issues that affect the behavior, policy, choice and decisions of state.
The Systemic level
The system level analysis tries to analyze the global system as the structure or context
within which states cooperate, compete and confront each other over issues of perceived
national interest.
It is about the distribution of global power on the behavior and choice of states.
In IR there is three types of power distribution: unipolarity (one power), bipolarity (two
powers) and multipolarity (several powrs).
It tries to analyze the ability and opportunity of states and groups of states to pursue their
interests in cooperative or competitive ways.
7
The overriding principle is that the international system is ‘anarchic’- is one that lacks a
central government (or international sovereign) that regulates and controls what happens
to states in their dealings with each other.