International relations is a tool to make sense of this diverse, complex and chaotic world.

It’s a
young discipline but existed for centuries . One can trace it’s root back to Sumerian and Greek
cities, where the idea of trade, cooperation, war and diplomacy existed and performed. Even
many political thinkers has contributed in forming the basis of this discipline indirectly,like
Hobbes’s view of self preservation, security, and viewing human nature as pessimists forming
the base of today’s realism. Machiavelli’s concept of duality of morality and protecting the
sovereignty of territories, are widely emphasised ideas in realism. Thucydides’ History of
Peloponnesian war gave the concepts of nation state and sovereignty and accounted that how
fear, interest of the state and power drives the actions of states.
The inception of international relations as an academic discipline began only after the First
World War. The catastrophic devastation caused by the world war pushed to come up with
solution to resolve conflicts. The emergence of this discipline took place to refrain the states
getting into any other world war and bring peace and promote cooperation among the states.
This intellectual demand drive the need to establish this discipline.

One can categorise the evolution of international relations in various stages. The first one is pre
1919 intellectual foundation. It can be traced from the Treaty of Westphalia, where concept of
sovereignty and nation state [Link] the acts between two or more states started being
analysed, their geography, economy, military, polity, religion and culture,wars etc .The urge to
secure power and come as hegemonic power arose. Thus the subject matter, causes and
solutions for wars, started being studied. This period continued till 1919. Hence, the concept of
international relations came only with the concept of sovereignty of states.
However, this period was devoid of any theoretic paradigm. International relations was only
descriptive in nature. It explained the events only from the surface level by recording the events.
It lacked systematic study, failed to establish correlations between events and thus, remained
unscientific in nature. The focus was only on studying it through historical past and describing
the events, without bringing holistic approach to it. It lacked empirical and systematic methods.
This period of evolution of IR never tried predicting the future outcomes. Therefore, the
discipline never got institutionalised in this period and also never received the recognition and
importance it deserved.

The second period began after the end of the First World [Link] destruction caused by the
war created a strong need to establish a discipline that can help in preventing further
devastations. It was only after this war, teachings of international relations began
institutionalised. UK, USA and Switzerland were one of the first nations that established this
discipline in a formal academic manner. Woodrow Wilson chair of International Relations was
established at University of Wales, in 1919. Various other universities followed up which gave
impetus to this discipline.
Also the League of Nations got established in 1920 by the emphasis of fourteen points of
Woodow Wilson. This was the first time a global institution was set up to resolve world conflicts,
secure peace and security for the nations. In 1927, The Graduate Institute of International
Studies was established with the motive to train diplomats for the League of Nations. Gradually
many universities started providing the degree in this discipline which marked the beginning of
IR as an academic discipline.
During this era, this discipline definitely got the hype but even it has some underlying flaws. It
was only normative in [Link] era was dominated with the study of current events and
idealism strands of thought. The major focus was on contemporary events and they sidelined
the historical and diplomatic developments occurred between the states. This neglection of
historical past restricted the relevance and credibility of this discipline. The contextualisation of
time and space was needed to develop the [Link] linkages were missing in this period.
Hence the integrative knowledge was still not attained. It relied on idealism and optimism and
believed that global institutional set up would solve all problems. Theorisation in this discipline
was still missing. In absence of historical developments and theory building, the predictability
was still not attained in this era.
Also during this period, first great debate between Idealism vs realism(1919-1930s)
occurred . Idealism focused on law, cooperation and disarmament as tools to tackle
international issues. They emphasised on “collective security” and believed creation of League
of Nation as solution. Although Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, and the second world war in
1939 unveiled the incapability of idealism and global institution. Thus brought highlight on
realism. This debate was about morality and power

The next major resurgence of IR began between the Second World War and cold war. The
failure of liberal approach and League of Nations created havoc on the global level. Need for
new ideological onsets were required. Also the newly independent Asian and African nations
made the global world truly global. Also the approach to tackle global issues pivoted to more
realistic approaches . It paved the way for realism .Hans J. Morgenthau drew upon
systematized rationalism of states, anarchic international system and pursuit of power and self
interest as driving force of behaviour of states. E.H Carr in his twenty years of crisis, criticised
idealism as utopian and argued that politics is about power and interest. With the beginning of
Second World War and failure in appeasement of Hitler confirmed realism’s claims.
The Cold War era was the maturity phase for this discipline. It validated realism and expanded
the subject matter by including the concepts of balance of power, proxy wars, deterrence and
security dilemma. These concepts started being centric to scholarly studies. The Cuban missile
crisis of 1962 validated anarchic nature, security dilemma and national interest of realism.
Even AUKUS and QUAD act as power balancing groups in case of USA-China rivalry in Indo-
pacific is example of realism.

The second great debate occurred between traditionalism vs behaviouralism during

1950s- 1960s. Traditionalists drew upon history, philosophy and law. Whereas behaviouralists
focused on scientific and quantitative tools to study IR. This debate was about methodological
ways.
During 1970s- 80s new paradigms emerged. Strand of neo realism by Kenneth Waltz
emphasised on anarchic nature of global world that explained states act rationally for survival
and act according to distribution of capabilities. Bipolarity stability between USA and USSR
during Cold War, can be explained through neorealism.
While this era had contributed vastly in terms of theories, and practical implications of provided
theories but it too, had shortcomings. It relied heavily on “state” as an actor in the global sphere,
sidelining all other non-actors. Beside this, it took the pessimistic nature of the state into account
and marginalised the possibility of cooperation and peace among them.

The end of the cold war brought a complete paradigm shift in the study of global relations.
The third great debate of IR emerged during 1980s-1990s, rationalism vs reflectionism.
Rationalist theories such as realism and liberalism assumed states as rational actors and
favoured positivist approaches. Reflectivists rejected positivism and relied heavily on ideas,
values, identity and norms. The end of Cold War with collapse of USSR gave shock to realists
who expected violent transition. Thus paved the way for new theories. Constructivists explained
that international relations is a socially constructed system and disintegration of USSR
happened due to changes in Soviet identity,ideas and Gorbachev’s policies.

Besides this, other new perspectives also started coming in. The critical theory such as, feminist
theory,brought gender dimension to global arena of war, security and peace building. The UN
resolution of 1935 on women in peace process was a result of activism of this theory.
constructivism while emphasised on norms,morals and values explained how nuclear taboo
has prevented use of nuclear tools since 1945. Post colonialism theory brought the dimensions
of other parts of world to IR studies while criticising Eurocentrism. It explained lack of
representation of global south in UNSC. Now the idea was not only to provide explanations of
visibles but to pivot the focus on invisible and come up with solutions for their emancipation as
well.

Also with the advent of the globalisation, the global picture changed significantly. Here, the
paradoxes started being [Link] can see the cooperation of states with WTO and
[Link] stiffness in the relational ties going beneath it. Globalisation fostered global village by
increasing close tied system of interdependence and interconnectedness. Though, many
critique it as chains of capitalism and erasing the concept of sovereignty.

Over the time,the realms of IR got expanded beyond state and wars. Critical perspective
showing inequality in vaccine distribution during COVID 19, load of unequal share on climatic
issues. Realism as explaining current Russia-Ukraine war. Liberalism showing cooperation
success in EU and climate agreement cases. IR came a long way with all it’s history, theory
contributing in it’s establishment . Though, it also has critiques such as Eurocentrism,
overtheorisation and predictive failures but all these has shaped this discipline and pushed it’s
academic growth. This discipline has helped in understanding this complex world while
constantly evolving with the need.