International Relations Chapter One:

Understanding International Relations

 A large number of different events; meeting of leaders, conclusion of

negotiations, wars are started, acts of terror committed and etc are happening
and seen in our daily life
 In order to make sense of all this information we need to know a lot about the
contemporary world and its history.
1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States
 Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs.
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an
individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation.
According to Andrew Heywood (2014), nationalism is the doctrine that
declares the nation as the basic political unit in organizing society.
It has caused the outbreak of revolutions and wars across the globe.
It is a factor for the collapse of age old empires, marker for 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/victory/ 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.
 Continued
• In common manner of speaking, the words ‘Nation’, ‘State’ and
‘Country’ are used interchangeably and this is not correct.
• For instance, the word the ‘United Nations’ is a wrong since in reality
it is an association or a society of states-instead of nations.
• In International Politics, it is also common but incorrect to refer the
‘Chinese’, the ‘Americans’ and the ‘Russians’ as ‘nations’.
• Hence, the question remains:
• What is a Nation? According to Heywood (2014), ‘nations are
historical entities that evolve collections of people bound together by
shared values and traditions, in particular a common language and
history, and usually occupying the same geographical area.
 Continued
• On the other hand, at the end of the 18thC state came to be radically
transformed.
• The ‘state’ was combined with a ‘nation’ forming a compound noun – the
‘Nation-State’ – which was organized differently and pursued different goals.
• A Nation, in contrast to a state, constitutes a community of people joined by
a shared identity and by common social practices.
• A state is a territory with its own institutions and populations. And a
sovereign state is a state with its own institutions and populations that has a
permanent population, territory, and government. It must also have the
right and capacity to make treaties and other agreements with other states.
• State is political and geopolitical entity
• A nation-state is a cultural group (a nation) that is also a state (and may, in
addition, be a sovereign state).
 Continued
• All over Europe national communities demanded to be included into the
politics of their respective countries.
• Nationalism in the first part of the 19th C was a liberal feeling concerning
self-determination – the right of a people to determine its own fate.
• This programme had far-reaching implications for the way politics was
organized domestically, but it also had philosophical consequence for
international politics.
• Most obviously, the idea of self-determination undermined the political
legitimacy of Europe’s empires. If all the different peoples that these
empires contained gained the right to determine their own fates, the
map of Europe would have to be radically redrawn.
 Continued
• The Finns wanted an independent Finland; the Bulgarians an
independent Bulgaria; the Serbs an independent Serbia, and so on.
• In 1861 Italy too – long divided into separate city-states and
dominated by the Church – became a unified country and an
independent nation.
• 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.
• As a result of the nationalist revolutions, the European international
system became for the first time truly ‘Inter-National’.
 Continued

• In fact, the word ‘international’ itself was coined in 1783, by the British
philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
• In most respects, however, the inter-national system continued to
operate in much the same fashion as the Westphalian inter-state system.
• Nation-States claimed the same right to sovereignty which meant that
they were formally equal to each other.
• 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 story which advances the idea that a
revival of nationalism is happening across the world with the post-cold
war
 1.2. Understanding International
Relations
• International relations is not merely a field of study at university but is an
integral aspect of our everyday lives.
• We now live in a world where it is impossible to isolate our experiences and
transactions from an international dimension.
• You may work for an inter-national company or international organization,
or even if you work for a locally based company there will without doubt be
an international dimension to the functioning of the company as it
negotiates the countless of regional laws, international trade laws,
international employment laws and tax laws.
• This indicate that how much international relations will continue to impact
your life.
 Continued
• Studying International Relations enables students and professionals to
better understand the information we receive daily from newspapers,
television and radio.
• People not only live in villages and towns, but form part of the wider
networks.
• As members of this world community, people have to be equally aware of
both their rights and their responsibilities – and should be capable of
engaging in important debates concerning the major issues facing the
modern international community.
• One crucial feature of the world is interconnectedness – geographically,
intellectually and socially and that is why we need to understand it.
• Originally, the study of International Relations was seen largely as a branch
of the study of law, philosophy or history.
 Continued
• Today, International Relations could be used to describe 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, or states.
• To the layperson interactions such as going on holiday abroad, sending
international mail, or buying or selling goods abroad may seem personal
and private, and of no particular international concern.
 Continued
• Other interactions such as choosing an Olympics host or awarding a film
Oscar are very public, but may appear to be lacking any significant
international political agenda.
• However, any such activities could have direct or indirect implications for
political relations between groups, states or inter-national organizations.
• Participation in International Relations or Politics is also inescapable.
• No individual, people, nation and state can exist in isolation or be master
of its own fate; but none, no matter how powerful in military, diplomatic
or economic circles, even a giant superpower, can require everyone to do
its request.
 Continued
• None can maintain their rate of social or economic progress or keep people
alive without the contributions of foreigners or foreign states.
• Every people, state is a minority in a world that is, there is an absence of a
common sovereign over them.
• That world is pluralistic and diverse.
• Each state is a minority among humankind. No matter how large or small,
every state or nation in the world must take account of ‘foreigners’.
• On the other hand, there are legal and political differences between
domestic and international politics.
• Domestic law is generally obeyed, and if not, the police and courts enforce
sanctions.
• International law rests on competing legal systems, and there is no
common enforcement.
• Domestically a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
• In international politics no one has a monopoly of force, and therefore
international politics has often been interpreted as the kingdom of self-
help.
• Domestic and international politics are differ in their underlying sense of
community – in international politics, divided peoples do not have the
same loyalties – people disagree about what seems just and legitimate;
order and justice.
 Continued
• However, recent experience has taught us that matters that were once
purely domestic and of no great relevance internationally can feature very
prominently on the international political agenda.
• Outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and COVID-19
exemplify how domestic incidents can become international and can lead
to foreign policy changes and commitments.
• Individuals can be the victim or victors of events but studying international
relations helps each one of us to understand events and perhaps to make a
difference.
• If physical force were to be used to resolve every disagreement there
would result an intolerable existence for the world’s population. Every
human being would be suspicious of every other human.
 Continued
• On other way, the arena of international relations and politics seems to be
continually expanding.
• To explain this,
• In 1800 there were no international organizations, but now there is one
for almost every activity– both governmental and non-governmental.
• When the United Nations Charter was signed in October 1945, 51 states
signed it.
• In the first decade of 21th C the UN grew between 189 and 193 member
states.
 1.3. Actors in International Relations
1.3.1. State Actors
• International Relations (IR) traditionally focused on interactions between
states.
• However, this conventional view has been broadened over the years to
include relationships between all sorts of political entities (‘polities’),
including International Organizations, Multinational Corporations, Societies
and Citizens.
• IR captures a vast array of themes ranging from the growing
interconnectedness of people to old and new forms of security, dialogue
and conflict between visions, beliefs and ideologies, the environment,
space, the global economy, poverty and climate change.
• The sheer number of actors and issues that are relevant to IR.
 Continued
• There are a lot of states in the world – in fact, according to the latest count
there are no fewer than 195 of them.
• States are obviously very different from each other, but they are also
similar to each other in important respects.
• All states are located somewhere, they have a territorial extension; they
are surrounded by borders which tell us where one state ends and another
begins.
• In fact, with the exception of Antarctica, there is no piece of land that
belongs to more than one state.
• Moreover, all States have their own capitals, armies, foreign ministries,
flags and national anthems.
• All states call themselves ‘sovereign’, meaning that they claim the
exclusive right to govern their respective territories in their own fashion.
 Continued
• But States are also sovereign in relation to other states, declaring war,
concluding a peace, negotiating a treaty, and many other things.
• In fact, we often talk about states as though they were persons with
interests to defend and plans to carry out.
• In international politics as a ‘world stage’ on which the states are the
leading actors.
• State sovereignty comes to be the defining element in the study of
international relations, even where other perspectives challenge the
primacy of the state.
 1.3.2. Non-State Actors
• Our every day lived experience is influenced by global firms, international
governmental institutions, and non-governmental organizations.
• Multinational Corporations (MNCs) – often with headquarters in one state
and operational capability in a range of others – contribute significantly to
international relations.
• Additionally there are other trans-governmental organizations where the
relations between players are not controlled by the central foreign policy of
the state – such as the exchange rate of a state’s currency being determined
by the money markets.
• However, despite all the challenges of international politics/relations the
state remains, for many, the primary actor in international politics.
 Continued
• The majority of global interactions – be they related to global finance,
production, education, personal and professional travel, labor migration or
terrorism – no longer occur via state channels.
• We could say that the increased focus on non-state actors and cross-border
issues has marked a close-to-revolutionary turn in IR; something that could
be interpreted as a shift away from the inter-national (‘between-states’) to
the ‘trans-national’ (‘across/beyond-states’ and their borders).
• Robert Keohane, one of the leading scholars in the field, recently stated that
‘International Relations’ is no longer a suitable label and that we should
instead refer to the discipline as ‘Global Studies’ or ‘World Politics’.
 Continued
• In today’s world, few societal and political issues, challenges and problems
are carefully confined by the borders of individual states or even groups of
states.
• Thinking about world affairs in ‘trans-national’ rather than in purely ‘inter-
national’ terms therefore seems more of an analytical necessity than just a
choice.
• Individuals and groups interact across borders and thus relativize the
meaning of space and territory as conventional IR knew it.
• International commercial and the rapid spread of information technologies
has further increased people’s mobility and the rate at which interactions
occur across and beyond state borders.
 1.4. Levels of Analysis in International Relations
 In the early days of IR – say, from 1919 until after the Second
World War – a lot of what could be called traditional or
conventional IR was not concerned with any potential
distinctions between different levels of analysis.
 From the 1950s onwards, more and more IR scholars endeavored
to specify the focus of their analysis more clearly.
 The most prominent example was Kenneth Waltz’s- Man, the
State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (1959) which introduced an
analytical framework for the study of IR : the individual, the state
and the international system.
 1.4.1. The Individual Level
• International relations can be analyzed from the perspective of individuals.
• Behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation of the individual in affecting
a particular international phenomenon.
• For example, a Prime Minister, encountering the leader of another state to
negotiate an important financial agreement, the head of a large
corporation adopting a policy to save their business.
• So, particular actions of specific individual in the public affairs–be they
politicians, diplomats or bankers – would lead us to drawing different
conclusions again about the causes and consequences that phenomenon.
 1.4.2. The State Level
• Although this idea of the global or system level as a context of anarchy
features in many contributions to the IR literature, the main focus remains
on the state as the dominant unit of analysis.
• The state level of analysis, is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of
the discipline.
• From this perspective, the state acts as the arena in which state officials,
politicians and decision-makers operate.
• States is primary actor in major international organizations such as the
United Nations, they feature prominently in the global discussion on most
of the major challenges of our time,
• And states still hold what famous German sociologist Max Weber called the
monopoly on violence – the exclusive right to the legitimate use of physical
force.
 1.4.3. The System Level/global system/

• The system level perspective would like to consider the global system as the
structure or context within which states cooperate, compete and confront
each other over issues of national interest.
• In this perspective, global circumstances are seen to condition the ability and
opportunity of individual, states and groups of states to pursue their
interests in cooperative or competitive ways.
• A system-level study would need to consider global linkages that go beyond
single interactions between states.
• It would need to look at such things as the balance of power between states
and how that determines what happens in global politics.
 1.4.4. The Group Level

• A group-level analysis focusing on foreign policy would look, for example, at

the role of lobbying groups and the way they influence national decision-
making on an issue.
• In this sense, a group-level analysis would be more interested in the actions
of groups of individuals, such as all voters of a country and the way they
express their views in the general election, political parties picking up on the
issue in their campaigns or social movements forming to counter the effects
of the crisis on society.
 1.5. The Structure of International System

• International Relations scholars maintain that political power is usually

distributed into three main types of systems namely:
(i) Uni-polar system, (ii) Bi-polar system and, (iii) Multi-polar system.
 These three different systems reflect the number of powerful states
competing for power and their hierarchical relationship.
 Uni-polar international system in which one state with the greatest
political, economic, cultural and military power and hence the ability to
totally control other states.
 On the other hand, in both Bipolar and Multipolar systems there is no one
single state with a uni-power and hence ability to control other states.
 Continued
• As a result, the states in such systems are forced to balance each other’s
power.
• In the case of the bipolar system, there are two dominant states (super
powers) and the less powerful states join either sides through alliance and
counter alliance formations.
• The problem with bipolar system is that it is vulnerable for zero-sum game
politics because when one superpower gains the other would inevitably lose.
• One typical historical example where the world was under bipolar system is
the cold war period.
• Multipolar system is the most common throughout history. During the period
around World War I it was a typical world system. It usually reflects various
equally powerful states competing for power. It is not necessary for states to
change their relationship with zero-sum game. In such system, it is possible to
bring change without gaining or losing power.
Power
 Power is the currency of international politics. As money is for economics,
power is for international relations (politics).
 In the international system, power determines the relative influence of
actors and it shapes the structure of the international system.
• For instance, Hans J, Morgenthau, argues that International politics is a
struggle for power. It thus follows from this that power is the blood line of
international relations.
• Power can be defined in terms of both relations and material (capability)
aspects. The relational definition of power is formulated by Robert Dahl.
Dahl’s definition understands power as ‘A’s’ ability to get ‘B’ to do something
it would not otherwise do.
 Continued
• With the demise of the Soviet Union, for instance, the power balance
between Russia and the United States has changed in favour of the latter, i.e.
the United States emerged as more powerful than Russia and in consequence
managed to exercise power over Russia- meaning the USA owned the ability
to get Russia to do what Russia would not otherwise do.
Anarchy
 Anarchy is a situation where there is absence of authority (government) be it
in national or international/global level systems.
• Within a country ‘anarchy’ refers to a breakdown of law and order, where
power is decentralized and there are no shared institutions with the right to
enforce common rules.
• An anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after themselves and no
one looks after the system as a whole.
Sovereignty
 Sovereignty is another basic concept in international relations and it can be
defined as an expression of:
(i) a state’s ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal
sovereignty) and,
(ii) the state’s involvement in the international community (external
sovereignty).
• In short, sovereignty denotes double claim of states from the international
system, i.e., autonomy in foreign policy and independence/freedom in its
domestic affairs.
 [Link] of International Relations

• Theories of International Relations allow us to understand and try to make sense

of the world around us through various theories, each of which represents a
different theoretical perspective.
1. Idealism/Liberalism
• Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory and is still recognized as
such to some degree today.
• Its proponents view human beings as naturally good and believe peace and
harmony between nations is not only achievable, but desirable.
• Immanuel Kant developed the idea in the late 18 century that states that shared
liberal values should have no reason for going to war against one another.
• In Kant’s eyes, the more liberal states there were in the world, the more
peaceful it would become, since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and
citizens are rarely disposed to desire war.
 continued

• This is in opposite to the rule of kings and other non-elected rulers who
frequently have selfish desires out of step with citizens.
• His ideas have continue to be developed by modern liberals, most
notably in the democratic peace theory, which posits that democracies
do not go to war with each other.
• In the early years, from 1919 to the 1930s, the discipline was dominated
by what is conventionally referred to as liberal internationalism.
• The primary concern of this approach was that conditions which had led
to the outbreak of the First World War and the devastation which
followed should not be allowed to occur in the future.
 Continued
• The two formative pillars of liberal internationalism, democracy and free
trade, required the establishment of international relations which would
promote collectivist aspirations in place of the conflictual relations.
• Liberals also argue that international law offers a mechanism by which
cooperation among states is made possible.
• states are the subjects of international law in the sense that they are in
principle obliged to implement the decisions of international tribunals or
courts.
• Essentially, international law provides the normative framework for political
discourse among members of the international system.
 Continued
• The framework does not guarantee consensus, but it does foster the
discourse and participation needed to provide conceptual clarity in
developing legal obligations and gaining their acceptance.
• In playing this role, international law performs two different
functions. One is to provide mechanisms for cross-border
interactions (operating systems) and the other is to shape the values
and goals these interactions are pursuing (normative system).
 2. Realism
• Though liberal internationalist ideals are now recognized for their significant
contribution in the development of normative approaches to the subject,
they seemed, at the beginning of the 1930s and ultimately the outbreak of
the Second World War, pointless and utopian.
• The ‘idealism’ of the interwar period was henceforth to be replaced by
realism, and it is this school of thought which, in its various articulations,
remains dominant in the discipline. Edward.H. Carr’s ‘Twenty Years’ Crisis’,
published in 1939, was the text which positioned what he called utopianism
in opposition to realism.
• Carr by presenting the fact–value distinction, that which separates the ‘what
is’ from the ‘what ought to be’, in dichotomous or oppositional terms, Carr’s
text called for a move away from utopian doctrine which, he suggested, was
based on an unrealistic negation of power and its impact on international
politics.
 Continued
• Realists argue that values are context bound, that morality is determined
by interest, and that the conditions of the present are determined by
historical processes.
• The formative assumptions of realism as a school of thought centre on the
view that the international system is ‘anarchic’.
• Where domestic society is ruled by a single system of government, the
international system of states lacks such a basis and renders inter-national
law non-binding and ultimately ineffectual in the regulation of relations
between states.
 Continued
• Conflict is hence an inevitable and continual feature of inter-national
relations.
• As liberal internationalism sought foundations in the Enlightenment and the
birth of reason so realism locates its roots further back, citing Thucydides,
Machiavelli and Hobbes as its founding voices.
• Where liberal internationalism had been openly normative and prescriptive
in orientation, the realism expressed by Morgenthau purports to be
scientific and explanatory.
 Continued

• By the late 1950s and into the 1960s we see a discipline dominated by
realist conceptions of international relations, based as these were on the
state as the primary unit of analysis, on interactions between states
governed by the relentless pursuit of power, and on a substantive empirical
agenda defined by Cold War concerns.
• Realism gained momentum during the Second World War when it appeared
to offer a convincing account for how and why the worst conflict in known
history originated after a period of supposed peace and optimism.
• To remedy this, Thomas Hobbes proposed that a ‘social contract’ was
required between a ruler and the people of a state to maintain relative
order.
• Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Man, the State and War’ (1959) and his later ‘Theory of
International Politics’ (1979) define a neo-realist agenda and absolutely
dominated the discipline and some would argue do so to the present day.
 Continued
• Today, we take such ideas for granted as it is usually clear who rules our
states. Each leader or ‘sovereign’ (a monarch, or a parliament for example)
sets the rules and establishes a system of punishments for those who break
them. We accept this in our respective states so that our lives can function
with a sense of security and order.
• It may not be ideal, but it is better than a state of nature. As no such contract
exists internationally and there is no sovereign in charge of the world,
disorder and fear rules international relations.
• That is why war seems more common than peace to realists indeed they see
war as inevitable.
 Continued

• One central area that sets realism and liberalism apart is how they view
human nature. Realists do not typically believe that human beings are
inherently good, or have the potential for good, as liberals do. Instead, they
claim individuals act in their own self-interests.
• For realists, people are selfish and behave according to their own needs
without necessarily taking into account the needs of others.
• Realists and liberals look at the very same world. But when viewing that
world through the realist lens, the world appears to be one of domination.
The realist lens magnifies instances of war and conflict and then uses those
to paint a certain picture of the world.
• Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, is known for his famous statement
‘all politics is a struggle for power’ (Morgenthau 1948). This demonstrates
the typical realist view that politics is primarily about domination as
opposed to cooperation between states.
 Continued
• And, both realism and liberalism have been updated to more modern
versions (neoliberalism and neorealism) that represent a shift in emphasis
from their traditional roots.
• Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order can be
improved, with peace and progress gradually replacing war. They may not
agree on the details, but this optimistic view generally unites them.
• For, realists On the other hand, realists tend to dismiss optimism as a form
of misplaced idealism and instead they arrive at a more pessimistic view.
• IR as a system where war and conflict is common and periods of peace are
merely times when states are preparing for future conflict.
 Continued
• Another point to keep in mind is that each of the overarching approaches in
IR possesses a different perspective on the nature of the state. Both
liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant actor in IR,
although liberalism does add a role for non-state actors such as
international organizations.
• In terms of liberalism, its proponents argue that organizations are valuable
in assisting states in formulating decisions and helping to formalize
cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes.
• Realists on the other hand believe states partake in international
organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do so. Many scholars
have begun to reject these traditional theories over the past several
decades because of their passion with the state and the status quo.
 3. Structuralism/Marxism
• Marxism is an ideology that argues that a capitalist society is divided into two
contradictory classes – the business class (the bourgeoisie) and the working
class (the proletariat).
• The working class are at the mercy of the business class who control their
wages and therefore their standard of living. Marx hoped for an eventual end
to the class society. It was during the 1960s, however, that other perspectives
came to constitute alternative modes of conceptualizing international politics.
• This third perspective or paradigm which emerged as a critique of both
realism and idealism concentrated on the inequalities that exist within the
international system, inequalities of wealth between the rich/ North‘ or the
First World‘ and the poor /South‘ or the Third World‘.
• Inspired by the writings of Marx and Lenin, scholars within what came to be
known as the structuralist
 Continued
• As many in this tradition argued, most states were not free. Instead they
were subjugated by the political, ideological and social consequences of
economic forces.
• Imperialism generated by the drive of free enterprise capitalism in the West
and by state capitalism in the socialist bloc imposed unequal exchange of
every kind upon the Third World (Banks, 1984).
• The basis of such manifest inequality was the capitalist structure of the
international system which accrued benefits to some while causing, through
unequal exchange relations, the impoverishment of the vast majority of
others.
• Major writers in the structuralist perspective emerged from Latin America,
Africa and the Middle East, primary among which were Andre Gunter Frank
and Samir Amin, both of whom concentrated on dependency theory.
 4. Constructivism

• Constructivism is another theory commonly viewed as a middle ground.

• Unlike scholars from other perspectives, constructivists highlight the importance of
values and shared interests between individuals who interact on the global stage.
• the core of constructivism, is that the essence of international relations exists in the
interactions between people.
• After all, states do not interact; it is agents of those states, such as politicians and
diplomats, who interact. As those interacting on the world stage have accepted
international anarchy as the defining principle, it has become part of our reality.
• International anarchy could even be replaced with a different system if a critical mass of
other individuals (and by proxy the states they represent) accepted the idea.
• To understand constructivism is to understand that ideas, or norms‘ as they are often
called, have power.
• IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change chronicling the accumulation of the
accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future.
• As such, constructivists seek to study this process.
 5. Critical Theories

• Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have been

established in response to mainstream approaches in the field, mainly
liberalism and realism.
• They call for new approaches that are better suited to understand, as well
as question, the world we find ourselves in.
• Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that have
typically been ignored or overlooked within IR.
• They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been
marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global South.
 Continued
• This approach acknowledges that politics is not limited to one area or region
and that it is vital to include the voices of individuals from other parts of the
world.
• Edward Said (1978) developed the prominent Orientalist‘ critique,
describing how the Middle East and Asia were inaccurately described in the
West.
• As a result, more focus within the discipline was placed on including the
viewpoints of those from the Global South to ensure that Western scholars
no longer spoke on their behalf.
• A contemporary example would be the United States invading Iraq in 2003
despite the Security Council declining to authorize it. The United States
simply ignored the United Nations and went ahead, despite opposition.