Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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;
This is a relatively general definition yet beyond the width of International Relations as a
discipline.
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.
Prior to signing of this treaty various religious sects of Christian Europe were at daggers
drawn at one hand and there was dreadful clash between the Church and the Throne on
the other hand.
With the Peace of Westphalia drawn in 1648, for the first time in human history,
independent sovereign territories were defined to be ruled by the nations living in them.
This was a way to end the long war and it proved quite effective.
Today, the nation state system is complex than ever. Not only the states are the prominent
actors as in the past but also the non-state actors occupy their place. Nation state system
of present day is however more concrete but still victim of various international problems.
Further, nations have learned to govern themselves and their states. They have
established international community, international peace making institution and
international law as well. Thus, it is a relatively better system.
Conclusion
Nation state system is the framework in which modern political world acts. It has more
evolved and developed mechanisms of conduct with each other. Nation states become the
basis of studying International Relations as well both in terms of a discipline as well as in
terms of a mechanism.
Nation states of the world plunged into the First World War in 1914. At the end of this
war, the first ever time came in history when the idea of an international community was
materialized. Following the proposition of the then American President Wilson, the League
of Nations was established as an apparent body of international society.
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.
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.
What is Idealism?
Idealism is nothing different from liberalism. It is part of the Liberal Approach which
denotes a specific period of time in the world history following the First World War when
the Liberals made an abortive effort to give this world an ideal system regulating the
international relations. Idealism is also called 'Utopianism'.
Failure of Liberalism?
Liberalism if not utterly failed then at least received a blow when the League met failure
and world plunged into World War Two. The utopian scheme could not prevent the
nationalistic tendencies of the League's former members from disrupting the world
order.
Conclusion
Liberalism is among the classic theoretical approaches of the International Relations.
The theory carries massive support for its liberal and peaceful modes of regulating the
international relations. However, it is criticized for its failure to prevent the world from
another great war with its utopian schemes.
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.
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 Neo-
Liberalism 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;
There exists international anarchy which serves as basis of international relations
rather than the Human nature of violence.
World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in
international relations.
There exists Security Dilemma in international relations. States accumulate power
for their security and survival which leads most of them into a race of armament and
militarization.
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.
Criticism on Neo-Realism Theory of International Relations
Neo-Realism is criticized on the account of following points;
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.
Focuses on national power and national interests of a state which actually
undermine the possibilities for cooperation.
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 Neo-
Liberalism 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;
There exists international anarchy which serves as basis of international relations
rather than the Human nature of violence.
World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in
international relations.
There exists Security Dilemma in international relations. States accumulate power
for their security and survival which leads most of them into a race of armament and
militarization.
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.
Criticism on Neo-Realism Theory of International Relations
Neo-Realism is criticized on the account of following points;
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.
Focuses on national power and national interests of a state which actually
undermine the possibilities for cooperation.
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 theory propounds that the Periphery world is dependent upon the Core world. This
dependence can be interpreted in terms of economy, politics and technological
advancement. The reasons behind the dependence are not only backwardness and
depravity of the Periphery but also continuous exploitation of these states by the Core
states. This exploitation is carried out by various tools that can be laws, institutions or
any other form.
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.
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.
Conclusion
Collective Security is the idea that works as the concept of security in 21stcentury. 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.
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.
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 18th 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
External sovereignty is the name of maintaining relations of a sovereign power with the
other states of the world. It is not the supremacy of one state over another but the way in
which relations between states are to be maintained on equal footing.
Conclusion
Sovereignty is an abstract element of state which is also the most important one.
Sovereignty is the actual thing which works as the soul of modern nation state.
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.
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".
Ways to pursue other than diplomacy can be use of influence, making alliances,
concluding agreements and treaties. Illegitimate ways might include the use of force
against the other state or interfering in its internal matters with the help of non - state
actors.
Conclusion
National interest is understood in wider sense. It is mostly long term policy. The reason
behind the presence of complexity in understanding national interest is also that we take
it in shorter term as something imminently achievable and based on unchangeable
principles. But in fact it is contrary to that.