IR Part I.pdf Version 1

International Relations Shakoor Kakar
CSS 2016
Syllabus and Contents (Paper I; 100 Marks)
1. Introduction
 The Definition and Scope of International Relations.
 The Nation-State System
 Evolution of International Society
2. Theories and Approaches

 The Classical Approaches-Realism and idealism
 The Scientific Revolution-Behavioral Approach, System Approach
 Neo-realism, Neo-liberalism.
 Post-modernism, Critical Theory, Feminism, Constructivism
3. International Political Security.

 Conceptualization of security in the twenty-first century
 Power Elements of National Power
 Balance of Power
 Foreign Policy: Determinants, Decision making and analysis
 Sovereignty
 National Interest
4. Strategic Approach to International Relation.

 War: Causation of War, Total War, Limited War, Asymmetric Warfare, civil war, Guerilla war
 Strategic Culture: Determinants of Pakistani Strategic Culture.
 Deterrence: Theory and practice with special reference to Nuclear India and Pakistan
5. International Political Economy.

 Theories in IPE: Mercantilism, Economic Liberalism, and neo- Marxism
 Theories of Imperialism, Dependence and Interdependence
6. International political community.

 Nationalism
 Internationalism
 Globalization
7. Approaches to Peace
 Diplomacy page
 International Law
 Arms Control /Disarmament and Nuclear Non-proliferation Regime
8. International Political Institution

 United Nations
 International Monetary Fund (IMF)
 World Bank
 International Court of Justice
By Shakoor Kakar
GCU Lahore
2
CSS IR 2016: By Shakoor Kakar
Chapter One:
Introduction to International Relation
This chapter consists of two topics; as categorized by CSS syllabus
1. Definition and Scope of International Relations
2. Evolution of International Society
1. Definition of International Relations

“International relations is the study of human interaction at the international scale”
International relations is a very broad concept. International relations occasionally referred to

International studies; the study of relationships among states including intergovernmental organizations,
international non-governmental organizations and multinational cooperation. It is both an academic and
public policy field. It is often considered as branch of political Science but an important sector of
academia prefers to treat it as interdisciplinary field of study. Aspects of International relations have been
studied for thousands of Years since Thucydides but international Relations has become a separate and
definable discipline in the early 20th century. Recently, IR has widened its field of view to include
economic, social and ecological issues and systems around the world.
2. SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

One of the challenges you will face in your study of IR is the overwhelming volume of information
available about states, nations, countries, region and systems. It is impossible for you to know everything
about everything. Over seven billion individual human beings organised into more than 200 states and
thousands of overlapping nations, many of which claim or occupy overlapping territories. These groups
interact with one another in a variety of ways – some cooperative, others competitive and still others
combative. They also interact across different sectors of human behaviour – political, economic and
social. As a result, global international society is even more complex than the sum of its parts. If you hope
to understand IR, it is not enough simply to study the individual states, nations and countries of the world.
You also need a theoretical toolkit capable of identifying key relationships in international society,
allowing you to address questions of human interaction at an international scale.
As discuss above that international relations encompass a myriad of discipline. Attempts to structure and
intellectualize it have often been thematically and analytically confined to boundaries determined by data.
The core concepts of international relations are International Organization, International Law, Foreign
Policy, International Conflict, International Economic Relations and Military Thought and Strategy.
International/Regional Security, Strategic Studies, International Political Economy, Conflict/War and
Peace Studies, Globalization, International Regimes.
Moreover it covers , state sovereignty, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism,

economic development, terrorism, organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human
rights.
International and Political Science

The subject of international relations is taught in many universities, often in combination with, or as part
of, the curriculum of political science. But in my view the attempt by political scientists to exert some
kind of monopoly over the subject of international relations is neither practicable nor sustainable. The
serious student of international relations needs to have some knowledge of international history, law, and
economics as well as foreign policy and international politics.
Shakoor Kakar
sh_kakar77@yahoo.com
3
EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
Outline
Evolution Of International Society
1. Ancient worlds
2. Medieval Europe
i. The Christian orders
ii. Islamic Order
3. THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

i. Treaty of Westphalia
ii. The Universalization of The Westphalian System
iii. Struggle for Balance Of Power and World Politics
iv. Anarchical Politics: War, Diplomacy And Law In International Relations
v. Getting Beyond The State: The League of Nations
vi. The Collapse of The League Of Nations
4. THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

The Cold War; two contending hegemonial international societies
Introduction
The idea of international society
A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common
interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a
common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.
It is the central concept of the ‗English School‘ of International Relations. Although originally coined to
refer to relations among European states, the term may be applied to many different sets of political
arrangements among distinct political communities.
Evolution Of International Society
1. Ancient worlds
Elements of international society may be found from the time of the first organized human communities.
Early forms of diplomacy and treaties existed in the ancient Middle East. Relations among the city-states
of ancient Greece were characterized by more developed societal characteristics, such as arbitration.
Ancient China, India, and Rome all had their own distinctive international societies.
In Greece, the city-states shared a common language and religion, together with institutions like the
Olympic Games and the Delphic Oracle that were designed to emphasize this unity. All city-states placed
a high value on their independence, which enabled them to unite against the threat of Persian hegemony.
Greek international society was also underpinned by shared moral understandings about rightful
international conduct that were ultimately derived from religious norms. These concerned areas like
diplomacy, the sanctity of treaties, entry into war and the treatment of enemy dead.
Ancient India similarly had numerous religious norms that—in principle if not always in practice —applied
to international relations. This was especially true of warfare, where India had a much wider and more
complex set of norms than any of the other ancient societies. These ranged from conceptions of what
constituted a just war through various rituals to be observed at the commencement of war to numerous
prohibitions on certain forms of conduct during and after war. The concept of dharma, a multifaceted
Shakoor Kakar
4
term signifying natural and eternal laws, provided the underlying moral foundation for these injunctions.
Kautilya’s Arthasastra (fourth century BCE) added a sophisticated set of maxims concerning the rules
to be followed by kings seeking to dominate the Indian state system. These present the necessity for
humane conduct in war as a requirement of prudent statecraft rather than simply of morality. As with
Greece and the earlier Near Eastern societies, treaties in India were regarded as having a sacred quality,
although additional securities against the breaking of a treaty, such as hostages, were sometimes insisted
on.
In the case of China during the five hundred years before its separate kingdoms were unified under the
Chin dynasty in 221 BCE, international relations, as with India and Greece, took place in a context of
cultural and intellectual richness and dynamism.
Our final ancient society, Rome, was obliged during its Republican period to deal with rival powers, such
as Carthage, on a basis of equality. Such relationships were based on similar principles relating to treaties
and diplomacy to those found in Greece and India. Rome, however, developed a more extensive legal
terminology than any other ancient society, and some of this was carried over into its international
relations. Republican Rome often sought legal means of settling certain kinds of disputes with other states
and also required various religious rituals to be gone through before a war could be declared just, and
therefore legal. Rome also acknowledged a set of norms known as iusgentium (law of nations).
2. Medieval Europe
Medieval Europe’s international society was a complex mixture of supranational, transnational,
national, and subnational structures. The Catholic Church played a key role in elaborating the normative
basis of medieval international society. Islam developed its own distinctive understanding of international
society.
i. The Christian orders
Rome left a long shadow on Europe even after the formal division of the empire into eastern and western
parts in 395 AD. Eastern, Byzantine Empire, with its capital at Constantinople (modern Istanbul),
survived and even flourished for nearly a thousand years, although faced with constant pressure from the
rising power of Islam, whose forces finally overthrew it in 1453. Byzantium, which also became the
centre of Orthodox Christianity, made up for its relative military weakness vis-à-vis the Islamic world by
building up a highly effective intelligence network and using policies of divide and rule among its
enemies, aided by the most organized and well-trained (if also the most duplicitous) diplomatic corps to
have appeared in world politics up to that point.
The Pope‘s role was usually conceptualized in terms of its ‗authority‘ rather than ‗power‘ and specific
papal edicts were frequently ignored by secular rulers. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church was an important
unifying element in medieval Europe’s international society. The Church‘s comprehensive moral and
ethical code touched upon international relations in several key respects. There were, for example,
prohibitions against dealing with Muslim or other non-Christian states. The Church laid down rules on the
safe conduct of diplomats and on many aspects of treaties, including injunctions against their violation
and the grounds on which they could be annulled.
ii. Islamic Order

The other great religion of this period, Islam, also had profound implications for international politics.
First, the dramatic and rapid expansion of the Arab peoples in the century after the death of
Muhammad PBUH in 632 across the Middle East and into Africa, Asia, and Europe created a dynamic
new force that soon found itself at odds with both Roman and Byzantine Christianity. Second, Islam was
Shakoor Kakar
5
originally conceived as creating a single unifying social identity for all Muslims—the umma or community
of believers—that overrode other kinds of social identity, such as tribe, race, or state. In its early stages, the
ideal of the umma was to some extent realized in practice through the institution of the caliphate (the
successor to the governing role of Muhammad PBUH). The adoption of Islam by the nomadic Turks
brought a new impetus. The Turks established the Ottoman Empire (1299- 1922), which, at its peak,
dominated much of southern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. It did not suffer a major defeat in
Europe until the battle of Vienna in 1683, after which it gradually declined in significance.
In early Islamic theory, the world was divided into the dâr al-harb (the abode of war) and the dâr al-
Islam (the abode of Islam). A permanent state of war existed between the two abodes, although truces,
lasting up to a maximum of ten years, were possible. Muslims were theoretically obliged to wage jihad
(struggle by heart, words, hand, and sword) until the dâr al-harb had embraced Islam. The sole exception
were the ‗peoples of the book‘ Christians and Jews, who were permitted to continue their religions, albeit
at the price of paying a poll tax and accepting fewer rights than Muslims.
The periods of truce between the two abodes required treaties: once signed these were to be strictly
observed by Muslims. Indeed, Islamic doctrine on honouring treaty commitments was rather stricter than
its Catholic equivalent. Islam also laid down various moral principles to be observed in the course of war.
Inevitably, as Islam’s internal unity broke down and various nations successfully resisted the advance,
the Islamic world had to accept the necessity of peaceful coexistence with unbelievers for rather longer
than the ten-year truce. Close commercial links between the two ‗abodes‘ developed. In a noted treaty of
1535 between Sultan Sulayman of Ottoman Empire and Francis I, King of France, the Ottomans lined up
with one Christian king against the most powerful Christian force of the time, the Habsburg Empire.
3.THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
The main ingredients of contemporary international society; the principles of sovereignty and non-
intervention and the institutions of diplomacy, the balance of power, and international law, took centuries
to develop, although the Peace of Westphalia (1648) was a key event in their establishment throughout
Europe.
Three key developments from about the end of the fifteenth century played a crucial role in shaping the
post-medieval European international society. First, the larger, more powerful states, such as France and
the Habsburg Empire, were increasingly dominating some of the smaller states. Second, the Protestant
Reformation of the sixteenth century dealt a devastating blow to the Catholic Church’s claim to supreme
authority, thus indirectly enhancing the counter-claim of state sovereignty. Finally Columbus’s voyage
to the New World in 1492, followed by Vasco da Gama’s discovery of a sea route to India in 1498 (thus
enabling the dangerous and Muslim-controlled land route to be bypassed) had enormous consequences for
European international relations. The voyages of discovery gave a huge impetus both to the study of
international law and to its use in treaties designed to clarify and define more precisely the various
entitlements and responsibilities to which the age of discovery had given rise. The first sixteenth-century
writings on international law came mainly from Spanish jurists, such as
Francisco de Vitoria (c. 1480-1546).
The Thirty Years War (1618-48) is often seen as Europe’s last religious war but in fact it was not just a
struggle for power but a conflict over legitimate authority among several different kinds of contenders.
The Papacy was certainly one of these, but one of its chief supporters, the Habsburg Empire, stood for a
kind of dynastic hegemony, while the Holy Roman Emperor was less concerned with his traditional
religious dimension than with his continuing hold over the many German states, which, in their turn,
Shakoor Kakar
6
stood for the new doctrine of sovereign independence. The Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the
Thirty Years War, is regarded by many as the key event ushering in the contemporary international
system.
i. Treaty of Westphalia
During the pre-Westphalian system, there was no real concept of sovereignty. There's no real distinction
between "domestic" and "international."
Causes: There was as Splits in the Catholic church that reduced the authority of the Pope. Ideas
emerge that morals and laws are separate from the Church.
Scientific knowledge expanded, finding natural laws which further reduce Church authority.
Medieval system was based upon the concept of the knights, which ran around with different kinds of
weapons.This sort of thing shifted to large, standing armies. (Give the peasants guns.)This brought
programs of training and drilling.
All of this brought about the idea of states and reduced the authority of Christendom. This
culminated in the Thirty Years War.Thirty Years War - a bunch of conflicts evolving around
Catholic vs. Protestants. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia basically made Protestants the winners.
Important things about the Peace of Westphalia
 First recognition of sovereignty of states in Germany.

 General secularization of international relations, and a recognition of religious diversity.
 Formalization of diplomatic protocols, much of which were brought about during the
negotiations of the Peace of Westphalia.
 Origin of modern international law, again moving away from the previous single source of
authority, the Catholic Church. Positive International Law, where states can only be held to
laws which the state agrees to.
This all brought about a new "mechanical system" of independent states, along with a system of rules
for an international society. These are important concepts for this course: again, a system of
sovereign states, and a society of states.
ii. The Universalization of The Westphalian System
Westphalia established the sovereignty of only the small states in the heart of Europe that were
named in the treaties. However, the way in which this system of international politics became a
global phenomenon was extraordinary. Two key historical developments that laid the groundwork for
the success of the modern state system were the decline of the Ottoman Empire and European
imperialism and colonialism.
The Ottoman Empire persisted until 1922 but it was in decline and under immense pressure to accept
the European discourses of diplomacy and international law. In 1856 the Ottoman Empire‘s
accession to the treaty that brought the Crimean War to a close and brought a temporary truce to the
war in Eastern Europe gave the Ottomans a formal place in international society. The biggest non-
western power that could have influenced the modern international system was forced to accept
Westphalian terms.
Shakoor Kakar
7
For Europe, the history of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries was a
history of global expansion, conquest and colonization. European colonialism, and later anti-colonial
nationalism, was to have just as far-reaching an impact on the shape of the modern international
system as the wars of early modern Europe. Somewhat ironically perhaps the reactions to
imperialism saw the consolidation of the Westphalian system. Thus the history of anti-colonialism is
also a history of the universalization of the European state system.
iii. Struggle for Balance Of Power and World Politics
With the universalization of the Westphalian system and the sovereign state came the anarchical and
anti-hegemonic character of the international system. To say the international system is anti-
hegemonic is to say that it resists any attempt by one actor (a state, or an alliance of states) As we
look over the history of international politics we see that attempts to gain an all-powerful position are
not unusual. Actors have sought military or strategic advantage through alliances that intimidate
others, through direct use of force and through the development of superior military organization or
weapons technology. They often try to forge economic alliances that give them a distinct trading
advantage. Successive peace settlements clearly responding to this anti-hegemonic principle
punctuate the history of modern international politics. This anti-hegemonic struggle culminated into
First world war.
iv. Anarchical Politics: War, Diplomacy And Law In International Relations
States interact in an anarchical system using three major tools: international law, diplomacy and war.
All three of these tools are formal institutions of the international system. Each institution is, in
essence, a way of dealing with conflicts of interest between sovereign states and each has developed
an ever more refined system of rules relating to the management of its subject. All three institutions
have a history that goes back well before the modern period.
v. Getting Beyond The State: The League of Nations
The League of Nations was an attempt to place international society on a more secure organizational
foundation. Woodrow Wilson was the US President who led his nation into the First World War in
1917. In January 1918, in a speech to Congress, President Wilson famously set out ‗Fourteen Points.
Wilson‘s plan was designed to change the very constitution of world politics. His liberal
internationalism wanted to move beyond the balance of power politics of anarchical international
relations. The covenant of the League of Nations created an organization of 42 states with a bold
remit to manage international affairs. The structure of the organization was to set the pattern for the
future of international and regional organizations and diplomacy. Every member country was
represented in the assembly. Secretariat was a permanent body of international officials.
vi. The Collapse of The League Of Nations
What went wrong? History tells us that the ethos of the League of Nations was shattered by a series
of serious political failures. The first and perhaps most damaging was the failure to keep the USA on
board. The First World War had clearly marked the end of European dominance of world politics.
Therefore when the US Senate rejected the Versailles Treaty, the League effectively lost its most
important member. One consequence of this was that the European powers consistently failed to use
the League‘s potential and often ignored or made scant use of the articles that allowed for decisive
Shakoor Kakar
8
action to be taken against aggressors. This, coupled with the withdrawal of Germany, Italy, Japan and
the Soviet Union at various points, undermined the unanimity.
4. THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
The globalization of International society moves around three aspects; United Nations, The Cold war,
Decolonization
The Cold War; two contending hegemonial international societies
A significant cause of the League‘s weakness had been the refusal of the American Senate to ratify
the post-war Peace Treaty of Versailles (including the League Covenant) and it was largely
American determination not to make the same mistake in 1945 that led to a considerably stronger
new version of the League in the shape of the United Nations. In practice, however, the UN was
very seldom able to play the leading role envisioned for it in the post-war international society,
largely because The Cold war prevented agreement between the two most important members of the
Security Council, the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed, the cold war meant, effectively, the
division of the world into two contending hegemonial international societies. Although Soviet-
American competition affected all aspects of world politics, the rough balance of power between the
two superpowers did help to secure a degree of order, especially in Europe. Decolonization led to the
worldwide spread of the European model of international society as the newly free colonies
unanimously opted for state sovereignty and for an international society. The collapse of the Soviet
Union from 1989 completed the globalization of international society.
Shakoor Kakar
9
Chapter Two:
International Society and System
 The vast and important topic of IR “International Society and International System‖ is
discussed under the under the below mentioned two broad topics: However the outline will
help the student to adopt an organize approach to grasp the topic.
1. Nation State System

2. International Society
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM/Society
Outline
1. What is State?
Difference between Countries and State
Difference between Nation and state
2. Nation-State
3. The Modern State System

Features of Modern State
i. Sovereignty
ii. Nationalism
iii. Power
4. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY/System
i. What is International Society?
ii. CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY/SYSTEM
a. Anarchy
b. The Pursuit Of Interests
c. institutions
iii. Globalization of International Society
Problems of global international society
Introduction
This topic is aimed at to introduce four important analytical tools for understanding IR: states, nations,
countries and international society. Before defining international system, we will have to grasp the basic
relationship between sates, nations and countries, then it will be easy to consider how they fit together
into a system. It is convenient to discuss all of them in a same topic and in a particular sequence.
1. STATE
The most influential collective actors in contemporary IR are states – political and administrative
organisations that claim to govern territories and populations. Theda Skocpol defines states as sets ‗…of
administrative, policing, and military organisations headed, and more or less well coordinated by, an
executive authority‘
Shakoor Kakar
10
Sovereignty describes a state‘s ability to: control the peoples and territories it claims to rule defend itself
against interference from other states. States therefore have to deal with at least two priorities:
maintaining order within their territorial boundaries by means of bureaucrats and police, and maintaining
their independence from other states by means of diplomats and militaries.
This definition of sovereignty is broadly accepted in international law. According to Article 1 of the 1933
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must fulfil four requirements in order
to qualify as an actor in international law. They must:
 rule over a permanent population

 rule over a defined territory
 possess a government
 have the ability to engage in diplomatic relations with other states.
A failure to achieve these goals may undermine an actor‘s claim to sovereignty and therefore its claim to
statehood.
i. Difference between Nation and State

Nations and states may seem identical, but they are not. States govern people in a territory with
boundaries. They have laws, taxes, officials, currencies, postal services, police, and (usually) armies.
They wage war, negotiate treaties, put people in prison, and regulate life in thousands of ways. They
claim sovereignty within their territory. By contrast, nations are groups of people claiming common
bonds like language, culture, and historical identity. Some groups claiming to be nations have a state of
their own, like the French, Dutch, Egyptians, and Japanese. Others want a state but do not have one:
Tibetans, Chechnyans, and Palestinians, for example. Some imagined nations are larger than states or
cross-state boundaries. The Arab nation embraces more than a dozen states, while the nation of the Kurds
takes in large areas of four states. Diplomatic recognition confers legitimacy on a new state (or on the
government of a state) but sometimes there is a lack of consensus within the international community.
ii. Difference between Countries and State

Countries refer to the physical environments in which states and nations exist. Whereas a state refers to a
government and a nation refers to a group of people with a shared identity, a country refers to the lines
and symbols on a map that represent borders, geographical features, ecologies and natural resources. The
three concepts are closely related. A country can refer to the territory ruled by a state. It can also refer to
the territory inhabited by a nation. A number of states around the world either claim territory that they do
not effectively rule, or rule territories that fall outside their ‗official‘ borders. The government of Somalia,
for example, can effectively control only a tiny fraction of the country it claims to rule. Likewise, states
like Morocco and Israel administer territories outside their internationally recognised borders. These
examples illustrate the fact that states and countries, though related, are not synonymous.
2. NATION-STATE
Q. Describe and discuss the concept of Nation-State and evaluate its future in the light of certain recent
developments. 2009
Q. Evaluate the general view the peace of Westphalia as the founding moment for modern state system.
Do you think this system is challenged in the contemporary world? 2013
Shakoor Kakar
11
Introduction
The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a
sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. As we already discuss the state is a political
and Geographical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term nation state implies that the
two geographically coincide, which distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state which
historically preceded it.
The classical nation-states in Northern and Western Europe evolved within the boundaries of existing
territorial states. They were part of the European state system that took on a recognisable shape with the
Peace of Westphalia in 1648. After the Second World War, a third generation of very different nation-
states emerged from the process of decolonisation, primarily in Africa and Asia. Often these states, which
were founded within the frontiers established by the former colonial regimes, acquired sovereignty before
the imported forms of state organisation could take root in a national identity that transcended tribal
differences. In these cases, artificial states had first to be filled by a process of nation-building. Finally,
with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the trend towards the formation of independent nation-states in
Eastern and Southern Europe has followed the path of more or less violent secessions.
3. THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM
Q3. Describe the basic features of modern nation state. What are the dangers to its future? 2010
The modern state system refers to the situation that developed in mid17th century Europe that saw
political units emerging with governments that began to claim sovereign powers over the territories they
held sway. This is not to say that there were no states prior to this period. After all, we did have the city-
states of ancient Greece, those of Northern Italy, the Germanic tribes that coalesced to form the
Heanseatic League etc. But until 1648, the world never came to know a system of national or independent
states resting on … ―the theory of sovereignty‖.
By the peace of Westphalia, we mean the peace treaty concluded in the German city of Westphalia in
1648 that ended the thirty years war in Europe (1618 – 1648). The emergence of the modern state, system
is traceable to this treaty. The Roman church failed in its long effort to assert and maintain universality in
political and religious matters. The notion of an independent secular state began to gain currency
following its defense and justification by such theorists as Machiavelli, Bodin, Grotius etc.
The Treaty of Westphalia equally formalized the nation-state system by its recognition that empires no
longer commanded the allegiance of their parts, and that the Pope could no longer maintain his authority
everywhere, even in spiritual matters. Henceforth, German Princes were at liberty to rule as they saw fit,
and in religions matters, they were free to choose Calvinism, Lutheranism or Catholicism. Holland and
Switzerland were recognized as independent states. Prussia began an expansion that eventually resulted to
the establishment of the German empire that survived unto the early 20th century.
The modern state system that developed in Europe following the Peace of Westphalia was initially
concentrated in Europe for obvious reasons. But with the demise of colonialism and imperialism it has
been extended to the erstwhile Afro-Asian colonial dependences. Since World War II the European state
System has become a worldwide phenomenon. The state system got enlarged substantially in numbers
following the emergence of new states in Africa and Asia.
Shakoor Kakar
12
Features of Modern State
There are certain basic features of the state system. According to Palmer and Perkins, these are neither
inseparable nor adjuncts to it. Rather, they are corollaries to the state system. They include the concept of
sovereignty, the doctrine of nationalism and the principle of national power.
i. Sovereignty
Sovereignty can be understood to be ―the legal theory that gives the state unique and virtually unlimited
authority in all domestic matters and in its relations with other states‖ and which other institutions do not
have. It is thus this concept that confers on the state its legal recognition as a state. Hence without
sovereignty, no political entity can be called a state. So irrespective of the size, location or power with
which a political entity may be endowed, once the doctrine of sovereignty has been bestowed upon it, it is
considered legally equal to every other state in the international system.
ii. Nationalism
Nationalism is taken to refer to that psychological or spiritual quality which, unites the people of a state
and gives them the will to champion what they regard as their national interests. Hans Morgenthau
suggests, the nation needs a state, since one nation, one state is the political postulates of nationalism,
while the nation-state is its ideal.
iii. Power
Power is a major component of the state-system. States are always engaged in the pursuit of power either
to argument the ones they already possess or to acquire requisite potential to persue set objectives within
the international system. As indicated by some commentators, it is the best guarantor to the inviolability,
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation-state In its relationship with the state-system, power has
been defined in varying ways – ―the power of man over the minds of other men‖, ―the capacity to impose
ones will on others by reliance on effective sanctions in case of noncompliance‖, ―the production of
intended effects‖. From these conceptions, it is obvious that national or state power is inseparable, if not
synonymous with state sovereignty.
4. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY/System
Q: International system creates interactions among states through diplomacy, international law, and
economic relations. Comments. 2005
Now that you have grasped the basic relationship between sates, nations and countries, it is time to
consider how they fit together into a system. One of the most useful ways to understand IR at this broad
scale has been developed by the English School – an informal group of academics and diplomats based at
and around the London School of Economics and Political Science who describe the world as an
international society. The concept refers to a group of states that share certain common interests or values,
and who participate in the maintenance of international institutions.
i. What is International Society?
A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common
interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a
common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.
It is the central concept of the ʿEnglish Schoolʾ of International Relations. Although originally coined to
refer to relations among European states, the term may be applied to many different sets of political
arrangements among distinct political communities.
Shakoor Kakar
13
The basic unit of the international society remains the nation-states. Sovereign states in their interaction in
the international environment tend to constitute themselves into a system. William D. Coplin defines it
more precisely as ―a decentralized political system dominated by competing relatively autonomous,
territorially based political organizations. ‖ What Coplin refers to as ―political organizations‖ in this
definition are of course the nation-states. And so it is the nation state that constitutes the international
system.
ii. CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY/SYSTEM
a). Anarchy
The international system is said to be characterized by anarchy. We live in a world without a global
government, in which no single collective actor is able to force all others to live by a specific set of rules.
International society is therefore anarchic in that there is no final authority that governs international
relationships. That said, international society is not chaotic. Instead, state and non-state actors alike tend
to relate to one another on the basis of relatively stable sets of practices and principles. The principle of
diplomatic immunity, which protects diplomats from prosecution in foreign courts, is one example. These
practices and principles – called institutions by the English School – create patterns of behaviour that
bring a degree of order to international anarchy, explaining Hedley Bull‘s decision to call the world an
„anarchical society‟. But how can an anarchic system be orderly? Isn‘t that a contradiction in terms? No,
it isn‘t. Anarchy – from the Greek roots a- (without) and -archos (ruler) – refers to a type of government
in which there is no final judge or leader. Though chaos is one possible outcome of such a situation, it is
not the only possibility.
Strictly speaking however, the absence of a central executive authority in the international system does
not make it synonymous with anarchy or chaos. This would be particularly true of the international
system of the period from the end of World War I. From this time onwards, some form of universal
organizations – the League of Nations and the United Nations have evolve to try some form of regulatory
activities in the conduct of nation states in their interaction with other nation-states in the system. These
organizations have tried to ensure that accepted norms of behaviour prevalent in the international
community is adhered to by all actors in the international environment, particularly, the nation-states.
Various forms of sanctions regimes have been evolved to try to enforce compliance to these accepted
norms. Even though it is still a poor alternative to a Central Executive Authority.
b). The Pursuit Of Interests
As the interaction among states is of a political nature, it is always charcterised by power and the persuit
of interests by the states and other non-state actors in the international environment. Since there is an
absence of an executive authority in the international environment as in the domestic scene, states tend to
determine and persue those interest most times at the expense of other states‘ interests often relying on the
doctrine of sovereign rights as discussed earlier. This appears to be harbinger of chaos and conflict within
the international system.
c). institutions
The main insight of the English School is that order – defined as regular patterns of behaviour – can
evolve in anarchy. Internationally, shared institutions (i.e. practices and principles) represent rules of
membership and behaviour by which members of international society regulate their interactions without
the need for a supreme ruler to mediate their disputes. Governments that do not accept this principle of
state sovereignty may find their relations with neighbouring states limited by sanctions – punishments –
imposed by the other members of African international society. These can range from limits on trade and
travel to extreme measures such as blockades and war. Such societal punishments may cause offending
Shakoor Kakar
14
actors to alter their behaviour on the international stage. By taking collective steps to punish units that
violate its institutional codes of behaviour, an international society has the potential to regulate its
members‘ relations without the need for a final decision-maker.
International society is not a static concept. Its strength varies over time and space. During the height of
the cold war, when international relations appeared to be the site of a dangerous ideological struggle over
the terms of international order, evidence of a society of states was weak. In the months following the end
of the cold war, it re-emerged as a powerful element in facilitating collective action to reverse Iraq‘s
invasion of Kuwait.
III. GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
International society after the cold war was the first when sovereign equality was—in practice as well as
theory—the central legal norm for the whole world. At the start of the new millennium, all 192 UN
members had formally agreed to what Jackson terms a global covenant enshrining the core values of
independence, non-intervention, and, generally, the sanctity, integrity and inviolability of all existing
states, regardless of their level of development, form of government, political ideology, pattern of culture
or any other domestic characteristic or condition’ (Jackson and Owens 2001: 58). They had also agreed
to severe constraints on their right to go to war and to promote respect for human rights for all. However,
this conception of international society raises several major questions.
Problems of global international society
Globalization poses serious problems for a sovereignty-based international society. These include the
challenges emanating from new forms of community, failing states in Africa, American hyperpower,
growing resistance to Western ideas, and global poverty andenvironmental issues.
Some argue that globalization is bringing in its wake a new cosmopolitan culture, in which the central
norms revolve around the rights of individuals rather than states. They point to the growing importance of
‗global civil society’ in the form of non-governmental organizations like Amnesty or Greenpeace as a
key aspect of this process.
Second, the post-cold war order has produced an increasing number of collapsed, failed or fragmenting
states, especially in Africa. Sovereign equality implies an ability not just to participate as an equal on the
international stage but to maintain orderly government within the state. One consequence of the inability
of some governments to perform these functions is a new set of serious security problems within rather
than between states, with which international society—because of the principle of non-intervention—is
poorly equipped to deal.
Shakoor Kakar
15
Chapter Three:
Theories of International Relation
 This Chapter covers almost all the Theoretical discourse of IR
1. Idealism
2. Realism
3. Neo-Realism
4. Neo-liberalism/ Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
5. Difference Between Realism and Liberalism (Idealism)
6. System theory
6. Postmodernism/ deconstructionism
7. Feminism
8. Critical theory
9. Constructivist Theories
Theory is a kind of simplifying device that allows you to decide which fact matter and which fact do not.
1. Idealism
Introduction
Liberalism also known (in American circles) as Idealism, allegedly dominated the study of international
relations from the end of the First World War until the late 1930s. Sometimes referred to as utopianism,
idealism is in fact a variant of liberal internationalism. Notable liberal idealists are Immanuel Kant,
Richard Cobden, John Hobson, Norman Angell, Alfred Zimmern, and Woodrow Wilson. Idealism has a
highly optimistic view of the humankind and IR.
The term is not a flattering one. Idealists are out of touch with current thinking; they put moral principles
before practical or prudential considerations, and are naïve about the world around them. They are
futurists who seek a perfect world. It is not surprising, then, that it was the self-proclaimed realists who
coined the term to describe the liberal internationalism of the interwar years. Whether it deserves such a
label is debatable. Recent research indicates that the idealist thinkers of the period were not as ‗other-
worldly‘ as many realists suggested.
i. Birth of Idealism and IR.
Idealism came to prominence in reaction to the carnage of the First World War. Most intellectuals and
policymakers of the day pointed the finger at the Realpolitik of the European great powers and set
themselves the task of abolishing war as an instrument of statecraft. Philanthropists such as Andrew
Carnegie donated money to study the problem, peace groups formed, universities began to teach
international relations, and many intellectuals began to try to educate people about the benefits of
developing an internationalist orientation. Indeed, the birth of international relations as a separate
discipline coincided with these developments. However, the best summary of the thinking of the period is
to be found in Woodrow Wilson‘s ‗Fourteen Points‘, a set of principles that he took with him to the
Shakoor Kakar
16
Versailles Peace Conference in December 1918. This document not only provided an outline for the
settlement of the First World War, it was also the basis for the establishment of the League of Nations.
A central characteristic of idealism is the belief that what unites human beings is more important than
what divides them. The idealists rejected communitarian and realist arguments that the state is itself a
source of moral value for human beings. Instead, they defended a cosmopolitan ethics and sought to
educate individuals about the need to reform the international system. Interwar idealism was as much a
political movement as an intellectual one. Alfred Zimmern, for example, regarded his professorial chair at
Oxford University as a platform ‗for the preaching of international relations‘.
Idealism fell into disrepute with the collapse of the League of Nations and the outbreak of the Second
World War in 1939. Although the idealists had sought to use the League system to replace European
Realpolitik, in fact it simply became a forum that reflected the competing national interests of the great
powers of the day.
ii. Critique of E. H. Carr on Idealism
From an intellectual perspective, however, it was the critique of E. H. Carr, a British Marxist, that
completely undermined its credibility. In his famous text entitled The Twenty Years‘ Crisis (1946), Carr
argued that
 E. H. Carr believes that the Idealist theorist of IR misread the facts of History. And
misunderstood the nature of IR.
 The aspirations of the idealists (whom he disparaged as utopians) were only to be expected in a
new field of study where the desire for change and the dictates of the moment overshadowed all
else. Only with disillusionment and failure do scholars become more circumspect and clear-
headed about the nature and purpose of their subject matter.
 He suggested that idealism was an expression of the political philosophy of the satisfied great
powers. It was simply the product of a particular set of social, political, and historical
circumstances rather than a timeless moral code devoted to universal ends. When it came to a
concrete political problem, it could not find an absolute and disinterested standard for the conduct
of international politics.
 The idealists were also naïve about the role of power in international relations. Not all states had,
according to Carr, an interest in peace. Those who dominated the international system were more
likely to pursue peace because it was in their interests to maintain the international status quo.
Contrary to the belief of the idealists, then, there was no natural harmony of interests among
states.
 Carr refers to this attitude as realist because such a view does not shy away from a hard, ruthless
analysis of reality.
Since the outbreak of war in 1939, idealism has been regarded as an example of both policy failure and
theoretical naïveté in international relations. However, the tide seems to be turning. There is now much
Shakoor Kakar
17
more acceptance of liberal thinking in international relations than there was during the cold war, and a
number of scholars are also revising some of the conventional wisdom about ‗idealist‘ thinking in the
1920s and 1930s.
2. Realism
―The Most important and interesting Theory of IR‖
Outline
Introduction
1. Intellectual History of Realism
2. THE ELEMENTS OF ―REALIM‖
i. Human Nature
ii. Principle of Realism
a) Statism
b) Survival/ security:
c) Self-help:
Conclusion:
3. Critique on Realism
4. Difference between ‗classical‘ or ‗traditional‘ realism and ‗neo‘ or ‗structural‘ realism
Introduction
Realism rose from the ashes of the discredited approach of idealist between the two Wars. This theory
became dominant after World War II. In the last hundred years the thory of Realism has upper hand and
has been a dominant way of explaining world politics.
Realism-“The international system is an anarchic, self-help one. In the absence of a single effective
central authority, the nation-state has to rely primarily-though not necessarily exclusively-on its own
efforts to protect the economic and security interests of its citizens.”
Realism is a name given to a particular theoretical approach to the study of international relations.
According to its proponents, realism has been around for a very long time. Some scholars trace its
intellectual origins all the way back to Thucydides, the chronicler of the Peloponnesian wars. Thucydides
argued that the cause of the war between the Athenians and the Spartans (around 420 BC) was an increase
in Athenian military power and the insecurity that it created among the Spartans. In making this and other
observations about state behaviour, Thucydides is said to have begun one of the main traditions of
thinking about international relations. In the 1930s and 1940s, realism took the form of a critique of
idealism/utopianism, and came to be the dominant approach in IR; the American ‗classical realists‘,
Niebuhr, Kennan and especially Morgenthau are central to this process.
Shakoor Kakar
18
1. Intellectual History of Realism
Realism claims a rich and venerable history. The realists often draw attention to the work of Thucydides‘
whose The Peloponnesian War tells the history of the war between the Athenian Empire and Sparta and
her allies that was fought between 431 and 404 BC.
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes
The true precursors of the modern realist school of thought in international relations were Niccolo
Machiavelli, author of The Prince (1532), and Thomas Hobbes, who wrote The Leviathan (1651), for
both of these political philosophers assumed that human beings were fundamentally motivated by their
own self-interests and appetites and that the most widespread and potentially dangerous of all these
appetites is their lust for power. In their view, the sovereign who rules the state is the true and only
guarantor of internal peace because he alone has power to enforce the peace. However, in the wider
world of international politics the law of the jungle applied.
In their view, international politics was a constant struggle for power, not necessarily resulting in
constant open warfare, but always necessitating a readiness to go to war. In this continual state of
anarchy the only prudent course for the prince was to accumulate as much power as possible and to use
that power to defend and pursue their national interest. For this purpose military power was the key
requirement: wealth from commerce and industry were seen mainly as a means to acquiring the necessary
military power.
Modern realists accept, explicitly or implicitly, these underlying assumptions, and stress the continuing
necessity of alliance-building, the role of the state as key political actor, the maintenance of a favourable
balance of power, and a firm refusal to entrust security to international organizations and agreements, as
essential components of an effective national security policy.
E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau
Its formulation as a theoretical approach to the study of international relations is a relatively recent
development beginning in the late 1930s and early 1940s. E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau are crucial
figures in that development. They were among the first scholars to use the term ‗realism‘ and to elaborate
its fundamental assumptions by contrast with the allegedly idealistic study of international relations that
prevailed during the interwar period. Realism roused from the ashes of discredited approach of the idealist
during inter-war period. The term is often synonymous with power politics.
2. THE ELEMENTS OF “REALIM”
i. Human Nature
Classical Realist see human nature as centrally important, to them human beings are greedy and selfish by
nature and the states are run by human beings so all the states are trying to maximize their own self-
interest.1 Thus the world politics is all about bargaining and alliances with diplomacy as a key
mechanism‘ often this end is achieved by friendly cooperation but the final and key tool available for
implementing foreign policy is military.
1
Neo-realism derives from classical realism except that instead of Human nature, its focus is predominantly on
international System.
Shakoor Kakar
19
ii. Principle of Realism
The following three Ss‘ constitute the core of realism triangle.
a) State (statism). b) Survival. c) Self-help
a) Statism
States are the main actors on the world stage2. Other non-state elements as NGOs, multi-national
companies, church and terrorist organizations work within the framework of state.
i. Sovereignty
The first move for realist is to organize power domestically. States are legally sovereign. And they are the
only institutions which can possess the military power.
ii. National interest
States behave above the moral codes and design their policies in accordance with their national interest.
b) Survival/ security:
International relations are merely a struggle among the great powers for domination of security and
power.
i. Anarchy
The presence of national authority implies that individual need not to worry about their own security,
however on international level there is no central authority and on international level the state of anarchy
still exist.
Thus all the states have to rely on their own resources against any aggression of other state.3
ii. Defensive Realists: Such as Walz, argue that states have security as their principle interest and
therefore only seek the requisite amount of power to ensure their own survival. According to their views
state are defensive actors and will not seek to gain greater amount of power if that means jeopardiseing
their own security.
iii. Offensive Realists: Such as John Marshal, Argue that ―the ultimate goal of all the states is to achieve
hegemonic position in international system. According to this view state always desire to seek more
power even if such an quest may jeopardise their own security.
c) Self-help:
2
Interdependence theory developed as a critique of realist theory in the 1970s. It challenged the realist idea that
the state was the most important entity in international relations. Interdependence theorists stressed the
importance of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations and their influential role in a more complex
global society in which military power had become far less important or virtually irrelevant to shaping relations
between countries.
3
Liberal institutionalist and interdependence approaches overlap to a considerable extent. Both have a much
more optimistic view of human nature and share the view that growing interdependence will strengthen the
institutions of regional cooperation and open up greater opportunities for strengthening the United Nations and
developing mechanisms of world governance.
Shakoor Kakar
20
In an anarchic system there is no international 1122 rescue Number that state can call when their security
is threaten. Institutions like the UN, security council or NATO are set up to protect the national interest of
the most powerful member states, they intervene only when it suit their purpose or interest.
i. Security dilemma
In sef-help system state should ultimately rely on themselves for security, so states built up military to
survive which lead the world to security dilemma.
ii. Balance of power:
The realists believe that the security dilemma can be mitigated by a mechanism of Balance of power.
Conclusion:
The balance of power therefore became a principle objective of realist theory. Realists believe that war is
a structural necessity of international system. All the states are bent to exploit the weak states. So the
balance of power is the only way which can bring world peace.
Critical analyses:
The realism theory believes in ―War for peace‖. The realists do not suggest proper mechanism to maintain
peace rather it reflects the anxiety of European and USA‘s experience of greatest catastrophe of 1st and 2nd
word war. The theory aim at legitimizing the global violence of big monsters.
3. Critique on Realism
 Many scholars were unhappy with the terminological imprecision in Morgenthau‘s understanding
of realism. He used the term ‗power‘ in so many ways that it was impossible to understand
precisely what he meant by the term.
 States are not the main actors on world stage because states are unable to response to
global problems such as famine, humane rights and abuses of terrorism.
 There are many examples where states have preferred collective security system
instead of self-help.
 The theory is pessimistic view of human nature seeing man essentially as evil.
 The theory does not take into account the cooperativeness in human nature.
 The theory is unable to demonstrate properly whether the states are power
maximizers or security maximizers.
 The structure of international political system is affecting the behaviour of all states.
 The theory is unable to make it clear that for survival should the states be defensive
or aggressive.
4. Difference between „classical‟ or „traditional‟ realism and „neo‟ or „structural‟ realism
One of the most common ways of distinguishing between two of the major realist approaches is to draw a
line between ‗classical‘ or ‗traditional‘ realism and ‗neo‘ or ‗structural‘ realism. In essence the classical
realists argue that human nature causes states to act in certain ways and the structural realists argue that
the system of international politics is the causal motor of world politics.
Shakoor Kakar
21
The key argument for classical realists is that human nature is egoistical or selfish and therefore we
should concentrate on how humans pursue their own interests.
Structural or Neo Realism; The fundamental premise of Morgenthau‘s realism is, as we have seen, his
account of human nature and this has clear policy implications for the foreign policy maker. The other
dominant tradition in realist writing rejects this account. The key criticism is not (just) that it is difficult to
pin down human nature with any scientific rigor. The banner headline of this second realist tradition, a
tradition most closely associated with Kenneth Waltz, is simply that it is the structure of the system and
not the character of the units that determine the nature of world politics. In other words even if human
nature was generous and giving we would still be compelled to act selfishly such is the nature of
international politics.
3. Neo-Realism
Neo-realism Associated with the work of Kenneth Waltz, neorealism dominated the study of IR during
the 1970s and 1980s. Even after the Cold War it remains highly influential. Neo-realism states that ―The
structure of International political System is affecting the behaviour of all the states.
Neo-realists or "structural theory‖ adopt a structural approach – suggesting that the existence of an
international system shaped by anarchy structures state behaviour. E.g. In cold war, two powers
dominated the International politics and the cold war ended the structure of world politics and it moved
toward multipolarity. In this sense, Waltz differed from traditional realists such as Hans Morgenthau, who
located the ‗realist‘ behaviour of states within claims concerning the selfishness of human nature. In this
sense, Waltz was striving for a more scientific approach to the study of IR. The emergence of neo-realism
in IR is, therefore, usually associated with the rise of positivism within the discipline. "structural" theory.
Neorealism assumes states maximize security and predicts that (a) relative gains matter more than
absolute gains, (b) the distribution of power tends to balance, and (c) bipolar systems are more stable than
multipolar ones. They may make mistakes because of uncertainty, which is why bipolar systems are more
stable (less uncertainty). They are very pessimistic about cooperation because of concern for relative
gains. It focuses exclusively on security issues.
4. Neo-liberalism/ Neo-Liberal Institutionalism

In the 20th century liberalism has been associated with the promotion of international institutions; the
modern version of liberalism (‗neoliberal institutionalism‘ or ‗neoliberalism‘ for short. An approach to
both IR and international political economy associated with the work of scholars such as Robert Keohane
and Joseph Nye. Neo-liberal institutionalism differs considerably from traditional liberal approaches in IR
such as idealism because it adopts the positivist and structuralist methodology associated with neo-
realism. Neo-liberal institutionalism shares almost all of the central tenets of neo-realist theory, but differs
fundamentally on the role of institutions in IR. Keohane, for example, pointed to the role of formal
intergovernmental institutions, regimes and established conventions in international politics as playing a
role in mitigating the most negative effects of international anarchy.
The international system is an anarchic, self-help one. The states that comprise it are self-regarding
interest-maximizers.
Shakoor Kakar
22
The effects of anarchy in the contemporary international system are strongly mitigated by the relatively
high levels of interdependence shared by many, if not all, nation-states. Interdependence consists in (a)
economic interpenetration in terms of international trade and financial flows; (b) nation-states' collective
interest in avoiding a major nuclear war; and (c) nation-states' collective interest in avoiding ecological
catastrophe.
States co-operate with one another when they recognize that they share a mutual interest in so doing and
recognize that reciprocity will produce a positive gain for each of them.
States sometimes recognize that the long-term costs of confrontation with another state or group of states
is so great that it is better to contrive ways of co-operating with that state or group of states; this may help
to break down the sense of mistrust that is felt between the states' leaderships.
5. Difference Between Realism and Liberalism

The debate between realism and liberal institutionalism over the five propositions
1. Realism: States are the major actors in world affairs.
Liberalism: There are other key new actors in world affairs such as international agencies, supranational
bureaucracies, labor unions, and transgovernmental coalitions.
2. Realism: States are unitary or rational agents.
Liberalism: The decentralization of states hinders governments to pursue the most rational policies.
3. Realism: International anarchy is a major force for shaping the motives and actions of states.
Liberalism: Other concerns such as technology knowledge and interdependence of domestic welfares on
international society undermine the force of international anarchy.
4. Realism: States in anarchy are preoccupied with power and security.
Liberalism: States are becoming more oriented toward economic growth and social security.
5. Realism: International institutions affect the prospects for cooperation only marginally.
Liberalism: International institutions offer more optimistic promises than realism has argued.
Post war events in 1970s seem to support realist theory and to invalidate liberal institutionalism.
However, international cooperation did not collapse and this endurance set the stage for a renewed liberal
challenge to realism in the 1980s
The neo-liberal institutionalism accepts the first, second and third realist propositions that states are the
major actors in world affairs and are unitary-rational agents and recognize realism‘s emphasis on anarchy
to explain state motives and actions. However, the new liberal theory gives major credit to the power of
international institutions.
Shakoor Kakar
23
In some cases, countries will be better off if they all cooperate. Nonetheless, as illustrated b Prisoner‘s
dilemma, they are afraid of being cheat by the others and end up not cooperating.
6. System theory
System theory is the attempt to understand international relations as a set of observable, understandable
patterns between the actors that are elements of the international system.
i. Basic Definitions
System is a collection of elements related to each other by some pattern of behavior and actions.
System Theory is explanation of observed patterns in international events by attributing those patterns to
the characteristics of the international system.
ii. Elements of the System

• National Actors
• Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGO's)
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)
• Multi-national Corporations (MNC's)
• Other Groups (organized or not)
• Individuals
iii. Rules of the System

Rules are statements which define actions which are required, forbidden or permitted. Patterns in the
system are often due to the generally accepted rules about how to conduct IR (when it comes to alliance
behavior for example). There are also a range of acceptable or expected responses enabling states to
predict the behavior of other states.
iv. Changes in a system

Systems can be either stabilizing or destabilizing forces in international relations. Systems - even
if they are stabilizing systems - have dynamics of their own. Most systems have some sort of
self-perpetuating process. Systems often are - equilibrating - that is, they respond to changes by
absorbing the changes and moving to a new stabilizing equilibrium. Sometimes systems respond
to change by evolving into new systems
Factors which affect international systems are:
1 Change in the number of actors
2 Change in the power distribution between actors 3 Change in technology
4 Change in characteristics of the actors
6. Postmodernism/ deconstructionism
Postmodernism is a distinctive approach to the study of international relations that emerged in the 1980s.
Postmodern deconstructionists are participants in a broader philosophical movement called critical social
theory.
Postmodernists are hostile towards claims to universal or absolute truth. They claim to be able to
‗deconstruct‘ the writings and discourse of academics and policy makers who interpret the world,
including, of course, international relations. They believe that they are able, by the process of
Shakoor Kakar
24
‗deconstruction‘, to uncover the underlying ‗subjective‘ meanings and intentions of the texts in the light
of the social and cultural climate in which they were produced. Their depressing conclusion is that there is
no objective international truth or reality we can discover. Hence, instead of studying the real world of
international relations they spend their time trying to reveal what they believe to be the ‗distortions‘,
‗subtexts‘, and ‗deceptive‘ use of language in the texts in the ‗conventional‘ literature.
Postmodernists argue that all truth claims are based on metanarratives, or background worldviews,
according to which particular claims to truth or value are legitimated or rejected. The abiding postmodern
hostility to these paradigms is summed up in the classic definition of postmodernism as ‗incredulity
towards metanarratives‘. Postmodernists claim that such metanarratives purporting to legitimate bodies of
knowledge or ethical and political systems are not themselves legitimated by any further foundation.
Rather, they stand alone as separate and distinct discourses talking across one another. When they come
into conflict there is no way to adjudicate among them.
7. Feminism
Feminism is a broad term given to works of those scholars who have sought to bring gender concerns into
the academic study of international politics. Until the 1980s, and despite the inroads of feminism in other
social sciences, the role of gender (i.e. the relationship between sex and power) in the theory and practice
of international relations was generally ignored. Today, this is no longer the case as a number of feminist
thinkers have turned their critical sights on a field that has traditionally been gender-blind.
Over the last decade, feminism has emerged as a key critical perspective within the study of international
relations. The initial impetus of this critique was to challenge the fundamental biases of the discipline and
to highlight the ways in which women were excluded from analyses of the state, international political
economy, and international security. One can now distinguish between at least two main types of
feminism in the study of international relations.
 Liberal feminism looks at the roles women play in world politics and asks why they are
marginalized.
 Marxist/socialist feminists focus on the international capitalist system and patriarchy.
 Standpoint feminists want to correct the male dominance of our knowledge of the world.
 Post-modernist feminists are concerned with gender as opposed to the position of women as such.
They look into the ways in which masculinity and femininity get constructed.
 Post-colonial feminists work at the intersection of gender, race, and class on a global scale.
8. Critical theory
Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and
culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. In sociology and political
philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which
was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx
and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.
Shakoor Kakar
25
Critical theory refers to a set of Marxist-inspired critical analyses of international theory and practice.
Although there is a complex tradition of critical theory in political philosophy but the students of
international relations have been particularly inspired by the German critical theorist, Jürgen Habermas
who emphasises the intimate connection between knowledge and interests. Knowledge always serves
someone or some purpose. Knowledge is also a social and historical product, which cannot be separated
from its context. Critical theory recognizes that it is itself a product of society, but at the same time it tries
to distance itself from society in an attempt to understand and change it. By doing so, it scrutinises the
existing social order and the boundaries of knowledge. To engage in critical theory is to perform a
theoretical and a political act.
9. Constructivist Theories
Introduction
Constructivist theories which developed in international relations in the early 1990s challenged the central
theoretical perspectives in the academic discipline of international relations. During the Cold War and
most of the history of international relations, the research agenda was dominated by rationalist approaches
which subordinated morality to the interests of power. The constructivist framework challenges this
emphasis on power and seeks to demonstrate that rather than power, it is norms and values which shape
the behaviour of the majority of states. States may still wield power in terms of military and coercive
might but the use of this power is not guided solely by amoral state interests. In contrast to other
theoretical approaches, social constructivism presents a model of international interaction that explores
the normative influence of fundamental institutional structures and the connection between normative
changes and state identity and interests.
Remember
Until the end of the Cold War, the dominant theoretical perspectives in international relations assumed the
nation-state was the key actor. These approaches had three core assumptions. Firstly, that states were the
key subjects, i.e., the main actors in international relations. Secondly, that the interest of states as rational
actors was to maximize their power and influence, by pursuing their self-interests. Thirdly, that in the
context of international anarchy, i.e., the lack of a world government, states had to pursue self-help
strategies. The development of constructivist approaches challenged all three of these core assumptions.
Regulative and constitutive functions
According to constructivists, international institutions have both regulative and constitutive functions.
Regulative norms set basic rules for standards of conduct by prescribing or proscribing certain
behaviours. Constitutive norms define a behaviour and assign meanings to that behaviour. Without
constitutive norms, actions would be unintelligible. The familiar analogy that constructivists use to
explain constitutive norms is that of the rules of a game, such as chess.
State Interest
How states fulfil their goals depends upon their social identities, i.e., how states see themselves in relation
to other states in international society. On the basis of these identities, states construct their national
Shakoor Kakar
26
interests. States define their interests in the process of interpreting the social situations in which they are
participants. Thus, one might argue that the cold war relationship between the United States and the
Soviet Union was a social structure wherein the two principals identified each other as enemies and
defined their national interests regarding each other in antagonistic terms. When they no longer defined
each other in these terms, the cold war ended.
Global civil society
Constructivist vision focus on an actually existing global civil society, which was held to explain change
in the international sphere, which realist, rationalist and materialist approaches had allegedly failed to
grasp. Advocates of this approach hold that ideas, particularly ‗principled‘, ‗ethical‘ and ‗moral‘ ideas,
articulated through the agency of global civil society, were responsible for major international changes in
the 1990s. New developments, such as the decline of sovereign equality, the end of the UN Charter
principle of non-intervention, the declining importance of inter-state consensus and international law, and
growing regulatory powers for international institutions such as the International Criminal Court were
read to herald the declining importance of the nation-state and the influence of both the activist
campaigning and the normative values of global civil society on the international sphere.
Shakoor Kakar
27
Chapter Four
International Political Security
 The topic ―International political Security‖ is one of the most important discourse in IR it
constitutes a broader picture of IR which includes the following;
1. Security
2. Power/ National Power
3. Balance of Power
4. Sovereignty
5. National Interest
1. Security
Outline
Introduction
1. Realist‘s approach About Security
i. Security Dilemma
ii. Power
2. The problem of relative gains
3. Liberal Institutionalists
4. Feminist
5. Post-modernists
6. Security Studies After Cold War
Introduction
Security is a ‗contested concept. The meaning of security has been broadened to include political,
economic, societal, environmental, and military aspects. Differing arguments exist about the tension
between national and international security. What is indisputable is that the need to feel secure is a core
human value and a prerequisite for being able to live a decent life. What is also generally true is that
individuals living in the OECD world are far more secure than those living in the Third World, where
conflict and resource scarcity are far more prevalent.
Realists and neo-realists emphasize the perennial problem of insecurity. The ‗security dilemma‘ is seen
by some writers as the essential source of conflict between states.
1. ACCORDING TO REALISTS
Security study is a key area of inquiry within the field of international relations. During the cold war, the
realist view dominated. For realists, the most important actors in the international system are not
individuals per se but states, whose primary motive is to protect their sovereignty. Because, according to
realists, states are worried about the prospect of going to war, security is a primary concern. Achieving it,
however, is not an easy matter. The fact of anarchy means that states cannot totally rely on other states to
protect them. Certainly, they will form alliances, sign treaties, and often undertake cooperative ventures in
order to enhance their security. But this is not enough. If states are to survive they must provide for their
self-defense.
Shakoor Kakar
28
i. Power
States attack their neighbours for a number of reasons. They may seek to enhance their power position;
they may want to improve access to important resources; they may be concerned that a neighbouring state
is becoming too powerful; or they may simply misperceive the intentions of another state‘s actions.
Regardless of the motivation, states are endemically insecure and this leads them to place a premium on
military power. Certainly, realists acknowledge other forms of power, including wealth and geopolitical
advantage. But in the final analysis, the more militarily powerful a state, the more secure it is likely to be.
This assessment of the character of international relations leads realists to offer a number of prescriptive
insights. If states are to survive, they have to maintain large standing armies, they must be vigilant about
their defence, never trust the word of other states, and always act in the national interest. In essence,
realists believe that threats to the security of the state are usually posed by other states. During the cold
war, realist security thinking focused primarily on the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the
Soviet Union and the United States. Concepts such as deterrence, first strike, and mutually assured
destruction (MAD) are all part of the realist security lexicon.
ii. Security Dilemma
This concept rests on the assumption that security is something for which states compete. In an anarchical
international system lacking any authority capable of ensuring order, states have to look to their own
efforts for protection. Striving to obtain this, they are driven to acquire more and more power in order to
escape the impact of the power of other states. This, in turn, makes the others more insecure and
encourages them to prepare for the worst. Since no state can ever feel entirely secure in such a world of
competing states, competition follows, and the result is a rising spiral of insecurity among states. The
security dilemma describes a condition in which efforts to improve national security have the effect of
appearing to threaten other states, thereby provoking military counter-moves. This in turn can lead to a
net decrease in security for all states. Many commentators have argued that a paradigmatic example of the
security dilemma led to the First World War (1914–18).
It is important to note that the security dilemma arises primarily from the alleged structure of the
international system rather than the aggressive motives or intentions of states.
2. The problem of relative gains
Realists and neo-realists also point out the problem of ‗relative gains‘ whereby states compare their gains
with those of other states when making their decisions about security. States tend to be concerned with
‗relative gains‘, rather than absolute gains. Instead of being interested in cooperation because it will
benefit both partners, states always have to be aware of how much they are gaining compared with the
state they are cooperating with. Because all states will be attempting to maximize their gains in a
competitive, mistrustful, and uncertain international environment, cooperation will always be very
difficult to achieve and hard to maintain.
3. Liberal Institutionalists
Contemporary politicians and academics, who write under the label of Liberal Institutionalism see
institutions as an important mechanism for achieving international security. Liberal Institutionalists accept
Shakoor Kakar
29
many of the assumptions of Realism about the continuing importance of military power in international
relations, but argue that institutions can provide a framework for cooperation which can help to overcome
the dangers of security competition between states. Neo-realists reject the significance of international
institutions in helping many to achieve peace and security.
4. Feminist
Feminist writers argue that gender tends to be left out of the literature on international security, despite
the impact of war on women. Feminist writers also argue that bringing gender issues back in will result in
a reconceptualization of the study of international security.
5. Post-modernists
Post-modernists try to reconceptualize the debate about global security by looking at new questions which
have been ignored by traditional approaches. There is a belief among post-modernist writers that the
nature of international politics can be changed by altering the way we think and talk about security.
6. SECURITY STUDIES AFTER COLD WAR
With the end of the cold war, there has been something of a revolution in the field of security studies,
with scholars and policymakers beginning to move away from the traditional state-centric approach to a
more expansive understanding of the concept of security. It suggests that security should be conceived in
such a way as to embrace all of humanity, not just states, and should focus on sources of harm other than
just military threats to states.
The rationale for this shift in perspective relies on two main arguments. First, while interstate war is still
possible, the most violent conflicts in the world today are within states. It is not the national interest that
is at stake in many of these conflicts but group identity and culture. This perspective suggests that the
realist view of security is too narrowly formulated. Second, the capacity of the state to provide security
for its citizens has been eroded by a range of non-military threats such as environmental problems,
population growth, disease, refugees, and resource scarcity. This more radical approach to the issue of
human security reflects a holistic concern with human life and dignity. The idea of human security invites
us to focus on the individual‘s need to be safe from hunger, disease, and repression. It also implies a need
for a significant redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor at a global level.
Shakoor Kakar
30
2. National Power
Outline
1. What is Power?
i. Two dimensions of Power are important, internal and external.
2. National Power
3. Ingredients Of National Power:
4. Types Of National Power
5. ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER
6. Elements of Power are Related
7. Power and imperialism
8. Relationship between Capitalism and imperialism
In order to understand the concept of national power we must define and understand what power is in IR.
1. What is Power?
Power can be defined as one person‘s control on the action and mind of the other. However at interstate
level one state has a power on other state if she can persuade or force other state for its own vested
interest. Sigmand Freud justifies that aggression is a human instinct.
Hobbes argue that the scarcity of resources against the abundance of population compel us to be in a
perpetual state of war. Hence for the sake of stability, Leviathan state is required to subdue human evil
and aggressive side of the human beings. Hence for the sake of stability, Leviathan state is required to
subdue human evil and aggressive side of the human beings. The above statement justify the realist
doctrine and prove that the realist paradigm offer a legitimate pretext for traditional imperialism.
Three Pattern of Power
According to Morgenthau Power has three essential patterns: To keep Power, to increase power, and to
demonstrate power.
A state whose foreign policy tends to keep power, it pursues the policy of status-que
A state whose foreign policy seeks to demonstrate the power, it pursues the policy of prestige.
A state whose fporeign policy aims to increase power, it pursues the policy of imperialism.
Thus in IR imperialism is define as a policy that aims at overthrow of status que.
i. Two dimensions of Power are important, internal and external.
The internal dimension corresponds to the dictionary definition of power as a capacity for action. A state
is powerful to the extent that it is insulated from outside influence or coercion in the formulation and
implementation of policy. A common synonym for the internal dimension of power is autonomy and
sovereignty.
Shakoor Kakar
31
The external dimension corresponds to the dictionary definition of power as a capacity to control the
behaviour of others; to enforce compliance.
Most scholars focus on power as a means, the strength or capacity that provides the ability to influence
the behaviour of other actors in accordance with one‘s own objectives. At the national level, this influence
is based on relations between state A and another actor (B) with A seeking to influence B to act in A‘s
interest by doing x. state A can use various techniques of influence, ranging from persuasion or the
offering of rewards to threats or the actual use of force.
2. What is National Power
National power is contextual in that it can be evaluated only in terms of all the power ‗elements‘ (such as
Political, military capability, economic resources, and population size), and only in relation to another
player or players and the situation in which power is being exercised. A state may appear powerful
because it possesses many military assets, but the assets may be inadequate against those of a potential
enemy or inappropriate to the nature of the conflict. The question should always be: power over whom,
and with respect to what?
Power is historically linked with military capacity. Nevertheless, one element of power alone cannot
determine national power. Part of the problem stems from the fact that the term power has taken on the
basis of ability to convert potential power into operational power.
3. INGREDIENTS OF NATIONAL POWER:

There are three ingredients of National Power: Force, influence and authority.
i. Force: Force is used as an instrument of explicit thret or the use of military, economic, nuclear power to
coerce a state in pursuit of one objective.
ii. Influence: It is used as a instrument of persuation in order to maintain or alter the behavior of other
state. This is usualy derived from,
a) The expectation of Benefits from friendly countries.
b) The fear of disadvantage
c) the respect of love for people or institution, eg Pakistan relation with Muslim countries.
ii. Authority: It is define as a voluntary compliance with directive and order of states by other states as
respect, solidarity, affection or expertise.
4. TYPES OF NATIONAL POWER

i. Political Power: It sis exercised through diplomacy. It can make effective use of Military power,
economic and propaganda resources of a state.
ii. Military Power: It is a language to subjugate others.
iii. Economic Power: It include resourse in Raw material, trade, control of Market etc.
5. ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER

According to Morgenthau the elements of National power Can be classified into tangible and intangible.
Tangible
i. Population: It may be the source of power if it is healthy, well fed, unfied, well informed and loyal to its
govt.
ii. Territory: The territorial characteristics such as boundry, climate, strategic lacation and nature of land
is helpful in measuring the power of a country.
iii. Natural resources: All types of natural resources are essential for industrial production.
Shakoor Kakar
32
iv. Agricultural capacity. The strength of UsA and Euro states are due to self-sufficiency in foodstuff. The
country that can feed herself for long time during war will be more powerfull than a weak country.
v: Military strength: Military strength is the most apparent factor for supporting the foreign policy and
promoting national interest.
Intangible Interest:
i. Leadership : A nation state can not emerge rather cannot exist without the able leadership. Pakistan
came into being by the untiring struggle and wise strategy of the sole leadership of Jinnah. Military and
diplomacy both can be measured by the the skill or genius of a leader.
ii. Ideology: Ideology as a body of Ideas concerning religious, economic, social as well as political values
of a nation. The ideology create a unity and buid a sense of common interes.
iii. Diplomacy: The quality of Diplomacy gives direction and strength to the other elements of national;
power.
6. Elements of Power are Related
In this context, the elements of national power, no matter how defined, can be separated only artificially.
Together, they constitute the resources for the attainment of national objectives and goals. Closely allied
to all this is the fact that national power is dynamic, not static. Over the last century, in particular, rapid
changes in military technologies have accelerated this dynamism. The United States‘ explosion of a
nuclear device instantly transformed its power position, the nature of war, and the very conduct of
international relations. A war or revolution can have an equally sudden effect on power.
Economic growth can also quickly change a state‘s power position, as was the case with Japan and
Germany after 1945. In addition, the discovery of new resources, or their depletion, can alter the balance
of power. Certainly OPEC‘s control over a diminishing supply of oil, coupled with its effectiveness as a
Evaluation of national power is difficult. The basic problem, as we have seen, is that all the elements of
power are often interrelated. In other words, like all strategic endeavours, more art than science is
involved in the evaluation of where one state stands in relation to the power of other regional and global
actors.
In addition to thinking about power as a relationship between actors, one should also bear in mind an
important distinction between relative power and structural power. The latter confers the power to
decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to one another,
relate to people, or relate to corporate enterprises. The relative power of each party in a relationship is
more, or less, if one party is also determining the surrounding structure of the relationship. Analytically,
one can distinguish between four separate but related structures of power in international relations:
 The knowledge structure refers to the power to influence the ideas of others;
 The financial structure refers to the power to restrict or facilitate their access to credit;
 The security structure shapes their prospects for security;
 The production structure affects their chances of a better life as producers and as consumers.
In studying power as a relationship between states and other actors, it is important to bear in mind the role
of structural power in shaping the terms of the relationship itself. For example, many scholars have
argued that although the power of the United States appeared to be declining relative to other states
Shakoor Kakar
33
during the second half of the twentieth century, it possesses vast resources of structural power that
continue to sustain its hegemonic position in the international system.
7. Power and imperialism
The above debate justify the realist doctrine and prove that the realist paradigm offer a legitimate pretext
for traditional imperialism. Power and imperialism both are natural allies. Power persuades the states and
individuals to disregard the existing power relation and commit an offence that may termed as
imperialism. Power has three essential patterns, either to keep the existing power, to increase power or to
demonstrate power.
Imperialism can be defined as a policy that aims at the overthrow of existing power relation (status quo),
at reversal of power relation between two or more nations. There may be three motives behind every
imperialist policy such as victorious war, restoration from a previous defeat and power vacuum.
8. Relationship between Capitalism and imperialism:
 The surplus capital is a main drive that persuaded the state like Britain and France to colonize the
rest of the world and become great imperialists of 19th century.
 The industrial revolution and the heap of production forced the respective government to acquire
markets for their growing manufacturer.
 Trade under the flag became the main drive behind the imperialist policies of countries like and
France.
 It became easier for imperialist to negotiate the business term with her colonies rather than with a
sovereign state.
Conclusion:
National power is the art of using power for the attainment of national objectives. Any country that
has military power, rich natural resources, reasonable population, strategic location, industry, High
GDP and ample export will enjoy an edge over those who are deficient in all these elements.
Shakoor Kakar
34
3. Balance of Power
Q.2- Critically discuss the concept of Balance of power in the light of Hans Morgenthau's thought. 2013
Q. In the context of its nature, purpose and devices, how does balance of power influence regional
systems? 2005
Q Explain the concept of Balance of Power in international relations and evaluate its relevance after the
demise of Soviet Russia. 2013
Outline
Introduction
1. A systematic and theoretical approach to Balance of Power
2. Nuclear Weapon and BOP
3. BoP from a historical perspective
4. Some BoP Techniques
5. Kinds of BoP
6. Morton Kaplan's Rules of BoP
7. Unipolarity, Bipolarity, And Multipolarity.
8. Advantage and disadvantage
9. Criticism of BoP
Conclusion
Introduction
No concept in the study of international relations has been discussed more often than this one. It has been
defined in so many ways, however, that it has become an ambiguous idea. Used objectively or
descriptively, the term indicates the relative distribution of power among states into equal or unequal
shares. Traditionally, it refers to a state of affairs in which no one state predominates over others.
“The power equation between states is based on an assessment of each state‟s relative power capabilities
and this assessment provides the basis for the conduct of relations between them.”
Prudent states that are at a disadvantage in the balance of power will (or at least should) form an alliance
against a potentially hegemonic state or take other measures to enhance their ability to restrain a possible
aggressor. Also, one state may opt for a self-conscious balancing role, changing sides as necessary to
preserve the equilibrium.
1. A systematic and theoretical approach to Balance of Power
International relations are merely a struggle among the great powers for domination of security and
power.
i. Anarchy: The presence of internal authority in states implies that individual need not to worry about
their own security, however on international level there is no central authority and on international level
Shakoor Kakar
35
the state of anarchy still exist. Thus all the states have to rely on their own resources against any
aggression of other state.4
ii. Missing Order. So the root cause of all the conflicting international relations is the lack of centralized
order, which constitute the self-help system of Anarchy. So the Question is raised what is missing order
of International relations. Some says that Nuclear proliferation is the missing order of international power
structure.
iii. Self-help; In an anarchic system there is no international 1122 rescue Number that state can call when
their security is threaten. Institutions like the UN, security council or NATO are set up to protect the
national interest of the most powerful member states, they intervene only when it suit their purpose or
interest.
iii. Security dilemma; In self-help system state should ultimately rely on themselves for security, so
states built up military to survive which lead the world to security dilemma.
iv. Balance of power: The realists believe that the security dilemma can be mitigated by a mechanism of
Balance of power.
The balance of power therefore became a principle objective of realist theory. Realists believe that war is
a structural necessity of international system. All the states are bent to exploit the weak states. So the
balance of power is the only way which can bring world peace.
2. Nuclear Weapon and BOP
Kenneth N waltz in his thesis ―more may be better‖ argues that since war is a structural necessity,
therefore all the states should seek nuclear weapons to enhance their own security and maintain balance of
power. As Nuclear weapons are the greatest equalizers. The acquisition of nuclear weapons without
spending huge conventional war funds, convey a sharp message of threat to all small and big states. Thus
it make the war between two states rationally impossible. He present an glaring example of cold war and
declare it as (60 year of nuclear peace). The nuclear weapons and Balance of power played a key role to
avoid the direct confrontation between the two nuclear states, despite all the reasons of conflict.
India and Pakistan is also an example, the acquisition of nclear weapons, compelled both the states to be
more cautious in their decision making and created a kind of strategic stability between these two states.
3. BoP from a historical perspective
1. From 1648 (Peace of Westphalia) to 1789 (French Revolution) was a golden age of classical balance of
power, when the princes of Europe began accepting BoP as the supreme principle of foreign policy.
2. Evident use of BoP is also noted in the mid-17th cent., when it was directed against the France of Louis
XIV. Balance of power was the stated British objective for much of the 18th and 19th cent., and it
characterized the European international system, for example, from 1815-1914.
4
Liberal institutionalist and interdependence approaches overlap to a considerable extent. Both have a much
more optimistic view of human nature and share the view that growing interdependence will strengthen the
institutions of regional cooperation and open up greater opportunities for strengthening the United Nations and
developing mechanisms of world governance.
Shakoor Kakar
36
3. The Concert of Europe (from 1815 to1870) provides another good example of major European states
striving to achieve balance power. The increasing the power of Germany began seeing bipolar set of
alliances form, leading to the World Wars.
4. After World War I, the balance of power system was attacked by proponents of cooperation and a
community of power. International relations were changed radically after World War II by the
predominance of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with major ideological
differences between them.
5. After the 1960s, with the emergence of China and the third world, a revived Europe and Japan, it
reemerged as a component of international relations. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the United
States, as the sole remaining superpower, has been dominant militarily and, to a lesser degree,
economically.
4. Some BoP Techniques
• Alliances: For maintaining balance of power usual technique is that maintaining alliances. Eg
triple alliance counter by Triple entente, (NATO) and Counter-Alliances (WARSAW Pact)
• Armament (arms race in the Subcontinent spurred by need to maintain BoP) and
• Disarmament (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
 Divide and Rule: This way efforts are made to keep the competitors weak and as colonial power
did. Minorities living in state are instigated in the name of Race, coluer, language, Bismark
Unification of Germany was due ti his diplomatic genius to divide Europe.
• Intervention (Soviets and US incursion into Afghanistan) and Non-Intervention (France and
Britain did not interfere in Spanish civil war of 1936)
• Create a buffer state
5. Kinds of BoP
i. Simple or Complex: Simple BoP requires parity between powers but in more complex situations
competing powers can achieve balance from additional sources.
ii. General or Particular: General BoP lacks a preponderant power whereas particular BoP can imply
regional preponderance.
iii. Subjective or Objective: BoP based on appearances is subjective and fragile whereas that based on
actual capabilities is objective and more stable.
iv. Fortuitous or Contrived: Fortuitous BoP is not based on particular policies whereas contrived BoP is
based on conscious policies of either or both sides.
6. Morton Kaplan's Rules of BoP

i. All states act to increase capabilities but prefer to negotiate rather than fight.
ii. All states fight rather than pass up an opportunity to increase their capabilities.
iii. All states stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential state.
iv. All states act to oppose any coalition or single state which tends to assume a position of dominance
within the system
v. All states act to constrain states who subscribe to supranational organizing principles
vi. All states permit defeated or constrained states to re-enter the system as potential partners
7. Unipolarity, Bipolarity, And Multipolarity.
It is common to make some key distinctions about the balance of power. First is the distinction between
unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity.
Unipolarity is a situation in which one state or superpower dominates the international system. Many would
argue that the United States is in this position today.
Shakoor Kakar
37
Bipolarity exists when two states or blocs of states are roughly equal in power. The term is often applied to the
period of the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, although it is misleading. Simply
because the two superpowers were both more powerful than all other states, they were not equally as powerful
as each other. The Soviet pole was far weaker than its rival in economic terms, although its ability to engage in
a sustained nuclear arms race with its rival and project its conventional military power abroad concealed its
underlying weakness.
Multipolarity refers to a situation in which there are at least three great powers. The classic example is
nineteenth-century Europe. In this case, one state‘s greater military and economic strength does not necessarily
give it preponderance because weaker states can combine against it.
8. Advantage and disadvantage
Advantage
Due to absence of a developed collective security system, BOP is the only system which can help in
maintaining peace.
i. It guarantee the security of Small state
ii. It is only BOP which compel the state to obey and respect the law and not to violate it.
iii. It put a check on the state and no state can become police of the whole world.
Disadvantage:
i. here is no principle on which it can be tested whether the BOP continue to exist or achieved. All the
state are power maximize not security maximize.
ii. It only believe in the war weapons as the only way for maintaining the balance. But we all know that
force solve no problem but instead create many.
iii. Each state preparing for war and sees othe with doubt and suspicion. Can one think of peace in this
scenario.
iv. Both the world war were fought when both the parties of the war found that they were equaly
balanced.
v. BOP is not permanent. It gets disturbed time and again.
v. It means system of alliance and the division of world into hostile groups
vi. It is not a permanent solution for ending a war. Each nation expect a war if not today then tomorrow.
9. Criticism of BoP
Quincy Wright said, If the world is to be saved, it is essential that the very system of BOP must be bade
farewell.
Shakoor Kakar
38
Power not peace is the overriding concern within the BoP imperative. War not peace provides the best
means to check instability in the BoP. BoP has resulted in absorption and partition of smaller states
(Poland was divided by Russia, Austria and Prussia in 1772 to maintain BoP).
States are not static units as they can increase their power through armaments and also acquire power
through development. It is difficult for states to switch sides, given the political, economic, socio-cultural
ties.
Conclusion
It is a permanent system and whether we like it or not that tended to be continue. It became the part of IR
and very much unavoidable. BoP has prevented universal empires from transforming the world by
conquest. It is provided peace in the absence of effective mechanisms of collective security. Need for BoP
between big powers has proven particularly beneficial for secondary or smaller states.
Shakoor Kakar
39
4. SOVEREIGNTY
1. Background
2. What is sovereignty?
3. Sovereignty; a Powerful Legitimacy
4. Challenges to Sovereignty
1. Background
The concept of sovereignty originated with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, when governments ceased to
support co-religionists in conflict with their own states. Recognising the territorial jurisdiction of kings
and princes entailed following a policy of non-interference within their claimed and defined territorial
boundaries. Thus the extra-territorial authority of the Roman Church in particular was severely
weakened, giving rise to the development of the secular nation-state.
2. What is sovereignty?
The word ‗sovereignty‘ harks back to an era when a single individual – the sovereign or king – governed
states. The vestiges of this original meaning of the word remain in our modern usage with the tendency to
treat sovereign states as individuals. However, the locus of sovereignty has gradually been seen to rest
with the people or commonwealth (popular sovereignty), and not with an individual sovereign (as in
dynastic sovereignty). The people‘s acknowledgement of a central governing authority within a specified
geographical territory, combined with the recognition of its status by other states, confers on the state its
sovereignty.
Sovereign states are, in international law, equal, and sovereign equality is the basis upon which the
United Nations (UN) operates. This principle of sovereign equality is what guarantees equal participation
by all states in international relations. This sovereign equality has as its content the following elements:
1 States are legally equal.

2 Every state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty.
3 Every state is obligated to respect the fact of the legal entity of other states.
4 The territorial integrity and political independence of a state are inviolable.
5 Each state has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural
systems.
6 Each state is obligated to carry out its international obligations fully and conscientiously and to live in
peace with other states.
One point to notice here is that sovereignty is not entirely absolute. States can have international
obligations. They accrue these obligations when they enter into international treaties and agreements. Of
course, states are free not to enter into these agreements to begin with, but once they do, they relinquish a
certain measure of sovereignty to the international community.
3. Powerful Legitimacy
The claim of sovereignty within a bordered territory brought with it powerful legitimising factors for an
incumbent ruling class. Cultural, religious, and political conformities could be imposed using the state in
a more systematic and efficient manner. Nationalism becomes the claim that political power should
Shakoor Kakar
40
reflect cultural homogeneity in every corner of the sovereign territory; thus nationalism extends and
deepens the scope of sovereignty to require certain kinds of cultural conformity for citizenship.
4. Challenges to Sovereignty
In recent years the concept of sovereignty has been the subject of intense debate after many years of
relative neglect. Empirically, scholars have explored the degree to which sovereignty is changing in an
era of alleged globalisation of economic activities. There is also a growing literature on quasi-states and
failed states. If the issue for advanced industrialised states is the degree to which their effective
sovereignty is being eroded.
Sovereignty is also being re-examined in a normative sense. If sovereign states systematically abuse the
human rights of their citizens, should they continue to enjoy the privileges of sovereignty in
international law? This issue is at the heart of debates over whether humanitarian intervention should
play a greater role in international law than is currently the case.
Shakoor Kakar
41
5. National Interest
Outline
Introduction
1. What does Nation Interest include?
2. Criteria for Defining National Interest
3. Variations in National Interest
4. Means to Promote National Interests
5. National vs. Global Interests
6. BROADER SCOPE OF NATIONAL INTEREST
7. Three approaches to define National Interest
Introduction
In the 1930s, Charles Bear wrote the first book concerning national interest. In following years the notion
of national interest in IR has been used to describe the underlying rationale for the behavior of states in a
threatening global environment, which preserves and protects one‘s values against another.
Of all the concepts of IR, this one is the most vague and therefore easily used and abused, particularly by
politicians, to claim that a particular foreign policy is in the national interest imparts a degree of authority
and legitimacy to that policy.
1. What does Nation Interest include?

Scholars define national interest variously. Some put self-preservation (territorial integrity, political
independence and fundamental government institutions) at the head of the list.
Other categories of national interest focus on self-sufficiency, prestige, aggrandizement. Charles Bear
focused on the notion of territory and commerce as being the defining features of national interest.
Morgenthau says that a country‘s national interests should be proportionate to its capacities Britain and
France after WWII had superpower ambitions, not commiserate to their capacities).
2. Criteria for Defining National Interest

i. Ideological criteria: if one country's ideology is liberal-democratic, it will make policies supporting
democratic governments and movements and oppose totalitarian ones.
ii. Moral and legal criteria: the imperative to act honestly and make decisions in accordance with
international laws.
iii. Pragmatic criteria: unemotional, calculated decisions to deal with on ground realities.
iv. Bureaucratic criteria: each organization tends to exaggerate its specific funding request and to argue
in the name of the national interest rather than its own interest.
v. Partisan criteria: to equate the success of one‘s own political party with an entire nation‟s success.
vi. Racial criteria: national interest defined in terms of interest of an ethnic or racial minority or majority
vii. Class-status criteria: a particular class will defend its interests while defining national interest.
viii. Foreign-dependency criteria: protector states define policy obligations of their dependencies.
3. Variations in National Interest

There are different types of national interest. Some of the salient ones are described below:
i. Primary Interests: preservation of physical, political and cultural identity of the nation-state.
ii. Secondary Interests: protection of citizens abroad and ensuring diplomatic immunity of foreign
missions.
iii. Permanent Interests: long-term interests of strategic, ideological or economic nature which do not
change easily, with changes in domestic politics, for example
iv. Variable Interests: these are short-term interests varying with cross-currents of personalities, public
opinion, partisan politics, sectional interests etc.
Shakoor Kakar
42
v. General Interests: involve a large number of nations, such as economic interests or diplomatic norms.
vi. Specific Interests: location and issue specific interests emerging from more general interests (bilateral
terms of trade for example).
vii. Identical Interests: interests held in common by different states (climate protection concerns)
viii. Complementary Interests: though not identical, these interests can serve as basis for agreement on
specific issues (US-Pakistan security cooperation).
ix. Conflicting Interests: bring countries at odds with each other. Yet these interests can also undergo
change due to varying internal circumstances and a changing external scenario.
4. Means to Promote National Interests

i. Coercive Means: these can be internal so that they don‟t infringe directly on other sovereign nations
(embargos, boycotts, severing diplomatic relations) or they can be external and are a prima facie act of
war (seizure of property of offending state, suspension of treaties), if the other state responds with
escalating moves, it leads to an outbreak of war.
ii. Alliances: based on complementary or identical interests and strengthened by ideology, alliances can
promote national interest.
iii. Diplomatic Negotiations: common interests are most effectively perpetuated by means of diplomacy.
Diplomacy is also useful in negotiating conflicting national interests without resorting to coercive means.
5. National vs. Global Interests

Given the complexities of international politics, Morgenthau for e.g. opposes state action based on
universal principles, instead he advocates a pragmatic approach of acting based on national interests.
Yet, issues of global concern like growing inequalities and environmental problems require world leaders
to think beyond the narrow ambit of national interests. The world is also becoming increasing
interconnected due to which national interests often exert an influence on global interests and global
interests to some degree also compel national interests.
6. BROADER SCOPE OF NATIONAL INTEREST

Broadly speaking, the concept is usually used in two related ways. On the one hand, the word interest
implies a need that has, by some standard of justification, attained the status of an acceptable claim on
behalf of the state. On the other hand, the national interest is also used to describe and support particular
policies. The problem is how to determine the criteria that can establish a correspondence between the
national interest expressed as a principle and the sorts of policies by which it is advanced.
7. Three approaches to define National Interest
First, one may simply equate the national interest with the policies of those officially responsible for the
conduct of foreign policy. The national interest is what decision-makers at the highest levels of
government say it is. They are the best judges of various policy trade-offs, therefore the national interest
is something to be dispassionately defined and defended by those who possess the appropriate expertise
and authority to speak for the whole country. The difficulty with this elitist approach is that it does not
help in distinguishing a good foreign policy from a bad one.
A second approach, closely identified with the realist school of thought, conceives of the national interest
in terms of some basic assumptions about the nature of international relations and the motivations of
states. These include the idea that anarchy makes security the paramount foreign policy concern of
states. Security, in turn, requires the acquisition and rational management of power (which can never be
wholly divorced from military force), and only policies conducted in this spirit can serve the national
interest.
Shakoor Kakar
43
In complete contrast, a third approach to the national interest suggests that the rules for its identification
are given by tenets of the political process that have an independent normative value. In other words, the
national interest can best be identified when it resolves itself into a verifiable expression of the nation‘s
preferences. On the assumption that a nation‘s interests cannot be more accurately expressed by some
external observer than by the standards of the nation itself, this approach undermines both elitist and
Shakoor Kakar
44
Chapter Five:
Strategic Approach to International Relation
 ―Strategic Approach to International Relation‖ hovers around the following three broader
concept;
1. War
2. Strategy
3. Deterrence
1. War
Outline
1. Kinds of War
i. Rational War
ii. collision
iii. War For Peace and Security
2. Other Types of War
i. Regular and irregular war
ii. Guerrilla warfare
iii. Terrorism
iv. Media War
2. CAUSATION OF WAR
i. Human nature
ii. Economic factors
iii. ethnic and religious rivalry
iv. natural resources
Conclusion
―War is a brutal form of politics.‖
War in the contemporary era is not always easy to define
Introduction
War is defined here as organised violence between political units which are either state governments or
which aspire to establish, or to be, state governments. War is political activity by violent means. War and
the fear of war have been by far the most powerful among the influences that have shaped the course of
international relations over the past two centuries. Nearly every country has been made by war. The
motives for war have been stable through the ages: fear, honour and interest.
War is the use of armed forces in a conflict, especially between countries. The conventional view is that
for a conflict to be classified as a war, it should culminate in at least 1,000 battle deaths. This definition
allows for the inclusion of other wars such as a civil war within a state and wars of the third kind.
Although every war is unique, it is useful to distinguish between three categories of war as an organised
set of hostilities conducted by states and initiated by the sending of large armed forces across an
international boundary.
Shakoor Kakar
45
1. Kinds of War
i. Rational War
The first of these three categories comprises wars that may be called ‗rational‘. These are wars that are
deliberately initiated by one or more governments in the expectation that this war will be instrumental in
achieving some national purpose. In the nineteenth century, wars of this kind were frequent and the
calculations leading to them were not unrealistic. Between 1816 and 1911, four-fifths of all wars were
won by the states that initiated them. Thus, starting a war in the nineteenth century seemed to be a rational
business.
ii. collision
The second type of war is that of drift or collision. In these instances governments become involved in
wars because of gross misjudgements or a failure to perceive some particular course of events. Such wars
have outcomes that are difficult to forecast. In the twentieth century, only two-fifths of wars were won by
the country initiating them, while three-fifths were lost. In other words, after 1911 we find that if a
government started a war, the likelihood was that it would lose. This raises the question of whether it is
the case that governments have become more stupid; whether they have become over-burdened by the
pressures of domestic politics; or whether the international system has become progressively more
complicated and therefore harder to understand and control.
iii. War For Peace and Security

There is a third category of war that cuts across the first two categories. These are wars that are initiated
because the government concerned is afraid of peace; it feels that if it does not go to war now, the result
of several more years of peace would be more intolerable. For example, there is plenty of evidence to
suggest that such fears lay behind Japan‘s decision to bomb Pearl Harbor in 1941.
2. Other Types of War
i. Regular and irregular war

It is both useful and historically justifiable to divide the experience of warfare into two broad categories:
regular and irregular. The former is warfare between the regular, armed forces of states, while the latter is
warfare between those forces and the irregular armed forces of non-state political entities. Irregular
warfare comes in different modes and has been known by many different names. The most popular of
those names has been guerrilla warfare, a title borrowed from the Spanish for ‗little war‘. Spaniards
waged irregular warfare, in guerrilla mode, with their popular resistance to French occupation from 1808
to 1814.
ii. guerrilla warfare

Most armed conflicts are neither nuclear nor mechanised conventional wars between states. Instead, they
fall into a very broad category which Edward Rice (1990) first identified as ‗wars of the third kind‘. Such
wars are usually fought in what used to be called the Third World and rely heavily, although not
exclusively, on guerrilla warfare.
In each year of the 1980s and 1990s, there have been between 30 and 40 wars of the third kind in
progress. Until the break-up of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, virtually all of them
Shakoor Kakar
46
occurred in developing countries, typically between governments and opponents aspiring to take control
over the state or to achieve some degree of territorial autonomy.
Once started, wars of the third kind are very difficult to bring to a definitive end, whether by decisive
military victory or by diplomatic and political negotiation. Weapons are easily available. The state is
usually fragmented. Sections of the population, especially the young, are alienated from existing systems,
and rival groups easily and quickly become polarised.
There is no general theory of conflict applicable to wars of the third kind. Their roots cannot typically be
found in one set of issues or attributed to one particular event. Every war has its own historical setting
interacting with internal and external factors in a unique configuration. In the growing literature on these
wars, some common causes or factors can be identified:
The colonial legacy. Colonial authorities commonly resorted to violence to compel compliance with their
rule. Today‘s post-independence states they have inherited colonial instruments of violence and used
them to subjugate their populations.
Ethnicity and religion. Conflict between ethnic groups has proliferated in recent years. While ethnic
identity has been emphasised as a crucial tenet in wars of the third kind, many of these ethnic conflicts
have their roots in the history of colonial state formation. This laid the foundation for long-term hatred
among the groups disadvantaged by such political arrangements. Rwanda is a classic example.
Uneven development. Within many developing countries there may be an uneven and unequal
geographical spread of economic activity and development.
Poverty. Poverty can be both a cause and effect of wars of the third kind.
iii. Terrorism
Terrorism is a mode of irregular combat, and it may or may not accompany guerrilla warfare. It is simply
a tactic, as is guerrilla fighting. Strategic irregularity is proof of relative weakness. As with other forms of
irregular warfare, terrorism is designed to achieve political change for the purposes of obtaining power in
order to right a perceived wrong. Terrorism, however, is the weakest form of irregular warfare with which
to alter the political landscape.
iv. Media War
The greatly increased role of the media is one feature of this evolution. The media have become far more
important in terms of shaping or even constructing understandings of particular wars. Media warfare has
made war more transparent. Each side now goes to great lengths to manipulate media images of the
conflict, and journalists have effectively been transformed from observers into active participants, facing
most of the same dangers as the soldiers and helping to shape the course of the war through their
reporting. This reflects a broader change. Just as ‗modernity‘ and its wars were based on the mode of
production, so ‗post-modernity‘ and its wars reflect the mode of information.
2. CAUSATION OF WAR
Shakoor Kakar
47
There are a number of theories that seek to explain patterns of war and peace between states in the
international system. There has been a long quest in the study of war to try and identify a single primary
cause from which all other causes derive. Indeed, if this could be done, the task of eliminating war would
be simplified dramatically.
i. Human nature
One of the main candidates over many centuries for the title of primary cause has been human nature. The
shorthand method employed here involves the use of the terms optimists, pessimists, conversionists and
non-violent persuasionists to indicate four important ways of thinking about human nature and about
human behaviour.
Optimists are people who believe that it is possible to remove violence from the world entirely on the
basis of humankind being naturally non-violent.
Pessimists are those who believe that ultimately war can only be removed from or at least controlled
within human affairs if violence or the threat of violence is itself employed either on its own, or in
combination with other means, to stop and deter people from attacking each other.
Conversionists are effectively a second kind of optimist and believe that human nature is flawed by a
tendency to use violence but can be converted to a state in which people become naturally non-violent.
Non-violent persuasionists are those who believe, like the conversionists, that human nature is flawed by
a tendency towards the use of violence, but that the latter can be removed from human behaviour without
the need for either the use or threat of coercion, or for any conversion to a state of being naturally
nonviolent, but on the basis solely of an appeal to self-interest.
ii. Economic factors

One of the most frequently suggested causes of war has been economic factors. At their most basic level
they take the form of the simple desire for treasure. One of the explanations for the outbreak of the 1991
Gulf War that was most popular with press and other pundits at the time, for example, was the Iraqi
regime‘s deteriorating domestic economic situation. It was commonly argued that its small and ill-
defended neighbour, Kuwait, offered an irresistible temptation to the aggressive government of Saddam
Hussein because of its fabulous oil wealth.
But economic factors can have a rather more subtle impact as well. They have been argued to have played
a major indirect role in causing the Second World War for example. It was the economic collapse that
occurred during the democratic Weimar Republic in Germany that is alleged to have helped create the
conditions in which Hitler was able to establish his preeminence during the early 1930s.
Another way in which economic factors have been alleged to play a role in causing wars has been through
imperialism. One of the most influential of the modern theories of imperialism has been that of V.I.Lenin.
In the early twentieth century Lenin argued that imperialism was the product of and indeed the highest
stage of monopoly capitalism. The driving force at its centre was the capitalist ethos.
iii. ethnic and religious rivalry

Shakoor Kakar
48
Much older as alleged causes are the frequently related phenomena of ethnic and religious rivalry Their
potency has been most recently demonstrated in the Balkans, with the vicious battle over the future of
Bosnia between Serbian Orthodox, Croatian Catholic and Bosnian Muslim forces. However, the barbarity
of the proceedings would seem to have little to do with religions which proclaim themselves to be
preoccupied with the love of God and of one‘s neighbour. What the three creeds have become in the
specific context of the Balkans is part of the self-identity of each of the ethnic groupings to which they are
attached.
iv. natural resources

Even basic natural resources like water can be a cause of war. In August 1995, for example, The
Economist summarised the possible future water, ―‗Wars of the next century will be over water.‖
Territorial disputes also have a long-established claim as being causes of war.
iii. Some scholars argue that the underlying causes of war can be found in the structure of power and
alliances in the international system or in the way that the structure changes over time.
Others trace the roots of war to political, economic, social, and psychological factors internal to the state.
Some scholars argue that liberal democratic states are inherently peaceful, whereas authoritarian states are
more warlike.
Others believe that war results from the tendencies of capitalist states to expand in search of external
markets, investment opportunities, and raw materials.
Particular wars have also been traced to attempts by political leaders to solve their internal problems
through the adoption of aggressive foreign policies on the assumption that external conflict will promote
internal harmony.
Wars have also been explained as a consequence of misperception and the effects of stress on crisis
decision-making.
There is no single persuasive theory of war. In his famous survey of the literature on the causes of war,
Kenneth Waltz (1959) noted that although the absence of world government made war possible, no
particular war could be explained without examining factors at different levels of analysis.
Conclusion
Many observers argue that wars of the third kind will continue to be the dominant form of armed conflict
in the next century. Unless they threaten to spill over into the perceived sphere of influence of a great
power, or take place in an area of strategic importance to more powerful states, they are unlikely to attract
the sustained diplomatic efforts of the international community. Tragically, there remains a large gap
between the academic interest in understanding new forms of armed conflict and policymakers‘ interest in
responding to them.
Shakoor Kakar
49
2. Strategic Culture
Outline
What is Strategy?
1. Strategic culture
2. Determinant of Strategic culture of Pakistan
ii. Hostile India:
iii. Durand Line Issue
iv. Opposition to India‘s Regional Ambitions
v. Search for Security.
vi. Islam and Strategic Culture of Pakistan
vii. Regional Balance of Power; Nuclear Weapons
What is Strategy?
Strategy is difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to do well. It is the somewhat mysterious
bridge between the military instrument and political objectives, the meaning of both of which is simple to
grasp. The term ‗strategy‘ frequently is employed in such a way that it is not clear whether the author
means military strategy or grand strategy. The former includes the latter. The latter embraces all the
instruments of statecraft, including the military.
1. Strategic culture
Strategic culture is a collectivity of the beliefs, norms, values, and historical experiences of the dominant
elite in a polity that influences their understanding and interpretation of security issues and environment,
and shapes their responses to these. It is a perceptual framework of orientations, values, and beliefs that
serves as a screen through which the policymakers observe the dynamics of the external security
environment.
The advocates of strategic culture argue that security management decisions are shaped by different
cultural influences on the decisionmakers and not by the rational pursuit of similar national security or
functional organizational interests.î3 The historical narratives created by the dominant elite, their notions
of war and peace, the dynamics of power politics in a polity and the decisionmaking patterns have a
profound impact on the defense and security-related disposition of a state. These norms, beliefs, and
perceptions of history are often self -justifying and do not easily change. The information relating to
security issues and problems is interpreted against the backdrop of strategic culture, which in turn
influences the selection of options to cope with a situation.
strategic culture is an important concept to understand the disposition, responses, and decisions of the
security policymakers. It offers a better understanding of how the leaders are likely to react to a security
situation and what type of options they are likely to go for. Knowledge of strategic culture helps us to
understand the sensitivities of a state and how to meaningfully engage in a dialogue with its leaders in a
given situation. Many of the policy options or behavior patterns can be understood with reference to
strategic culture. For example, the role of mujahideen or jihadis in Afghanistan, Kashmir or Palestine
cannot be fully understood without reference to their historical narratives, orientations, beliefs , and
values.
Shakoor Kakar
50
2. DETERMINANT OF STRATEGIC CULTURE OF PAKISTAN
i. Hostile India:
The fact that Pakistan was a new state, carved out of India on the basis of Muslim separatism, has
contributed to its insecurity. Most Indians, especially the policymakers, viewed the establishment of
Pakistan as a negation of the principles they stood for during the struggle for independence. Their
disposition towards Pakistan ranged from reluctant acceptance to a hope that the new state might collapse,
making it possible for the separated territories to return to India. Pakistani leaders overemphasized their
separateness and distinct identity, reacting sharply to what they perceived as India‘s attempts to strangle
the new state in its infancy.
Three major developments changed the perspective of Pakistani leaders towards India and caused serious
security problems for them. First, the communal riots that accompanied the partition of India and the
massive influx of refugees shocked them. Hardly any part of Pakistan escaped the adverse impact of the
refugee problem or the killings. A large number of civil servants and military personnel found their
family members trapped in communal riots and mass migrations. Second, the disputes over the
distribution of assets of the government of British India (civil and military) also caused much bitterness.
Pakistan was more in need of resources for establishing the administrative and military structures of the
new state, but it did not receive its due share, especially of military stores, weapons, and equipment.
Third, the dispute on the accession of the princely states of Junagadh and especially Jammu and Kashmir
caused much bitterness. On top of all this was the first Kashmir war, in 1947-48, that brought the two
armies face to face with each other at a time when the Pakistani military, the smaller of the two armies,
was in the process of reorganization. These three factors shaped Pakistanís perception of India as an
adversary.
ii. Durand Line Issue

Afghanistan‘s irredentist claims on Pakistanís territory intensified the latterís insecurity. When the
Afghan government came to know in 1947 that the British had finally decided to wind up their rule over
India and that the state of Pakistan would come into existence, it laid claims on North Western Frontier
Province and parts of Balochistan. The Afghan government adopted divergent positions on its irredentist
claim ranging from independence for the claimed territory or maximum autonomy within Pakistan to their
absorption into Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was a weaker military power, but what perturbed Pakistan most was India‘s support of
Afghanistan‘s claims on Pakistani territory. In 1955, the Soviet Union endorsed Afghanistan‘s demands
on Pakistan.
iii. Opposition to India‟s Regional Ambitions

Pakistanís civilian and military leaders have often expressed strong reservations about Indiaís efforts to
assume a leadership and commanding role in South Asia because of its size, population, industrial and
technological advancement, and military power. This is a long-cherished and often unstated goal whose
roots go back to the days of Nehru. Indian leaders emphasized Indiaís commanding role in a more
forceful manner after Pakistanís military debacle in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war.
Shakoor Kakar
51
India‘s leadership model asserts that the South Asian states should coordinate their foreign and security
policies with New Delhi so that India plays its role as the guarantor of regional security and stability in an
effective manner. This strategy has two ìcore perceptions. First, the neighboring states must coordinate
their foreign policy with the imperatives of Indiaís centrality and security. Second, India does not favor
any outside power supplying weaponry to or establishing a military presence in any neighboring state.
Regional states should establish ties with other states within the parameters acceptable to New Delhi. In
case a South Asian state is confronted with some internal problem, it must first approach India before
seeking support from elsewhere.
Pakistanís policymakers and security managers strongly believe that a New Delhi-managed security
model cannot serve as a basis for durable peace in South Asia. Such a power arrangement comes
inconflict with the national aspirations of other states of South Asia. Pakistan advocates a pluralist power
model, which emphasizes the principle of sovereign equality of all states.
iv. Search for Security.

The search for security emerged as the cardinal concern of Pakistan‘s policymakers that not only shaped
their worldview and disposition towards regional and international politics but also served as an
instrument of policy. It manifested itself in four major policy options: 1) opposition to Indiaís regional
dominance agenda, 2) augmentation of security by assigning the highest priority to defense needs, 3)
weapons procurements from abroad, and 4) reliance on diplomacy, including military alignment, to
overcome its military weakness vis--vis militarily powerful India. Defense requirements have enjoyed the
top priority in Pakistan. No matter whether the government was being run by civilians or generals,
defense was allocated the major share of the national budget. Pakistanís defense expenditure has ranged
from about 73 percent in 1949-50 to 24-25 percent of the total federal expenditure in 2000-01.
Pakistan began weapons procurement from abroad soon after independence because of the acute sense of
insecurity and a lack of indigenous defense industry. Pakistan‘s policymakers decided to join the
American alliance system to overcome its security problems. Pakistan and the United States signed the
Mutual Defense Assistance Treaty in May 1954, which facilitated U.S. arms transfers to Pakistan and
military training of its personnel by U.S. experts. Pakistan was admitted to the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) in September 1954 and the Baghdad Pact (later renamed the Central Treaty
Organization, CENTO) in September 1955. The fourth security-related arrangement with the United
States was signed in March 1959; called the Bilateral Agreement of Cooperation, this was an executive
arrangement not confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Pakistan again leaned towards the West, especially the United States, in the aftermath of the Soviet
military intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979. The United States pledged to underwrite
Pakistan‘s security vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, although no new defense treaty was signed. Despite the
differences over Pakistan‘s nuclear program, the two countries developed a close security and diplomatic
relationship with reference to the Afghan conflict.
The United States and Pakistan contributed significantly to building and strengthening resistance to the
Soviet military presence in Afghanistan spearheaded by militant Islamic-Afghan groups. This relationship
began to lose its momentum after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and came to an end in
Shakoor Kakar
52
October 1990 when the Bush administration invoked the Pressler Amendment (1985) against Pakistanís
nuclear weapons program and halted all military sales and economic assistance.
In the early 1970s, Pakistan adopted a different strategy to strengthen its security. It avoided alignment
with the West and pursued nonalignment as a foreign policy strategy.
v. Islam and Strategic Culture of Pakistan

Islam is integral to Pakistanís strategic culture because it contributes to shaping societal dispositions and
the orientations of the policymakers. Islam is closely associated with the establishment of the state and the
constitution designates the state as an ìIslamic Republic,î with an emphasis on the Islamic character of
Pakistani identity and a stipulation that no law can be enacted that violates the basic principles and
teachings of Islam. Islam figures prominently in political and military discourse. All political parties with
some popular standing recognize the centrality of Islam to the political process and highlight their
commitment to Islam in their election manifestos and policy statements. Education at the primary,
secondary, and college levels (the first 14 years of education) includes Islamic studies (principles and
teachings of Islam) as a compulsory course of study at all levels for Muslim students. The historical
narratives highlight the advent of Islam in India, glorify Muslim rule there, and define Pakistani identity
with reference to Islam and the Muslim rule.
vi. Regional Balance of Power; Nuclear Weapons

Pakistan‘s policymakers believe that Pakistan must have the capability to raise the cost of the war to
unacceptable limits for the adversary so as to deter the latter from engaging in military adventurism. A
prerequisite for such a strategy is the maintenance of a highly professional, trained, and well-equipped
military with strong fire-power and mobility.
The deterrence approach developed for conventional defense applies equally to Pakistan‟s nuclear
weapons program. Had India not gone for nuclear explosions in May 1998, Pakistan would have
continued with the policy of ìnuclear ambiguity,î i.e., admitting to having a nuclear weapons capability
but not going so far as to explode or make a bomb. Nuclear ambiguity served Pakistanís security goals as
both India and Pakistan knew that each could make nuclear weapons and that if one country went ahead
with weaponization, the other would do the same. This policy lost its operational relevance after India
resorted to nuclear explosions in May 1998. Pakistan conducted nuclear explosions after 17 days to
rectify the strategic imbalance in South Asia
Shakoor Kakar
53
3. DETTERENCE
Outline
Introduction
1. Nuclear deterrence
2. Pakistan and Indai; Nuclear Deterrence
i. Background
ii. India‘s Nuclear Doctrine
iii. Pakistan‘s nuclear strategy and doctrine
Conclusion
Introduction
In its simplest form, deterrence consists of the following threat, intended to dissuade a state from
aggression: ‗Do not attack me because if you do, something unacceptably horrible will happen to you.‘ In
other words, deterrence is a form of persuasion in military strategy. To convey such a threat, the deterrer
must decide what constitutes an attack, and must then decide what level of response would be adequate to
deter it.
For deterrence to succeed, the threat must also be credible. Not only must the potential aggressor believe
that the costs of an attack would be higher than its benefits, but also that there is a significant likelihood
that such costs would indeed be incurred.
As a strategy, deterrence is often contrasted with defence. The latter focuses on military capabilities rather
than intentions. While deterrence works by the threat of punishment, defence works by denying the
enemy‘s ability to achieve its objectives once an attack has begun.
1. Nuclear deterrence
A number of people have attributed to nuclear deterrence the fact that the superpowers did not go to war
during the forty-plus years of the Cold War. It was only with the advent of nuclear weapons that a
distinction could be made in peacetime. Before the arrival of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the
terms ‗deterrence‘ and ‗defence‘ simply referred to different time periods. Prior to an attack, military
forces are supposed to deter an enemy. After the attack, when deterrence has failed, they are used to
actively resist the attack.
The forms of nuclear deterrence which the superpowers practised during this period therefore implicitly
are held up as the supreme form of war prevention. Some have even argued that if nuclear weapons
spread into all regional power balances, creating a series of little nuclear balances, then the special
deterrence magic involved would create a largely peaceful world. Nuclear deterrence as practised by the
superpowers was often described as a special form of balance of power theory—the balance of terror.
2. Pakistan and India; Nuclear Deterrence
Background:
Refusal to sign Treaties:
Shakoor Kakar
54
NPT; Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, 1968, 172 states have signed, non signatory are ten, including
Pakistan and India. It Acknowledges the Nuclear states prior to 1967. It prohibit the transfer of Nuclear
weapons.
CTBT: 1996. 158 signatories, Ban on nuclear test in any form and place. India refused to sign, argue
there is no timetable for destruction of Existing nuclear weapons. Pakistan link the signature with India.
Scholars have identified between nine and eleven interstate crises on the Indian subcontinent since 1947.
Four of these crises escalated to wars—namely, 1947- 48, 1965, 1971 and 1999 (although the 1999 Kargil
conflict involved a relatively low-level armed clash by comparison with the others). During the first three
of these wars which involved high-intensity combat and in the case of 1971 resulted in the division of
Pakistan into two states, neither India nor Pakistan had any nuclear weapons capability. It has continued
despite dramatic changes in the geopolitical environment. The conflict is over national identity, territory,
the power position in the region and national identity. The Pakistani elite have been unable to accept the
division of Jamma and Kashmir, and seek equal status with India, while India sees itself as a great power
in the region. The war in 1971 resulted in the division of Pakistan, a defeat that instilled a great sense of
insecurity in Pakistan and a greater determination to find a way to overcome India‗s military superiority.
In order to balance India‗s conventional military superiority, Pakistan acquired a small-scale nuclear
weapons capability using bombers and medium-range missiles as delivery vehicles. Already in 1974,
India had a significant nuclear industry and had demonstrated its capacity to explode nuclear devices.
Whereas Pakistan‗s nuclear weapons doctrine is Indo-centric, India acquired a nuclear capability as part
of an ambition to be recognized as a great power, and seeks to deter not only Pakistan but also China. The
acquisition of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan raises the specter of a regional nuclear conflict
with catastrophic consequences. However, there is a widespread view in the strategic studies community
that nuclear weapons are likely to prevent armed conflict due to the effects of nuclear deterrence.
India and Pakistan have also developed ballistic missiles as nuclear delivery vehicles. In the late 1970s
India initiated its own military ballistic missile development program, based on cooperation with the
Soviet Union/Russia. These include the shorter range Prithvi I (range 150 km) which was first tested in
1988 and the Prithvi II (range 250 km, at least 25 deployed) and the longer-range Agni. The
Agni I has a range of 1, 500 km and the Agni II a range of 2, 500 km. The Agni has a payload of 1, 000
kg. The Agni III with a range of 4,500 km has been successfully tested.
Pakistan‗s missile program is based on Chinese and North Korean technology. Its nuclear-capable
missiles include Hatf-III (Ghaznavi) with a range of 100-290 km, Hatf-IV (Shaheen I) missiles with a
range of 200-650 km and 20 of the medium Haft-V (Ghauri I) missiles with a range of 1, 200 km. The
Only the Ghauri I can be used for an attack on New Delhi and much of India‗s territory is out of range of
all of Pakistan‗s missiles. The future of Pakistan‗s missile program is uncertain because China has now
accepted the restrictions of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and therefore will no longer
supply missiles to Pakistan.
India and Pakistan jealously guard their strategic autonomy and nuclear weapons capability. They rejected
UN Resolution 1172 which urges India and Pakistan, in conjunction with other States that have not yet
done so, to become party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty without delay and without conditions. New Delhi and Islamabad have been convinced that through
Shakoor Kakar
55
nuclear deterrence they would accomplish various objectives, i.e., dissuade the adversary from
contemplating aggression; deter potential enemies; increase bargaining leverage; reduce dependence on
allies; and acquire military independence by reducing dependence on external sources of military
hardware.
The works of McGeorge Bundy and Kenneth Waltz suggest that nuclear weapons ensure greater peace in
conflict-ridden regions. In June 2004, the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan also voiced a shared
view that the nuclear capabilities of both States were a factor for stability. The nuclear deterrence theory
confronts a situation in South Asia that is very different from the context in which such theorization
developed; namely, the United States-Soviet Union confrontation during the Cold War. Unlike the U.S.
and USSR, India and Pakistan have a common border and very short missile flight times limiting reaction
time to almost nothing; remembrance of four wars and unlimited border skirmishes; the perennial
Kashmir dispute; active involvement in each other‘s intra-State conflicts; contesting regional and global
outlook; and, above all, power asymmetry. More precisely, the nuclear deterrence theory was not engaged
with a strategic environment like that of the India-Pakistan strategic environment. The outcome of this
disparity (to-date) is that the balance of terror alone is not enough to guarantee the functioning of the
deterrence theory; there is a need for benign external intervention for deterrence operability between India
and Pakistan.
Pakistani decision-makers since the early 1970s have considered nuclear capability as the best option for
counterbalancing India. That is because the conventional means are expensive, have a short shelf-life, and
their availability is dependent on the goodwill of foreign powers. Pakistan thus concluded that nuclear
weapons were the cheapest, most effective and reliable route to national security.
ii. India‟s Nuclear Doctrine
Although India has had a nuclear weapons capability since its ―peaceful nuclear explosion‖ in 1974, it
did not become an overt nuclear power until the nuclear tests in May 1998. Vajpayee indicated in a letter
to President Clinton that India‗s action was motivated by the threat from China. This is puzzling, given
that bilateral relations between India and China were no longer particularly adversarial.
The basic elements of India‗s nuclear defense doctrine as they subsequently emerged in public statements
can be summarized as follows:
 In the absence of Global nuclear disarmament, the Concept of a credible minimum nuclear
deterrence.
 Triad of forces—mobile land based missiles, aircraft and sea-based assets.
 The fundamental purpose of the Indian nuclear weapons is to deter the use and any threat of use
of nuclear weapons against India and its forces by any state or entity. India will use nuclear
weapons even if its territory been attacked with chemical and/or biological weapons.
 The political leadership will decide about any retaliatory attack.
 India will not use nuclear weapons first (no-first-use policy).
 India will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.
 India will pursue the policy of strict control over the export of sensitive technologies and
material.
Shakoor Kakar
56
The basic requirements for credible minimum deterrence are defined as:
1. Sufficient, survivable and operationally deployable forces

2. A reliable intact command and control system
3. Effective intelligence and early warning system
4. Credibility, which means the will to employ nuclear forces and weapons.
5. Comprehensive training and planning for the operations in line with the strategy.
In 2003 there was a further expansion in the Indian nuclear defense doctrine.
iii. Pakistan‟s nuclear strategy and doctrine
 Pakistan shall not resort to first use

 In event of first strike, we shall hit back with second strike.
 When the defense is seriously in danger and collapse we shall be oblige to employ tactical nuclear
weapons.
 Our response shall be directly proportionate to the action of enemy.
The most elaborate statement on the nuclear threshold was made by the head of Pakistan‗s Strategic Plans
Division Khalid Kidwai in 2001. He defined four different kinds of thresholds as follows:
1. The spatial threshold; This is defined by significant penetration of Indian forces into Pakistani territory
and the capture of key objectives (especially in Punjab and Kashmir).
2. The military threshold; The destruction of much of the Pakistani army, to the point where Pakistani
armed forces would begin to lose cohesion and defeat was imminent, might trigger a nuclear attack.
3. The economic threshold; The most intriguing part of Kidwai‗s statement was that economic
strangulation (e.g. by a naval blockade of Karachi port) could trigger a nuclear strike.
4. The political threshold; If India were to foment unrest in Pakistan and destabilize the country, to the
point where one or several provinces were encouraged to break away, could also escalate to nuclear war.
Conclusion
Although some scholars like Kenneth Waltz have seen nuclear proliferation as a positive development
that will reduce conflict, most experts in international relations perceive the greater proliferation of
nuclear weapons as a dangerous phenomenon—because even in a stable relationship of nuclear deterrence
there remains a risk of unintended escalation. Some scholars such as Scott Sagan, Graham Allison,
Ashton Carter and Steve Miller have been more vocal in opposing proliferation, especially to countries
with less-developed military technologies. Further risks are posed by states that are in conflict with a
neighboring state. The case of Pakistan and India is a good case in point, because the conflict between the
two countries has intensified since both countries became overt nuclear powers.
Shakoor Kakar
57
Chapter Six:
International Political Economy
 ―International Political Economy‖ can be summarized and understand easily under the following
Topics;
1. MERCANTILISM
2. Economic liberalism
3. The concept of interdependence
4. Dependency Theory
5. Imperialism
6. NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER
7. Economic sanctions
Q. Define Imperialism and discuss the Economic Theories of Imperialism. 2000

Q. Do you agree that in contemporary International Relations, International Economic and Trade linkages
are being used as pressure tactics in inter-State Relations. 2000
Q What are the major demands of the SOUTH against the NORTH for a New International Economic
Order. 2002
Q Define Economic Imperialism. How far it is correct to say that the G-7 countries have embarked upon
Economic Imperialism in the Third World through WTO and Multi-National Corporations? 2003
Q "After the downfall of Colonialism, The western Powers have embarked upon a new policy of
"Economic Imperialism" through IMF, World Bank, Multi-nationals and WTO". Do you agree?
Substantiate. 2010
Q Do you agree that 19th century European International Society was merely a means of legitimizing
Imperialism? 2013
International Political Economy

Outline
Introduction
1. What is IPE
2. MERCANTILISM
i. Classical liberalism;
ii. Free Trade;
iii. Twentieth-century liberal theory

6. Imperialism
i. Objectives of Imperialism
ii.Examples of Imperialism
Shakoor Kakar
58
iii. Relationship between Power and imperialism

iv. Relationship between Capitalism and imperialism
v. Relationship between imperialism and nationalism
a. Imperialism as stimulator of national consciousness
b. The aggressive nationalism

Introduction
This section introduces the three classical approaches to the study of international economic relations:
mercantilism, which emphasises the primacy of politics over economics and sees the state as playing a
central role in guiding economic activity; liberalism, which advocates a reduced role of the state in the
economy and the free operation of the market mechanism; and Marxism, which provides a radical
alternative perspective based on a materialist understanding of history – where economic forces are seen
as the cause of historical evolution
1. What is IPE
A recognition of the intertwined nature of politics and economics gave rise, in the 1970s, to a new
approach in IR known as international political economy. IPE has its roots in what in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries was called ‗political economy‘ – essentially the study of economic activity within
political and legal contexts.
The economic and political fate of nations can no longer be discussed in isolation. The discipline of
International Relations (IR) has taken on the challenge of global economic integration by shifting the
focus firmly to the political economic nexus in international affairs. The study of international political
economy is now a well-established part of the IR syllabus. But this was not always the case. In the early
1970s, when early forms of the process of globalisation were beginning to manifest themselves, few had
actively researched the economic dimension of foreign policy and international politics.
International political economy (IPE) is an approach to the study of international politics that concerns the
study of the relationship between (international) politics and economics. IPE scholarship has focused on
issues such as financial markets, global governance and international organizations, global firms and
production, economic regionalism – and most significantly globalization. More recent scholarship in IPE
has sought to look more at the localized impacts of global economic and political change and raises
normative concerns about these changes. Some of the most influential scholars within IPE include Susan
Strange, Robert Keohane and Robert Cox and Karl Marx.
2. MERCANTILISM
Mercantilism is one of the enduring classical approaches to the study of international political economy.
Originating in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, mercantilist ideas are still informing foreign
economic policy around the world. For in the late eighteenth century Smith coined the term ‗mercantile
system‘ to characterise the common perspectives of a system of political economy that he sought to attack
in his liberal theory of political economy.
Mercantilism is often seen as one of three approaches to the theory and practice of international political
economy. The first is laissez-faire liberalism, which advocates free trade and minimal state intervention
Shakoor Kakar
59
in both the domestic and the international economy. The second perspective seeks to understand the
workings of the global capitalist system in order to demonstrate its inherently exploitative nature. There
are different versions of this general approach. The best-known of these is world-system theory. The
third perspective is mercantilism.
 Mercantilism, sometimes referred to as economic nationalism, is the oldest of the three

perspectives. It was the dominant economic philosophy of European states from the fifteenth
century to the late seventeenth century. Since that time, it has gone through a number of
manifestations and continues to be an important economic alternative to both liberalism and
Marxism.
 Mercantilist writings concerned the dominance of the national interest in economic policy, the
central role of the state in directing economic activity and the importance of creating a favourable
trade balance to promote growth and prosperity.
 Mercantilists say that in the pursuit of security, be it defensive or aggressive, the state seeks to
maximise wealth as an essential means to power.
 Just as wealth is a necessary condition for state power, so power is an essential means to wealth
creation. Mercantilists believe that the power of the state serves the dual purpose of acquiring and
securing wealth.
Essentially, mercantilism is an economic philosophy that believes that economic management should be
part of the state‘s pursuit of its national interests defined in terms of wealth, power, and prestige. In theory
if not in practice, mercantilism fell into disrepute towards the end of the eighteenth century. One reason
for this was the publication of Adam Smith‘s Wealth of Nations (1776). This rightly famous liberal text
set out explicitly to demonstrate that mercantilism was flawed. Among other criticisms of mercantilism,
Smith suggested that it was inefficient for a state to produce a product that could be produced more
cheaply elsewhere. Later this would become the basis for David Ricardo‘s theory of comparative
advantage and the doctrine of free trade. It would be a mistake to think that mercantilism is dead and
buried, however. Protectionist and neo-mercantilist policies continue to be a part of the economic thinking
of some states.
Economic liberalism provided the intellectual basis for the capitalistic way of running the economy. The
founder of economic liberalism was Adam Smith (1723-1790), a professor of logic and moral philosophy
at Glasgow University in Scotland. The rise of economic liberalism in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries served a severe blow to the then intellectual predominance of mercantilism. Gradually but
steadily, European states adopted liberal economic policies from the nineteenth century onwards. Britain
took the lead in promoting free trade policies abroad.
Economic liberalism has risen to ideological pre-eminence in the Western world since the nineteenth
century. Supported by globalisation and Western dominance in the international political economy, it has
become the new global ‗orthodoxy‘ in economic policy-making. Liberalism has gone through several
stages of development over the past three centuries and contemporary liberalism is more diverse than
many critics of neo-liberal globalisation acknowledge. It is important, therefore, to trace the evolution of
liberal thinking from its origins in the eighteenth century and to understand contemporary variants of
liberalism.
Shakoor Kakar
60
i. Classical liberalism; The work of Adam Smith, the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher and
political economist, is still regarded as the classical statement of liberal political economy. At the heart of
Smith‘s liberal critique was a rejection of state intervention in the economy as prescribed by
mercantilism. Liberal political economy advocates a market economy that promotes individual enterprise.
The state‘s role is to support, not hinder, the free interplay of market forces.
There are some key shared principles that characterise liberal thought from the eighteenth to the twenty-
first century. Among the most important are:
 Individualism and individual liberty in economy: The pursuit of individual self-interest is both an
expression of liberty and the engine of social and economic progress.
 Market mechanism: For liberals, the market is the natural, and most effective, mechanism for
coordinating individuals‘ pursuit of self-interest. The development of the market and the division
of labour is the prime source of economic growth.
 Limited government: They seek to limit the right of government to interfere in society and the
economy.
ii. Free Trade; With regard to international economic relations, classical liberals reject mercantilism‘s
portrayal of the international economy as a zero-sum game in which one nation‘s gain is another nation‘s
loss. Instead, all nations can benefit from an expanding global market through promoting free trade and
the international division of labour. Adam Smith criticised Britain‘s trade-restricting practices. It took
Britain until the mid-nineteenth century to put Smith‘s advice into practice and adopt a free trade policy.
iii. Twentieth-century liberal theory; After the Second World War, the United States and its allies
began rebuilding the foundations for an open and liberal international economy. A new institutional order,
comprising the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the GATT trading
system, provided a stable and reliable set of rules and norms for international economic relations. The
post-1945 era saw a remarkable expansion of international trade and a sustained period of economic
growth in the major economies of the world.
Two major strands of thought are central to twentieth-century liberal international relations theory:
 the concept of interdependence
 theories of international institutions and regimes.
The rapidly expanding international economy of the post-1945 era brought with it an unprecedented
increase in transboundary interactions, involving states and non-state actors alike. Trade and capital
flowed more freely, and global corporations came to dominate the international economy, thereby linking
distant economies more closely together. A plethora of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), such as
human rights, environmental and consumer groups, began to organise themselves transnationally, forming
ever-closer ties between societies. And at the highest level, new international organisations emerged to
deal with the various aspects of economic, social and political cooperation.
Liberal theorists, such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, saw in these trends the makings of a new
international order that is characterised by a high level of interdependence. Under conditions of
interdependence, a complex web of interactions binds states together with the result that national
Shakoor Kakar
61
autonomy is limited. Liberals consider this high degree of interconnectedness as having a mitigating
effect on international anarchy and conflict.
The rise of international institutions and regimes; The institutionalisation of cooperation, which
liberals attribute to interdependence, has given rise to a second major strand of neo-liberal thinking. The
post-war international system has seen a dramatic surge in international treaties, organisations and
regimes. An increasingly dense network of formal and informal agreements and a strengthening body of
international law now covers international commerce and public policy areas such as health, the
environment and human rights, leading to what many see as an emerging system of global governance.
Liberal theorists interpret this trend as the sign of a gradual but significant transformation of the
international system that would help ‗tame‘ international anarchy. It is clear from this definition that the
concept of regime encompasses more than just formal international organisations (e.g. World Bank, IMF).
For instance GATT/WTO trading order, this regime upholds the ‗one nation, one vote‘ principle in its
decision-making, and no trade deal is finalised until all nations have agreed to it.
Dependency Theory originated with the work of Hans Singer and Raúl Prebisch. In Dependency Theory,
economic processes are largely defined as external and based on a core-periphery model of a world
economy, rather than the internal approach of orthodox Marxism that sees economic exploitation
occurring on a nation-state scale. Today, Dependency Theory has evolved into World Systems Theory,
whose originator and leading scholar is Immanuel Wallerstein. World Systems Theory expands on many
of the basic ideas of Dependency Theory, but is an even more macro approach to economic and social
change, arguing that nation-states should not be the basic unit of socio-economic analysis at all, but rather
that international economic systems themselves are the key.
Shakoor Kakar
62
6. Imperialism
Outline
Introduction
1. Objectives of Imperialism
2. Examples of Imperialism
3. Relationship between Power and imperialism
5. Relationship between imperialism and nationalism
i. Imperialism as stimulator of national consciousness
ii. The aggressive nationalism
Introduction
Imperialism is the process of extending the rule of government beyond the boundaries of its original state.
Imperialism establishes a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state uses direct military or
economic means, to control the political sovereignty of another political entity. Imperialism therefore
implies the policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition
and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct control of territories or through indirect methods of
exerting control on the politics or economies of other countries.
Marxisits use the term imperialism as Lenin defined it: "the highest stage of capitalism", specifically the
era in which monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing the empires to compete amongst
themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world.
Economic imperialism, as this type of expansion is called, was first criticized severely by John A.
Hobson, who viewed it as the attempt of the capitalist classes in industrial nations to achieve economic
gain. Vladimir Ilich Lenin later elaborated this theory, as did subsequent Marxists. Marxist theory
maintained that imperialism leading to war was the inevitable and final result of economic competition. A
necessary corollary of the Marxist theory explained imperialism as a temporary phenomenon that
characterized relations among capitalist states and that would be superseded by a communist world order.
Marxist theory, however, fails to account for imperialism before the existence of capitalism as well as for
those imperial policies that the Soviet Union subsequently pursued.
After World War II imperialism took a new form. The old empires no longer existed; the former colonies
became independent states, often after prolonged national liberation struggles. Until the 1990s the United
States and the USSR competed for influence over these new nations, usually through economic and
military aid to their governments. Direct military intervention was usually a last resort; certain prominent
examples include American intervention in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and Panama; Soviet use of
Cuban troops in Africa; and the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Britain and France also
continued to exert economic influence over some of their former colonies in Africa. Less developed
countries decry modern economic imperialism (called neoimperialism), asserting that it seriously hampers
their efforts toward economic growth and independence. Many poor Arabs considered the 1991
PERSIAN GULF WAR imperialist, charging that it was waged to ensure that the industrialized world
would continue to have access to cheap oil.
1. Objectives of Imperialism
• Economic Gain: to secure raw materials, or gain access to trade routes or to the sea
• National Prestige: imperialism is often portrayed as „manifest destiny‟ or intrinsic superiority
• Military or Defense Needs: to gain control over strategic areas
Shakoor Kakar
63
• Surplus Population: over-populated states can find relief through migration to colonies • ‗While Man‘s
Burden‘: obligation to civilize savages
• Marxist-Leninist View: imperialism compelled by control markets for surplus production and
investment, Communists were imperialist too.
2. Examples of Imperialism
i. US Imperialism: under the guise of the Monroe Doctrine (1823) the US exerted control over Latin
America under the guise of protecting interference of the European powers in the affairs of independent
states of the New World.
ii. Russian Imperialism: initially the imperialistic urge was confined to contiguous territories but with
advent of the Cold War, Russian imperialism spread to the Asian, African and South American
continents, filling in the vacuum left by the decreasing influence of colonial European powers.
iii. Japanese Imperialism: as Japan industrialized and became increasingly militarized prior to WWII, it
annexed parts of Korea and China. Thereafter Japanese imperialistic influence has primarily been
economic.
3. Relationship between Power and imperialism
i. Three Pattern of Power

According to Morgenthau Power has three essential patterns: To keep Power, to increase power, and to
demonstrate power.
A state whose foreign policy tends to keep power, it pursues the policy of status-que
A state whose foreign policy seeks to demonstrate the power, it pursues the policy of prestige.
A state whose fporeign policy aims to increase power, it pursues the policy of imperialism.
Thus in IR imperialism is define as a policy that aims at overthrow of status que.
Thus, power and imperialism both are natural allies. Power persuades the states and individuals to
disregard the existing power relation and commit an offence that may termed as imperialism.
There may be three motives behind every imperialist policy such as victorious war , restoration from a
previous defeat and power vacuum.
Power can be defined as one person‘s control on the action and mind of the other. however at interstate
level one state has a power on other state if she can persuade or force other state for its own vested
interest. Sigmund Freud justifies that aggression is a human instinct. Hobbes argue that the scarcity of
resources against the abundance of population compel us to be in a perpetual state of war. Hence for the
sake of stability, Leviathan state is required to subdue human evil and aggressive side of the human
beings.
The above statement justify the realist doctrine and prove that the realist paradigm offer a legitimate
pretext for traditional imperialism.

To Lenin, Imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism.
The surplus capital is a main drive that persuaded the state like Britain and france to colonize the rest of
the world and become great imperialists of 19th century.
The industrial revolution and the heap of production forced the respective government to acquire markets
for their growing manufacturer.
Trade under the flag became the main drive behind the imperialist policies of countries like and France.
It became easier for imperialist to negotiate the business term with her colonies rather than with a
sovereign state.
Shakoor Kakar
64
5. Relationship between imperialism and nationalism

Imperialism is a phenomenon, driven from the lust of power. Whenever the status que gets disturb
decisively by an offence, it may be called imperialism.
Imperialism constitutes a unique relationship with imperialism. Imperialism is dubbed as natural enemy
of nationalism because when an imperialist policy disregard the status que and demonstrate power, enters
a foreign territory and subdue the people, indeed it disregard the nationalism of the nation. Imperialism
not only violate the boundaries but also exploit the resources, the culture, the ethics and heritage of the
nation under question.
Imperialism has an ironical relationship with nationalism as nationalism contains the germs of
imperialism.
An aggressive nationalism becomes imperialsm when it imposes war and annexstate in the name of
national pride and prestige. Eg napolianic France , lobenzeron policy of hitler‘s Germany.
i. Imperialism as stimulator of national consciousness

Imperialism imposes its order on foreign lands, provokes the national consciousness of the masses, as J.A
Hobson argues that ―imperialism in some way stimulates the passion of nationalism‖
ii. The aggressive nationalism

The aggressive nationalism is an artificial stimulation of nationalism. It is a systematic way to convert a
pacific and passive internal force into an exclusive, active and hostile force.
E.g. Napoleonic France broke the status-que of neighboring states. His wars, according to him, were the
nationalist war, meant to spread the lofty ideas of French revolution. But for others, it was an imperialist
policy. When French nationalism imperialized the territories , it stirred the consciousness of the subject
nations. The used the noble message of French revolution against French imperialism.
So imperialism that commenced with divergent nationalism stimulated nationalism in order to counter
imperialism.
The dominant economic order which prevailed for four decades after WWII is referred to as IEO.
Economics based on nationalistic grounds has received a lot of criticism. The control of capital and use of
neo-colonial and imperialistic tendencies in terms of trade resulted in large disparities around the world.
Reacting to the inequitable economic situation, countries of the South articulated a strategy to alter the
structure of international economic systems. The NIEO called for economic justice and balanced
economic growth.
One of the most significant and potentially far-reaching events of the 1970s took place in 1974. On that
day the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly made its Declaration on the
Establishment of a New International Economic Order. The ground for the Declaration was prepared by a
series of international meetings covering various issues of trade and development, culminating in the
Fourth Conference of Heads of States or Governments of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Algiers, in
September 1973. The task was to declare unequivocally its determination to overthrow the Old
International Economic Order - which was of course the World Order prevailing at the time - and
establish in its place the New International Economic Order.
NIEO also challenged the structure of the international financial institutions like the IMF and World
Bank, in which two thirds of the world population has less than a third of the voting power. Predictably,
the rich industrialized countries pretended as a first reaction to be open to the idea of a New International
Shakoor Kakar
65
Economic Order but in reality felt seriously threatened. The then US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger,
as indeed befitted the then leading protagonist of the hegemony of the Northern Hemisphere in the
Existing World Order, realized the threat to this hegemony if the NIEO ever became a reality. He
therefore took it upon himself to lead the campaign at the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations
held in September 1975 to strangle the NIEO in its cradle.
Economic sanctions are not successful, why coment.?
Economic santions are economic measures to achieve political objective, to President Woodrow Wilson it
is ―an organize moral force of men”
The whole logic of economic santions are based on the Moral principle with asingle most desire to avoid
war and conflict between or among the states.
If the aim of economic sanctions is to restore democracy, human rightsor to stop miseries without
engaging military foorce, the sanctions have been failed in most of the cases with a big margin, for
instance, in Haiti, Iraq and Yugoslavia, UN had to execute force.
Secondly, if the main aim of sanctions is to prevent the human holocaust in the target states, it also failed
in the very purpose. . sanctions deteriorated the standard of living in Iraqand Haiti. The unemployment
and inflation broke the record.
Economic sanctions in the case of Iraq caused a major health crisis that led to severe illness and death of
thousand. The US sanctions against Bughdad regime trespassed all moral and humanitarian standard as it
killed more than 200000 childern under the age of five.
Similarly, in Haiti as observed by Elizabeth the child mortality rate increased.
The people of Yugoslavia had to suffer social and economichardship during the UN ecomnomic
sanctions.
The sanctions also failed to achieve political objective,. In the case of First Gulf war despite of sanction,
the military force had to be used in order to expel Iraq from Kuwait. And Sadam govt finally had to meet
his final fate in Anglo US attack against Iraq.
The sanctions also failed in their aim to intensify the element of hatred in Masses against the autocratic
ruler. The sanction gave impetus to National consciousness of the targeted states.the whole situation
actualy strengthen the hand of the dictator than weakening him. The continuing fame of F Castro, M
Qaddafi‘s popularity as a chapion of Arab nationalism are the striking example in this regard.
Conclusion; Despite the above analyses it would be wrong to say that the economic sanction is altogether
a failure. They become quite effective when employed as succeful bargaining force under the carrot and
sticks diplomacy.
Shakoor Kakar
66
Chapter Seven
International Political community
 Having discussed ―The Nation-State System‖ ―International System‖ ―International Political

Security‖ ―International Political Economy‖ now it will be convenient to explore the broader
picture of all thses topics--“International Political community” It can be comprehended under
the following Concepts;
1. Nationalism
2. Internationalism
3. Globalization
4. Global Civil Society
1. NATIONALISM
Outline
Introduction
1. Nation
2. Roots of nationalism
3. The role of nationalism in international relations
Q: Is nationalism ultimately about preserving cultural identity against global pressure towards
homogenization? Discuss. 2013
Q: Discuss "Nationalism" and define its silent features in the post-cold war situation and explain its grave
consequences with reference to Eastern Europe, African continent and South Asian tragic incidents. Also
debate whether the UN and superpowers played any role in preventing bloodbath in the regions. 2012
Introduction
Any examination of nationalism must be preceded by some kind of definition of what constitutes a nation.
This question is complicated by the manner in which people often use the terms nation, state, and country
interchangeably. The last two terms refer to political entities. The first is a term used to describe a group
of people who may or may not live in the same state or country.
1. Nation
Definitions of nation or nationality rely either upon objective or subjective criteria, or on some
combination of the two.
Most objective definitions of nationality rely on the commonality of some particular trait among members
of a group. Shared language, religion, ethnicity (common descent), and culture have all been used as
criteria for defining nations. A casual examination of the history of national differentiation indicates that
these factors often reinforce each other in the determination of a nationality. Certain nationalities, such as
the Croats, are now defined as distinct from Serbs almost exclusively on the basis of religious differences.
Likewise, Urdu-speaking Pakistanis are distinguished from Hindi-speaking Indians largely because of
Shakoor Kakar
67
religion. In other cases, however, a shared religion seems a less accurate method for drawing the
boundaries of a nationality. The German nation, for example, is divided mainly among Protestants and
Catholics. Conversely, the inhabitants of France and Italy, though both overwhelmingly Catholic, belong
to two different nationalities. One of the most frequently used of all the objective marks of nationality is a
common language. Indeed, a shared language has been a very powerful factor in national unification. Yet
this definition, too, is fraught with difficulties. For one thing, what we today call national languages are,
to one degree or another, artificial constructs. This is certainly true in the case of many of the languages
of east-central Europe and of the non-European world.
Hence, while objective traits can be useful as very rough criteria for defining the existence of a nation,
they are not enough. Indeed, a nation may be a very subjective entity. Many students of nationalism are
eventually led to the (almost tautological) conclusion that people belong to a certain nation if they feel
that they belong to it. As an ideology, nationalism is the claim that people belonging to a particular group
called a nation should inhabit a particular area and control a state of their own. Such a definition points to
nationalism as a method of drawing boundaries among people. Whether nationalism is viewed as an
ideology or a state of mind, one can still ask why did so many people abandon earlier, universalist
ideologies (e.g. Christianity) and non-national self-identifications (e.g. occupation or social status)?
2. Roots of nationalism
Some trace the roots of nationalism to the Reformation. The Reformation itself was important in the
development of proto-nationalist feeling, especially when considered in light of the revolution in printing
and publications in various vernaculars (as opposed to the universalist Latin), which weakened the church
hierarchy as interpreters of the Bible and laid the groundwork for the establishment of the nation. Most
people continued to identify themselves by their nationality rather than their religious affiliation.
The growth of the centralised state as well as the fascination with vernacular languages fostered the
growth of nationalism. The modern state needed to promote a common language among its subjects.
Public (i.e. state-run) schools emerged at precisely the time when nationalism was growing. The state
used its schools to teach a common national (i.e. enforced) language, partly to reinforce a sense of loyalty
to the state.
3. The role of nationalism in international relations
The role of nationalism in international relations is ambiguous. On the one hand, nationalism provides a
justification for dividing humanity on the basis of territory. On the other hand, since many territorial
boundaries were determined prior to the rise of nationalism (particularly in Asia, the Middle East, and
Africa), the principle of national self-determination is deeply subversive of contemporary international
law based on state sovereignty. There are no signs that this paradox is about to come to an end in the
foreseeable future.
2. Internationalism
Shakoor Kakar
68
3. Globalization
Outline
Definition
Introduction
1. Globalization and International Relations
2 .Characteristics of Globalization
3. Causes of globalization
4. Globalization and World Economy
5. Pattern of Globalization
6. International organizations in global politics
Q "Globalization " and "Regionalism " do you think these terms are antagonistic or complimentary? Give
examples in your arguments.
Q Is globalization under threat because of world economic crises? 2013
Q Define the term globalization. Do you believe its prospects are threatened because of the current
economic crises in general and third world economies in particular? 2014
Definition
Globalization is variously defined in the literature as:

1. ―The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local
happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.’(Giddens 1990: 21)
2. ―The integration of the world-economy.‖ (Gilpin 2001:364)
3.‖ De-territoriatization—or ... the growth of supraterritorial relations between people‖ (Scholte 2000: 46)
4. ―time-space compression.‖ (Harvey 1989)
Introduction
Globalization is a stretching of social, political, and economic activities across political frontiers so that
events, decisions, and activities in one region of the world come to have significance for individuals and
communities in distant regions of the globe.
The events of 11 September 2001 (hereafter, 9/11), probably more than any other single event, brought
home just how globalized the contemporary world is. The subsequent war in Afghanistan (2001-2) and
the particularly controversial attack on Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent insurgency and civil war, are
further clear examples of what it means to call the current era globalized—they involved international
coalitions and transnational violent networks in conflicts that linked events in seemingly unrelated parts
of the world.
1. Globalization and International Relations
Globalization refers to processes, and activities that are allegedly promoting global interdependence and
perhaps, ultimately, global political and economic integration. Just as there are powerful forces of
integration at work through the shrinkage of distance on a global scale, so there are forces of
disintegration as well. Over the last three decades the sheer scale and scope of global interconnectedness
has become increasingly evident in every sphere from the economic to the cultural.
Shakoor Kakar
69
Globalization is a contentious issue in the study of world politics. Some—the hyperglobalists—argue that it
is bringing about the demise of the sovereign nation-state as global forces undermine the ability of
governments to control their own economies and societies. Others—the sceptics—reject the idea of
globalization as so much ‘globaloney’, and argue that states and geopolitics remain the principal
forces shaping world order. On the other hand a transformationalist perspective—arguing that both the
hyperglobalists and sceptics alike exaggerate their arguments and thereby misconstrue the contemporary
world order. By contrast, while the transformationalist perspective takes globalization seriously, it
acknowledges that it is leading not so much to the demise of the sovereign state but to a globalization of
politics: to the emergence of a conspicuously global politics in which the traditional distinction between
domestic and international affairs is not terribly meaningful.
2 .Characteristics of Globalisation
Globalisation has certain identifiable characteristics, although there is no consensus in the field about any
of them!
In the first place, it involves a growing consciousness of the world as a single place. This is reflected in
phrases such as ‗the global village‘ and ‗the global economy‘.
Second, new information and communications technology have improved access to overseas markets and
streamlined both the production and distribution of goods and the trade in foreign exchange.
Third, human beings are becoming more and more dependent upon one another as problems such as
global warming, the international drugs trade, and terrorism can only be managed through greater
cooperation at a supranational level.
Fourth, some observers argue that globalisation is erasing cultural differences. Sociologists, for example,
like to talk about the Coca-Colaisation or McDonaldisation of global culture.
Finally, some observers claim that the sovereign state‘s capacity for independent political action is
weakened by globalisation. This is especially true in the area of economic policy. The idea of a domestic
economy hemmed in by well-defined borders and managed by the state is now obsolete. Today, domestic
economic policy is subject to global market forces. The state has little effective influence or control over
these forces. Any state that tries to exert its influence risks disinvestment, capital flight, and recession. In
short, globalisation involves a radical transformation of existing economic and political structures in
international relations. It involves an aspiration to think and act globally.
3. Causes of globalization
The causes of globalisation are many. Among the most important are liberal capitalism and the revolution
in information and communications technologies.
i. Liberal capitalism simply refers to the conjunction of liberal values (freedom, human rights,
individualism, and democracy) with an economic system based on the market. This world view is widely
held to have triumphed over communism and the idea of a planned economy, resulting in an international
environment conducive to the free movement of capital and goods.
Shakoor Kakar
70
There is no agreement among scholars as to the origins of globalisation. It has been dated as far back as
the dawn of Western civilisation. Some look to the origins of the modern state system for signs of
globalisation, while others speak about the significance of the laying of the first transatlantic telegraph
cable in the mid-nineteenth century.
ii. Non-governmental organisations; Nevertheless, what distinguishes globalisation today is the

intensity and the speed at which these changes are occurring. This is easily demonstrated by the rapid
increase in the number of non-governmental organisations. At the beginning of the twentieth century
there were around 170 in existence. Today the figure stands at around 5,500. Interestingly, around 1980
the figure stood at close to 2,500. That represents a 100 per cent increase in 20 years. There is no doubt,
then, that the 1980s were a crucial turning point in the history of this concept.
4. Globalization and World Economy
The nature and impact of globalization is the subject of profound debate within International Political
Economy (IPE). Worldwide economic integration has intensified as the expansion of global commerce,
finance, and production links together the fate of nations, communities, and households across the
world‘s major economic regions and beyond within an emerging global market economy. Crises in one
region, whether the collapse of the Argentinean economy in 2002 or the East Asian recession of 1997,
take their toll on jobs, production, savings, and investment many thousands of miles away, while a
slowdown in the US economy is felt everywhere from Birmingham to Bangkok.
The globalists argue that the nation state has become an unnatural, even dysfunctional, unit for
organizing human activity and managing economic endeavour in a borderless world. It represents no
genuine, shared community of economic interest; it defines no meaningful flows of economic activity.
Institutionalists argue that international institutions will play an important and positive role in ensuring
that globalization results in widely spread benefits in the world-economy.
Realists and neo-realists reject the institutionalist argument on the grounds that it does not account for the
unwillingness of states ever to sacrifice power relative to other states.
Constructivists pay more attention to how governments, states, and other actors construct their
preferences, highlighting the role that state identities, dominant beliefs, and ongoing debates and
contestation plays in this process.
Globalization increases the challenges faced by all actors in the world-economy: states, firms,
transnational actors, and international organizations. Strong states are trying to shape institutions to
manage financial crises, powerful NGOs, and globalizing firms. Weak states are trying to survive
increasingly precarious and changeable economic circumstances.
5. Pattern of Globalization
The patterns of contemporary globalization are uneven, Globalization, to varying degrees, is evident in all
the principal sectors of social activity:
Shakoor Kakar
71
Economic: in the economic sphere, patterns of worldwide trade, finance, and production are creating
global markets and, in the process, a single global capitalist economy. Multinational corporations
organize production and marketing on a global basis while the operation of global financial markets
determines which countries get credit and upon what terms.
Military: in the military domain the global arms trade, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
the growth of transnational terrorism, the growing significance of transnational military corporations, and
the discourse of global insecurity point to the existence of a global military order.
Legal: the expansion of transnational and international law from trade to human rights alongside the
creation of new world legal institutions such as the International Criminal Court is indicative of an
emerging global legal order.
Ecological: a shared ecology involves shared environmental problems, from global warming to species
protection, alongside the creation of multilateral responses and regimes of global environmental
governance.
Cultural: involves a complex mix of homogenization and increased heterogeneity given the global
diffusion of popular culture, global media corporations, communications networks, etc., simultaneously
with the reassertion of nationalism, ethnicity, and difference. But few cultures are hermetically sealed off
from cultural interaction.
Social: shifting patterns of migration from South to North and East to West have turned migration into a
major global issue as movements come close to the record levels of the great nineteenth century
movements of people.
6. International organizations in global politics
In diplomacy, international law, journalism, and academic analysis, it is widely assumed that international
relations consist of the relations between coherent units called states. This chapter will argue that better
understanding of political change is obtained by analyzing the relations between governments and many
other actors from each country. Global politics also includes companies and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). Thus the five main categories of political actors in the global system are:
• nearly 200 governments in the global system, including 192 members of the UN;
• 77,200 transnational companies (TNCs), such as Vodaphone, Ford, Shell, Microsoft, or Nestle,
with these parent companies having just over 773,000 foreign affiliates;
• more than 10,000 single-country non-governmental organizations, such as Population Concern

(UK), or the Sierra Club (USA), which have significant transnational activities;
• 246 intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), such as the UN, NATO, the European Union, or the
International Coffee Organization; and
• 7,300 international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), such as Amnesty International, the

Baptist World Alliance or the International Chamber of Shipping, plus a similar number of less
well-established international caucuses and networks of NGOs.
Shakoor Kakar
72
All these actors play a regular part in global politics and each government interacts with a diverse range
of non-state actors. Sometimes guerrilla groups challenge the authority of particular governments. In
addition, even though they are considered not to be legitimate participants in the system, terrorists and
other criminal gangs have an impact, often minor, but sometimes in a major way. Very many more
companies and NGOs only operate in a single country, but have the potential to expand into other
countries.
What is Transnational actor?
It is possible to define international relations as covering the relations between states. This is known as
the state-centric approach, or Realism. Then it is only a tautology (true by definition) to say that non-state
actors are of secondary importance. A more open-ended approach, known as Pluralism, is based on the
assumption that all types of actor can affect political outcomes. The very words, non-state actors, imply
that states are dominant and other actors are secondary. An alternative phrase, transnational actors, has
been coined by academics in order to assert forcefully that international relations are not limited to
governments and other actors operate across country boundaries.
The great advantage of the state-centric approach is that the bewildering complexity of world politics is
reduced to the relative simplicity of the interactions of less than 200 supposedly similar units. However,
there are four major problems with state-centric approach.
There is ambiguity between different meanings of a state. The concept of the state has three very different
meanings: a legal person, a political community, and a government.
The second problem is the lack of similarity between countries. Giving all states the same legal status
implies they are all essentially the same type of unit, when in fact they are not remotely similar.
The countries and governments around the world may be equal in law, but have few political similarities.
Many governments control fewer resources than many transnational actors.
It cannot be assumed that all country-based political systems are more coherent than global systems,
particularly as national loyalties do not match country boundaries.
By abandoning the language of states and ‘non-state’ actors, we can admit the possibility of theorizing
about many types of actors in global politics. By distinguishing government from society and nation from
country, we can ask whether private groups, companies, and national minorities in each country engage in
transnational relations.
Shakoor Kakar
73
4. Global Civil Society

1. The architecture of globalization
2. Decline of National interest
3. Morality versus Power; international humanitarian intervention
Introduction
First we should define civil society. Civil society refers to a public space where citizens and groups can
engage in political activities independently of the state. It consists of diverse non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that are strong enough to counterbalance the state. Thus one of the benefits of a
healthy civil society is that it reduces the coercive power of the state and helps it to become more
responsive to the needs of its citizens. Developing a strong civil society is often seen as a strategy for
overcoming political tyranny and is crucial to the whole process of democratization.
In international relations the emergence of politically active, internationally oriented groups with highly
developed networks and relationships, and an ability to pool resources and use sophisticated information
and communications technology, has led to a blossoming literature on the subject of an emerging global
civil society. There are now many thousands of non-governmental organizations, political networks,
single-issue groups, voluntary associations, and transnational social movements that stand largely outside
the machinations of the state system, although some of them are also an important source of expertise and
knowledge for states coping with global problems.
The significance of these groups is as outlined below.

i. They form political communities and maintain a sense of solidarity among their ranks.
ii. Many of them are organized on a global scale and they do not regard borders as an impediment to
effective political action.
iii. They do not regard the state as the only legitimate authority in the international arena.
vi. They are mainly concerned with political issues that transcend territorial boundaries.
v. They generally promote a cosmopolitan ethical code that they would like to see all states accept and
practice.
1. The architecture of globalization
For some commentators, global civil society is part of the architecture of globalization and, as such,
provides new ways for individuals to think and act politically. It provides a space for marginal groups to
have a political voice, it helps to create new collective identities, it increases the level of awareness of
global problems, and fosters opportunities for new forms of global governance.
Global civil society theorists cover an increasingly wide range of perspectives and views, including
constructivists, critical theorists, normative theorists and postmodernists. All of these approaches focus on
the break between old forms of ‗citizenship‘ tied to the nation-state and new forms of moral and political
community. All the theorists locate global civic actors as the source of moral action and their break from
conventional state-based politics as the strategic basis for radical political change.
Today there is a growing consensus that morality is returning to the study and practice of international
relations. This optimism is grounded in the belief that the nation-state, which long held a central position
in the international order, has been increasingly side-lined by new international actors, orientated around
more universalist beliefs and motivations. In particular, the world‘s states are held to be squeezed from
Shakoor Kakar
74
‗above‘ by institutional frameworks the growth of new forms of global governance, and from ‗below‘ by
a myriad of non-state actors and networks, which operate on both a domestic and an international level.
The boundaries of sovereignty, once seen to clearly demarcate a geo-political map of the world, now
seem to be much more ‗fuzzy‘ Instead of state interests being the determining factor in world affairs, it
appears the debate is increasingly opening out to encompass more and more voices. At every level it
seems new approaches are being taken to decision-making and at the heart of this process of change has
appeared a new actor, global civil society.
Over the last fifteen years it appears that the international realm has been transformed, no longer the
sphere of violence and competition of the ‗war of all against all‘, the international is the sphere of
transnational values and transnational actors increasingly able to influence and overcome the selfish and
narrow interest of national elites. Analysts of global civil society argue that a new normative and ethical
international agenda demonstrates the waning influence of the sovereign state pre-occupied with national
concerns. Kaldor asserts: ‗The new meaning of civil society offers expanded possibilities for human
emancipation.‘ While for John Clark, ‗the time is ripe for ―ethical globalisation‖ morally underpinned by
new activist citizens‘ networks‘.
2. Decline of National interest
Today the key actor in international relations, the nation-state, appears to have lost the capacity or will to
pursue its self-interest defined in terms of power. Commentators from a variety of theoretical perspectives
argue that the most developed nation-states increasingly see themselves as having moral obligations to
international society.
There is a new consensus, expressed most clearly by global civil society theorists, that the foreign policy
of leading Western powers cannot be understood through considering nation-states as egoistic actors
pursing narrow self-interest. Since the end of the Cold War, major states have increasingly stressed the
importance of ethics and values in the shaping of international goals and have intervened internationally
on the basis of ‗other-regarding‘ concerns such as human rights and international justice. Many
commentators have understood this shift to ‗value-led‘ or ‗ethical‘ foreign policy through a constructivist
approach to the question, viewing this value shift as a response to international pressures of global civil
society networks and new cosmopolitan constituencies.
3. Morality versus Power; international humanitarian intervention
The debate over international humanitarian intervention and the protection of human rights is at the core
of the constructivist thesis. The clearest clash between global morality and international or state based
international rules has been over humanitarian intervention and the international enforcement of human
rights protections. For constructivist theorists of global civil society, the shift in the debate between the
values of sovereignty and non-intervention and those of intervention and individual rights protection
demonstrates the growing capacity of moral values to constrain the interests of power. A lead article in
Foreign Affairs argues: ‗Humanitarian intervention…is perhaps the most dramatic example of the new
power of morality in international affairs.‘
Shakoor Kakar
75
Chapter Eight:
Approaches to Peace
 Having been discussed in detail the international Community with almost all expected dimension,
now we embark upon the topic; ―Approaches to Peace‖ which is the core of IR. It can be
categorized under the following topics:
1. Diplomacy
2. International Law
3. Arms Control /Disarmament and Nuclear Non-proliferation Regime
1. Diplomacy
Q: Do you believe that diplomacy is the ultimate way to resolve the international dispute? What
diplomatic means are significant to realize that goal in general and Pakistan and India in particular. CSS
2014
Q: Describe interactions among Nations through diplomacy for establishing balance of power to preserve
their National Interest. CSS 2007
Q: Discuss "Diplomacy" and define its kinds. Explain diplomatic means which can help to resolve
disputes and conflicts in the world. CSS 2012
Q: Do you believe that Diplomacy is the ultimate way to resolve international disputes? What diplomatic
means are significant to realize that goal in general and Pakistan-India in particular? CSS 2014
1. Definitions of Diplomacy
2. How Diplomacy Functions
3. Diplomacy & Foreign Policy: What‘s the Difference?
4. KIND OF DIPLOMACY
i. Traditional Diplomacy
ii. New Diplomacy
iii. Cold War Diplomacy
iv. Bilateral and Multilateral diplomacy
5. Instruments of Diplomacy
6. Diplomacy as an instrument to avoid Wars
a) Positive Diplomacy:
b) Negative Diplomacy:
c) Coercive Diplomacy:
d) carrot and stick diplomacy:
e) Economic Sanction
1. Definitions of Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the management of IR through negotiations or the method by which these relations are
adjusted or managed. Diplomacy tries to achieve the maximum objectives (national interests) with a
minimum of costs in a system of politics where war remains a possibility.
In a broad sense, diplomacy is the entire process through which states conduct their foreign relations. It is
the means for allies to cooperate and for adversaries to resolve conflicts without force. States
communicate, bargain, influence one another, and adjust their differences through diplomacy. It is
interesting to note that serious confrontations between the great powers since 1815 have ended in force
only about 10 per cent of the time. The routine business of international affairs is conducted through the
peaceful instrument of diplomacy.
Shakoor Kakar
76
Diplomacy aims to further a state‘s particular goals whilst preserving international order. It is the tool that
states use to get their way without arousing the animosity of other states. Diplomats must constantly
balance the need to protect their state‘s interests and to avoid conflict with other states.
2. How Diplomacy Functions

Diplomatic representatives are the ‗eyes and ears‘ of their government; their cables and reports form part
of the raw material from which foreign policy is developed. Diplomacy functions through a network of
foreign officers, embassies, consulates, and special missions operating around the globe. Diplomacy is
bilateral in character but as a result of growing international and regional organizations, it is becoming
increasingly multilateral in character.
Diplomatic functions include reporting socio-cultural, economic and political conditions of the host
country to the home country for formulating diplomatic strategies and formulating foreign policies.
Negotiating includes transmission of messages between foreign ministries of host and home states and the
pursuit of agreements by compromise and direct contact.
3. Diplomacy & Foreign Policy: What‟s the Difference?

Diplomacy is a process through which foreign policy is calibered into a strategic reality. Foregn policy is
merely a composite rhetoric or a statement, far from reality, the medium through which a foreign policy is
materialized into a strategic reality is diplomacy. Diplomacy is the method and process by which foreign
policy is pursued but it is not a policy onto itself. Outcome of diplomatic negotiations can effect foreign
policy options.
4. KIND OF DIPLOMACY
i. Traditional Diplomacy
Traditional diplomacy assumed that major European powers had special responsibility for maintaining
world peace and the colonies had no more significant diplomatic role than that of satellites. Traditional
diplomacy was professional but secretive and relied on a limited cadre rather than extended diplomatic
channels. It constituted a communication process between modern states rather than between other form
of political organizations.
ii. New Diplomacy

The perceived failure of diplomacy to prevent 1st world war led to the demand of a new Diplomacy. New
diplomacy is less secretive and more open and democratic; it requires reciprocal bargains and
compromises. The stae are no longer the only actors. They have to share the international stage with other
non-state actors. Multilateralism is increasingly evident in the practice of New diplomacy. It includes
conference or summit diplomacy.
iii. Cold War Diplomacy

Cold war produced very delicate, and dangerous for m of Diplomacy. It was a diplomacy to avoid nuclear
war but also to win the cold war.
iv. Bilateral and Multilateral diplomacy

There are two major forms of diplomacy. The simplest and the oldest is bilateral diplomacy between two
states. Bilateral diplomacy is still common with many treaties between two states, and it is a main concern
of embassies.
Formal multilateral diplomacy is normally dated to the Congress of Vienna in the nineteenth century. The
growth of interdependence among states, and the expansion of the old Eurocentric state system into a
Shakoor Kakar
77
global international society, has brought in its wake the emergence of an increasingly multilateral style of
diplomacy. Multilateral management is essential for many issues that involve cooperative arrangements
among governments. This is the case in such areas as nuclear proliferation, arms control, trade regulation,
and the suppression of terrorism. The United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations convene
periodic conferences to deal with problems of food, population growth, the environment, and other issues
of global concern. Since most of the less developed countries make the greater part of their diplomatic
contacts at the United Nations, many issues of modern diplomacy are addressed in this multilateral forum.
5. Instruments of Diplomacy
Most nation-states maintain state departments of Foreign Affairs or a Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Foreign
office officials include career diplomats and political diplomats appointed by home governments.
Ambassadors head foreign missions and serve as the personal representative of the home state in host
country (they can be career diplomats or political appointees).
Councilors of embassies rank second to the ambassador and are career diplomats.
Secretaries, with first, second and third rankings are mid-career officials implementing foreign policies of
their home countries.
Attaches are junior career or non-career personnel focusing on specific areas (commercial, agricultural,
naval, press attaches are common).
6. DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTRUMENT TO AVOID WARS

“When diplomacy failed war becomes inevitable‖ Morgenthau
Morgenthau observes, ―The method of establishing preconditions for permanent peace is peace through
accommodations, its instrument is diplomacy‖
It is also claimed that diplomacy in its implications is never clear and moral. Diplomacy implies
compromises, bargain and deals. Through diplomacy the states take complete reversal and holds peace
talks with dictators, conducts strategic deals with genociders and shake hands with International
criminals, e.g. the international legitimization of military regime in Pakistan, US Moral and military
support to Muslim fundamentalists during Afghan war.
Some variants of Diplomacy to avoid War

The contemporary politics exhibits two explicit variant of Diplomacy.
a) Positive Diplomacy:
In political conditions where the interests of the two are close enough to be reconciled, positive
diplomacy take place. E.g. The treaties and compromises held at NATO, EU and NAFTA.
b) Negative Diplomacy:
In situation where capabilities of states are unequal along with colliding goals and interests, negative or
coercive diplomacy takes place.
c) Coercive Diplomacy:
It is liberal way toresolve the conflict without resorting to wars, e.g. economic, trade Sanctions.
d) carrot and stick diplomacy:
The sanctions become quite effective when employed as a successful bargaining force under the ‗carrot
and stick diplomacy‘ Research of the California University shows that the mixed use of sanctions and
incentives is three time more effective than relying solely on coercive pressure.
e) Economic Sanction
Woodrow Wilson conceived economic sanctions as an alternative to wars with the firm conviction that
the former is an effective instrument of foreign policy and it works more efficiently than the military
force. But other groups contradicts the perceptions and argue that economic sanctions can only be
effective if and when force is available and ready to use. Statistics shows that in most of the cases the
Shakoor Kakar
78
sanctions have failed, e.g. in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Haiti the UN had to execute force. Other analyses
shows that the economic sanction proves worse than war, by violating the human rights and deteriorating
the standard of living of the masses from difficult to unbearable.
Shakoor Kakar
79
2. International Law
Q: International Law is a significant instrument in regulating conduct of states and International
Organizations. CSS 2001
Q: The introduction of the concepts of' Unilateralism and pre-emptive Strike'1 by President Bush has
eroded the basis of International law and Diplomacy, in inter-state relations. Discuss. CSS 2003
Q: "The Al- Qaeeda phobia has made USA a neurotic Super Power. She is disregarding the norms of
International Law and Diplomacy". Make your comments by a brief survey of US Global Policy. CSS
2010
Q: Define and explain the international Law. Does International Law have any real role in international
Relations? CSS 2011
Outline
1. Setting the stage
2. Introduction
3. Example of United States
4. Evolution of International Law
5. Naturalists vs. Positivists
6. Sources of International Law
7. Customary international law
8. Different Types of International Law
9. Formulation & Implementation of International Laws
10. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
11. International versus National Laws
12. The International laws of war
Conclusion
1. Setting the stage

Realists portray international relations as a struggle for power, a realm in which states are ‗continuously
preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organised violence in the form of war‘
(Morgenthau). States have strong incentives to free themselves from the insecurities of international
anarchy. To facilitate cooperation and achieve international order, states create international institutions.
To achieve international order, states have created international institutions. People often confuse
institutions and organizations, incorrectly using the two terms interchangeably. International institutions
are commonly defined as complexes of norms, rules, and practices that ‗prescribe behavioral roles,
constrain activity, and shape expectations‘ (Keohane 1989a: 3). International organizations, like the
United Nations, are physical entities that have staff, head offices, and letterheads. There are three levels of
institutions in modern international society: constitutional institutions,5 fundamental institutions6, and
5
Constitutional institutions comprise the primary rules and norms of international society, without which society
among sovereign states could not exist. The most commonly recognized of these is the norm of sovereignty, which
holds that within the state, power and authority are centralized and hierarchical, and outside the state no higher
authority exists.
6
Fundamental institutions rest on the foundation provided by constitutional institutions. They represent the basic
norms and practices that sovereign states employ to facilitate coexistence and cooperation under conditions of
international anarchy.
Shakoor Kakar
80
issue-specific institutions or ‗regimes‘7. Fundamental institutions in international law are one of the most
important.
2. Introduction
Broadly speaking there are two kinds of international law: private and public. The former is concerned
with the resolution of international disputes between individuals and companies, while the latter governs
relations between states. It includes such things as claims to territory, use of the sea, arms control, and
human rights.
All states have a supreme law-making body. The international community, however, has no equivalent
authority. Instead, treaties are the principal means by which states establish legal obligations binding on
each other. Since there are more and more activities that require international cooperation, treaties have
proliferated and now deal with an enormous variety of subjects. There are two main types of treaties. A
bilateral treaty is concluded between two states whereas a multilateral treaty is concluded by more than
two states. The most significant treaties are multilateral treaties concluded between all the states of the
world.
3. Example of United States

Each state has its own constitutional practices regulating the treaty making power of its government. For
example, in the United States the Constitution controls treaty-making power. The President can make
treaties, which become binding only with the agreement of two thirds of the US Senate. International
agreements that are not treaties, otherwise known as executive agreements, can be made by the President
alone without the consent of the Senate and in recent years have become much more numerous than
treaties.
4. Evolution of International Law

Formulation of international law can be traced back to the third and fourth millenniums B.C. Early rulers
had made international rules to safeguard emissaries, initiation and cessation of hostilities and
arrangement of truces, and maritime laws.
European states contributed to international laws at a later stage in history. By the 14th century, scholars
were writing about international law. Hugo Grotius, for example, produced a momentous work on laws
concerning war and peace, emphasizing the independent nature of law.
During the eighteenth century, three prominent schools of thought concerning international law were
evident; the positivists, the naturalists and the Grotians. The naturalists believed in upholding morality
through laws. The positivists focused on practicalities and the consensual nature of these laws. The
Grotians combined both naturalists and positivist elements.
In the past century, the League and the UN system, and subsequently the International Court of Justice
have made important contributions to international law. Other institutions like IMF or WTO influence
laws concerning trade economic laws.
So long as international law was designed to facilitate international order, it was circumscribed in key
ways: states were the principle subjects and agents of international law; international law was concerned
7
They are the sets of rules, norms, and decision-making procedures that states formulate to define who constitute
legitimate actors and what constitutes legitimate action in a given domain of international life. Examples of
regimes are the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change,
Shakoor Kakar
81
with the regulation of inter-state relations; and the scope of international law was confined to questions of
order.
The quest for global governance is pushing international law into new areas, raising questions about
whether international law is transforming into a form of supranational law.
Individuals, and to some extent collectivities, are gradually acquiring rights and responsibilities under
international law, establishing their status as both subjects and agents under international law.
Non-governmental actors are becoming increasingly important in the development and codification of
international legal norms.
International law is increasingly affecting domestic legal regimes and practices, and the rules of the
international legal system are no longer confined to issues of order. As international humanitarian law
evolves, issues of global justice are permeating the international legal order.
5. Naturalists vs. Positivists

Naturalism and positivism developed side by side. Naturalists argued that Divine authority was the source
of all laws. They argued that such laws had international validity as they were relevant for all humans and
were consistent with logical deductions concerning our natural state.
There is not much evidence of wide bodies of natural laws being accepted just because of their logical
consistency or because of consistent obedience to Divine authority (St. Augustine was a prominent
naturalist).
Positivists argued that only those international laws had validity, which were adopted by consent of
sovereign states. Consent is therefore considered the basis for the sense of binding obligation implied by
international laws.
The Grotians or the eclectics treaded the middle path between the positivists and naturalists, conceding to
the relevance of both morality and consent.
6. Sources of International Law

Article 38 of the ICJ recognizes natural laws, general laws, custom and legal commentaries as the basic
sources of international law. Based on principles of universal acceptability, some natural laws are
applicable across the world. Based on the implicit or explicit consent of states, customary laws are mainly
based on customs or treaties. General laws defined with reference to terms like justice or rights, enables
jurists to fill in the gaps left by positivist laws. Legal commentaries help clarify, elaborate upon and apply
the broad nature of laws to specific circumstances.
7. Customary international law

Customary international law is the second most important source of international law. It is formed by the
common practices of states, which over a period of time become accepted as legally binding. Some
practices carried out by a few states only attain the status of regional customary international law whilst
other practices that are common to the vast majority of states attain the status of worldwide customary
law.
Today the multilateral treaty has overtaken it. Furthermore, the increase in the number of states from the
small ‗club of twenty‘ that existed after the First World War to today‘s 190 or so, has made it difficult to
prove the consensus of practice needed to establish customary international law. However, some of the
current law of the sea owes its development to the common practices of states, indicating that customary
international law is still very important.
Shakoor Kakar
82
The other main source of international law is United Nations Resolutions. Passed by the General
Assembly as recommendations in the first instance, they may create international legal obligations by
influencing the formation of customary international law and lead to the creation of multilateral treaties
dealing with the issues raised by the Resolution. Some Resolutions are so important they receive the
honorary title of Declaration.
8. Different Types of International Law
i. Private and Public Laws: private law concerns individuals, whereas public law concerns the behavior of
organizations and even states.
ii. Procedural and Substantive Laws: Procedural laws define types of permitted behavior whereas
substantive laws concern territorial rights of states.
iii. Laws of War and Peace: There are laws governing behavior of states in a state of war (concerning
rights of prisoners of war) and those meant to prevent outbreak of violence and promote peace.
iv: Particular and General Laws: General or universal laws are applicable to all sovereign states, whereas
particular laws are defined by bilateral or regional agreements.
Another viewpoint through which one can consider the topic of international law is to focus on the laws
of power, coordination and reciprocity.
Laws of power regulate master-slave relations. Those of coordination regulate relations amongst members
of the same group. Laws of reciprocity refer to the intermediary interaction which implies mutual benefit.
9. Formulation & Implementation of International Laws

There is no formal institution to make international laws, so they are made outside of formal institutions.
If a sufficient number of states follow a customary practice, it becomes an international custom. The
International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is composed of UN member states recommended by the
Security Council, has an advisory capacity to interpret treaties, but it lacks the authority of national
courts.
International tribunals also lack the authority of national judicial institutions. There is no international
institution to implement international laws. Individuals and states are treated as objects of international
laws. War crime tribunals were after WWII and after the massacres of Rwanda, the former president of
Serbia is being prosecuted for war crimes against the Muslims of Bosnia by the ICJ.
The most important aspect of international law is that it cannot be enforced in the same way as domestic
law. There is no international police force and states cannot be compelled to perform their legal
obligations since there is no higher authority than the states themselves. The main ways in which
international law is enforced between states are reciprocity and legal responsibility. States abide by their
legal obligations because they want other states to do the same. A good example is diplomatic immunity.
In addition, most states abide by international law most of the time because they want to be seen as law-
abiding and legally responsible.
10. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The vast majority of legal disputes between states are resolved through a combination of negotiation,
mediation, and conciliation. The international community does have a weak judicial procedure to arbitrate
disputes in the form of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It has 15 judges who are chosen to
represent the different geographical areas of the world. Its function is to decide disputes submitted to it by
states and to give advisory opinions on international legal matters submitted to it by international
organisations. Only states can take cases before the Court. Individuals, groups, or non-governmental
actors are prevented from taking complaints.
Shakoor Kakar
83
States cannot be forced to appear before the Court but will usually have signed a treaty which obliges
them to do so, or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in a declaration. The role of the ICJ has not
been without criticism. Many states have criticised the Court for declining to take a strong role in
international legal affairs. The Court has tended to be conservative and to favour the established legal
rights of the more powerful states. Like the United Nations, it relies on states taking into account world
public order rather than their own national interests when deciding to abide by international law and the
Court‘s decisions.
11. International versus National Laws

National laws have much greater legitimacy than international laws. While individuals rarely have
recourse to self-help within nations, states rely on self-help as a matter of norm lest they are bound by a
treaty of some sort. With the passage of time, international laws are becoming more accepted and
complex and sanctions and international censure ensure states to oblige to them.
12. The International laws of war

International law governing the use of force is rightly considered the core of the modern international
legal system. Traditionally, such law has divided into two types: jus ad bellum, the law governing when
states may use force or wage war, and jus in bello, the law governing the conduct of war once launched.
Conclusion
Despite its limitations, international law helps give shape to international order. It influences and channels
bilateral or even multilateral economic, social and political cooperation. It provides the normative
background based on which independent states can make their decisions.
Shakoor Kakar
84
3. Arms Control /Disarmament and Nuclear Non-proliferation Regime

Q: Define the Politics of Nuclear Proliferation. How far the super powers have been responsible for the
proliferation of Nuclear weapons? CSS 2010
Q: "Balance of terror and not of Power is helpful in maintaining Peace in the nuclear Power age
Comment. CSS 2001
Q: Explain the future of Disarmament with reference to the foreign policy Of major Powers. CSS 2001
Q: What is Nuclear Proliferation? How far the United States of America is justified in pursuing the.
policy of Non-proliferation towards North Korea and Iran? CSS 2003
Q: What is nuclear proliferation? How far the United states of America is justified in making a nuclear
deal with India? 2009
Q: Do you support the argument that Iran-US nuclear deal will bring a new wave of instability in the
region and can also cause serious implications for global non-proliferation regime? CSS 2014
Outline
1. Disarmament
2. Disarmament and Peace
3. Arguments for armament
4. Arguments for disarmament
5. Critique on Nuclear proliferation
6. Arms Controls
7. History of Disarmament
8. Disarmament after WWII
9. Disarmament efforts by the UN
10. Atoms for Peace Plan
11. Other Disarmament Efforts
12. CTBT
1. Disarmament
Disarmament is the attempt to eliminate or radically reduce armaments. It can be distinguished from the
concept of arms control, which entails restraint but not necessarily reduction in the number and kinds of
weapons available to states. Most disarmament proposals are based on the assumption that weapons are
an important source of conflict in themselves. Historically, disarmament has taken place in two
contrasting ways.
2. Disarmament and Peace

Realist believe that the missing order of international power structure is ―nuclear proliferation‖
Kenneth N Waltz in his thesis ―More may be better‖ argue that all the states should seek nuclear weapons
to enhance their own security. On other hand organizational theorist reject the logic of nuclear peace.
3. Arguments for armament

Weapons are not the causes but the consequences of conflictive relations. A historical survey of the arms
race indicates that during the past two centuries this form of international competition often ends
peacefully in recognition of the military superiority of one side or the other. Countries which have no
adequate defense tempt aggressors and therefore preparing for war is the best way to achieve peace.
i. In conventional war lack of military knowledge leads to miscalculation regarding the strength or
weakness of enemy but in the nuclear warfare one is not uncertain about losing and winning but rather
uncertain about surviving or being annihilated.
Shakoor Kakar
85
ii. Nuclear weapons are the only greatest equalizers in international system, through which the
balance of power can be achieved.
iii. The presence of nuclear weapons has overcome the security dilemma.
iv. In war between two nuclear states the stronger is always afraid because ― the gain are little than
the stake‖ therefore it refrains from aggression.
v. It cuts extra defence budget on conventional arms.
vi. It discourages the race of armaments.
vii. It acts as ―missing unifying order‖ in international relation.
viii. ―MAD‖ nuclear weapons, if used could cause worse destruction for both sides, this fact alone
guarantee peace.
ix. Nuclear weapons as absolute weapons, assured the absolute security of state.‘
x. In the presence of many nuclear states, Nuclear weapon in its character is highly defensive
weapon. So yet in control.
4. Arguments for disarmament

Arms and arms races are costly and potentially very bloody. Arms reduction can curtail defense burden
and allow economic investment for more productive purposes.
The unchecked growth of armaments without economic means can lead to internal repression and external
aggression.
5. Critique on Nuclear proliferation

1. Sagan argues that many emerging nuclear states are run by military government or run by weak
civilian government. Military by its very nature and organization has tendency toward war.
2. The financially weak nuclear states can embark upon an aggressive attitude and policies toward
big powers.
3. If war is a structural necessity it is absurd to say that a nuclear war is inevitable.
4. The leaders of European states, despite of the great catastrophe of 1st world war, went to another
word war , regardless the destruction. Same can be say about nuclear war.
5. There are strong non-state elements and terrorist organizations which are eager to acquire nuclear
weapons.
6. There are exceptional cases on world stage politics, eg Taliban government in Afghanistan.
7. It will cause bitterness among the nuclear states all the states will resort to aggressive diplomacy
on international stage.
8. It will further decrease the zeal of cooperation and welfare among the states.
9. It will intensify civilizational anfd religious conciousnes.
10. It will compel the big power to take a strict actionagainst emerging nuclear states, depriving them
from acquiring Nuclear weapoms. Which can lead to a great catastrophe.
6. Arms Controls
Arms reduction implies partially disarmament based on mutually agreed set of arms levels between given
groups of nation states. Arms limitation includes a wide variety of international accords to limit impact of
potential wars or to prevent their accidental outbreak.
7. History of Disarmament
Disarmament attempts can be traced back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which stipulated against
the need for building fortifications. In 1816, the Czar of Russia proposed to the British government the
reduction of armaments, a call that was not well received however.
Shakoor Kakar
86
In 1863 and in 1869, France made similar calls for disarmament in Europe, but it too was ignored.
In 1898, the Tsar of Russia called on European powers to gather at Hague to discuss disarmament, a
suggestion which was well received, leading to the First Hague Peace Conference attended by 28 states.
In 1907, another conference was held at the Hague for the same purpose. Both conferences called upon
military and naval experts to propose reducing military expenditures through disarmaments, but the major
powers were not ready for such moves in practice.
The devastation caused by WWI impelled statesmen of the world to give serious thought to disarmament.
Woodrow Wilson in one of his famous fourteen points asserted armament should be reduced to the lowest
point consistent with domestic safety.
The Treat of Versailles (1919) also recognized that „the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of
national armaments‟. The League of Nations was given the specific duty to secure a general agreement on
disarmament and the covenant of the League stated that only those countries will be allowed membership
who accepted the proposed agreement.
A permanent advisory commission was established in the League, but being comprised of military
personnel, it failed to make much progress in a path of disarmament.
The Council of the League appointed another commission in 1920, the Temporary Mixed Commission,
with a fixed four year mandate and comprised primarily of civilians. This temporary commission of the
League was asked to identify limitation of land and naval forces for various countries according to their
national security needs, the commission also proposed compulsory arbitration and proposed international
aid to victims of aggression.
Unfortunately, the commission‘s recommendations were not accepted by members of the League of
Nations. In 1926, the League set up another preparatory commission for disarmament which prepared a
draft of a treaty considered at the Geneva conference of the League in 1932 by 61 states. Discussions on
this draft continued for 2 years but then the Japanese attack on Manchuria and the German withdrawal
from the treaty in 1933, dashed the hopes for disarmament.
8. Disarmament after WWII

The devastation unleashed by WWII again led to calls for disarmament. The UN charter laid much
emphasis on the need for disarmament. The UN established a Military Staff Committee to assist the
Security Council to regulate armaments and explore means for disarmament.
9. Disarmament efforts by the UN

The UN established the Atomic Energy Commission consisting of all five Security Council members and
Canada.
The Commission was meant to explore mechanisms for peaceful transfer of nuclear technology, to
identify safeguards by way of inspections for compliant states to prevent hazards of violation and to
eventually work towards elimination of nuclear weapons.
While both superpowers agreed to cooperate, their divergent stances (the US arguing that control take
precedence over disarmament and the USSR arguing the reverse) on the Commission goals led to its
ineffectiveness.
The General Assembly of the UN also established a Commission on Conventional Armaments, which
also felt victim to Cold War divergences, ultimately the USSR pulled out of both Commissions due to
China‘s representation on them.
Shakoor Kakar
87
10. Atoms for Peace Plan

In 1953, President Eisenhower of the US proposed establishment of a pool of fissionable materials
donated by declared nuclear states to the Atomic Energy Commission, which could be provided to other
countries strictly for peaceful purposes. The Soviets opposed this plan arguing that an agreement on
prohibiting nuclear weapons was first necessary prior to disseminating nuclear technology.
11. Other Disarmament Efforts

Many disarmament and arms control efforts were undertaken through bilateral means between the two
superpowers, the biggest proliferations of armaments in the post-WWII period (NTBT, NPT, SALT I and
II).
The six nation summit held in New Dehli in 1985 is indicative of the growing concern amongst
developing countries about arms race, particularly nuclear weapons (Ironically, India too is now a
declared nuclear state).
12. CTBT 1995

The NTP review conference was held in Geneva in 1995 which recommended infinite extension of the
NTP. Israel, Pakistan and India were criticized for not acceding to the NPT nor to the subsequent CTBT,
which even forbids tests required for developing nuclear weapons.
Even France signed the CTBT after conducting its last nuclear test in the South Pacific. India and
Pakistan remain reluctant and argue that the advanced nuclear states can keep their weaponry safe and
updated by tests stimulated in lab settings.
13. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- 1968

At present, 189 countries are States Parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
more commonly known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT. These include the five Nuclear
Weapons States (NWS) recognized by the NPT: the People's Republic of China, France, Russian
Federation, the UK, and the United States.
Notable non-signatories to the NPT are Israel, Pakistan, and India (the latter two have since tested nuclear
weapons, while Israel is considered by most to be an unacknowledged nuclear weapons state). North
Korea was once a signatory but withdrew in January 2003. The legality of North Korea's withdrawal is
debatable but as of 9 October 2006, North Korea clearly possesses the capability to make a nuclear
explosive device.
In 1995, NPT parties reaffirmed their commitment to a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty to prohibit the
production of any further fissile material for weapons. This aims to complement the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty of 1996 and to codify commitments made by the United States, the UK, France and Russia to
cease production of weapons material, as well as putting a similar ban on China. This treaty will also put
more pressure on Israel, India and Pakistan to agree to international verification.
Shakoor Kakar
88
Chapter Nine:
International Political Institutions
1. United Nations
2. International Monetary Fund (IMF)
3. World Bank
4. International Court of Justice
1. United Nation
Outline
1. Background
2. Purposes
3. Organs
i. the General Assembly
ii. The Security Council
iii. The UN Secretariat
vi. (Trusteeship Council):
v. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
iv. International Court of Justice
Other Specialised Agencies
4. Selected Articles of the UN Charter
5. Role Of UN
6. The United Nations and economic and social questions
7. Reforms In UN
8. Main Reasons For The Decline Of The United Nations
9. Pakistan and UNO
Conclusion
Q: How effective arc international organizations in dealing with the global problems. Discuss with
particular reference to the UN from 1945 to present. CSS 2005
Q: Discuss the significance and increasing role of International Society in the classically sovereign
domains of state with reference to United Nations. Also debate whether the UN in its present structure of
status can play the increased role expected of it? CSS 2011
1. Background
Two years after the outbreak of the Second World War the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met
with President Roosevelt of the United States. Between them they issued a document called the Atlantic
Charter, setting out their war aims. Apart from the defeat of Nazi Germany, they sought peace, freedom,
collaboration, and security between states, overseen by a wider and permanent system of general security.
The Atlantic Charter contained the seeds of the United Nations, whose principals were adopted by 26
states in January 1942 when they signed a Declaration of the United Nations. In 1944, representatives of
the great powers (the Soviet Union, the United States, China, and Britain) met at Dumbarton Oaks in the
Shakoor Kakar
89
United States to draw up firm proposals for the new international organisation, the successor to the
League of Nations. In 1945, 51 states met at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco to debate
the terms of the UN Charter.
2. Purposes
UN was founded on 24th October 1945. The UN has its headquarters in New York. UN Charter with 19
chapters and a preamble with Article 1 highlight the purpose and objectives of UN. The Purposes of the
United Nations are set about achieving its three main purposes: to maintain international peace, to
develop friendly relations among states, and to cooperate internationally in solving international
economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms. It was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001.
3. Organs
The UN has six major organs. They are:
i. the General Assembly;
ii. the Security Council;
iii. the UN Secretariat;
4 the Economic and Social Council;
5 the International Court of Justice;
6 the Trusteeship Council
i. the General Assembly

The only time that all member states meet together is in the General Assembly. Here representatives from
each of the 193 member countries, that make up the UN gather every year to discuss the world‘s problems
in a global parliamentary setting. Much of the Assembly‘s work goes on in its six committees:
First Committee – disarmament issues, outer space, political and security issues
Second Committee – economic and financial issues
Third Committee – social, humanitarian, and cultural matters
Fourth Committee – colonial matters
Fifth Committee – administrative and budgetary matters
Sixth Committee – legal issues.
The Assembly has little influence in world politics. It can debate any issue it chooses, adopt Resolutions
with a two-thirds majority, help elect members of other UN bodies, and vote on the UN budget.
Ultimately, whatever power it has depends on its moral authority as a reflection of global opinion.
ii. The Security Council
The Security Council is the most important agency and powerful body in the UN. It remains ready to
meet at any time whenever there is a threat to international peace and security. There are 15 members of
the Security Council. Five are permanent (the P5), and ten non-permanent members are elected for a
period of two years from regional groups within the UN: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America,
Western Europe, and Oceania. The P5 are the United States, Russia, China, France, and Britain. Decisions
of the Council have to be accepted by a majority of members, and must include the P5, each of which is
able to veto a decision.
Shakoor Kakar
90
 Its decisions are binding on all UN members and have the force of international law.
 The Council may impose economic sanctions, such as halting trade with a country it considers an
aggressor.
 Decisions of the Council require nine votes. But any one of the permanent members can veto an
important decision. This authority is known as the veto right of the great powers.
Secretary General
Secretary General is a powerful public figure who can bring to the Security Council any matter that might
threaten world peace. The secretary general has the authority to serve as a neutral mediator in
international conflicts and to bring hostile parties together to negotiate. The secretary general‘s personal
attention to a problem can often help bring about a resolution.
The secretary general also works to build consensus among the five permanent members of the Security
Council, knowing that without it the Council cannot act. Current secretary general is Ban Ki-moon of
South Korea, who took office on 1 January 2007. His first term expired on 31 December 2011. He was re-
elected, unopposed, to a second term on 21 June 201. In total 8 served with Trygve Lie 1st
The secretary general is formally chosen by the General Assembly. But the secretary general must first be
nominated by the Security Council and win the consent of all five of its permanent members. The
secretary general serves a five-year term, which may be renewed. No woman has yet served in this
position.
iii. The UN Secretariat
It is now down to about 8500 people. Has a budget of about 1.5 billion a year, but is currently scaling
down.
iv. International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice also known as the World Court, is the judicial arm of the UN. It is located
in The Hague, Netherlands. It is the main arbitration body when member states bring issues to it. It has 15
judges, elected by the Security Council and the General Assembly.
v. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
(ECOSOC) works under the authority of the General Assembly to coordinate the economic and social
work of the UN. It promotes the goals of "Article 55," the human rights article. Has about 54 members,
elected for three-year terms. It's one of the ways NGOs can penetrate into the UN system.
ECOSOC coordinates studies and recommends actions on international topics such as medicine,
education, economics, and social needs. It promotes higher living standards, full employment, respect for
human rights, and economic and social progress.
ECOSOC coordinates the work of many specialized agencies which operate independently but work with
other programs in the UN. Those agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Shakoor Kakar
91
Organization (UNESCO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), & the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO). ECOSOC also works closely with the private sector and with more than 2,000
nongovernmental organizations.
vi. (Trusteeship Council):
Trusteeship Council was established to oversee the transition of a handful of colonies to independence.
The last of those colonies, the Palau Islands, gained independence in 1994, making the Trusteeship
Council obsolete. It has suspended operation in 1994.
Other Specialised Agencies
Apart from the other four organs, the UN includes a variety of bodies known as Specialised Agencies,
which regulate specific activities and set world standards. They include the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the UN
International Children‘s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR),
and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
4. Selected Articles of the UN Charter
The UN Charter contains references to both the rights of states and the rights of people.
The Preamble of the UN Charter asserts that ‘We the peoples of the United Nations [are] determined to
reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal
rights of men and women and of nations large and small’.
Article 1(2) states that the purpose of the UN is to develop’friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and to take other appropriate
measures to strengthen universal peace’.
Article 2(7) states that’Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’.
Chapter VI deals with the ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes’.
Article 33 states that ‘The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or
other peaceful means of their own choice’.
Chapter VII deals with ‗Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of
Aggression‘.
Article 42 states that the Security Council‘ may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be
necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security‘ The Security Council has sometimes
authorized member states to use‘ all necessary means‘ and this has been accepted as a legitimate
application of Chapter VII powers.
Article 99 authorizes the Secretary-General to‘ bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter
which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security’.
Shakoor Kakar
92
5. Role Of UN
Over the last half-century, the United Nations has had a chequered history. During the cold war, it was
paralysed from playing a major role in maintaining international peace and security because of the
constant use of the veto by the great powers. Without their cooperation, the Security Council was unable
to fulfill the ambitions of those who had designed it to be more effective than its predecessor, the League
of Nations. None the less, the UN did oversee the complex process of decolonisation, which led to a
rapid expansion in the number of member states in the 1950s and 1960s. It also developed the practice of
peacekeeping, which was in part designed to prevent the superpowers from intervening in conflicts that
might then escalate into a direct confrontation between them. In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the
United States used the UN as a forum to challenge the Soviet Union in front of the whole world.
From 1988 to 1992, the United Nations enjoyed a brief period of success, although this was a direct
consequence of the end of the cold war. No longer did the threat of a great power veto produce either
gridlock or an ineffectual compromise. The United Nations reached its peak of popularity, especially in
the United States, after the Gulf War in 1991 by providing the auspices for successfully challenging Iraq‘s
conquest and annexation of Kuwait. This aura of achievement was reinforced by a series of seemingly
successful mediation efforts from 1988 to 1990 related to long-festering regional conflicts: Iran–Iraq,
Afghanistan, Cambodia, Namibia, and El Salvador. This string of successes lent some temporary
credibility to expectations of what United States President George Bush called a new world order. The
world would be guided by international law and peace would be upheld by a robust United Nations that
would be strengthened gradually as public confidence in its effectiveness increased.
In a few short years, the number of UN peacekeeping operations doubled to nearly 20, the annual budget
for peacekeeping quadrupled to almost US$4 billion, and the number of peacekeepers deployed around
the globe skyrocketed to almost 80,000. By 1993, tens of thousands of blue-helmeted soldiers were
viewed as instruments of salvation in areas ranging from Kuwait and Somalia to Bosnia and the Great
Lakes region in Central Africa. These soldiers were the clear expression of the Clinton Administration‘s
devotion to a policy that Madeleine Albright, then its UN Ambassador, had christened assertive
multilateralism.
Within months of coming to office, however, the Clinton Administration had turned the United Nations
from an instrument of global salvation into the new international ‗bogeyman‘. A badly mishandled
military operation in the streets of Somalia‘s capital of Mogadishu left 18 American soldiers dead.
Although the operation had been conducted by American troops under sole US command and without the
UN‘s knowledge or involvement, President Clinton and the Congress placed the blame firmly on the UN
Secretary General at the time, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. The failure of the UN Protection Force in Bosnia to
provide the citizens of that unfortunate country much in the way of protection only added to
Washington‘s disillusion with the United Nations.
As a result of this change of heart, US policy towards the UN underwent two profound changes. First, in
May 1994 the Clinton Administration adopted new guidelines restricting the likelihood of its support for
future UN peacekeeping operations. As a first indication of this new stringency, Washington argued
against bolstering the small UN force in Rwanda, even though its commander pleaded for 5,000 troops to
halt a genocide that would eventually take the lives of some 800,000 Rwandans. UN failed to stop the
Shakoor Kakar
93
1994 genocide in Rwanda that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Second, there was growing
reluctance in the US Congress to pay for the exploding costs of large UN peacekeeping operations,
particularly since Washington (as the UN‘s largest member) was responsible for 31 per cent of the total
cost. Instead of paying its share (which in the mid-1990s ran to more than US$1 billion) Congress balked,
appropriating only a small percentage of the total. As a result, US debts to the organisation mounted
through the 1990s. In 1999 the US Congress finally agreed to begin paying its debts, although the
decision was a close one which reflected the failure of the United Nations to build on its early post-cold
war success.
6. The United Nations and economic and social questions
The number of institutions within the UN system that address economic and social issues has significantly
increased since the founding of the UN. Nonetheless, the main contributor states have been giving less
and less to economic and social institutions. By the mid-1990s, there was a crippling financial crisis in the
regular Assessed Budget for the UN, and in the budget for peacekeeping operations. This was only
mitigated when the United States agreed, under certain conditions, to repay what it owed the UN and
when it returned to full funding in December 2002.
Despite the shortage of funds, the UN has acquired skills and resources with regard to key economic and
social problems. During the 1990s, a number of new issues were brought on to the international agenda.
Several Global Conferences were convened to discuss pressing problems, such as environmental issues
at a conference in Rio de Janeiro (1992), human rights at a conference in Vienna (1993), population
questions at a conference in Cairo (1994), and women’s issues at a conference in Beijing (1995). These
conferences each spawned a Commission to carry forward the programme. Such conferences represented
a growing sense of interdependence and the globalization of human concerns.
In 2000, the UN convened a Millennium Summit, where heads of state committed themselves to a series
of measurable goals and targets, known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These goals,
to be achieved by 2015, include reducing by half the number of people living on less than a dollar a day,
achieving universal primary education, and reversing the spread of HIV / AIDS and malaria (A/55/L.2).
Since 2000, the UN has been integrating the MDGs into all aspects of its work at the country level, but
progress on reaching the MDGs has been very uneven.
7. Reforms In UN
At the end of the twentieth century, there has been much discussion about how to reform the UN.
Proposals have been put forward to make the organisation more representative of the changing balance of
power in world politics. For example, the P5 represent the victors of the Second World War rather than
the most important states of the twenty-first century. Some commentators argue that Japan, Germany, and
India deserve greater recognition and status in the Security Council. In addition, there has been much
debate over whether and how to provide the UN with more financial and military power to respond to
crises deemed to be within its remit. Unless the United Nations is reformed, the gap between expectation
and performance is unlikely to be closed. This would be unfortunate, since the United Nations remains the
only international organisation that approximates a form of global governance
Shakoor Kakar
94
In the mid- to late 1990s under the leadership of then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the UN embarked
on an overarching reform effort. Reform of the economic and social arrangements of the UN aimed at
improving coordination, eliminating duplication, and clarifying spheres of responsibility. These efforts
strengthened the norms of the multilateral system.
8. Main Reasons For The Decline Of The United Nations
There are three main reasons for the decline of the United Nations in the 1990s. First, patterns of war
have changed. The Charter of the UN is based on the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in
the internal affairs of states. The UN is unable to respond effectively to armed conflict that blurs the line
between civil and interstate war. Second, despite the end of the cold war, the UN is only as effective as its
member states, particularly the P5, allow it to be. The UN lacks its own military forces, and therefore
relies on member states to make forces available to the Secretary-General on request. It is slow to respond
to crises, and cannot act in those areas that are regarded as legitimate spheres of influence by any of the
P5, especially the United States, Russia, and China. Third, the UN is wholly funded by its member states,
particularly the P5. This enables them to use their financial power to promote their own national interests
at the UN.
9. Pakistan and UNO
Pakistan became member of UN on 30th Sep 1947 and became Non-permanent member of Security
Council 1952, last 2012-13 Pakistan has become non-permanent member of Security Council for 7 times.
Brazil Japan 10 times each with Argentina 9 times, Germany 5 times. Pakistan is the largest contributor to
UN peace keeping missions followed by Bangladesh and India.
Conclusion
Changes in the role of the UN reflect the changes in perceptions of international society and the nature of
sovereign states. Over the past sixty years, the rules governing the international system have become
increasingly numerous and specific, covering a large range of the activities of relations between states.
Concerns have expanded to include not only the protection of the rights of states, but also the rights of
individuals.
The capacity of the UN in its economic and social work, its development work, and its management of
peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction has expanded since the 1990s. Nonetheless, the
predominance of United States military power, the possibility that the USA will act again without clear
UN authorization, the heightened concern over terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the inability to
respond effectively to the crisis in Darfur, and the pervasiveness of inequality and injustice across the
world, signal that further changes and adaptations within the UN system will be necessary.
Shakoor Kakar
95
IMF
1. Background
The Great Depression of the 1930s had an enormous impact on the advanced industrialised states. In the
United States and Europe agricultural prices fell, unemployment skyrocketed, banks closed leaving
people penniless, factories stood idle, and international trade collapsed. Indeed, the onset of the
Depression was one of the main reasons why so many ordinary Germans were willing to follow Hitler
into war in1939. At the same time, the outbreak of war in Europe proved to be a key factor in the United
States‘ economic recovery. Increases in the level of production needed to fight the war stimulated
economic growth, put people back to work, and money into circulation. One of the important questions
confronting American policymakers, however, was how to maintain the new level of economic activity
after the war. The purpose of the Bretton Woods Conference was primarily to ensure that these things
did not happen. The 1944 Conference had two main goals: to stabilise the value of money and to promote
international trade. Along with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created to
facilitate both these goals.
2. Article 1 of the IMF‟s Charter states that its purpose is to:
• promote international monetary cooperation;

• facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade;
• promote and maintain high levels of employment;
• promote exchange stability and avoid competitive exchange rate depreciation;
• eliminate foreign exchange restrictions;
• offer resources to countries to correct maladjustments in their balance of payments without resorting to
measures destructive of national or international prosperity;
• shorten the duration and lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balance of payments of
its members.
The original mandate of the IMF was achieved primarily by linking the world‘s currencies to the
American dollar. Members were required to fix the value of their currencies in relation to the dollar. it
continues to promote monetary stability and trade, but increasingly its role is to assist countries that are in
the midst of financial crisis. Indeed, it has become something of an economic crisis management
institution. It offers financial and technical assistance to countries experiencing monetary problems and
remains a lender of last resort. This gives the IMF enormous power to determine the economic fate of
countries experiencing balance-of payment problems. If, for example, a member country has continuing
economic problems, the IMF will initiate Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). These
macroeconomic reforms can include debt reduction strategies, privatisation policies, and cuts in public
spending. Unfortunately, these strategies generally impact on the poor most severely. It is for this reason
that SAPs are regarded as particularly iniquitous by some observers.
Today, the IMF has more critics than friends. Some economists suggest that the world economy would
function better without it, and that many of its SAPs exacerbate crises rather than alleviate them. Others
suggest that while it is an imperfect institution, it is better at maintaining economic stability than many
governments. Whatever the truth, there is little evidence to suggest that the IMF is heading for the
institutional scrap-heap. There have been muted calls for a new Bretton Woods conference, but this
Shakoor Kakar
96
message has not yet filtered up to policymakers and government officials. At the same time, it is hard to
imagine how the global economy could function effectively without some institutional guidance. The
challenge is to ensure that a balance is struck between good economic management and human needs. In
striking this balance, the IMF appears to have a long way to go.
Shakoor Kakar
97
WORLD BANK
Outline
Introduction
1. Four specialised organisations of World Bank
2. Goals
3. Sources of Funding
4. Executive Board
5. Critics
Introduction
Like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank is a product of the Bretton Woods system.
Originally called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), it commenced
operations in 1946 with a membership of 38 states, including the United States, Britain, and France. The
initial task for the Bank was to provide loans to the shattered economies of Europe. During the 1950s and
1960s, as Europe began to recover from the Second World War, the Bank turned its attention to Africa,
Asia, and Latin America, offering loans, guarantees, technical assistance, investment advice, and political
risk management to middle-income countries seeking to modernize and develop. Over the past decade
this commitment has extended to East European countries as well. The Bank now has a membership of
more than 180 states and is headquartered in Washington, DC. It is one of the key agencies of the United
Nations.
1. Four specialised organisations of World Bank
Since the 1950s, four specialised organisations have been created to assist the Bank in its work. In 1956,
the World Bank created the International Finance Corporation (IFC). This agency offers loans to private
developers (mainly multinational corporations) as a way of attracting other private investment capital.
The International Development Association (IDA) was the second of the specialized institutions created
by the Bank. It came into being in 1960 to offer long-term, interest-free loans to the poorest countries in
the world. In 1966, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) was set up
to mediate disputes between governments and investors. In 1988, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee
Agency (MIGA) was formed to insure private investments against expropriation, coups, and other forms
of political risk.
2. Goals
In principle, the main goal of the World Bank is laudable. It seeks to reduce the level of poverty in the
Third World. The Bank tries to live up to this lofty ideal by targeting projects likely to stimulate
economic growth and raise the standard of living of the recipient country. Generally, the Bank
concentrates its efforts on large infrastructure projects such as dams, roads, telecommunications networks,
ports, and bridges. But the IDA is involved in more modest projects such as water purification, sanitation,
health, family planning, agricultural production, and the training of educators. It is important to note,
however, that the Bank lends only a proportion of the funds required for particular projects. The
remainder must be raised from private investors, taxation, and capital markets.
Shakoor Kakar
98
3. Sources of Funding
The Bank itself is funded from a number of sources. It borrows from commercial institutions and it
receives interest on its loans and investments. The Bank also sells bonds to pension funds, insurance
companies, and multinational corporations. The most steady source of income, however, has been the
annual contributions of its member countries. The United States is the largest donor, contributing more
than US$50 billion to the Bank since 1945.
4. Executive Board
The day-to-day running of the bank is handled by an Executive Board consisting of 22 directors. Five of
these are appointed by the largest donor countries (the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, and
France) and the rest are elected by the member countries. Above the executive directors are the President
and the Board of Governors. The Board includes a representative from each of the member countries.
Voting power is proportional to contributions made. This gives the United States the largest number of
votes. The President of the Bank is appointed by the executive directors, generally for a five-year period.
5. Critics
The World Bank has many critics. At one extreme are those who see it as a ‗wolf in sheep‘s clothing‘.
From this vantage-point, the Bank is primarily an institution for opening up Third World markets for the
First World rather than being devoted to reducing world poverty. Today, indebtedness in the Third World
is approaching US$2 trillion. Some countries now have a lower per capita income than they did before
becoming involved with the Bank. In the early 1980s an estimated 130 million people were living in
poverty, but by the beginning of the 1990s the figure had risen to an estimated 180 million people.
These are grim statistics, especially given the enormous sums of money that have already been loaned.
One of the interesting things about these figures is that they are used by critics on both the left and the
right of the political spectrum. The left highlight the growing poverty in order to mount a case for the
cancellation of Third World debt and a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor countries. Those
on the right use the same statistics to discredit the Bank and to push for its abolition, believing that
economic prosperity can only come about when the market is left to itself.
Other writers have been critical of the Bank‘s ‗large project‘ mentality, arguing that it has failed to
consider local issues such as the environment and the role of women in development. The Bank has
attempted to address some of these issues in recent years. For example, it has funded projects specifically
designed to improve the position of women in Third World countries.
One of the most controversial projects in recent years has been the Bank‘s involvement in a US$160
million loan to resettle nearly 58,000 Han Chinese and Chinese Muslim farmers into traditional Tibetan
territory. The Tibetan community-in-exile argues that if the Bank grants such a loan, it will be supporting
a policy of ethnic cleansing. However one views this particular case, it highlights the main problem for
the World Bank. It is an institution that exists to serve the interests of states. As such, its commercial
decisions will often prejudice the needs of non-state groups. It is likely, therefore, that the Bank will
always be mired in controversy. It will never be able to live up to its cosmopolitan ideals as long as it
remains subordinate to the most powerful states in the international system, particularly the United States.
Shakoor Kakar

IR Part I.pdf Version 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IR Part I.pdf Version 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Relations Shakoor Kakar

2. Theories and Approaches

3. International Political Security.

4. Strategic Approach to International Relation.

5. International Political Economy.

6. International political community.

8. International Political Institution

1. Definition of International Relations

International relations is a very broad concept. International relations occasionally referred to

2. SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Moreover it covers , state sovereignty, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism,

International and Political Science

EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

3. THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

4. THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

Evolution Of International Society

i. The Christian orders

ii. Islamic Order

3.THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

Important things about the Peace of Westphalia

 First recognition of sovereignty of states in Germany.

ii. The Universalization of The Westphalian System

iii. Struggle for Balance Of Power and World Politics

iv. Anarchical Politics: War, Diplomacy And Law In International Relations

v. Getting Beyond The State: The League of Nations

vi. The Collapse of The League Of Nations

4. THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

The Cold War; two contending hegemonial international societies

1. Nation State System

3. The Modern State System

 rule over a permanent population

i. Difference between Nation and State

ii. Difference between Countries and State

3. THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM

Features of Modern State

i. What is International Society?

ii. CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY/SYSTEM

b). The Pursuit Of Interests

III. GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

Problems of global international society

 This Chapter covers almost all the Theoretical discourse of IR

i. Birth of Idealism and IR.

ii. Critique of E. H. Carr on Idealism

1. Intellectual History of Realism

Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes

E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau

2. THE ELEMENTS OF “REALIM”

ii. Principle of Realism

The following three Ss‘ constitute the core of realism triangle.

a) State (statism). b) Survival. c) Self-help

4. Difference between „classical‟ or „traditional‟ realism and „neo‟ or „structural‟ realism

4. Neo-liberalism/ Neo-Liberal Institutionalism

5. Difference Between Realism and Liberalism

1. Realism: States are the major actors in world affairs.

2. Realism: States are unitary or rational agents.

4. Realism: States in anarchy are preoccupied with power and security.

ii. Elements of the System

iii. Rules of the System

iv. Changes in a system

Regulative and constitutive functions

Global civil society

ii. Security Dilemma

2. The problem of relative gains