International relations
'International relations' (I.R.)
(occasionally referred to as international studies, (I.S.) although the two
terms are not perfectly synonymous) is the study of relationships between
countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations
(IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an
academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it
both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular
states. It is often considered a branch of political science (especially after
1988 UNESCO nomenclature), but an important sector of academia prefer to treat
it as an interdisciplinary field of study. Aspects of international relations
have been studied for thousands of years, since the time of Thucydides, but IR
became a separate and definable discipline in the early 20th century.[1]
Apart from political science, IR
draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, international law,
philosophy, geography, social work, sociology, anthropology, criminology,
psychology, gender studies, and cultural studies / culturology. It involves a
diverse range of issues including but not limited to: globalization, state
sovereignty, international security, ecological sustainability, nuclear
proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance, terrorism,
organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human rights.
History
The history of international
relations can be traced thousands of years ago; Barry Buzan and Richard Little,
for example, consider the interaction of ancient Sumerian city-states, starting
in 3,500 BC, as the first fully-fledged international system.[2]
The official portraits of King
Władysław IV dressed according to French, Spanish and Polish fashion reflects
the complex politics of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Thirty
Years' War
The history of international
relations based on sovereign states is often traced back to the Peace of
Westphalia of 1648, a stepping stone in the development of the modern state
system. Prior to this, the European medieval organization of political
authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order. Contrary to
popular belief, Westphalia still embodied layered systems of sovereignty,
especially within the Holy Roman Empire.[3] More than the Peace of Westphalia,
the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 is thought to reflect an emerging norm that
sovereigns had no internal equals within a defined territory and no external
superiors as the ultimate authority within the territory's sovereign borders. A
simple way to view this is that sovereignty says, "I'm not allowed to tell
you what to do and you are not allowed to tell me what to do
The centuries of roughly 1500 to
1789 saw the rise of the independent, sovereign states, the
institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. The French Revolution added to
this the new idea that not princes or an oligarchy, but the citizenry of a
state, defined as the nation, should be defined as sovereign. Such a state in
which the nation is sovereign would thence be termed a nation-state (as opposed
to a monarchy, or a religious state). The term republic increasingly became its
synonym. An alternative model of the nation-state was developed in reaction to
the French republican concept by the Germans and others, who instead of giving
the citizenry sovereignty, kept the princes and nobility, but defined
nation-statehood in ethnic-linguistic terms, establishing the rarely if ever
fulfilled ideal that all people speaking one language should belong to one
state only. The same claim to sovereignty was made for both forms of
nation-state. (It is worth noting that in Europe today, few states conform to
either definition of nation-state: many continue to have royal sovereigns, and
hardly any are ethnically homogeneous.)
The particular European system
supposing the sovereign equality of states was exported to the Americas,
Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the "standards of civilization".
The contemporary international system was finally established through
decolonization during the Cold War. However, this is somewhat over-simplified.
While the nation-state system is considered "modern", many states have
not incorporated the system and are termed "pre-modern".
Further, a handful of states have
moved beyond insistence on full sovereignty, and can be considered
"post-modern". The ability of contemporary IR discourse to explain
the relations of these different types of states is disputed. "Levels of
analysis" is a way of looking at the international system, which includes
the individual level, the domestic state as a unit, the international level of
transnational and intergovernmental affairs, and the global level.
What is explicitly recognized as
International Relations theory was not developed until after World War I, and
is dealt with in more detail below. IR theory, however, has a long tradition of
drawing on the work of other social sciences. The use of capitalizations of the
"I" and "R" in International Relations aims to distinguish
the academic discipline of International Relations from the phenomena of
international relations. Many cite Sun Tzu's The Art of War (6th century BC),
Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC), Chanakya's
Arthashastra (4th century BC), as the inspiration for realist theory, with
Hobbes' Leviathan and Machiavelli's The Prince providing further elaboration.
Similarly, liberalism draws upon
the work of Kant and Rousseau, with the work of the former often being cited as
the first elaboration of democratic peace theory. Though contemporary human
rights is considerably different than the type of rights envisioned under
natural law, Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and John Locke offered the
first accounts of universal entitlement to certain rights on the basis of
common humanity. In the twentieth century, in addition to contemporary theories
of liberal internationalism, Marxism has been a foundation of international
relations.
Study of IR
Initially,
international relations as a distinct field of study was almost entirely British-centered. IR only emerged as a formal
academic ‘discipline’ in 1918 with the founding of the first ‘chair’
(professorship) in IR - the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, University of
Wales (now Aberystwyth University[4]), from an endowment given by David
Davies, became the first academic position dedicated to IR. This was
rapidly followed by establishment of IR at US universities and Geneva,
Switzerland. In the early 1920s, the London School of Economics'
department of International Relations was founded at the behest of Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker, and was the first institute to
offer a wide range of degrees in the field. Furthermore, the International
History department at LSE, developed as primarily focused on the history of IR
in the early modern, colonial and Cold War periods..
The first
university entirely dedicated to the study of IR was the Graduate
Institute of International Studies (now
the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies),
which was founded in 1927 to form diplomats associated to the League of Nations, established in Geneva some years
before. The Graduate Institute of International Studies offered one of the
first Ph.D. degrees in international relations. Georgetown University's Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service is
the oldest international relations faculty in the United States, founded in
1919. The Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago was the first to offer a graduate
degree, in 1928.
Epistemology and IR theory
A key difference between the two positions is that while positivist theories, such as neo-realism, offer causal explanations (such as why and how power is exercised), post-positivist theories focus instead on constitutive questions, for instance what is meant by 'power'; what makes it up, how it is experienced and how it is reproduced. Often, post-positivist theories explicitly promote a normative approach to IR, by considering ethics. This is something which has often been ignored under 'traditional' IR as positivist theories make a distinction between 'facts' and normative judgments, or 'values'.IR theories can be roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: "positivist" and "post-positivist". Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. They typically focus on features of international relations such as state interactions, size of military forces, balance of powers etc. Post-positivist epistemology rejects the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way. It rejects the central ideas of neo-realism/liberalism, such as rational choice theory, on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied to the social world and that a 'science' of IR is impossible.
During
the late 1980s and the 1990s, debate between positivists and post-positivists
became the dominant debate and has been described as constituting the Third
"Great Debate" (Lapid 1989).
Positivist Theories
Realism
Realism focuses on state security and power above all
else. Early realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are
self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their
security and chances of survival. Cooperation between states is a way to
maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic
reasons). Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than
on idealism. Many realists saw World War II as
the vindication of their theory.
It should
be noted that classical writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbesand Theodore Roosevelt,
are often cited as "founding fathers" of realism by contemporary
self-described realists.[citation needed] However, while their work may support
realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves
as realists (in this sense of the term). Realists are often split up into two
groups: Classical or Human Nature Realists (as described here) and Structural
or Neorealists (below).
Political
realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by
objective laws that have their roots in human nature. To improve society, it is
first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of
these laws being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them
only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity
of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a
rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these
objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in
politics between truth and opinion-between what is true objectively and
rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a
subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by
prejudice and wishful thinking.
The
placement of Realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however. E.H.
Carr's 'What is History' was a deliberate critique of positivism, and Hans
Morgenthau's aim in 'Scientific Man vs Power Politics' - as the title implies -
was to demolish any conception that international politics/power politics can
be studied scientifically.
Liberalism/idealism/Liberal Internationalism
Liberal international relations
theory arose after World War I in response to the inability of states to
control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include
Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell, who argued vigorously that states mutually
gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be essentially
futile.
Liberalism was not recognized as
a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and derisively termed
idealism by E. H. Carr. A new version of "idealism" that focused on
human rights as the basis of the legitimacy of international law was advanced
by Hans Köchler.
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism seeks to update
liberalism by accepting the neorealist presumption that states are the key
actors in international relations, but still maintains that non-state actors
(NSAs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) matter. Proponents such as
Maria Chattha argue that states will cooperate irrespective of relative gains,
and are thus concerned with absolute gains. This also means that nations are,
in essence, free to make their own choices as to how they will go about
conducting policy without any international organizations blocking a nation's
right to sovereignty.
Neoliberalism also contains an
economic theory that is based on the use of open and free markets with little,
if any, government intervention to prevent monopolies and other conglomerates
from forming. The growing interdependence throughout and after the Cold War
through international institutions led to neo-liberalism being defined as
institutionalism, this new part of the theory being fronted by Robert Keohane
and also Joseph Nye.
Regime Theory
Regime theory is derived from
the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes
affect the behavior of states (or other international actors). It assumes that
cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, indeed, regimes are
by definition, instances of international cooperation.
While realism predicts that
conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say
that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they cite cooperation in
trade, human rights and collective security among other issues. These instances
of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition of regimes comes
from Stephen Krasner. Krasner defines regimes as
"institutions possessing norms, decision rules, and procedures which
facilitate a convergence of expectations."[cite this quote]
Not all approaches to
regime theory, however are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like
Joseph Greico have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based
approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say
cooperation neverhappens, just that it is not the norm; it is a
difference of degree).
International society theory (the English school)
International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the
shared norms and values of states and how they regulate international
relations. Examples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and international
law. Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily
positivist. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention,
and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and
pluralists, who place greater value in order and sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler
is a prominent solidarist, while Hedley Bull and Robert H. Jackson are perhaps the best known
pluralists.
Social Constructivism
Social Constructivism encompasses
a broad range of theories that aim to address questions of ontology, such as
the Structure and agency debate, as well as questions of epistemology, such as
the "material/ideational" debate that concerns the relative role of
material forces versus ideas. Constructivism is not a theory of IR in the
manner of neo-realism, but is instead a social theory which is used to better
explain the actions taken by states and other major actors as well as the
identities that guide these states and actors.
Constructivism in IR can be
divided into what Hopf (1998) calls 'conventional' and 'critical'
constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the
role that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivist scholar,
Alexander Wendt noted in a 1992 article in International Organization (later
followed up by a book, Social Theory of International Politics (1999)), that
"anarchy is what states make of it". By this he means that the
anarchical structure that neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in
fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by states.
For example, if the system is
dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation (what Wendt
terms a "Hobbesian" anarchy) then the system will be characterised by
warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted (a
"Lockean" anarchy) then a more peaceful system will exist. Anarchy in
this view is constituted by state interaction, rather than accepted as a
natural and immutable feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR
scholars.
Critical Theory
Critical international relations
theory is the application of 'critical theory' to international relations.
Proponents such as Andrew Linklater, Robert W. Cox and Ken Booth focus on the
need for human emancipation from States. Hence, it is "critical" of
mainstream IR theories that tend to be state-centric.
Marxism
Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories
of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead
focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the
economy trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus
of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist
system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, the period of colonialism
brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while
decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.
Linked in with Marxist theories
is dependency theory which argues that developed countries, in their pursuit of
power, penetrate developing states through political advisors, missionaries,
experts, and MNCs to integrate them into the capitalist system in order to
appropriate natural resources and foster dependence.
Marxist theories receive scant
attention in the United States where no significant socialist party ever
existed. It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the most important
theoretic contributions of Latin American academia, for example through
Liberation theology.
Interest Group perspective
Interest
Group theory posits that the driving force behind state behavior is sub-state
interest groups. Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists, the
military, and the corporate sector. Group theory argues that although these
interest groups are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in
the exercise of state power.
Strategic Perspective
Strategic
Perspective is a theoretical approach that views individuals as choosing their
actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of others
with the intention of maximizing their own welfare.
Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political
psychology
The "inherent bad faith
model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that
was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John
Foster Dulles’ beliefs and his model of information processing.[5] It is the
most widely studied model of one's opponent.[6] A state is presumed to be
implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are
dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster
Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet Union, or Israel’s initial position on
the Palestinian Liberation Organization
Poststructuralist theories
Poststructuralist theories of IR
developed in the 1980s from postmodernist studies in political science.
Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of concepts traditionally not
problematic in IR, such as 'power' and 'agency' and examines how the
construction of these concepts shapes international relations. The examination
of 'narratives' plays an important part in poststructuralist analysis, for
example feminist poststructuralist work has examined the role that 'women' play
in global society and how they are constructed in war as 'innocent' and
'civilians'.
Examples of post-positivist
research include:
·
Feminisms ("gendering" war)
·
Postcolonialism (challenges the euro-centrism of
IR)
·
Post-realism (focuses on IR theory as scientific
and political rhetoric)
Concepts in international relations
Conjuncture
In decision making in
international relations, the concept of Conjuncture (international relations),
together with freedom of action and equality are important elements. Decision
makers must take into account the set of international conditions in taking
initiatives that would create different types of responses.
Systemic level concepts
International
relations is often viewed in terms of levels
of analysis. The systemic
level concepts are those
broad concepts that define and shape an international milieu, characterised by Anarchy.
Power
The concept of power in
international relations can be described as the degree of resources,
capabilities, and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up
into the concepts of hard power and soft power, hard power relating primarily
to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering
economics, diplomacy and cultural influence. However, there is no clear
dividing line between the two forms of power.
Polarity
Polarity in International
Relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system.
The concept arose from bipolarity during the Cold War, with the international
system dominated by the conflict between two superpowers, and has been applied
retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was notably used by
Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two
opposing powerbases and ideologies. Consequently, the international system
prior to 1945 can be described as multi-polar, with power being shared among
Great powers.
Empires of the world in 1910.
The collapse of the Soviet Union
in 1991 had led to what some would call unipolarity, with the United States as
a sole superpower. However, due to China's continued rapid economic growth (in
2010 it became the world's second largest economy), combined with the
respectable international position they hold within political spheres and the
power that the Chinese Government exerts over their people (consisting of the
largest population in the world), there is debate over whether China is now a
superpower or a possible candidate in the future.
Several theories of international
relations draw upon the idea of polarity.
The balance of power was a
concept prevalent in Europe prior to the First World War, the thought being that
by balancing power blocs it would create stability and prevent war. Theories of
the balance of power gained prominence again during the Cold War, being a
central mechanism of Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism. Here, the concepts of
balancing (rising in power to counter another) and bandwagonning (siding with
another) are developed.
Hegemonic stability theory
(developed by Robert Gilpin) also draws upon the idea of Polarity, specifically
the state of unipolarity. Hegemony is the preponderance of power at one pole in
the international system, and the theory argues this is a stable configuration
because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in the
international system. This is contrary to many Neorealist arguments,
particularly made by Kenneth Waltz, stating that the end of the Cold War and
the state of unipolarity is an unstable configuration that will inevitably
change.
This can be expressed in Power
transition theory, which states that it is likely that a great power would
challenge a hegemon after a certain period, resulting in a major war. It
suggests that while hegemony can control the occurrence of wars, it also
results in the creation of one. Its main proponent, A.F.K. Organski, argued
this based on the occurrence of previous wars during British, Portuguese and
Dutch hegemony.
Interdependence
Many
advocate that the current international system is characterized by growing
interdependence; the mutual responsibility and dependency on others. Advocates
of this point to growing globalization, particularly with international economic interaction. The
role of international institutions, and widespread acceptance of a number of
operating principles in the international system, reinforces ideas that
relations are characterized by interdependence
Dependency
Dependency theory is a theory most commonly associated with Marxism,
stating that a set of Core states exploit a set of weaker Periphery states for their prosperity. Various
versions of the theory suggest that this is either an inevitability (standard
dependency theory), or use the theory to highlight the necessity for change
(Neo-Marxist).
Systemic tools of international relations
§ Diplomacy is the practice of
communication and negotiation between representatives of
states. To some extent, all other tools of international relations can be
considered the failure of diplomacy. Keeping in mind, the use of other tools
are part of the communication and negotiation inherent within diplomacy.
Sanctions, force, and adjusting trade regulations, while not typically
considered part of diplomacy, are actually valuable tools in the interest of
leverage and placement in negotiations.
§ Sanctions are usually a
first resort after the failure of diplomacy, and are one of the main tools used
to enforce treaties. They can take the form of diplomatic or economic sanctions
and involve the cutting of ties and imposition of barriers to communication or
trade.
§ War, the use of force, is
often thought of as the ultimate tool of international relations. A widely
accepted definition is that given by Clausewitz,
with war being "the continuation of politics by other means". There
is a growing study into 'new wars' involving actors other than states. The
study of war in International Relations is covered by the disciplines of 'War Studies'
and 'Strategic studies'.
§ The mobilization
of international shame can also be thought of as a tool of
International Relations. This is attempting to alter states' actions through 'naming and
shaming' at the international level. This is mostly done by the large
human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International (for instance when it called
Guantanamo Bay a "Gulag"),[9] or
Human Rights Watch. A prominent use of was the UN Commission on Human Rights
1235 procedure, which publicly exposes state's human rights violations. The
current Human Rights Council has yet to use this
Mechanism
§ The allotment of economic
and/or diplomatic benefits. An example of this is the European Union's
enlargement policy. Candidate countries are allowed entry into the EU only after
the fulfillment of the Copenhagen criteria.
Unit-level concepts in international relations
As
a level of analysis the
unit level is often referred to as the state level, as it locates its
explanation at the level of the state, rather than the international system.
Regime type
Democratic Peace Theory is a
theory that suggests that the nature of democracy means that democratic
countries will not go to war with each other. The justifications for this are
that democracies externalise their norms and only go to war for just causes,
and that democracy encourages mutual trust and respect.
Revisionism/Status quo
States can be classified by
whether they accept the international status quo, or are revisionist, i.e. want
change. Revisionist states seek to fundamentally change the rules and practices
of international relations, feeling disadvantaged by the status quo. They see
the international system as a largely western creation which serves to
reinforce current realities. Japan is an example of a state that has gone from
being a revisionist state to one that is satisfied with the status quo, because
the status quo is now beneficial to it.Communism justifies a world revolution,
which similarly would lead to peaceful coexistence, based on a proletarian
global society. the power politics is also considered.
Religion
It
is often considered that religion can have an effect on the way a state acts within
the international system. Religion is visible as an organising principle
particularly for Islamic states, whereas secularism sits at the other end of
the spectrum, with the separation of state and religion being responsible for
the Liberal international
relations theory.
Individual or sub-unit level concepts
The level beneath the unit
(state) level can be useful both for explaining factors in International
Relations that other theories fail to explain, and for moving away from a
state-centric view of international relations.
Psychological factors in
International Relations - Evaluating psychological factors in international
relations comes from the understanding that a state is not a 'black box' as
proposed by Realism, and that there may be other influences on foreign policy decisions.
Examining the role of personalities in the decision making process can have
some explanatory power, as can the role of misperception between various
actors. A prominent application of sub-unit level psychological factors in
international relations is the concept of Groupthink, another is the propensity
of policymakers to think in terms of analogies.
Bureaucratic politics - Looks at
the role of the bureaucracy in decision making, and sees decisions as a result
of bureaucratic in-fighting, and as having been shaped by various constraints.
Religious, Ethnic, and
secessionist groups - Viewing these aspects of the sub-unit level has
explanatory power with regards to ethnic conflicts, religious wars,
transnational diaspora (diaspora politics) and other actors which do not
consider themselves to fit with the defined state boundaries. This is
particularly useful in the context of the pre-modern world of weak states.
Science, Technology and
International Relations- How science and technology impact the global health,
business, environment, technology, and development.
International political economy,
and economic factors in international relations.[10]
International political
culturology – Looks at how culture and cultural variables impact in
international relations.
Institutions in international relations
International institutions form a
vital part of contemporary International Relations. Much interaction at the
system level is governed by them, and they outlaw some traditional institutions
and practices of International Relations, such as the use of war (except in
self-defence).
As humanity enters the Planetary
phase of civilization, some scientists and political theorists[who?] see a
global hierarchy of institutions replacing the existing system of sovereign
nation-states as the primary political community. They argue that nations are
an imagined community that cannot resolve such modern challenges as the
“Dogville” effect (strangers in a homogeneous community), the legal and
political status of stateless people and refugees, and the need to address
worldwide concerns like climate change and pandemics.
Futurist Paul Raskin has
hypothesized that a new, more legitimate form of global politics could be based
on “constrained pluralism.” This principle guides the formation of institutions
based on three characteristics: irreducibility, where some issues must be adjudicated
at the global level; subsidiarity, which limits the scope of global authority
to truly global issues while smaller-scope issues are regulated at lower
levels; and heterogeneity, which allows for diverse forms of local and regional
institutions as long as they meet global obligations.
Generalist Inter-State Organizations
The United Nations (UN) is an
international organization that describes itself as a "global association
of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international
security, economic development, and social equity"; It is the most
prominent international institution. Many of the legal institutions follow the
same organizational structure as the UN.
The Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) is an international organization consisting of 57 member
states. The organisation attempts to be the collective voice of the Muslim
world (Ummah) and attempts to safeguard the interests and ensure the progress and
well-being of Muslims.
Economic institutions
International legal bodies
Human rights
Legal
Regional security arrangements
§ CSCAP
§ GUAM
§ NATO
§ SCO
§ SAARC
§ UNASUR
