INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

DEFINITION AND MEANING

International relations, the study of the relations of states with each other and
with international organizations and certain subnational entities e.g.,
bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups. It is related to a number of
other academic disciplines, including political science, geography, history,
economics, law, sociology, psychology, and philosophy.

International relations are the interactions among sovereign states. The scientific
study of those interactions is also referred to as international studies,
international politics,or international affairs. In a broader sense, the study of
IR, in addition to multilateral relations, concerns all activities among states—
such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and
among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs),
international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international legal bodies,
and multinational corporations (MNCs). There are several schools of thought within
IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.
In the inaugural issue of World Politics, Frederick S. Dunn wrote that IR was about
"relations that take place across national boundaries" and "between autonomous
political groups in a world system". Dunn wrote that unique elements characterized
IR and separated it from other subfields
international politics is concerned with the special kind of power relationships
that exist in a community lacking an overriding authority; international economics
deals with trade relations across national boundaries that are complicated by the
uncontrolled actions of sovereign states and international law is law that is based
on voluntary acceptance by independent nations.

HISTORY

Barry Buzan and Richard Little considered the interaction of ancient Sumerian city-
states, starting in 3,500 BC, as the first fully-fledged international
system.Analyses of the foreign policies of sovereign city states have been done in
ancient times, as in Thycydides' analysis of the causes of the Peloponnesian War
between Athens and Sparta, as well as by Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince,
published in 1532, where he analyzed the foreign policy of the renaissance city
state of Florence. The contemporary field of international relations, however,
analyzes the connections existing between sovereign nation-states. This makes the
establishment of the modern state system the natural starting point of
international relations history.The field of international relations dates from the
time of the Greek historian Thucydides.

The field of international relations emerged at the beginning of the 20th century
largely in the West and in particular in the United States as that country grew in
power and influence. Whereas the study of international relations in the newly
founded Soviet Union and later in communist China was stultified by officially
imposed Marxist ideology, in the West the field flourished as the result of a
number of factors: a growing demand to find less-dangerous and more-effective means
of conducting relations between peoples, societies, governments, and economies; a
surge of writing and research inspired by the belief that systematic observation
and inquiry could dispel ignorance and serve human betterment; and the
popularization of political affairs, including foreign affairs. The traditional
view that foreign and military matters should remain the exclusive preserve of
rulers and other elites yielded to the belief that such matters constituted an
important concern and responsibility of all citizens. This increasing
popularization of international relations reinforced the idea that general
education should include instruction in foreign affairs and that knowledge should
be advanced in the interests of greater public control and oversight of foreign and
military policy.

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 .International
relations as a distinct field of study began in Britain. IR emerged as a formal
academic discipline in 1919 with the founding of the first IR professorship: the
Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, University of Wales (now Aberystwyth
University), held by Alfred Eckhard Zimmern and endowed by David Davies.
International politics courses were established at the University of Wisconsin in
1899 by Paul Samuel Reinsch and at Columbia University in 1910.By 1920, there were
four universities that taught courses on international organization.

The first university entirely dedicated to the study of IR was the Graduate
Institute of International Studies, which was founded in 1927 to form diplomats
associated to the League of Nations. In 1922, Georgetown University graduated its
first class of the Master of Science in Foreign Service (MSFS) degree, making it
the first international relations graduate program in the United States.This was
soon followed by the establishment of the Committee on International Relations
(CIR) at the University of Chicago, where the first research graduate degree was
conferred in 1928.The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a collaboration between
Tufts University and Harvard, opened its doors in 1933 as the first graduate-only
school of international affairs in the United States.[28] In 1965, Glendon College
and the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs were the first institutions
in Canada to offer an undergraduate and a graduate program in international studies
and affairs, respectively.

THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THERE ARE THREE MAIN CONCEPTS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS !

Realism :

The realist framework of international relations rests on the fundamental

assumption that the international state system is an anarchy, with no overarching
power restricting the behaviour of sovereign states. As a consequence, states are
engaged in a continuous power struggle, where they seek to augment their own
military capabilities, economic power, and diplomacy relative to other states; this
in order to ensure the protection of their political system, citizens, and vital
interests. The realist framework further assumes that states act as unitary,
rational actors, where central decision makers in the state apparatus ultimately
stand for most of the state's foreign policy decisions. International organisations
are in consequence merely seen as tools for individual states used to further their
own interests, and are thought to have little power in shaping states' foreign
policies on their own.

The realist framework is traditionally associated with the analysis of power-

politics, and has been used to analyse the conflicts between states in the early
European state-system; the causes of the first and second world wars, as well as
the behaviour of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In
settings such as these the realist framework carries great interpretative insights
in explaining how the military and economic power struggles of states lead to
larger armed conflicts. Political realism believes that politics, like society, is
governed by objective laws with 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.

Liberalism

The liberal framework is associated with analysis of the globalised world as it

emerged in the aftermath of World War II. Increased political cooperation through
organisations such as the UN, as well as economic cooperation through institutions
such as the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, was thought to
have made the realist analysis of power and conflict inadequate in explaining the
workings of the international system.In contrast to realism, the liberal framework
emphasises that states, although they are sovereign, do not exist in a purely
anarchical system. Rather, liberal theory assumes that states are institutionally
constrained by the power of international organisations, and mutually dependent on
one another through economic and diplomatic ties. Institutions such as the United
Nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the International Court of Justice
are taken to, over time, have developed power and influence to shape the foreign
policies of individual states. Furthermore, the existence of the globalised world
economy makes continuous military power struggle irrational, as states are
dependent on participation in the global trade system to ensure their own survival.
As such, the liberal framework stresses cooperation between states as a fundamental
part of the international system. States are not seen as unitary actors, but
pluralistic arenas where interest groups, non-governmental organisations, and
economic actors also shape the creation of foreign policy.

Liberal institutionalism (some times referred to as neoliberalism) shows how

cooperation can be achieved in international relations even if neorealist
assumptions apply (states are the key actors in world politics, the international
system is anarchic, and states pursue their self interest). Liberal
institutionalists highlight the role of international institutions and regimes in
facilitating cooperation between states.Prominent neoliberal institutionalists are
John Ikenberry, Robert Keohane, and Joseph Nye. Robert Keohane's 1984 book After
Hegemony used insights from the new institutional economics to argue that the
international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon, thus
rebutting hegemonic stability theory.[51]
Constructivism

Constructivism is part of critical theory, and as such seeks to criticise the

assumptions underlying traditional IR theory. Constructivist theory would for
example claim that the state leaders of the United States and Soviet Union were
socialised into different roles and norms, which can provide theoretical insights
to how the conflict between the nations was conducted during the Cold War. E.g.,
prominent US policy makers frequently spoke of the USSR as an 'evil empire', and
thus socialised the US population and state apparatus into an anti-communist
sentiment, which defined the norms conducted in US foreign policy. Other
constructivist analyses include the discourses on European integration; senior
policy-making circles were socialised into ideas of Europe as an historical and
cultural community, and therefore sought to construct institutions to integrate
European nations into a single political body. Constructivism is also present in
the analysis of international law, where norms of conduct such as the prohibition
of chemical weapons, torture, and the protection of civilians in war, are
socialised into international organisations, and stipulated into rules.

The constructivist framework rests on the fundamental assumption that the

international system is built on social constructs; such as ideas, norms, and
identities. Various political actors, such as state leaders, policy makers, and the
leaders of international organisations, are socialised into different roles and
systems of norms, which define how the international system operates. The
constructivist scholar Alexander Wendt, in a 1992 article in International
Organization, noted in response to realism that "anarchy is what states make of
it". By this he means that the anarchic structure that realists claim governs state
interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by
states.

CONCEPTS FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International relations are often viewed in terms of levels of analysis. The

systemic level concepts are those broad concepts that define and shape an
international milieu, characterized by anarchy. Focusing on the systemic level of
international relations is often, but not always, the preferred method for neo-
realists and other structuralist IR analysts.

Sovereignty
Preceding the concepts of interdependence and dependence, international relations
relies on the idea of sovereignty. Described in Jean Bodin's Six Books of the
Commonwealth in 1576, the three pivotal points derived from the book describe
sovereignty as being a state, that the sovereign power(s) have absolute power over
their territories, and that such a power is only limited by the sovereign's "own
obligations towards other sovereigns and individuals".[55] Such a foundation of
sovereignty is indicated by a sovereign's obligation to other sovereigns,
interdependence and dependence to take place. While throughout world history there
have been instances of groups lacking or losing sovereignty, such as African
nations prior to decolonization or the occupation of Iraq during the Iraq War,
there is still a need for sovereignty in terms of assessing international
relations.

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.

National interest
Perhaps the most significant concept behind that of power and sovereignty, national
interest is a state's action in relation to other states where it seeks to gain
advantage or benefits to itself. National interest, whether aspirational or
operational, is divided by core/vital and peripheral/non-vital interests. Core or
vital interests constitute the things which a country is willing to defend or
expand with conflict such as territory, ideology (religious, political, economic),
or its citizens. Peripheral or non-vital are interests which a state is willing to
compromise. For example, in Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 (a part
of Czechoslovakia) under the Munich Agreement, Czechoslovakia was willing to
relinquish territory which was considered ethnically German in order to preserve
its own integrity and sovereignty.[56]

Non-state actors
In the 21st century, the status-quo of the international system is no longer
monopolized by states alone. Rather, it is the presence of non-state actors, who
autonomously act to implement unpredictable behaviour to the international system.
Whether it is transnational corporations, liberation movements, non-governmental
agencies, or international organizations, these entities have the potential to
significantly influence the outcome of any international transaction. Additionally,
this also includes the individual person as while the individual is what
constitutes the states collective entity, the individual does have the potential to
also create unpredicted behaviours. Al-Qaeda, as an example of a non-state actor,
has significantly influenced the way states (and non-state actors) conduct
international affairs.[57]

Power blocs
The existence of power blocs in international relations is a significant factor
related to polarity. During the Cold War, the alignment of several nations to one
side or another based on ideological differences or national interests has become
an endemic feature of international relations. Unlike prior, shorter-term blocs,
the Western and Soviet blocs sought to spread their national ideological
differences to other nations. Leaders like US President Harry S. Truman under the
Truman Doctrine believed it was necessary to spread democracy whereas the Warsaw
Pact under Soviet policy sought to spread communism. After the Cold War, and the
dissolution of the ideologically homogeneous Eastern bloc still gave rise to others
such as the South-South Cooperation movement.

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 multipolar, with power being shared among great powers.

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.
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 popular definition is that given by Carl von 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 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 UN Human Rights Council has yet to use
this mechanism.

The allotment of economic and/or diplomatic benefits such as the European Union's
enlargement policy; candidate countries are only allowed to join if they meet the
Copenhagen criteria.
The mutual exchange of ideas, information, art, music and language among nations
through cultural diplomacy has also been recognized by governments as an important
tool in the development of international relations.

ORGANIZATION FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Several international institutions play significant roles in the field of
International Relations. These institutions serve various purposes, including
fostering cooperation among states, addressing global challenges, and promoting
international stability. Here are some key institutions:

United Nations (UN): Established in 1945, the UN is a central institution in

international relations. It consists of multiple specialized agencies and bodies,
including the Security Council, General Assembly, International Court of Justice,
and UNICEF. The UN addresses issues such as peacekeeping, human rights, and
sustainable development.

World Bank: The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides
loans and grants to the governments of poorer countries for the purpose of pursuing
capital projects. It aims to reduce poverty and support economic development.

International Monetary Fund (IMF): The IMF is another major financial institution
that focuses on international monetary cooperation and exchange rate stability. It
provides financial assistance to member countries facing balance of payments
problems.

World Trade Organization (WTO): The WTO regulates international trade by providing
a framework for negotiating trade agreements and resolving disputes between member
countries. It aims to facilitate the smooth flow of goods and services across
borders.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO): A military alliance formed in 1949,

NATO's primary purpose is to ensure the security and defense of its member
countries. It is a crucial institution in the realm of collective security.

European Union (EU): Originally formed as an economic community, the EU has evolved
into a political and economic union. It promotes economic cooperation, political
integration, and the free movement of people and goods among its member states.

African Union (AU): The AU is a continental union consisting of African countries,

aiming to promote political and economic integration, peace, and stability in
Africa. It also addresses issues such as human rights and sustainable development.

Organization of American States (OAS): Founded in 1948, the OAS is a regional

organization for the Americas, promoting democracy, human rights, and economic
development in the region.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations): A regional intergovernmental

organization comprising ten Southeast Asian countries. ASEAN promotes economic
cooperation, political stability, and regional security.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE): A regional security

organization with a comprehensive approach to security. It addresses political-
military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions of security.

International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC is a permanent international court

established to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes, including
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

These institutions, among others, contribute to the framework of international

relations by providing platforms for dialogue, cooperation, and conflict resolution
on a global scale. They address various aspects of international affairs, from
economic development and trade to security and human rights.
CONCLUSION :

Whether the relationships between scholars and practitioners of international

relations will be strengthened remains to be seen. Theories of international
relations were notably deficient in their ability to predict the end of the Cold
War. Moreover, the dramatic and accelerating changes that have transformed the
world since the end of the 20th century have enhanced the problems inherent in
developing accurate appraisals of the world in its international aspect.
Nonetheless, there is a consensus that more sophisticated uses of quantitative,
computer-assisted studies in universities, research organizations, and governments
will aid researchers in their quest to better understand and explain the current
state of the world and to produce more frequent and precise reports. The academic
community, however, has generally lacked adequate resources and trained personnel
to satisfy the growing demand for information.

If the data on the conditions and relationships of the world’s social systems—now
made more manageable and more available for immediate use through computer systems
and the Internet—are fully utilized, the academic field of international relations
will have much more in common with governmental analysis and planning agencies than
ever before. The end result could be the development of more innovative approaches
to the formulation and conduct of foreign policy as well as to the broader study of
international relations.

BIBILOGRAPHY !

"International Politics". Political Science. Retrieved 2023-06-18.

"Department of International Relations". London School of Economics and Political

Science. Retrieved 2021-04-14.

"What is International Relations? | BISA". 3 February 2020.

"International Politics". Political Science. Retrieved 2023-06-18.

"International Relations". Department of Political Science. Retrieved 2022-04-05.