Contents

Introduction Syllabus Chapter One Chapter Two Chapter Three Chapter Four Chapter Five Chapter Six Chapter Seven Annotated Terms Glossary Bibliography What is International Relations? George Cooray Relations Among States and International Relations as a Discipline George Cooray The Actors in International Relations George Cooray Major Approaches to International Relations George Cooray International Relations as a Science George Cooray International System George Cooray Power and National Interest George Cooray 68 78 81 60 49 40 28 21 9 1 2 3

Introduction
It is with great pleasure I write this introduction to the course I have taught in past 10 years or go. This study guide is intended as a brief description of the subject of International Relations for those who begin to study this in the University. This is by no means a complete text book on International Relations. This purely brings together in a nutshell the study material/study aids I have been using in the classroom over the years to introduction the subject to the fresh undergraduates in the University. This study guide begins with the Syllabus. The INR 1101 Syllabus given here has twelve sections. But in this guide, we have only Seven Chapters it is not that we forget or ignored sections. Rather, I as the author, decided to incorporate some sections. The result is seven chapters that include information on all the sections given in the Syllabus. Now, each chapter has some similarities. One is that all chapters have Learning Outcomes that inform you what we expect from you after you have learnt to topic. There is a brief introduction. Concepts, some quotations, and doctrine are presented in boxes to emphasize their importance. This does not mean that other aspects within each chapter are not needed. A student can gain full insights and fulfill the learning Outcomes only after reading the whole chapter. Each chapter also has a Reading List. These are the Recommended Readings rather than Required Reading rather than Required Readings. Some of the documents can be found in the internet. If a student wishes to get a full understanding of the topic, they must find some of these readings. There is a list of Key Terms at the end of each chapter. Not all of these terms have been included in the Glossary found at the end of the book. The key terms is also a guide to students to know what is important within that chapter and to find more information on these terms.

George A. Cooray

Syllabus INR 1101 INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Course Description This is an elementary course in International Relations intended for all students who wish to offer this subject for a three year General Degree or a four year Special Degree. For a four year Special Degree in International Relations, this course unit is compulsory. Learning Outcomes The main objective of this course unit is to introduce International Relations as new and distinct discipline to the first year students. The students are expected to familiarize them selves with major actors in International Relations, the international system, and the major theories, approaches and concepts in International Relations. Students are encouraged to analyze international problems using theories and concepts they learn in the course. Course Content 1. Defining International Relations, especially as a discipline 2. Major phases in the growth and development of International Relations as a distinct discipline 3. Major approaches to International Relations 4. State and Non-State Actors in International Relations 5. Basic concepts in International Relations: Power, National Interest and National Security 6. Evolution of the International System 7. The Problem of War and Conflict in International Relations 8. The Prevention of War and Conflict in International Relations 9. Diplomacy in International Relations: Nature, role and functions period 10. International Law, and its sources and effectiveness in International Relations 11. Human Rights in International Relations

12. Integration in International Relations: (a) Federal, Functional, Pluralist and Neofunctional Integration. (b) International Organizations and Regional Organizations.

CHAPTER ONE What is International Relations?

Learning Outcomes At the end of this chapter, students will have gained an understanding of the development of the field of International Relations. Introduction International Relations is a relatively new academic discipline. It belongs to the group of social sciences. However, it is younger than most of the other social sciences we are familiar with. They include well-established and developed subjects like History, Law, Geography, Economics, Political Science and Sociology. Despite the fact that International Relations is still at a developing stage, it has become a very attractive and a fashionable academic discipline. That is why it has many students the world over. State Interactions How and why do the states or nations interact with others? Do the states belong to a kind of society called International Society? If so, are there any rules or customs governing the behaviour of a state member of this society? Despite conflicts and wars how do the member states maintain some order in the world? International Relations is trying to answer these questions. It is simply, a study that extends beyond state or national boundaries. The study of International Relations is in many ways useful too. On the one hand, the subject matter it deals with is tremendously interesting, whether it is war, conflict, diplomacy or peace. The world around us is full of these transactions. Getting to know the real essence of these undoubtedly satisfies our minds. These experiences may be useful in our dayto-day activities as well. Of course, certain professions do require a good knowledge of them.

As indicated above, the study of International Relations result in raising many questions. Why do nations go to war? How do they resolve their conflicts over resources, national borders and numerous disputes? Why do nations get together in alliances, regional organizations or in international organizations? Why do states sign treaties? Who are diplomats or those able skilful negotiators? Is there a law that governs all the states in the world? Is there an international Relations among nations society, a community or a system? International Relations as an academic discipline tries to answer these and many other questions. International Relations has its own language, concepts and analytical methods too. In attempting to answer those earlier mentioned questions, some analysts may delve deep into matters. They may try to gather answers in History, Philosophy, Political Science, Law, Sociology, Anthropology, or even in Psychology. For instance, some analysts may find causes for wars and conflicts deeply rooted in the human mind. Others may point their fingers at organizations such as states with their selfish motives and ineffective international organizations to bring order into the world. Whatever answers are found, it would be a satisfying exercise to explore them. On the other hand, the study of International Relations can broaden our minds and our mental horizon. It may lead us to think internationally or globally rather than merely as individual or separate nations. We may begin to think that we are only small parts of the world. We are only another unit among others within a larger International System. While some states in this world provide us with aid and assistance, they at the same time collect arms directly or indirectly against us or in competition with us. Is this not a paradox? The behaviour of states or nations is determined by various complex factors, objectives or motives.

Under the circumstances, it is no wonder why International Relations has already become very popular among inquisitive students the world over. These questions motivate the finding of answers. This handbook takes us on a journey: a journey to find out about an academic discipline which tries to find answers to a myriad of questions about the world. Though briefly, let us start from the birth of the discipline and then move onto understanding the main features of it. Birth of the new discipline It was around 1920, immediately after the First World War (19141918) that International Relations was believed to have been formally established as a social sciences discipline in the University of Wales in Britain. Before that, the subject matter of International Relations, namely the relations among League of Nations nations, was studied within other social science disciplines. After it separated from other disciplines such as History, Politics, Sociology and Economics etc. to appear as a new, but separate and distinct academic subject, it became popular in Britain. Thereafter, it spread rapidly throughout Europe, the United States of America and gradually to other parts of the world. Fighting during World War I

International Relations was introduced to the University curriculum in Sri Lanka in the late nineteen seventies. After nearly fifteen years, International Relations as a subject is now taught at various levels in many Universities and similar institutions. However, it still remains a new and a developing subject that has not reached many. The purpose of this study guide is, as has already been stated, to simply introduce this new subject or discipline to a larger audience. Two Preliminary Questions In International Relations many preliminary questions are likely to be raised. Two of the very basic questions are as follows, Question 1 What actually is International Relations? This refers to actual relations among nations. This leads to another query. Are they restricted to political relations among states or nations or do they include other relations among other entities as well? Questions 2 What is International Relations as an academic discipline? How do we distinguish it from other social sciences like History, Political science, Law, Geography and Sociology etc.? By answering these two questions, it may be possible to introduce International Relations to a wider section of students interested in learning this new discipline. There is a difference between international relations (the actual relations among nations and International Relations (the discipline). The actual international relations among States or Nations. These relations may be political, economic, social or cultural and generally refers to a wide variety of relations. They should be frequent and regularized to be called international relations. In this context, it is interesting to learn, for the sake of curiosity, that it was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) who first used the word international. As such, the word itself is not very old.

 International Relations is the name of the academic discipline or the subject that deals with those relations. This discipline (subject) explains, and analyzes relations among nations and sometimes even makes predictions. In other words, awkward various types of relations among states existed long before the discipline, International Relations, was born. For further clarification, it may fist be helpful to gain insights into the history of the development of relations among nations. Secondly, it is also useful to outline the growth and development of the subject, International Relations. The preceding discussion was a very brief introduction to International Relations meant for beginners. For easy reading, the language was made simple and only the essentials were included. This is just the beginning.

Model Study Questions 1. Identify five big states and five small states important or active in international relations and prepare state/country profiles on them. The profile may include some information on the following aspects: a. b. c. d. e. f. Full name of the state Size of territory and population The economy Membership of International and Regional Organizations, if possible with year of admission Some information on politics. For instance, Democracy, Constitutional Monarchy, etc. Your own judgment on the respective states role in international relations Dictatorship,

2. Read the following statements carefully. If a statement is correct mark P, and if it is not, mark O. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . International Relations as an academic discipline began in the seventeenth century Relations among States are as old as the states themselves. A narrow definition of IR is concerned with political relations among States only. The main focus of International Relations after WW II was on International Law and institutions. Political Realism is based on the assumption that Man is by nature good. Woodrow Wilson contributed immensely to political Realism. The first phase in the development of IR as a discipline began in 1648. Systems Approach was dominant during the pre-natal phase. To include Non-State Actors, International Relations should be defined narrowly. The State is increasing in significance in international relations.

Key Terms Discipline First World War International Relations Paradox Essential Reading List Baylis, John and Steve Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations Holsti, K. J. 1997. International Politics: Framework for Analysis Jones, Walter S. 1991. The Logic of International Relations.

CHAPTER TWO
9

Relations Among States and International Relations as a Discipline

Learning Outcome At the completion of this chapter, students will have gained an understanding of how and why International Relations became a discipline. Introduction International Relations as a field, faced many difficulties during its short period in existence. This chapter informs the student of the historical developments of relations among nations/states and the growth and acceptance of International Relations as a discipline. The Historical Development Like individual human beings, or Nations the most prominent human organization cannot be expected to exist in isolation. As such, it is possible to say that relations among states or nations are as old as they were. For those organizations, some kind of relationship, whether they were commercial or cultural, were a necessity for survival. In most cases, the exchange of goods and service was accompanied by religious and cultural transactions at varying levels. It is also important to observe that an integral part of the life of human beings throughout history has been inter-personal and inter-group relations based on unity as well as conflict. In ancient times men lived together in groups or tribes. In the same manner, they had conflicts or Source:northwestern.edu/ themselves, they also tried to influence each other through peaceful means. When they organize fights for various reasons among National Flags

10

into more coherent social and political units called states with territorial boundaries and common identities, they continued to interact among themselves in the same fashion. If we delve a little deeper into the history behind this, even before modern states came into existence, there were interactions between old civilizations. Some of these civilizations, the predecessors of modern states, were in fact, culturally highly developed. So were inter-civilization relations. For instance, during the Roman civilization, the envoys of kings and Emperors were in the habit of visiting other centres of civilizations, which was similar to modern diplomatic transactions. Also, there were wars between them. The transactions between civilizations generally included religious, cultural, trade or diplomatic contacts. However, those transactions were not routine or frequent. Neither were they systematic nor regularized. This does not mean that in the ancient world there were no customs, laws or certain norms that governed relationships. In fact, some ancient civilizations had certain ideas about treating foreign delegates with mutual respect. Some civilizations even had laws and customs concerning war. The Chinese civilizations, for instance, had a very developed set of laws of war. Relations Among States Relations are frequent dealings or associations among persons

groups or generally

regularized by customs or laws. In this sense, the interactions between civilizations cannot be properly called relations since they were neither frequent nor regularized. Relations proper, in terms of the aforementioned criteria, began only in the seventeenth century. Seventeenth Century: The Beginning of Relations

11

Actual relations among states began in the seventeenth century, In this century two major historical developments created and promoted regular relations among states. One, was the beginnings of the sovereign state system in Europe with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This provided the political foundation for relations among modern territorial states. The other, was the advancement of science, technology, and navigation and as a result the expansion of overseas trade. It was the Signatories of the Treaty economic need that arose out of this trade expansion which made regular relations a necessity. As a result of these developments, the world began to shrink or become smaller, paving the way for frequent, systematic and regularized relations among states. Eighteenth Century: The Revolutionary period In the eighteenth century, two major events influenced the already shrinking world: 1. The Industrial Revolution 2. The French Revolution. The economic and political impact of these revolutions on relations among modern states was significant. The Industrial Revolution changed the economic structure of the world. It marked the rise of capitalism, which ultimately led to imperialism. The Imperialist aspects of expansion the entire changed all international French Revolution Industrial Revolution

12

system. Imperialism was the main cause of The World Wars, which brought about massive destruction to the world along with immense suffering to human beings. In fact, it should be noted that World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945) provided the dynamic force behind the development of International Relations as a discipline. The massive devastation of World War 1, presented an urgency among scholars to study international relations seriously and systematically. The purpose was (1) to understand the causes of war and (2) to find ways of preventing such wars. In other words, it was the pain of war that gave birth to a new discipline. And this discipline was named International Relations. International Relations as a discipline The discipline of International Relations soon began to develop as a separate and distinct discipline. At the very outset, it is therefore, essential to understand that International Relations (IR) is different from International Affairs, World Affairs, Contemporary World, Current Affairs, External Affairs and even International Politics. In these subjects, we learn what is happening in the world around us. From these, we learn world events as well as international issues. The events may vary from fashion shows to cricket matches or a military coup in one country to general elections in another. The term international is used with issues of political interest such as conflict, war, arms control and weapons of mass destruction, peace and peacemaking, international law, human rights, regional cooperation, international and regional organizations and political movements etc. International Relations also deals with more or less the same events and issues. However, International Relations is called a distinct academic discipline because it has features characteristic of such a discipline. Any distinct academic discipline is recognized by some characteristic features: (1) A clearly defined field, (2) frequently used concepts, (3) approaches, (4) theories, and (5) a specialized glossary or a vocabulary.

13

International Relations acquired these features over time, and relatively quickly. The following discussion is helpful in order to find out how International Relations evolved as a discipline by acquiring essential features and also to learn why it is considered a distinct discipline. The discussion is divided into four sections: Definition of the discipline/subject: What is International Relations as an academic discipline? What are the distinguishing features of it? History of International Relations as a discipline: How did it grow and develop? The actors in International Relations: What are their activities? Methods of analysis or main approaches: What are the ways of seeing in International relations? Definition of the discipline/subject As mentioned earlier, International Relations is different from International Affairs, Current Affairs, Contemporary Events, and even International Politics. All these deal with what is happening in the world. They may be related to politics, history, culture, economics or society at large. Sometimes, sensational news is given prominence. Discovering what happens outside ones own country can be interesting and may satisfy our curious mind. Undoubtedly it is useful for the students of International Relations as well. However, International relations as a discipline/subject deals with something more. In textbooks, authors have tried to define International Relations in many different ways. The following is from a textbook used by undergraduate students in the United States of America (USA): A branch of the social sciences dealing with those policies, developments and interactions, the effects of which cross national boundaries and affect the lives of the people in different countries and in several parts of the world.

14

In this definition, several important aspects of the subject are highlighted. First, it is a Social Sciences discipline. It grew out of the well known Social Sciences disciplines such as History, Economics, Political Science, Geography and Sociology. It separated from those Social Sciences, and developed over time into a fully-fledged academic subject. It is no longer a branch of any other subject. It now has its own area of study, methods, approaches, theories and special vocabulary. Secondly, its major focus is on policies. In this sense, International Relations is more than a study of events and issues. In analyzing policies, it concentrates on their development and interactions between different policies of states and nations or those who act on behalf of them. States or nations and those who represent them are called actors in International Relations. Sometimes, those who act for states are known as decision-makers. It is, however, important to note that those actors now include non-state actors as well. Non-state actors have become more prominent than even states. For instance, there are non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are more effective and influential than individual states. The ICRC (the International Committee of the Red Cross) is one of the most prominent non-state actors today. The role it plays in international relations is prominent and obvious. In most conflict situations, the modern states, today seek its assistance. It is the body that supervises the maintenance of the law of war in internal and international conflicts. Thirdly, on one hand, International Relations deals with the policies and actions of states and non-state actors that go beyond national boundaries and interact with each other. On the other hand, it is concerned about the impact of those interactions on both state and non-state actors as well as the people living within these states. In this sense, IR is a study of both interactions and effects. Therefore, IR has to be defined broadly rather than narrowly. Narrow definition International Relations deals with policies and actions of states or those representing states. The actions or policies are mainly political.

15

Broad definitions International Relations includes not only states and their representatives but also non-state actors and individuals. The policies and actions dealt with extend beyond politics. As such, IR on the whole, is concerned with societal relations. The interaction between policies and their effects are generally more complex than we think. However, for our understanding we may simplify them in a chart elsewhere (See Chapter Three: Actors and their activities.) The history of International Relations as a subject/discipline The main focus of International Relations (IR) changed from time to time. The reasons for these shifts, often described as shifts of emphasis, are found in the actual relations among actors (both state and non-state) in International Relations. Parallel to those changers, the growth and development of International Relations many be divided into four phases. In the different phases we may observe some features of one phase continuing into the next. Therefore, the division is mostly arbitrary. It is, however, useful for understanding the development of the subject. The following table indicates four different phases in the growth and development of International Relations: Phases of Growth & Development in IR Phase Pre-Natal or Historical Organizations Cold War Time Frame Before 1914 1914 1945 1945 1989 Major Focus/ Emphasis History, Law and Diplomacy International Law and Institutions Balance of Power, Armed Race, Scientific Since 1960s Ideologies International System, Systems and Behavioural Dominant Approach Historical and Legal Idealist Realist

State Behaviour The Four Phases of Growth and Development Pre-Natal/Historical Phase

16

In this phase, the main interest was in the understanding of relations among states/nations through History, Diplomacy and Law. Scholars tried to answer the primary question: How did the modern world evolved from the past? The field of study was confined to states and their external policies and activities. They included trade, diplomatic transactions, disputes and wars as well. Since there was no international organization similar to the League of Nations or the present United Nations, the focus was narrowly fixed on international laws that governed the relations among states. The approaches or ways of seeing and a methodology for analyzing was at the stage of being formulated. As a result, the investigations were not systematic and more than this, analysts were unable to answer the question of war. It was, therefore, natural that World War I changed the outlook of many scholars. Organizations Phase The massive destruction caused by World War 1 urged scholars to study International Relations with one main purpose in mind. That was the prevention of war. How can the catastrophe of war be alleviated? First of all, the cause of war should be understood. Secondly, a procedure for resolving international conflict should be established. Concerned scholars and statesmen seeking solutions were influenced by Idealist thinkers like Rousseau, Kant and Hugo Grotius. Moreover, influenced by them, the U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson saw the answer in an International Organization. As such, his ideas help found the League of Nations. Analysts of IR in this phase are known as Idealists and their approach as Political Idealist Approach. Although the League of Nations accomplished some of its mandate at the beginning, it later failed to fulfil its anticipated objectives. It could neither resolve conflict

17

nor controlled arms race between nations. The consequence was World War II (1939-1945), resulting in more destruction brought about by conventional and nuclear weapons. It was thus natural that the Idealists were heavily criticized by a group of thinkers who described themselves as Realists. The next phase saw the Realists trying to explain international relations. Cold War Phase The Cold War phase was preceded by a twenty year crisis period (1919-1939) and a war (19391945). During this period of crisis and war, the main focus of IR was understandably, strategy and geopolitics. Needless to say, Great Powers (all European) dominated the actual international relations both in war and in peace settlements. The Cold War phase began in 1945 with the end of World War II. The features characteristic of

the Cold War was the tension and the arms race. The Balance of Power dominated by the two powers and the rivalry between two ideologies Capitalist Western Democracy and Eastern Socialism too, were important. The analysts of IR, namely Political Realists saw power as the dynamic force behind all international politics. Hans J. Morgenthau, the father of political Realism, in his seminal book Political among Nations says, All international politics is a struggle for power. As this indicates, the Political Realist approach to IR was a power approach. The dominant approach

18

during this phase can be called the Politics of Realism and the key concept used in this was power. Political Realism was never totally discarded or abandoned by analysts of IR. However, a contending new school of thought known as the Scientific School emerged in the 1960s and became popular. Scientific Phase Naturally, this phase clearly reflected the influence of the natural sciences on the social sciences. International Relations, as a new discipline, was no exception. With this influence, some scholars readily adopted Systems Approach and Quantitative Analysis in the analysis of international relations. Is the Systems Approach useful for analyzing internal relations? Can international relations be analyzed quantitatively? Classical thinkers may tend to answer no. Nevertheless, modern analysts inspired by the developments in science and technology, rather affectionately, adopted scientific approaches and methods such as the System Approach, The Behavioural Approach, Quantitative Analysis, Computer Simulation and Mathematics into the study and analysis of IR. These scientist generally believe that, 1. 2. International relations is a science, The analytical tools used in natural sciences can be used in IR analysis, and 3. Systems Approach is relevant and useful since actual international relations themselves constitute a system. Model Study Questions 1. 2. 3. Briefly define International Relations in your own words. Describe the four phases in the growth and development of IR. Match the column A with B. (You can check your answers against Chart 4.) A (Approach) 1. Political Idealist 2. Political Realist B (Major emphasis) International System Quantitative analysis 19

3. Scientific 4. Systems 5. Radical 6. Bureaucratic 7. Decision-making

State bureaucracy Revolution within the System International Law Decisions Power

Key Terms Actors Approaches Definitions Capitalism Civilizations Cold War Scientific Phase Conflict Decision-makers Diplomatic Discipline The French Revolution Hans J. Morgenthau Imperialism The Industrial Revolution Inter-group relations Inter-personal relations Methods of analysis National boundaries Peace of Westphalia, 1648 Political Idealist Political Realists Pre-Natal or Historical Organizations Relations Systematic Theories 20

Transactions Vocabulary Woodrow Wilsom World Wars Essential Reading List Lawson, Stephanie. 2003. International Relations Baylis, John and Steve Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations Hans J. Morgenthau. 1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations

CHAPTER THREE The Actors in International Relations

Learning Outcomes At the completion of this chapter, students will be introduced to the different actors conducting international relations.

21

Introduction The preceding discussion shows how International Relations (IR) developed from a mere narrative description of international affairs to a distinct academic discipline with several characteristic features. It is now necessary to identify the Actors in IR and their activities. These activities, in fact, make the field of IR a discipline. Actors in International Relations The State, Nation or Nation-States are the primary actors in International Relations (see diagram below). Actors and their activities in International Relations War Peace Diplomacy State Non-state Law

State

Non-state

The States have been in existence for a very long time in history. The concept of Nations, and later Nation-states, however, remain relatively new, having emerged in the nineteenth century. The States are basically political organizations with specific universal characteristics. They include Territory, Population, a Sovereign Government, ability to transact with others and also International Recognition. When States are identified with a Nation or nations they are formed into Nation States.

The terms, State, Nation, Nation-state and even Country have different meanings but they are used in IR interchangeably.

22

Although

these

States,

Role of NGO

Nations or Nation-states are considered primary actors, there is also a view that they are now declining New in importance in international relations. Non-State actors have begun to play an equally important role. Some of those actors are organized as Non Governmental Organizations (i.e., NGOs). There are big Multi-National Corporations, International Source : S. Montanvert / Handicap International Movements and influential individuals as well. As a result, not only state actors, but non-state actors too interact with each other as well as with state actors. As such, relations have become more complex. (See diagram above titled Actors and their activities in International Relations).

The Role of State as an Actor Conventional belief is that the state is the prime actor in International Relations. It is undoubtedly true, if IR is confined to only relations between states. It also implies that relations are limited to political activities. However, is should be noted that, over time, the role of the state has changed. There are three predominant views about the role of the state in IR now. 1. The State is still the most impotant actor. It can still perform all traditionally assigned national functions. Security is one of the most important functions. In addition, it can either maintain or destroy the International System.

23

2. Its role is no longer significant because of some changes, especially in warfare and weapons systems in the modern era. It cannot perform some of the traditional functions such as protecting the state. 3. The moderate view is that, more than diminishing in significance, what has changed is the nature and extent of its functions. In view of the developments in science and technology that revolutionized the global economy, international politics and all human relations, the third view seems to be more appropriate in the context of International Relations. The Approaches or Methods of Analysis Acquaintance with the approaches or the methods of analysis is undoubtedly the key to understanding an academic discipline. International Relations is no exception. The major approaches give us an idea of the way analysts define the field of study and select the main themes to be examined and explained. The approaches also suggest the analytical methods and specific tools to be used. In other words, they provide us with problems as well as the ways of analyzing them. It is then needless to say that the nature of the analysis of International Relations depends on the particular approach adopted. It was indicated earlier how different approaches become prominent during different phases in the growth and development of International Relations as a discipline. In this section, an attempt is made to identify some of major approaches and to describe them briefly.

What is an approach? To put it simply, an approach is a way of seeing any subject. It is a method of analyzing relations among nations as well. In the process of the growth and development of any academic discipline/subject, different and contending approaches are tried and often debated. All approaches are based on assumptions or beliefs. On the whole approaches may be called worldviews. In this sense, for instance, Idealists and Realists, look at the world from completely different angles. Idealists see International Relations in terms of moral principles, obligations, justice and trust. Realists see them only in terms of power and national

24

interest. The other approaches have their own way of perceiving or seeing these relations, and therefore include different methods of analyses. The Scientific approach also known as the Behavioural approach, rejects traditional approaches and tries to see IR from a scientific angle. For them, IR can adopt quantitative analysis and other scientific methods in analyzing international relations. Another modern approach, the Systems approach sees a System in International Relations (International System) and believes in analyzing it as a whole (a holistic approach). The Radical approach is related in many ways to the Systems approach. However, this approach assumes that the international system is constantly changing and the existing international system may be completely changed in a revolution and can be replaced with a new one. Bureaucratic and Decision-Making approaches prefer micro-analysis of IR. The Bureaucratic approach concentrates on military and non-military while Decision-making approach focuses on state bureaucrats and their decisions. There are many contending approaches to International Relations. They may fall into broader categories: 1. The Classical or Traditional approaches and 2. The Modern approaches The following table (titled Approaches to International Relations or Ways of Seeing the World) will show some of the most popular approaches already mentioned, under those two main categories.

Approaches to International Relations or Ways of Seeing the World Classical or Traditional Modern 1. Political Idealism 2. Political Realism 3. Scientific or Behavioural 4. Systems 5. Radical 6. Bureaucratic 25

7. Decision-making It is clear that approaches differ based mainly on what they emphasize in International Relations. The following table (titled Approaches and Main Emphasis) indicates the main emphasis of each approach. Approaches and Main Emphasis Approach 1. Political Idealist 2. Political Realist 3. Behavioural/Scientific 4. Systems 5. Radical 6. Bureaucratic 7. Decision-making Power struggle Quantitative analysis of Behaviour International System as a whole Revolution within the System State bureaucracy Decisions of policy-makers Main Emphasis International Law and Institutes

Then what is the use of studying International Relations? There is no precise answer to this question. This new subject/discipline can make a person capable of undertaking functional responsibilities with a broad enlightened mind and in a disciplined manner. Undoubtedly one can broaden ones horizons while enjoying the study of International Relations. Model Study questions 1. 2. 3. 4. Try to identify as many non-state actors as possible. Study the role played by any one of the non-state actors in International Relations. (The area, the extent and the effectiveness of activity) Write a short essay on the following topic: States are not very impotent in International Relations. (This may even be a topic for a debate between two teams of students.) There is no direct reference in this Study Guide to the following topics. Think it them, and if possible discuss it with others: Media as an actor in International Relations. 5. What could be the nature of the world, if all States have nuclear weapons? (Read the section on the International System as well).

26

Key Terms Actors Approaches The Behavioural approach Bureaucratic Classical approach Decision-Making The Idealist approach International Movements International Recognition Modern approaches Multi-National Corporations Nation-States NGOs or Non Governmental Organizations Non-State actors The Radical approach The Realist approach Scientific approach State Bureaucrats The Systems approach Territory Traditional approaches Essential Reading List Baylis, John and Steve Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations. Morgenthau. Hans J.1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.

27

Holsti, K. J. 1997. International Politics: Framework for Analysis. Jones, Walter S. 1991. The Logic of International Relations. Lawson, Stephanie 2003 International Relations.

CHAPTER FOUR Major Approaches to International Relations

Learning Outcomes At the end of this chapter, students will gain an insight into the different approaches to the field of International Relations

28

Introduction Political Idealism and Political Realism are the traditional approaches to International Relations. They are known as Classical approaches as well. In the first phase of the development of IR as a new discipline, the dominant approach was Political Idealism. In fact, the Idealists did not call themselves idealists. Their opponents, the Political Realists, named them. Era of Development The Realists began to dominate the IR filed after World War II. Since then, there was an ongoing debate between Idealists and Realists. Those debates are known as great debates in International Relations. Later these debates extended to include modern approaches. One such important debate was between Traditionalism and Behaviouralism. The Behaviouralism was the scientific or the first of modern approaches. This chapter is not about those debates. Instead, this a short description of the two traditional/classical approaches involved in the first great debate. First, what is an Approach? The establishment of any social science discipline is characterized by the adoption of specific approaches to it. An Approach is a way of seeing or a method of analyzing an academic subject. In the process of the growth and development of any academic discipline/subject, different and contending approaches are tried and often debated. All approaches are based on some assumptions or beliefs. In this sense the Idealists and Realists look at the world from completely different angles. The Idealists see International Relations in terms of moral principles, obligations, justice, and trust. The Realists see them only in terms of power. Political Idealist Approach Political Idealists are also known as Utopians. Critics of Political Idealism generally use the term utopian. These so-called utopians, when they analyze a social phenomenon, give prominence to mind and the minds desires, disregarding the matter and material conditions. As such, for them, events occur because people desire or wish it to be so.

29

E. H. Carr in his book, Twenty Years Crises, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (1939) says, that utopians or idealists were influenced by three major trends: (1) Eighteenth century Enlightenment, (2) Nineteenth century Liberalism and (3) Twentieth century Wilsonian Idealism. Considering these historical and political origins, another author, W. T. R. Fox describes Political Idealism as reconciliation of the desirable and the possible. At this stage, we need not discuss the meaning of those philosophical terms at length. It is adequate to simply know that Idealists combine what they wish to happen and what is possible to happen. To understand the true nature of Political Idealism, it is, however, important to have an idea about its historical, philosophical and political foundations. They are as follows: i. Historical foundation The sad miserable experience of World War I. The carnage of this war troubled the minds of some people. Quite understandably, they simply wanted to achieve peace at any cost and to prevent a war of this magnitude happening in the future. ii. Philosophical foundation - There were two ideologies that had a negative influence. One was the Marxist ideology. There was a strongly felt need to reject Marxism, which stressed on the idea that the matter is primary to mind and that material conditions always determine the thinking of men. Also, it promoted revolution as the from of social and political change. The second ideology focused on the growing Nationalism that transformed the world. The Idealists saw nationalism as a threat to the existing states system and a powerful force that can lead to wars. Therefore, it was natural for those two ideologies to have a negative influence on the Idealists. The positive influence came from UtopianIdealist philosophers such as St. Pierre, Rousseau, Grotius and Immanuel Kant. Naturally, the views expressed by those thinkers were very attractive to Political Idealists.

30

The Utopian-Idealist Philosophers St Pierres Project for Perpetual Peace saw all men joined in bonds of love, and all finding their happiness in the happiness of all. Rousseau called for searching not for what has been done but rather for what should be done. He dismissed evil authorities who make men slaves, evil and miserable. Grotius, as a legal thinker, believed in the supremacy of law over human beings and nations. Law or right reason is the basis for determining rules for the rightful conduct of states. States are subject to the same rules, which regulate the lives of individuals. Violations of those rules are punishable. Immanuel Kants idea of Perpetual Peace was very attractive to Idealists. According to Kants proposal for peace which in fact for a proposal to prevent war there shall be (i) No conclusion of peace with a secret reservation, (ii) No acquisition of a state by another state, (iii) No standing armies, and (iv) No forcible state interference in another state and (v) No breach of confidence during war. In his view, peace could be achieved, only if all states have republican constitutions. iii. Political foundation- The most important political leader of the day who was greatly inspired by Utopian thinkers was Woodrow Wilson. He was the President of the United States of American during the World War I period. Wilson believed in international law and institutions. Woodrow Wilson, in his address to the

31

Congress on 8 January, 1918 presented, A Formula for Peace which contained the famous Fourteen Points. Some of these were: (1) Open covenants of peace openly arrived at instead of secret diplomacy (2) Absolute freedom of navigation upon seas alike peace and war, (3) the removal of all trade barriers, (4) general disarmament, (5) impartial settlement of all colonial claims, and in addition to some specific details of settlements from 6 to 13, (14) the establishment of a League of Nations, He was the founder of the League of Nations. He and others believed that this International Organization could bring about peace and stability to the world in the future. On the basis of these foundations, the Idealists began to study IR systematically to understand the causes of war and means to eliminate war. Accordingly, they based their approach on the following assumptions: 1. Human nature is essentially good 2. Progress is possible 3. Bad human behaviour is the product, of bad institutions 4. War is the worst of all evils 5. War is not inevitable and can be eliminated 6. War is a global problem and thus requires global solutions 7. International society could be and should be recognized The Idealist solutions to the global problems include: 1. Supra-national institutions, 2. Legal control of war, and 3. Elimination of weapons (arms control and disarmament).

32 Destruction of World War I

Political Realist Approach Political Realism as a traditional approach emerged as a reaction and a formidable challenge to the Political Idealist approach. It opposed all forms of Idealism. Very soon it had many proponents. It became the most prominent approach to International Relations after World War II. As such the traces of this approach are found even in the most modern approaches to International Relations. In this sense, Political Realism is an approach that never became obsolete or totally rejected. Like in the case of the Idealist approach, it is important here to outline the historical, philosophical and political foundations of Realism. They are completely different from those of Political Idealism: i. Historical foundation: As mentioned earlier, the history of Political Realism goes back to World War II (1939-1945). This long and devastating war shattered all the utopian hopes of Idealists. Woodrow Wilsons peace plan failed with the break down of the League because the US Congress and the Senate did not approve the joining of that organization. By the 1930s, the Wilsonian idealism was visibly failing. Instead of arms control and disarmament, there was an arms race between the great powers. It was an extremely intense competition between Britain and Germany, especially in the area of natives. In total contrast to open diplomacy, the nations sought secret pacts. The imperialist struggle became acute. Ultimately, World War II broke out. These unfolding events, in fact, lead concerned scholars to question the idealist analysis of International Relations. The most crucial questions were as follows:

33

Why do states behave the way behave? What is the prime motive behind state action? Why are some states more aggressive than others? Why do nations go to war? There was a need for a new approach to analyze relations among states to answer these questions. ii. Philosophical Foundations: The inspiration was provided by realist philosophers who were concerned with what is rather than what should be. They viewed the world from a different angle. States, like individual human begin to act according to their selfish needs. Both are guided by their desire for power and not by any moral principles. Prominent among the philosophers who influenced the Realists were Thomas Hobbes, Nicolo Machiavelli and Hans J. Morgenthau.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English political thinker and philosopher. He insisted that the general inclination of all mankind is a perpetual and restless desire for power. This desire ceases only in death. According to him, man is governed by his fear since the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Human beings are always in a condition called war. In his words, they are in that condition which is called war, such a war is of every man against every man. Nicolo Machiavelli (1459-1517) was an Italian political theorist. Machiavelli is well known for his pessimistic and cynical views on politics. He insists on power as the center of all politics. The political action is justified by its achievement of the objective. The morals are subject to that objective. As he points out, the Prince is justified in doing anything if it helps in the acquiring, maintaining or increasing of power. When the state is necessary, power is necessary for its survival, and in order to secure power, it may be necessary to act immorally

34

Hans J. Morgenthau (1904 1980) was in fact, considered the Father of Political Realism. In his book Political among Nations: Struggle for Power and Peace (1948), Morgenthau outlined his Six Principles of Political Realism. This was basically a power approach to international politics: Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. The struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience.

Morgenthau is considered the father of the Political Realism approach to International Relations. He, in his Politics Among Nations (1948), articulated the principles of Political Realism. Morgenthaus Six Principles of Political Realism: 1. human nature. 2. 3. 4. 5. folly. 6. The political sphere is autonomous. Political action should be governed by political criteria and not moral criteria. Statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power. National interest is national survival and is the minimum requirement of a nation. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states. The morality of the nation state different from the morality of the individual. Concept of interest is the one that saves the nation from political Political relationships are governed by the basic laws (rules) of

Despite many modern approaches, Political Realism is used in analyzing International Relations even today. Realists are, first of all, suspicious of Idealistic principles. They are respectful of history. As such, they base their approach on the lessons of history they learnt rather than wishful thinking and a hope for the best. The States in their International Relations have always acted in order to acquire, maintain and increase power rather than according it to any moral principles. 35

Power is the fundamental concept in politics. In International Relations it is justified in terms of so - called National Interest. On the whole, Realists are rather conservative and pessimistic. That is because they do not believe in progressive change in world politics. Also, they do not have faith in utopian ideas. Unlike Idealists, they claim that they prefer to be based on reality or in other words, what actually happens rather than what we like to happens. They heavily criticize Idealists for trying to achieve their utopian goals rather than trying to talk of the reality and truth. These ideas and attitudes are embodied in the basic assumptions of Political Realists. Before citing the basic assumptions of the Political Realist approach, it should be mentioned here that the debate between the Idealists and the Realists mainly revolve around the state of nature or the inherent nature of human beings. Both schools think that the states reflect the behaviour of human beings. The basic assumptions of Political Realism are: 1. Man is by nature sinful, aggressive and wicked. 2. Of all evil ways nothing is more dangerous than mans instinctive lust for power and the desire to dominate others. 3. If assumptions 1 and 2 are characteristic of humanity, then progress is not possible. 4. International politics is a struggle for power, a war of all against all. 5. The primary objective of the state is to acquire power to promote national interest.

36

6. National interest is best served by concentrating on self-protection. (Not to trust any international organization!) 7. Protection of state necessitates the military capability to defeat or deter other states. 8. If all states resort to force, peace and stability could be achieved by balance of power and only by balance of power. Basic Knowledge Undoubtedly, some knowledge of the Political Idealist approach is essential for the initial understanding of International Relations as a discipline. Familiarization with some basic concepts introduced in this and the previous chapter, is also important. They include major concepts such as Power, National Interest, Balance of Power, and International System. These are defined and discussed in the forthcoming chapter. For now, this chapter may be concluded with a comparison of Political Idealism and Political Realism.

Idealist Approach

Realist Approach

Adopted after World War I Aim: Prevention of War Tried to see: What should be? Basic assumption: Man is by nature Good Major problem: Bad Institutions Solution: Law and Institutions Political Idealism generally is, Optimistic Utopian Positive Legalistic

Adopted after World War II Aim: Understanding Reality Tried to see: What is? Basic assumption: Man is by nature Bad Major problem: Desire for Power Solution: Harmony Accommodation Political Realism is, Pessimistic Real Negative Suspicious of Law

37

Model Study Questions 1. Try to answer the following questions briefly: 1. Do you consider Political Idealists optimistic and Political Realists pessimistic? Why? 2. What are the attitudes of Idealists and Realists towards: a. Human nature b. International Institutions c. War d. Peace 3. Summarize Morgenthaus Six Principles of Political Realism. 2. If a statement is correct mark P, and if it is not, mark O. 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 Raymond Aron is the author of Politics Among Nations. Kant was an Idealist. Rousseau was a Realist. Human nature is essentially good is a Political Realist assumption. According to Realists, War is the worst of all evils. Idealists believe war is inevitable. Bad human behaviour is the product of bad institutions according to Realists. The legal control of war is a Realist solution. Realists believe that progress is possible Utopianism has the tendency to make Realist political recommendations. Political Realism is basically conservative, empirical and prudent. Political Idealists always stressed on power and interest. Machiavellis The Prince presents an ideal ruler who believes in universal morals. International politics is a struggle for power is a political Realist assumption. Hugo Grotius authored Leviathan. In the opinion of Realists the primary objective of state is to acquire power. 38

6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3

Morgenthau presented six principles of political Realism One of the six principles is that the universal moral principles should be applied to the actions of states. Power is the ultimate aim of the state, according to Idealists. Failure of Wilsonian Idealism contributed to the rise of Realism. Woodrow Wilson prescribed secret treaties. Moral behaviour is what is essential for peace, Morgenthau argued. According to Realists, the political sphere is not authonomous.

Key Terms Behaviouralism Classical approaches E. H. Carr Fourteen Points Grotius Hans J. Morgenthau Immanuel Kant Nicolo Machiavelli Political Idealism Political Realism Rousseau Six Principles of Political Realism St. Pierre Thomas Hobbes Traditional approaches Traditionalism 39

Woodrow Wilson *Reading List Baylis, John and Steve Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations. Hans J. Morgenthau.1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Holsti, K.J. 1997. International Politics: Framework for Analysis. Jones, Walter S. 1991. The Logic of International Relations.

Destruction of World War II

CHAPTER FIVE International Relations as a Science

Learning Outcomes At the completion of this chapter, students will gain an understanding as to whether International Relations is a science. Introduction At some stage in its development, treating any academic discipline or a subject as a science is not only a fashion. Many believe that it is an actual outcome. For them, reaching the level of a science is an essential part of development. In this process, acquiring at least some features of a science is considered adequate.

40

Is International Relations a Science? In the 1960s and 1970s, the belief of a group of International Relations analysts was that it was a science. In fact, there were several reasons for such a conclusion. One was their dissatisfaction with the then prevailing approaches of the traditional Idealist and Realist approaches to the subject. According to these International Relations analysis, both schools of thought adopted failed to understand and explain the behaviour of states in the modern international system. According to them, the Idealists were too subjective. They thought that what they expected was what really existed and could actually happen. For them, international law and international institutions could bring about peace. Also arms control and disarmament were considered the answer to the problem of war. However, the events that led to conflicts and war among nations, proved beyond doubt that all those hopes were unrealistic. The international political organization established after World War I, the League of Nations, was unable to accomplish its desired objectives. The ultimate result was the out break of the more devastating World War II (1939-1945). During the latter part of this war, nuclear weapons were used against two Japanese cities causing nearly 200,000 deaths and massive destruction. The nuclear weapon was the culmination of the unmitigated arms race that fuelled the war. That was also the most devastating experience in the history of mankind. Naturally, the Idealists were blamed for their inability to foresee these disparaging developments. On the other hand, even the Realists could not predict them well enough. Quite logically, the critics of

41

traditional approaches concluded that analyzing International Relations only in terms of Power and National Interest was too mechanical and far from truth. Also these critics were influenced by the advancements in natural sciences and the discovery of new scientific methods. This contributed to the future. It also signalled a move away from traditionalism. The result was the adoption of the Scientific or Behavioural approach in opposition to the traditional approaches and methods. Hence, both were the so-called scientific analysis in international relations. A group of scholars who were dissatisfied with traditionalism of the Political Idealists and Political Realists rejected the premises of traditional international politics and developed behavioural/quantitative methodology as a modem approach to International Relations. This was also the result of the considerable expansion of interest in theoretical analysis, especially content analysis. In a new effort to explain international politics, the insights from biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology and other behavioural sciences were used extensively. The adoption of ideas borrowed from sciences and abstract model building as well as the use of various new methodologies were emphasized. They were helpful in the understanding of new phenomena such as ecological factors and the individual-environment interactions in international relations. The Origin of Behavirouralism The historical origin of Behaviouralism or Scientific analysis dates back to the 1920s. In 1928, Frank Kent published a book entitled Political Behaviour. This was perhaps the catalyst for the Behavioural approach to International Relations. Charles Merriem pioneered the Behavioural trend or movement. David Eastern, Gabriell Almond, Robert Dahl, George Catlin and Karl Deutsch later joined him. During the 1950s, Behaviouralism became the dominant trend in the analysis of International Relations. In fact, they tried to answer two main questions: 1. Why people behave (politically) as they do and why, as a result do political processes and systems, function as they do? This question is based on the premise that political processes involve human behaviour since all institutions consist of human beings.

42

2. How can these phenomena be scientifically examined? In this context, it is essential to analyze the phenomena. To put it rather humorously, it is like searching for the lost key only in the place where there is light and not in the shadows!

Characteristic Features of Scientific Analysis/Behaviouralism 1. Concentrates on the empirical analysis of the behaviour of persons rather than events, structures, institutions, or ideologies. 2. It is highly interdisciplinary and ideas are derived from behavioural sciences such as Social Psychology and Cultural Anthropology. 3. Stresses the interdependence of theory and research. In other words all International Relations analysis is based on theory. Before analysis, everything is carefully selected. They are precisely defined as in the natural sciences. 4. Tries to develop rigorous research designs and apply methods and techniques used in modern sciences. They include model - building and quantification and use of computer simulation. 5. Embarks on comparative cross-national analysis. This is based on the idea that any phenomenon is better understood when it is compared with another. 6. Considers that it is necessary to classify events into categories in order to allow investigators to make general statements. 7. Behaviouralists strongly believe in quantification. More than anything else, this gives a scientific face to International Relations as a discipline. 8. It uses, where possible, (so-called) scientific experiments such as simulation, games, and role-playing as substitutes for controlled experiments. It is important to keep in mind that on the one hand, traditional analysis was criticized for being unscientific or less scientific. On the other hand, Behaviouralism as a scientific analysis, was criticized for being too scientific. Therefore, some scholars looked for a middle path or method between Traditionalism and Science. The outcome of this search was the adoption of what is called Post-Behaviouralism.

43

Critique of Behaviouralism The Scientific or Behavioural approach was not without its critics. The Traditionalists were the strongest critics of it and prominent among them was Hedley Bull. Hedley Bull in his The Case for Classical Approach (1996) described the Behavioural approach as a positively harmful approach, which has contributed very little to the theory of International Relations. Bull gives the following reasons: 1. Behaviouralists are denying themselves of instruments presently available for grasping the substance of International Relations. These include intuitions. 2. The judgments they make are arrived at without mathematical or scientific methods. 3. Progress cannot be made if they insist on a manageable number of variables. 4. A disservice to the theory is done by construction and manipulation of so-called models. 5. The rigour and precision may be introduced within the classical approach. 6. The fetish for measurement prevents qualitative inquiries. 7. Behaviouralists deprive themselves of self-criticism by ignoring history and philosophy. Post Behaviouralism The dissatisfaction with the Behavioural approach for being too scientific and undermining the substance of politics, resulted in the Post-Behavioural revolution in the 1960s. The PostBehaviouralists suggest that: 1. Substance is primary to technique and that the problems of society are more important than the analytical tools. In simple language, what is analyzed is more important than how it is analyzed. 2. Detachment from ideology is unbearably conservative and too much abstraction creates a vast gap between the analysis and reality.

44

Clarification It was mentioned earlier that one of the distinct characteristics of the Scientific approach was its particular terminology. Given below are a selected number of such terms. Scientific method This method has several features. Any one of many methods could be used in an attempt to be scientific. On the whole they include: (1) the search for laws of cause and effect; (2) the introduction of a theory which may involve entities not normally observed (e.g. the atomic theory); (3) the derivation of predictions from theory; and (4) the division of reality into natural kinds. Scientism This is on the whole a belief that the scientific method is applicable to all human problems. It is also the only possible solution to them. Those who oppose scientism think that it cannot be applied universally. On one hand, it can lead to false knowledge. On the other hand, those possible errors may be avoided by what is called human intuition. Intuition This is the ability of human beings to gain knowledge through experience, using the senses and general logical observation. The so-called scientific methods are not necessary to come to correct conclusions. Behaviouralism/Behaviourism Behaviouralism/Behaviourism is the psychological theory that the scientific study of the mind is confined to the study of behaviour without reference to the consciousness or utterances. It is a philosophical theory as well. According to this, there is nothing important in the mind besides behaviour. When applied to the social sciences. especially politics, the belief is that behaviour is formed in response to previous behaviour. The self-consciousness of the subject plays no important role in the process of social development.

45

Content analysis Content analysis is the systematic and usually computer-aided study of speeches, newspaper reports, novels and writings etc. for the purpose of producing some new descriptions or classification of the content. The content is both objectively testable and useful for proposes of scientific research or political decision-making. Intuitionism Intuitionism is any theory of knowledge or the way of knowing, which holds the view that there are things that are absolutely certain and self-evident knowledge. Value Also value judgment a statement, which assert or implies that some thing, person or situation is good or bad, and some action ought or ought not to be taken. Norm Two main uses need to be distinguished. (1) What is normal or usual behaviour in some community or social group (2) An ideal or standard to which people think behaviour ought to conform, or which some legislating authority lays down. Normative is in general, concerned with rules, recommendations, or proposals as contrasted with mere description or the statement of matters of fact. Quantification Quantification is in general the expression of a property or quality of any thing in numerical terms. Properties that can usefully be expressed in these terms are said to be quantifiable.

46

Source: http://www.alanalexandroff.com

Main Study Questions Form groups and answer the following questions 1. What, in your opinion, is the most important feature of the Scientific approach? Members in the group may provide different answers. Discuss and debate among yourselves. 2. The same group may carry out a simulation exercise. It may be arranged in the following way. 47

a. State A is going to test-explode a nuclear bomb. This is debated among the persons with different interests. For this, the members of the group (i.e., State a) should play the following roles: the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Health, the Leader of the Opposition, the Representative of country A at the United Nations and Chiefs of the Armed Forces. b. The normal classroom may be converted into a secret (closed door) meeting place. c. This meeting may be followed by a press conference arranged in a similar manner. In this exercise, participants should not be instructed by anybody. They should act independently. However, they can discuss their problems with advisors and experts. Key Terms Charles Merriem Content analysis David Eastern Frank Kent Gabriell Almond George Catlin Hedley Bull Idealist International Institutions International Law Intuitionism Value Karl Deutsch League of Nations Norm Post-Behaviouralism Realist Robert Dahl

48

Scientific analysis Scientific or Behavioural approach Essential Reading List Baylis, John and Steve Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Bull, Hedley 1966. International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach, World Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, 1966. Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations. Hans J. Morgenthau.1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.

CHAPTER SIX The International System

Learning Outcomes At the completion of this chapter, students will be provided with knowledge as to what the international system is.

49

Introduction This chapter explores conceptual and historical background to the international system and introduces concepts such as balance of power. What is the International System?

The International Society, International Community and International System are very widely used terms among students of International Relations. International society was a term used by some thinkers to denote a community larger than the nation state. In this context, International Relations easily fits into a concept such as international community. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the eminent legal philosopher of the seventeenth century, thought of a great society of states as the foundation of international order and cooperation among states. Whether there has been an actual international society or a community was always a question debated by scholars. The concept of International System too is a similar one.

There is no single or precise definition of an International System. However, such a system is believed to have been in existence since 1648. Joseph Frankel defines it as a collection of independent political unites, which interact with some regularity. If the interactions among the independent units are neither frequent nor regularized, Frankel suggest that we cannot speak of a system. His definition is almost like a definition of International Relation in general. First of all, he identifies units within the system, which need to be independent. Since the units within the international political system are states or nation-states, they are not only independent, they form a system without totally abandoning that independence. This was the situation that arose after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). A characteristic feature of this system is the frequent and regular relations between these units. In a similar definition, another highlights the boundaries of the system. These boundaries physically separate one state from another and all state from the environment of the system. Kaplan is one of the most well-known believers of the International System.

50

Kaplan insists on the Balance of Power, which maintains some order (the opposite of anarchy) within the system. He defines a System as a set points related in some way so that changing or removing any one thing in the set will make a difference to other things in the system. This, in fact, is the essence of the system and explains its survival. According to this, the states do not allow one state to become over-dominant or a state to be totally rejected by the others. Hence, the maintenance of the state system occurs through a balance of power. It is useful to remember core elements of a system suggested by John Lovell, another prominent individual with views on the International System.

1. A set of some component parts. They are States, in the case of an International System. Together they can perform some purposeful activity. (Purposeful is important for foreign policy analysts, since many systems are technically purposeless.) 2. Functional interrelationship of the component parts or the states. (They are necessary for the proper working of the system. The absence of one or more components or States however does not mean that the system would collapse. It does not work to the capacity.) 3. An ongoing interrelationship between the set of component parts (States) and the environment created by the States. (This means that these component parts or States themselves monitor the environment and any authority above all States.)

The Evolution of the International System Is there an International System that really exists? The answer given by most of the analysts is yes. According to some, it began in the seventeenth century with the signing of the Peace accord of Westphalia in 1648. Since then, the International System has undergone four evolutionary periods before reaching the current (contemporary) period with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

51

Those periods in the evolution of the International System have some characteristic features. They are related to: i. ii. Power centres among which the balance of powers is maintained, Balance of power system, whether it is multi-polar, bi-polar or even uni-polar, and

iii. Major changes in politics, ideologies, economies and other structures. It should be noted that though easily noticeable, the periodization is rather arbitrary. The Evolution of the International System Five Periods Period 1. Classical Time-frame 1648-1815 Balance of Power Multi-polar Main Features Euro-centric Fear of social revolutions 2. Post-classical 1815-1914 Multi-polar Imperialism Rise of Nationalism 3. Traditional 1914-1945 Multi-polar New Powers Ideological Divisions 4. Cold War 1945-1989 Bi-polar Super-Powers, Arms race, Tension and Arms control 5. Contemporary 1989> Uni-polar? Globalization, U.S. dominance

Classical Period (1648-1815)

52

This early classical period begins with the Peace of Westphalia and extends up to the Congress of Vienna (1815). The Westphalia Treaty (1648) was signed after religious wars in Europe known as the Thirty Years war. The Treaty was significant for several reasons. While concluding a long war fought among European states for religious reasons, the Treaty also ended the authority of the Pope as the religious leader in Europe. In another sense, it was the beginning of a secular Europe, where modern States were recognized as sovereign States irrespective of their size or power. It is described in International Relations literature as an epoch-making single historic event that created the modern system of sovereign states claiming exclusive control over their territories. Peace of Westphalia was in no way a very radical departure from the immediate, but it may be reasonably considered the beginning of the International System.

53

This long period was also marked by socio-political revolutions including the Industrial Revolution and the Civil War in Britain and the French Revolution. All had a strong impact on the whole of Europe. Therefore, a fear of revolutions dominated most parts of Europe. Perhaps this was the reason why the notion of the balance of power became predominant. During this period, the most powerful states were France, Russia. Britain, Austria, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Prussia. The International System was basically Eurocentric and the balance of power system was Multi-Polar as there were more than two great powers.

The meaning of multi-polarization is that the balance or the equilibrium within the System was dependent upon a number of powers, namely European. Europe, chaotic after the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, was brought back to normalcy by the Vienna settlement of 1815. This Treaty is said to have set the clock back. The Post-classical Period (1815-1914) The Classical period was followed by nearly a century of the Post-classical period which lasted a century from the Congress of Vienna (1815) to the beginning of World War I in 1914. During these years, the main features of the Classical period remained unchanged. 1. Euro-centrism, or considering Europe as the powerful centre of the world, continued, 2. The balance of the power system was still Multi-polar, and 3. The major units of the International System were European States although the United States of America (USA) was emerging as a world power. Congress of Vienna

54

However, there were some changes that distinguished this century. On the one hand, the rise of Nationalism was haunting Europe with ideas such as Fighting to the last man. On the other hand, Imperialism heightened the conflict of interest among European powers. It was these imperialism rivalries, division of Europe into rival camps, improvements in military technology and arms competition that led to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. Despite those destructive developments, there was a marked technological advancement in the areas of agriculture and industry. A very good examples of national integration in the twentieth century are Italy and Germany. With the unification, this period was also marked by improvements in transport and communication. Transitional Period (1914-1945) This is a complex period in many respects. This begins with the First World War (19141918). The end of this destructive war marked the beginning of the League System and a crisis period. The characteristic features of the crisis included the weakening, and finally the collapse, of the League System, arms World War I

competition among great powers, formation pf power blocs, secret treaties and various aggressive campaigns. The crisis ultimately led to the Second World War that ended in 1945 with the use of nuclear weapons. Why is this period called transitional? It is because this period showed signs of complete change in the structure of the International System. The balance of power was still Multi-polar. However, the emergence of the United State of America and Soviet Union as two Super Powers was likely to change the existing balance of power. Changing the power structure of the International System, many newly independent states joined the international community.

55

This period is described as transitional also because old powers were structurally changing. For instance, the old Russia became the new Soviet Union. Traditional Japan turned into a modern state. The most important change was the rise of militarism or the states competing with each other to be militarily superior. As such, some states were tying to develop new and sophisticated weapons including nuclear bombs. More prominent was the ideological splits between Democracy, Fascism and Communism. It was Communism and Democracy that continued after this period to become the ideological basis of the Cold War after 1945. The Cold War Period (1945-1989) Clearly noticeable in this period, was a complete transformation in the International System. This began with the end of World War II and continued till the collapse of the former Soviet Union. During World War II (1935-1945), The Soviet Union, despite all differences, sided with the democratic West. However, it was only a temporary alliance. As the destructive war ended with the total defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan, the war time friends divided into two camps. One was the Western democratic camp led by the United States. The other was the Socialist camp led by the Soviet Union. Soon, a very strange relationship between these two camps began. It was called the Cold War. Cold War is a term used to describe the extremely unusual relationship between the Western Democratic camp and the Eastern Socialist camp. It was a state of neither war nor peace. It was a strange relationship between the two Super-Powers (the United States and the Soviet Union). The distinct features of this relationship were: 1. Ideological conflicts between them, 2. Extreme preparedness for war, 3. War-like tension and mutual fear of attack, 4. Intense arms race, both conventional and nuclear,

56

5. Strong fear and suspicion of each other, 6. Very high level of tension reaching crisis situations, 7. Misunderstanding and hostility, 8. Diplomatic wrangling, and 9. Even proxy wars like the Vietnam War and the Korean War. In other words, according to Joseph Frankel It was a war fought without firing a single shot.

The balance of power that prevailed during the period was Bi-polar. The Bi-polar balance of power was in total contrast to Multi-polar balance. The Multi-polar balance of power was maintained among a number of Great Powers. This was now a balance between two SuperPowers. At times it was a tight balance. Later it became loose and there was room for a neutral camp. The emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) free from two power camps was perhaps the result of it. A Super Power is defined as a great power plus mobility of power. More than economic strength or the level of development, it refers to political and military capabilities including nuclear capability. A Super Power can also be defined as a power with unlimited interests and unlimited capability. In this sense, a Great Power may be a Power with unlimited interests and limited capability, and a Medium Power with unlimited interests and limited capability, and a Medium Power as one with limited interests and limited capability. Undoubtedly, a Small Power does not have such interests or capability. USSR Khrushchev with US Kennedy

The Contemporary Period (1989 on wards) The Contemporary or the current period began with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Super Power that balanced power with the United States for nearly fifty years. It should be noted that

57

the Soviet Union despite its political and military Super Power status, was never an economically strong power compared with the West. Its fall led to the disintegration, and hence the weakening, of the Socialist East. As a result, the United States remained as the only Super-Power that could dominate politics. This major transformation in world politics was combined with the process called Globalization. In this process, the state lost its traditional control to various non-state actors. The global economic and cultural forces have made the relations or affairs more global than international. In the context of theses complex changes, whether this could be called Uni-polar is a difficult question to answer. At least, it is too early to answer. Therefore, the contemporary period we are passing through, could be described as the most unstable and uncertain period in the International System. The fear and tension that dominated the Cold War period is apparently over. The states that belonged to the Socialist bloc no longer constitute a strong power bloc. They seem to be highly disintegrated. The so-called Socialist economies are turning into (Capitalist) market economies. The Non-Aligned Movement which existed as a third force has become almost dormant. In the circumstance, one has to be watchful of the ongoing changes before describing this as being unipolar or otherwise.

Model Study Questions 1. Answer very briefly the following questions: a. Name the basic units you identify in a Society, a State and the International System. b. Is there an International System? If so, when did it began? c. How many States are involved in a Bi-polar system? What was the balance of power system that existed from 1648 to 1815, and 1945 to 1989? What states balance power in the period 1945-1989?

58

2. Match the column A with B. A Morton Kaplan Westphalia treaty Multi-polar balance Unit in International System Bi-polar balance Classical period in the International System Contemporary period in the International System Thirty-years war World War I World War II Key Terms Balance of Power Bi-polar world Cold War Congress of Vienna Euro-centrism International Community International order International Society International System Joseph Frankel Mobility of power Multi-polar world Nationalism Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Post-classical Period Power Soviet Union Super Power Transitional Period Treaty of Westphalia 59 B Two powers Six models of Balance of power 1989 onwards 1648 1648 1815 More than two powers The state 1914 1918 1939 1945 1618 1648

Uni-polar world Westphalia Balance of power system World War I World War II *Essential Reading List Baylis, John and Steve Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Hans J. Morgenthau.1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations.

CHAPTER SEVEN Power and National Interest

Learning Outcomes 60

At the end of this chapter, students will gain an understanding of the concept of power and national interest. Introduction An introduction to International Relations is unlikely to be complete without reference to the motives behind the actions of the actors, mainly the states in the International System. Why do states, nations or nations-states behave in the particular ways they behave? What do they want to achieve in their relations with others? There are no simple and easy answers to these questions. However, we suggest that on the one hand, all states need power to survive and are seeking power. On the other hand, they may justify acquiring, exercising and increasing Power in terms of National Interest. Power and National Interest are key concepts in International Relations.

Power Although power is the very basis of the existence of an Actor in the international system, what is power of a state or a nation is not very well defined. Power generally refers to the capability of a state. Of many, two very brief definitions are worth citing here. 1. nation. 2. objectives. According to those definitions and many others, power is the capacity or a capability of a state. How is this definition or capability achieved? Why is this capacity necessary for a state? In the first definition cited above, this capacity is achieved by the use of tangible and intangible resources of a state. The tangible resources include, among other things, population, territory, Another author, Spanier, equates power with capacity. He describes power as the capacity to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with ones According to Stoessinger, it is the capacity of a nation to use its

tangible and intangible resources in such a way as to affect the behaviour of another

61

natural resources, industries, agriculture, armed forces and weapons etc. The intangible resources are the ones that make those resources productive and effective. They may include skills of the population, will of the nation, strategic planning, quality of the leaders, and morale of the armed forces. These two types of resources can jointly generate 'power. When power is acquired, states exercise it to achieve certain objectives or goals. According to the definitions cited above, power is get other states to do what the state exercising power wants. Among the many objectives of states, the most important is the survival of the state or the security of it. States are not satisfied with survival alone. They have desires such as, prosperity, expansion of territory extension of influence and many more. In other words, power as it is used in International Relations is both an end as well as a means to achieve certain objectives. It can determine the nature of relationships maintained among states. The following graph shows how power is generated, how it is exercised and for what objectives. Major Attributes of Power POPULATION TERRITORY MILITARY CAPABILITY ECONOMIC CAPABILITY
STRATEGIC PLAN

END

SECURITY EXPANSION POSITIVE GOALS INFLUENCE

PROSPERITY

POWER MEANS

As the graph above indicates, the major attributes of power include population, territory military capability and economic capability. The strategic plan indicates that those attributes should be effectively organized to generate or create power. As some analysts believe, the state may be satisfied with mere possession of power. That means power can be an end in-itself. However most states try to achieve certain objectives by using power in different forms such as influence, authority, military power and economic power etc. The objectives of states may vary from state to state and from time to time. It is possible to remember all these aspects of power in the form of a formula. A formula for measuring power by Cline is as follows:

62

Pp = (C+E+M) X (S+W) The key to reading this simple formula is a follows: C = Crucial Mass or Population and Territory E = Economic Capability M = Military Capability S = Strategic Purpose or planning to achieve the objectives W = Will or the determination of the people and the leaders of the nation.

This brief introductory note on power may be concluded with the following general observations: In International Relations, power refers to the ability of a state. According to this ability, states may be categorized as Small Powers, Great Powers and Super Powers or in any other way. For instance, Sri Lanka is a Small Power, Britain, a Great Power and the United State is a Super Power. Power is a contest. This is because the states within the International System always try to increase their power in competition with the others. In that context, power is a relationship of a different kind. Power is relative. The actual size of power is determined by time and space. Time refers to the occasion where power is used, and space to the other states on which power is exercised. As a matter fact, power leads to a struggle. That is why International Relations is

described as a struggle for power. Closely linked to National Interestthe concept of power, is National Interest. If power is the end or the objective for which states act, National Interest is the term used to justify most of these acts. In that sense Power and National Interest are like the two sides of the same coin. As the foremost political realist, Morgenthau says all international politics is a struggle for power. and statesmen think 63 and act in terms of national interest defined as power. Undoubtedly, this foremost Political Realist equates power with national interest.

Like individuals in their relations with others, the states/nations in International Relations try to pursue diverse interests. As Thomas W. Robinson classified, those interests may be primary, secondary, permanent, variable, general or specific interests. They may change according to the needs of the time. However, the interest known as National Interest does not change or it is eternal and stands above all other interests. When it is said that some action of a state is in someones interest or one of that persons interests, it may mean that the person or the state desires it, intends it, values it or needs it. The National Interest is a highly generalized conception of the elements that constitute the most vital needs of the state. These vital needs may be defined variously by states in different contexts. In general, these include self-preservation, independence, territorial integrity, military security and economic well-being. The concept covers a very wide area and, as some authors suggest, that is because no single interest dominates the policy-making functions of governments. The concept might be referred to more accurately in the plural as National Interests? If it is used in the singular form, National Interest may be defined as the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts or the general, long-term and continuing purpose which the state nation all see themselves as serving. In this way, the National Interest is different from other interests and supra-national interests, and is characteristically long-term, primary and the highest. It has residual meanings and it may be finally reduced to either National Survival or National Security. It is mentioned earlier that Morgenthau, as the most prominent Political Realist, equates power with National Interest. However, he does not define this concept in his pioneering work on

64

Political Realism, Politics among Nation: The struggle for Power and Peace. He defines this concept later, in a separate writing. Morgenthau, defining the concept of National Interest in his Great Debate, stresses the following important factors: First, National Interest is a standard of action. It means that this may justify all or most state behaviour in International Relations. In other words, it is the primary, the highest, and the all - inclusive singular interest the states and their representatives work for. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish National Interest from all other types of interests. The states or those who act within them are likely to have the following types of interests: 1. Sub-national interests These are the interest of various groups claiming their identity with National Interest. These are short of what would be rationally required by the overall interests of the nation. They are selfish interests of individuals, group or classes of people. 2. Supra-national interests They are generally identified with broader organizations or movements which agitate for purposes that extend beyond states. In a sense they are internationalists, as far as their objectives are concerned. National Interest is something different from these. The following quotations from Morgenthau, better describes National Interest: 1. In a word, where a number of sovereign nations compete with and oppose each other for power, the foreign policies of all nations must necessarily refer to their survival as their minimum requirement. Thus, all nations do what they cannot help but do: protect their physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachment by other nations. 2. No nation has the resources to promote all desirable objectives with equal vigour: All nations must, therefore allocate their scarce resources as rationally as possible. The indispensable precondition of such rational allocation is a clear understanding of the distinction between necessary and variable elements of the National Interest. 3. The necessary elements of National Interest have a tendency to swallow up the variable

65

elements so that in the end, all kinds of objectives, actual or potential, are justified in terms of national survival. 4. The concept of National Interest presupposes neither a naturally harmonious, peaceful world nor the inevitability of war as a consequence of the pursuit by all nations of their National Interest To the country, it assumes continuous conflict and threat of war, to be minimized through the continuous adjustment of conflicting interest by diplomatic action. (Ref: Hans J. Morgenthau Another Great Debate; The National Interest of the United State. American Political Science Review, 46, (1952), pp 961- 978)

In the final analysis, it is important to note that the National Interest of a state is nothing but national survival and national survival may ultimately be reduced to national security. As such< this chapter will conclude with brief notes on those two terms. National Survival National survival is simply the protection of physical, political and cultural identities from encroachments by outsiders. In some respects, National Security may also mean the same. However, national survival emphasizes more on the negative aspect of existence or protection. The physical survival refers to the crucial mass of the state/nation, the territory and population. Political identity includes the political system, institutions, independence and sovereignty of the state, and the economic system. Cultural identity is a very complex one that should be understood subjectively and rather cautiously in a pluralist world. Ones culture is individually and collectively distinguished from the other which is believed to give rise to the idea of protection when it is threatened by others. This does not mean a total rejection of influence or change. National Security According to a proposal adapted in 1985 by the United Nations defining the term security, security is a condition in which states consider that there is no danger of military attack, political pressure or economic coercion so that they are able to pursue freely their own development and progress. This is most suitable as a functional and all - inclusive

66

definition of security. This refers mainly to the absence of a threat whether military or nonmilitary. The term National Security has become a commonplace expression appealing to states which attempt to justify certain types of policies. For instance, this concept is used to justify the maintenance of armies, the development of new weapons systems and the manufacture of armaments. The concern for the security of a nation is undoubtedly as old as the nation state itself, but since World War II, the concept of National Security has acquired an overwhelmingly military character. However, accumulating evidence indicates that new threats are emerging; especially threats military forces cannot cope with. Model Study Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . Argue for and against the following statement: All international politics is a struggle for power. Take a sample of twenty states and categorize them according to their power. Suggest important attributes that should be considered for understanding power. National Interest is nothing but National Security. Argue for or against. Read the following sentences and say whether they are correct or not: Power is absolute. It has no relation to others. Power is solely determined by the size of population. Influence does not have any power. The economy cannot generate power. Saudi Arabia is a Super Power, because it has oil. National Interest is not National Security. National Interest is the highest interest. A state can exchange its National Interest easily with another. National Security is both positive and negative. All states contribute to international security.

Key Terms The great Debate Great Powers

67

National Interest National Security Nations Nations-states Power Pp = (C+E+M) X (S+W) Small Powers States Super Powers * Reading List Baylis, John and Steve Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations. Hans J. Morgenthau.1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Holsti, K. J. 1997. International Politics: Framework for Analysis.

ANNOTATED TERMS

68

Actor

All units interacting with each other in the International System are actors in International Relations. The state is conventionally the main actor in International Relations. According to a narrow definition of IR, it is the only actor. This situation is however, changing. Non-states are becoming increasingly important. They include Non - Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and even individuals.

Alliance

Formal agreements between two or more states that collaborate on security issues. The members of an alliance may agree to support each other diplomatically as well as militarily during war. This is a key element in balance of power in the International System.

Anarchy

This initially means the absence of government in a state/nation or absence of a Central Authority in the international society. Broadly this implies disorder, confusion, and chaos. Somewhat incorrectly, this term may be used to denote a state of war of all against all.

Arms control

The process of imposing qualitative and quantitative restraints on production, acquisition, deployment and on the actual use of weapons or military capabilities on the whole. This is the opposite of arms race and is achieved usually through arms control treaties. The comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a good example. Arms Control is a means of preventing, postponing or reducing the destruction level of war.

Arms Race

The competitive build up of arms and armed forces in competition with another state. This means taking action-reaction. Arms race can bring about tension and even can lead to war. This can also create stability, which is called arms race stability in the International System.

69

Autonomy

This term is associated with independence and sovereignty. Simple meaning of this is self-government. International relations are autonomous as those relations are governed by their own rules and not by any law or morality.

Balance of power More than an equal distribution of power, it is through this mechanism that order and stability is maintained within the International System. The Realists believe that the International System is maintained through a balance of power. Morton Kaplan recognizes six models of balance of power. Behaviouralism See the glossary of terms in the end of Chapter Five, International Relations as a Science. Bi-polar A balance of power system between two powers or two blocs of powers. This existed during the Cold War period between the two super powers was a bipolar balance of power. Capability A necessary condition of power. The power of a state or a nation is the military and/or economic capability of it. City-State Clausewitz A state system, which existed in ancient Greece and Rome. The greatest Prussian writer (1760-1831) on military theory and war. His On War is considered a classic analysis of war, especially the political and military dimension of war as well as the mental and physical dimension. The proposition that war is the continuation of policy by other means summarizes his view of war. Cold War The exclusive relationship that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States that led to the formation of two power blocs from 1945 to 1990. The main features of this were the mutual fear and suspicion, hostility,

70

ideological rivalry, arms race, and diplomatic wrangling. Bernard Baruch, an adviser to Presidents of USA, coined the term. The term was popularized by the journalist Walter Lippman. Most simply, it was a war fought without firing a single shot. Colonialism The exploitation of weak countries by the economically, politically and militarily powerful. Territorial acquisition was part of colonialism. In essence, this is different from Imperialism. Colonialisms hay days were from the sixth century to the second half of eighteenth century. Commonwealth Many thinkers used this concept to denote any voluntary association of states. With the fall of the British Empire it refers to an association of former British colonies and Britain under the leadership of the United Kingdom. Conflict Conflict occurs when two or more recognizable parties (actors) try to achieve the same goals. In International Relations, it may develop into war. Nevertheless, all conflicts are not wars and all conflicts are not violent. Conflicts may be internal or between states. Containment A policy adopted by the United States during the Cold War to prevent Communism from spreading into new areas. George Kennen first adopted this guiding principle of US foreign policy. Crisis Unfolding of events in such a way that uncertainty, fear and suspicion and tension prevails. In a sense, it indicates the peak of a developing conflict situation. Decentralization A characteristic feature of the International System is decentralization. Firstly, it does not have a central authority or a world government. Secondly, it consists of diverse there is international law, it is extremely

71

diffused and is not compulsory. As such, the International System is a decentralized one. Decision-makers Decision-makers are those who decide policies on behalf of states and impose them. Decision-making is a process, which is governed by international and external environments as well as the psychological conditions of the decision-makers. They may be heads of states, ministers or officers authorized to make decisions. Decolonization Reverse process of colonization that began after the Second World War and continued through the 1950s and 1960s. In other words, this is the process of former colonies becoming independent. Dependence This is the opposite of independence. Dependence, in the context of states, may be political, economic and military. The lack of autonomy and control over outcomes is the main feature of dependence. Deterrence The avoidance of attack or aggression through fear of massive destruction. Deterrence depends on the calculation of risk of attack rather than the possibility of success. If the gain of attack is lower than the loss, an attack is prevented or deterred. Diplomacy Representation of states by trained personnel and a means of settling matters peacefully through discussion and negotiation. This has been a feature of International Relations from a very early period in history. One author describes diplomacy as the use of tact and intelligence in foreign policy. Disarmament Elimination of a class of weapon and weapons systems including armed forces. This is long-term policy aiming at the elimination of war. As a policy, the disarmament is difficult but not impossible. This is achieved

72

through agreements/treaties. The INF Treaty signed between the Soviet Union and the United States is an example. Euro-centric Any policy, idea or programme that considers Europe as the centre. The International System before 1945 was Euro-centric because Europe dominated the politics and the economy of the world. Grotian Any idea connected with Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the legal philosopher who believed in international law as a means of achieving order. The freedom of the seas was one of his ideas. His major contribution was to Idealism. Harmony of interest A pacific condition achieved through the accommodation of conflicting interests. The Political Realists believe in peace through harmony of interests rather than law and institutions. Hegemony Derived from the word hegemon meaning leader. Any pre-eminence, or leadership of a particular state may be called hegemony. Hierarchy A system of stratification, like in a religious organization. Some order is achieved through this and is called hierarchical order. In a hierarchical order of states, the most powerful state is placed on the top. Ideology A set of assumptions and ideas may be called an ideology. Foreign policies are sometimes governed by ideologies. For instance, Democracy and Socialism were dominant ideologies during the Cold War period. Image Image is the way one would have about oneself and others. Images could be good or bad. Image theory deals with types of and the influence of image upon policies.

73

Influence

Influence is very close to power. This secures compliance through noncoercive or without use of force. Influence depends on rewards as against punishment or sanctions.

Integration

A form of state behaviour. This is a process and a condition where states get together in an organization or association. In most cases, these are known as Regional Grouping or Organizations. The European Union, ASEAN and SAARC are good examples.

International Law The laws that govern interactions among states. These include treaties, customs, principles and teaching of great people. International System See the chapter on the International System for the definition and details. Intervention The interference by one state in the internal affairs of another with or without consent of that state. Generally considered illegal under the international law. League of Nations The international governmental organization formed after the World War I Promoted by the US President. Woodrow Wilson, this was the predecessor of the present United Nations Organization. The term League System refers to the regime created by this organization. Liberalism This is the theory or ideology dominant in International Relations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, the histories of liberal ideas are traced back to John Locke (1632-1704). According to liberalism, the objectives of state could be better achieved through democratic institutions. They believe that governments and not individuals are causing war. Political Idealism was based on liberal ideology.

74

Limited War

A war fought for a limited purpose with the use of limited weapons. This is considered a means of avoiding major or total war.

Mediation

A form of third party intervention in a conflict with the objective of helping to resolve conflict through negotiation. This is a widely used method of peace-making today. Unlike intervention this not legally prohibited and done with the consent of parties involved in the conflict.

Militarism

The ideology that believes in military force for achieving objectives of the state. Militarist states are generally aggressive and are engaged in intense militarization programmes.

Nation

This is a new concept. The state is older than the nation. It is a community of people with a common identity based on religion, language, shared values, culture or even race. Most importantly this community has a strong feeling of togetherness. In other words they believe that they are a nation, they have been so in the past and also they should live together in the future.

Non-intervention The doctrine which believes that intervention in internal affairs of a state violates sovereignty of the victim state. Pacifism A set of ideas that rejects war and violence under all circumstances. The Idealists are generally described as pacifists. Policy-making Decision to embark on certain programmes to achieve the desired objectives. Governments of states, the United Nations or IMF are policymaking bodies. Recognition This determines acceptance of a state or a government as a legal personality. The cognition is formal or informal as well as de facto or de jure. De Facto means that the state or government has necessary elements to be considered

75

a state or government. De jure recognition refers to legal recognition generally by a statement to that effect. A state to exist and act in the International System, any form or recognition is sufficient. Regime A framework of rule, expectations and prescriptions agreed upon by a group of states willing to cooperate. Region Revisionism See the entry on Integration. The opposite of maintaining the status quo or the established order. This is connected with the desire to change the prevailing order. Germany, Italy and Japan in the inter-war period, were revisionist states. This ideology is termed Revisionism. Revolution In International Relations, a revolution refers to radical and sudden change in a system of government. It is a fundamental change in the institutions or values of a system. Revolutions are not necessarily violent. Security Security is defined negatively and positively. Negatively, in the context of the state, security means the ability to protect physical, political and cultural identify from outside encroachments. Positively, it is the ability to carry out the functions of a state without major threats from outsiders. Security dilemma This refers to a special security situation. A state in this situation thinks that its enemy state is a serious threat and arms itself against it. With this assumption, this state spends large amounts of resources to competitively strengthen itself against the enemy. When both are engaged in the same, it creates a vicious circle. Self-determination Woodrow Wilsons fourteen Points insisted on the right to selfdetermination. It is the right of a state or community of people to have a

76

separate and distinct identity, to govern itself and to determine the political and legal status of territory it occupies. In other words, it is the right to live together or to seek a separate existence. Self-help According to Realists, self-help is the consequence of anarchy in the International System. In the opinion of Idealists, it is the cause of anarchy. This is a necessity for survival. Small powers This has two meanings. The first is a common sense meaning. In IR however, a small power is a state which has to depend on external assistance for security needs. It also denotes a state with limited interests and limited capabilities. State This is traditionally the main actor in International Relations. A state is a political organization with five universal characteristics: (1) Territory, (2) Population, (3) Government, (4) Sovereignity, and (5) International recognition. A state should be able to perform certain functions effectively. From the Realists point of view, it is the entity that organizes sources of power and exercises it. State - centrism Belief that the state is the central unit in the International System. The International System revolves around the state and everything is defined in terms of the central unit. The state-centric view of International Relations now seems obsolete. Strategy The old meaning of strategy was limited to the art and science of winning a war. Now is more than that. It now refers to the way in which a state uses its military capability to achieve political objectives. In this sense it is concerned with policy. Tactics are different from this.

77

Super power

Super power is a great power with great mobility. In another sense it is a power with unlimited interests and unlimited capabilities. The United States and the Soviet Union were considered Super Powers during the Cold War.

Supranational

Any idea, movement or institution that exceed national boundaries. For instance, NATO is believed to have supranational interests.

System analysis Technology Terrorism

See chapter on the International System. Emerged out of the application of knowledge to practical problem solving. The use of systematic and deliberately - planned violence in a destructive or threatening manner to achieve political objectives.

Traditionalism

The early approaches to International Relations are Traditionalist or Classical approaches. Traditionalism was based on the ideas pertaining to human nature and had its faith in intuition rather than scientific analysis. For League of Nations details, see Chapter on 1Traditional Approaches.

78

Glossary
Actor Alliance Anarchy Arms control Autonomy Balance of power Behaviouralism Bipolar Capability City-State Clausewitz Cold War Colonialism Commonwealth Conflict Containment Crisis Decentralization Decision-makers Decolonization Dependence Deterrence md;%hd ikaOdkh wrdcl;ajh w md,kh w ;r.h n,;=,kh phdjdoh oaO yelshdj fm!r rdPH la,iia ;=IaKs ^ksr& hqoaOh hg;acs;jdoh fmdrdcH uKav,h .egqu wjqrd ;eu wnqoh flakalrKh ;SrK .kafkda cs;yrKh mrdh;a;;dj wjfrdaOkh

79

Diplomacy Disarmament Euro-centric Grotian

rdPH ;Ndjh wyrKh hQfrda flakaSh f.%daIshdkq

Harmony of interest wNs,dIhkaf.a ikajksh Hegemony Hierarchy Ideology Image Influence Integration International Law n,m%uqL;djh OQrdj,sh oDIajdoh m%;srEmh n,mEu tald.%lrKh ^wkql,kh& cd;Hka;r kS;sh

International System cd;Hka;r moaO;sh Intervention League of Nations Liberalism Limited War Mediation Militarism Nation Non-intervention Pacifism Policy-making ueosy;au cd;Skaf.a ix.uh ,snr,ajdoh iS; hqoaOh ueosy;alrKh hqojdoh cd;sh ueosy;afkdu idujdoh m%;sm;a;s iEoSu

80

Recognition Regime Region Revisionism Revolution Security Security-dilemma Self-determination Self-help Small powers State State - centrism Strategy Super power Supranational Systems analysis Technology Terrorism Traditionalism

ms<s.ekSu ;ka;%h l,dmh ixfYdaOkjdoh ma,jh wdrCIdj wdrCIl WNf;dafldalh iajhxksKh iafjdamldrh iq n,j;a;= rdcHh rdcH flakajdoh uQf,damdh iqmsrs n,j;d wcd;Sh moaO;s .%yh ;dCIKh ;%ia;%jdoh idm%hsljdoh

81

Bibliography
Bull, Hedley 1966. International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach, World Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, 1966. Couloumbis, T.A. 1990. Introduction to International Relations, 4th ed. ,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Frankel, Joseph 1989. International Relations in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press Goldstein, Jashua S. 2004. International Relations New York: Longman Publishing Group Hollis, Martin 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press Holsti, K. J. 1977. International Politics: a framework for analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Jones, Walter S. 1991. The Logic of International Relations, Reading MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company Lawson, Stephanie 2003. International Relations, Cambridge: Polity Press Morgenthau, H. J. 1985. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Encyclopedia of International Relations at http://www.towson.edu/polsci/irencyc/

82