STATES AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
Presented By :
Husayan, Jerry M Castre , Julie Cabactulan,
Jaranilla, Mark Lourenz C. Dalugdug, Vincent Laurence Jonah Lyn
TABLE OF 1 INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
4
WAR AND
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
CONTENT INTERNATIONAL THE POLITICS OF
2 RELATIONS VERSUS 5 NUCLEAR WEAPONS
DOMESTIC POLITICS

IDEALISTS AND FOREIGN POLICY

3 REALISTS 6 DECISION MAKING
WHAT IS
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
International relations is the
study of the relations between
political entities and the
connections between
economics, law, and politics in
the global environment.
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
VERSUS
DOMESTIC POLITICS
International politics often Domestic politics has a monopoly on
involves the threat of war the legitimate use of force;
international politics operates in a
and conflict management.
state of anarchy.

1 2
INTERNATIONAL DOMESTIC
POLITICS POLITICS
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS VS DOMESTIC
POLITICS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Feature International Relations Domestic Politics

Anarchy (lack of central Hierarchy (government

Structure
authority) with monopoly on force)

Individuals, groups, and

Primary Actors States (sovereign nations)
institutions within a state

Security, power, and Justice, equality, and

Primary Concerns cooperation economic well-being

Diplomacy, economic Laws, elections, and public

Primary Tools sanctions, military force policy
WHAT IS POWER, AND
HOW DO WE MEASURE IT?
Power in international relations is a state's ability to achieve its desired outcome in a given
situation. States try to maintain their sovereignty and protect themselves from other states. A
state can increase its power through its military, its political influence, its economic strength,
and its soft power.
MILITARY POWER ECONOMIC POWER
is a state's ability to use force to achieve its objectives. is a state's ability to use its economic resources to
Eg. (Armed Forces, Military Operations) achieve its objectives.
Eg. (Access to wealth, Valuable Natural Resources)

POLITICAL POWER SOFT POWER

is a state's ability to influence other states through is a state's ability to influence other states through cultural
diplomacy, persuasion, and other non-military means. and ideological attraction.
Eg. (Power to make laws, Power to regulate) Eg. (Cultural riches, such as art)
UNDERSTANDING THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTORS IN
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
The major actors in the international system are states,
international (intergovernmental) organizations, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs)

STATES
are the most important actors. They have four characteristics:
Population that supports the state
A Defined territory
A government
The Capacity to enter into relations with other states
(recognition)
UNDERSTANDING THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTORS IN
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
The major actors in the international system are states,
international (intergovernmental) organizations, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs)

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
are groups or states that work together on shared goals.
Influence on state behavior
Formal Structure and Institutional Framework
Ability to Mobilize resources
Interdependence and Global Networks
UNDERSTANDING THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTORS IN
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
The major actors in the international system are states,
international (intergovernmental) organizations, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs)

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
are groups or states that work together on shared goals.
Humanitarian and Development Assistance
Global Networking and Coalitions
Influence in International Forums
Flexibility and Adaptability
SOVEREIGNTY AND ANARCHY
Sovereignty is the ability of a Anarchy is the absence of a
state to govern itself without central authority in the
interference from other states. international system.

1 2
SOVEREIGNTY ANARCHY
SOVEREIGNTY AND ANARCHY
The international system is anarchic because there is no
world government to enforce rules or protect states from
each other. This means that states must rely on their power
to protect their interests. Sovereignty and anarchy are two of
2
the most important concepts in international relations.
 USING LEVELS OF ANALYSIS TO
UNDERSTAND CONFLICT
Conflict occurs when the policy decisions of
one state create consequences for another
state that change the environment, harming
the second state or complicating the 2
1
decisions it must make.
 USING LEVELS OF ANALYSIS TO
UNDERSTAND CONFLICT
Levels of analysis is a tool used to help explain conflict between states.
The three levels of analysis are:

Focuses on the role of Focuses on the role of

Focuses on the role of domestic politics, such as international organizations,
individuals, such as government institutions and such as the United Nations,
political leaders, in public opinion, in a state's NGOs, and the impact of
1 relations.
international
foreign policy. (actions of a 2
global trends in international
country) relations.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL STATE LEVEL GLOBAL LEVEL

 USING THE CUBAN MISSILE
CRISIS AS AN EXAMPLE:
At the global level of analysis,
At the individual level of
At the state level of the Cold War rivalry between
analysis, President the United States and the
analysis, domestic
Kennedy and his advisors Soviet Union was a major
politics in both the
played a key role in factor in the crisis. The UN
determining how the United States and the appealed to both sides to
United States responded Soviet Union influenced think more rationally and
1 the course of the crisis.
2
decide what to take into
to the crisis.
consideration.
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL STATE LEVEL GLOBAL LEVEL
THE REALIST
WORLDVIEW
Realism is a worldview that emphasizes the
role of power in international relations.
Realists believe that:
The international system is anarchic and states
must rely on their power to protect their interests.
States are rational actors that pursue their
interests in a self-interested way.
International cooperation is difficult to achieve
and often short-lived.
States are the center of the system.
THE REALIST
WORLDVIEW
Realists have developed a number of
concepts to explain international relations,
such as:
Game theory: Used to analyze strategic
interactions between states, particularly in
conflict situations.
Balance of power: When states act to counter the
power of other states in order to prevent any one
state from becoming too powerful.
Polarity: The distribution of power in the
international system, with the main types being
unipolarity (one dominant state), bipolarity (two
dominant states), and multipolarity (multiple
dominant states).
IDEALISTS AND REALISTS
Idealism
Assumes that peace can be achieved through international law and
organizations.
Believes war stems from misguided ideologies and nationalism.
Promoted by figures like President Woodrow Wilson.

Realism
Argues national behavior is driven by the pursuit of power and security.
Critiques idealism as overly optimistic about preventing war.
Important theorist: Hans J. Morgenthau.

Critiques of Idealism and Realism

Idealism criticized for lacking practical grounding.
Realism is seen as overly cynical and simplifying complex motivations
behind state actions.
THE LIBERAL AND
SOCIAL WORLDVIEW
Liberalism is a worldview that emphasizes the role of
international cooperation and institutions in international
relations. Liberals believe that:

The international system, though anarchic, can be made

more peaceful and cooperative through institutions.
States are not the only important actors in international
relations.
International cooperation is possible and beneficial.

Liberals have developed a number of concepts to explain

international relations, such as:

Complex interdependence: The idea that states are

interconnected in many ways, including economically,
socially, and politically.
THE LIBERAL AND
SOCIAL WORLDVIEW
Constructivism is a social worldview that
emphasizes the role of ideas and norms in
international relations. Constructivists believe
that:

The international system is socially

constructed, meaning that it is shaped by
the beliefs and ideas of states.
States' interests are not fixed, but rather are
shaped by their interactions with other
states.
International cooperation is possible when
states share common ideas and norms.
CRITICAL
WORLDVIEWS
Critical worldviews are theories of international relations that challenge the
traditional perspectives of realism and liberalism. They argue that these
traditional perspectives are biased in favor of the powerful and fail to account for
the experiences of marginalized groups.

Marxism is a critical worldview that focuses on the role of economic inequality in

international relations. Marxists believe that:

Capitalism is a system of exploitation that creates inequality between the rich

and the poor.
The international system is structured to benefit the wealthy states at the
expense of the poor states.
International conflict is often the result of economic competition between
states.
CRITICAL
WORLDVIEWS
Feminism is a critical worldview that focuses on the
role of gender in international relations. Feminists
believe that:

The international system is patriarchal, meaning

that it is dominated by men and that men's
interests are privileged over women's interests.
Gender roles and stereotypes shape state
behavior and international relations.
Women are often marginalized and excluded
from positions of power in international
relations.
 WAR AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
A. Causes of War: Kenneth Watz’s Three Images

Different political Anarchy in the

Wars arise from
systems influence international
selfishness and
the likelihood of war system creates
aggressive
(democratic peace insecurity leading
impulses.
1 theory). 2
to conflict.

HUMAN NATURE NATURE OF STATES INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

Democratic Peace Theory

Democracies are less likely to go to war with each other.
Public accountability in democracies restrains leaders from initiating conflict.
 WAR AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
B. The Balance of Power

The balance of power is a concept in international

relations that suggests that states will form alliances to
counterbalance the power of a dominant state or
coalition. It is often associated with realist theories of2
1
international relations, which emphasize the importance
of power and security.
 THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
II. The Impact of Nuclear Weapons on International Security

Nuclear Terrorism: The possibility of non-state actors acquiring and

using nuclear weapons poses a serious threat to global security.
Nuclear Accidents: Accidents involving nuclear weapons or materials
can have devastating consequences.
The Human Cost: The use of nuclear weapons would have
1 2
catastrophic humanitarian consequences, including widespread
death, injury, and long-term environmental damage.
 THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
III. The Future of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear Disarmament: The goal of a world free from nuclear weapons remains
a long-term objective.
Nuclear Risk Reduction: Efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear accidents and
miscalculations continue to be a priority.
Diplomacy and International Cooperation: Diplomacy and international
cooperation
1 2
are essential for managing nuclear risks and promoting nuclear
disarmament.

Nuclear weapons have had a profound impact on international relations. While they have contributed
to a period of relative peace among major powers, they also pose significant risks. The challenge for the
international community is to manage these risks and work towards a future free from nuclear
weapons.
 FOREIGN POLICY
DECISION-MAKING
I. Rationality and Foreign Policy Making

The rational actor model is a foundational concept in

international relations. It assumes that decision-makers are
rational actors who pursue well-defined goals in a cost-
benefit analysis. In the context of foreign policy, this means
1 2
that nations will make decisions based on a rational
assessment of their interests and the likely consequences
of different courses of action.
 FOREIGN POLICY
DECISION-MAKING
I. Rationality and Foreign Policy Making
However, the rational actor model has limitations. Real-world decision-making is often
influenced by a variety of factors that can deviate from pure rationality:

Organizational Routines: Established procedures and standard operating

procedures within government bureaucracies can constrain decision-making.
Political Pressures: Domestic political considerations, such as public opinion,
1 2
interest groups, and elections, can shape foreign policy choices.
Cognitive Biases: Psychological biases can distort decision-makers' perceptions and
judgments, leading to suboptimal choices.
Information Asymmetry: Decision-makers often operate with incomplete or
inaccurate information, which can lead to miscalculations and errors.
 FOREIGN POLICY
DECISION-MAKING
II. Public Opinion, Mass Media, and Foreign Policy
Public opinion and the media play a significant role in shaping foreign policy
decision-making, particularly in democracies.

Public opinion can both The rise of social media

constrain and empower The media can shape
has transformed the way
policymakers. Public support public opinion and
public opinion is formed
can provide political capital influence foreign policy
and mobilized, giving
for leaders to pursue decisions by framing
individuals and groups a
ambitious foreign policy issues, setting the
powerful platform to
goals, while public agenda, and providing 2
1 limit their
opposition can influence foreign policy
information. debates.
options.
PUBLIC OPINION MEDIA INFLUENCE SOCIAL MEDIA
 FOREIGN POLICY
DECISION-MAKING
II. Public Opinion, Mass Media, and Foreign Policy

The interplay between public opinion, the media, and

foreign policy decision-making is complex and dynamic.
While public opinion can be a powerful force, it is often
shaped by 1 the media and political elites. The media,
2 in
turn, is influenced by a variety of factors, including
government policies, corporate interests, and public
opinion itself.
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
The ff theories provide basic assumptions for what governs the international environment.
Constructivism

Core Assumptions: State behavior is shaped by social and cultural factors, including ideas,
norms, and identities. These factors are socially constructed and can change over time.
Key Thinkers: Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf

Real-World Example: The Nuclear Taboo

The emergence of a global norm against the use of nuclear weapons, despite the continued
existence of nuclear arsenals. This norm has significantly reduced the likelihood of nuclear war,
even in the most tense geopolitical situations (Wendt, 1999).
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
The ff theories provide basic assumptions for what governs the international environment.
Marxism

Core Assumptions: Economic factors, particularly class relations and capitalist exploitation,
shape international relations. Global inequality is a product of capitalist exploitation and
imperialism.
Key Thinkers: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Immanuel Wallerstein

Real-World Example: Global Inequality and Exploitation

The global North-South divide, where wealthy, industrialized nations exploit the resources and
labor of poorer, developing nations. This unequal relationship perpetuates poverty and
underdevelopment in many parts of the world (Wallerstein, 1974).
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
The ff theories provide basic assumptions for what governs the international environment.
Feminist International Relations

Core Assumptions: Traditional IR theories have been dominated by masculine perspectives and
have neglected gender issues. Feminist IR seeks to analyze international relations from a
gendered perspective.
Key Thinkers: Cynthia Enloe, J. Ann Tickner

Real-World Example: Women, Peace, and Security

The Women, Peace, and Security agenda, which recognizes the disproportionate impact of conflict
on women and girls. This agenda promotes women's participation in peacebuilding and conflict
resolution processes (Enloe, 2000).
REFERENCES
Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151-1175.
Enloe, C. (2000). Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. University of
California Press.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.

Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International
Organization, 51(1), 51-85.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Penguin Books.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-
Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International
Organization, 46(2), 391-425.
THANK YOU