Contents

Introduction 1

Syllabus 2

Chapter One What is International Relations? 3

George Cooray

Chapter Two Relations Among States and International Relations as a Discipline 9

George Cooray

Chapter Three The Actors in International Relations 21

George Cooray

Chapter Four Major Approaches to International Relations 28

George Cooray

Chapter Five International Relations as a Science 40

George Cooray

Chapter Six International System 49

George Cooray

Chapter Seven Power and National Interest 60

George Cooray

Annotated Terms 68

Glossary 78

Bibliography 81

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

1

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 Neo-

functional Integration. (b) International Organizations and Regional Organizations.

2

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.

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

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 day–to-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

3

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

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.

4

Relations among nations

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 (1914-

1918) 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

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.

5

Fighting during World War I

League of Nations

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.

6

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. Full name of the state

b. Size of territory and population

c. The economy

d. Membership of International and Regional Organizations, if possible with year of

admission

e. Some information on politics. For instance, Democracy, Dictatorship,

Constitutional Monarchy, etc.

f. Your own judgment on the respective state’s role in international relations

7

2. Read the following statements carefully. If a statement is correct mark “P”, and

if it is not, mark “O”.

1. International Relations as an academic discipline began in the seventeenth

century

2. Relations among States are as old as the states themselves.

3. A narrow definition of IR is concerned with political relations among States

only.

4. The main focus of International Relations after WW II was on International

Law and institutions.

5. Political Realism is based on the assumption that ‘Man is by nature good’.

6. Woodrow Wilson contributed immensely to political Realism.

7. The first phase in the development of IR as a discipline began in 1648.

8. Systems Approach was dominant during the pre-natal phase.

9. To include Non-State Actors, International Relations should be defined

narrowly.

10. 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.

8

National Flags

Source:northwestern.edu/

CHAPTER TWO

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 fights for various reasons among

themselves, they also tried to influence each other through peaceful means. When they organize

9

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.

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

Seventeenth Century: The Beginning of ‘Relations’

10

Industrial Revolution

French Revolution

Signatories of the Treaty

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

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 expansion changed all

aspects of the entire international

11

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 peace-

making, 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.

12

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

one’s 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):

13

“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”.

Narrow definition – International Relations deals with policies and actions of states or those

representing states. The actions or policies are mainly political.

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.

14

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 Time Frame Major Focus/

Emphasis

Dominant Approach

Pre-Natal or Historical Before 1914 History, Law and

Diplomacy

Historical and Legal

Organizations 1914 – 1945 International Law and

Institutions

Idealist

Cold War 1945 – 1989 Balance of Power,

Armed Race,

Ideologies

Realist

Scientific Since 1960s International System,

State Behaviour

Systems and

Behavioural

15

The Four Phases of Growth and Development

Pre-Natal/Historical Phase

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.

16

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 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 (1939-1945). 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

17

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

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. International relations is a science,

2. 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. Briefly define International Relations in your own words.

2. Describe the four phases in the growth and development of IR.

3. Match the column A with B. (You can check your answers against Chart 4.)

18

A (Approach) B (Major emphasis)

1. Political Idealist International System

2. Political Realist Quantitative analysis

3. Scientific State bureaucracy

4. Systems Revolution within the System

5. Radical International Law

6. Bureaucratic Decisions

7. Decision-making 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

19

Political Realists

Pre-Natal or Historical Organizations

Relations

Systematic

Theories

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

20

Learning Outcomes

At the completion of this chapter, students will be introduced to the different actors conducting

international relations.

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

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

21

State Non-state

State Non-state

War

Peace

Diplomacy

Law

The terms, State, Nation, Nation-state and even Country have different meanings but they are

used in IR interchangeably.

Role of NGO

Source : S. Montanvert / Handicap International

International Recognition. When States are identified with a Nation or nations they are formed

into Nation States.

Although these States,

Nations or Nation-states are

considered primary actors,

there is also a view that they

are now declining in

importance in international

relations. New 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

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

22

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.

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

23

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

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

24

Classical or Traditional 1. Political Idealism

2. Political Realism

Modern 3. Scientific or Behavioural

4. Systems

5. Radical

6. Bureaucratic

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 Main Emphasis

1. Political Idealist International Law and Institutes

2. Political Realist Power struggle

3. Behavioural/Scientific Quantitative analysis of Behaviour

4. Systems International System as a whole

5. Radical Revolution within the System

6. Bureaucratic State bureaucracy

7. Decision-making Decisions of policy-makers

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 one’s horizons while enjoying the study of International Relations.

Model Study questions

1. Try to identify as many non-state actors as possible.

2. Study the role played by any one of the non-state actors in International Relations. (The

area, the extent and the effectiveness of activity)

25

3. 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.)

4. 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).

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

26

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.

Holsti, K. J. 1997. International Politics: Framework for Analysis.

Jones, Walter S. 1991. The Logic of International Relations.

Lawson, Stephanie 2003 International Relations.

27

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

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.

28

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 mind’s desires, disregarding the matter and material conditions. As

such, for them, events occur because people desire or wish it to be so.

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

29

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 Utopian-

Idealist philosophers such as St. Pierre, Rousseau, Grotius and Immanuel Kant. Naturally,

the views expressed by those thinkers were very attractive to Political Idealists.

The Utopian-Idealist Philosophers

St Pierre’s 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 Kant’s idea of Perpetual Peace was very attractive to

Idealists. According to Kant’s 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.

30

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).

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 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

31

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 Wilson’s peace plan failed with the break down of the

32

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:

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.”

33

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”

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.

Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Political Realism:

1. Political relationships are governed by the basic laws (rules) of

human nature.

2. Statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power.

3. National interest is national survival and is the minimum

requirement of a nation.

4. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of

states. The morality of the nation state different from the morality of the individual.

5. Concept of interest is the one that saves the nation from political

34

folly.

6. The political sphere is autonomous. Political action should be

governed by political criteria and not moral criteria.

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.

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.

35

2. Of all evil ways nothing is more dangerous than man’s 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.

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

36

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

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 Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Political Realism.

2. If a statement is correct mark “P”, and if it is not, mark “O”.

1 Raymond Aron is the author of Politics Among Nations.

2 Kant was an Idealist.

3 Rousseau was a Realist.

37

4. ‘Human nature is essentially good’ is a Political Realist assumption.

5 According to Realists, ‘War is the worst of all evils.’

6 Idealists believe war is inevitable.

7 ‘Bad human behaviour is the product of bad institutions’ according to

Realists.

8 The legal control of war is a Realist solution.

9 Realists believe that ‘progress is possible’

10 Utopianism has the tendency to make Realist political recommendations.

11 Political Realism is basically conservative, empirical and prudent.

12 Political Idealists always stressed on power and interest.

13 Machiavelli’s The Prince presents an ideal ruler who believes in universal

morals.

14 ‘International politics is a struggle for power’ is a political Realist

assumption.

15 Hugo Grotius authored Leviathan.

16 In the opinion of Realists ‘the primary objective of state is to acquire power’.

17 Morgenthau presented six principles of political Realism

18 One of the ‘six principles’ is that the universal moral principles should be

applied to the actions of states.

19 Power is the ultimate aim of the state, according to Idealists.

20 Failure of Wilsonian Idealism contributed to the rise of Realism.

21 Woodrow Wilson prescribed secret treaties.

22 Moral behaviour is what is essential for peace, Morgenthau argued.

23 According to Realists, the political sphere is not authonomous.

Key Terms

Behaviouralism

Classical approaches

E. H. Carr

Fourteen Points

38

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

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.

CHAPTER FIVE

39

Destruction of World War II

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.

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

40

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

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

41

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.

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

42

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.

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

43

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 Post-

Behaviouralists 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.

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

44

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.

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

45

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.

Source: http://www.alanalexandroff.com

46

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.

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

47

International Law

Intuitionism Value

Karl Deutsch

League of Nations

Norm

Post-Behaviouralism

Realist

Robert Dahl

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.

48

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.

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?

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

49

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.

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.

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.)

50

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.

Those periods in the evolution of the International System have some characteristic features.

They are related to:

i. Power centres among which the balance of powers is maintained,

ii. 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 Time-frame Balance of Power Main Features

1. Classical 1648-1815 Multi-polar 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)

51

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.

52

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 Euro-

centric 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.

53

Congress of Vienna

World War I

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 (1914-

1918). 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

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.

54

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,

55

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

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 Super-

Powers. 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.

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

56

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 uni-

polar 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?

57

2. Match the column A with B.

A B

Morton Kaplan Two powers

Westphalia treaty Six models of Balance of power

Multi-polar balance 1989 onwards

Unit in International System 1648

Bi-polar balance 1648 – 1815

Classical period in the International System More than two powers

Contemporary period in the International

System

The state

Thirty-years war 1914 – 1918

World War I 1939 – 1945

World War II 1618 – 1648

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

58

Soviet Union

Super Power

Transitional Period

Treaty of Westphalia

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.

59

CHAPTER SEVEN

Power and National Interest

Learning Outcomes

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.

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. 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 nation’.

2. Another author, Spanier, equates power with capacity. He describes power as ‘the

capacity to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one’s 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

60

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.

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,

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

END

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.

61

POPULATION

TERRITORY

MILITARY CAPABILITY

ECONOMIC CAPABILITY

STRATEGIC PLAN

POWERPOSITIVE

GOALS

SECURITY

EXPANSION

INFLUENCE

PROSPERITY

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:

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’.

62

Closely linked to the 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 and act in terms of national interest defined as power.” Undoubtedly,

this foremost Political Realist equates power with national interest.

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 someone’s interest’ or ‘one of that person’s

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.

63

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

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

64

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

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. One’s 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

65

own development and progress.” This is most suitable as a functional and all - inclusive

definition of security. This refers mainly to the absence of a threat whether military or non-

military.

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. Argue for and against the following statement:

“All international politics is a struggle for power.”

2. Take a sample of twenty states and categorize them according to their power.

3. Suggest important attributes that should be considered for understanding power.

4. ‘National Interest is nothing but National Security.” Argue for or against.

5. Read the following sentences and say whether they are correct or not:

1. Power is absolute. It has no relation to others.

2. Power is solely determined by the size of population.

3. Influence does not have any power.

4. The economy cannot generate power.

5. Saudi Arabia is a Super Power, because it has oil.

6. National Interest is not National Security.

7. National Interest is the highest interest.

8. A state can exchange its National Interest easily with another.

9. National Security is both positive and negative.

10. All states contribute to international security.

66

Key Terms

The great Debate

Great Powers

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.

67

ANNOTATED TERMS

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.

68

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 A state system, which existed in ancient Greece and Rome.

Clausewitz 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,

69

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. Colonialism’s 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

70

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

71

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.

72

Influence Influence is very close to power. This secures compliance through non-

coercive 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.

73

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 policy-

making 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

74

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 See the entry on Integration.

Revisionism 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 Wilson’s fourteen Points insisted on the right to self-

determination. It is the right of a state or community of people to have a

75

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 Realist’s 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.

76

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 See chapter on the International System.

Technology Emerged out of the application of knowledge to practical problem solving.

Terrorism 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.

77

Glossary

Actor md;%hd

Alliance ikaOdkh

Anarchy wrdcl;ajh

Arms control wú md,kh

Autonomy wú ;r.h

Balance of power n,;=,kh

Behaviouralism p¾hdjdoh

Bipolar oaõõO

Capability yelshdj

City-State fm!r rdPH

Clausewitz la,õiúÜia

Cold War ;=IaKs ^ksrú& hqoaOh

Colonialism hg;aúcs;jdoh

Commonwealth fmdÿrdcH uKav,h

Conflict .egqu

Containment wjqrd ;eîu

Crisis w¾nqoh

Decentralization úflaka¯lrKh

Decision-makers ;SrK .kafkda

Decolonization úcs;yrKh

Dependence mrdh;a;;dj

Deterrence wjfrdaOkh

78

Diplomacy rdPH ¥;Ndjh

Disarmament wúyrKh

Euro-centric hQfrda flaka¯Sh

Grotian f.%daIshdkq

Harmony of interest wNs,dIhkaf.a ikaèjksh

Hegemony n,m%uqL;djh

Hierarchy OQrdj,sh

Ideology oDIaájdoh

Image m%;srEmh

Influence n,mEu

Integration tald.%lrKh ^wkql,kh&

International Law cd;Hka;r kS;sh

International System cd;Hka;r moaO;sh

Intervention ueosy;aùu

League of Nations cd;Skaf.a ix.uh

Liberalism ,snr,ajdoh

Limited War iSñ; hqoaOh

Mediation ueosy;alrKh

Militarism hqojdoh

Nation cd;sh

Non-intervention ueosy;afkdùu

Pacifism idujdoh

Policy-making m%;sm;a;s iEoSu

79

Recognition ms<s.ekSu

Regime ;ka;%h

Region l,dmh

Revisionism ixfYdaOkjdoh

Revolution úma,jh

Security wdrCIdj

Security-dilemma wdrCIl WNf;dafldaálh

Self-determination iajhxks¾Kh

Self-help iafjdamldrh

Small powers iq¿ n,j;a;=

State rdcHh

State - centrism rdcH flaka¯jdoh

Strategy uQf,damdh

Super power iqmsrs n,j;d

Supranational wêcd;Sh

Systems analysis moaO;s ú.%yh

Technology ;dCIKh

Terrorism ;%ia;%jdoh

Traditionalism idïm%¯hsljdoh

80

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/

81