CHAPTER ONE

UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Introduction

International relations (IR) is presented in the flow of daily news concern a large number of
disparate events; leaders are meeting, negotiations are concluded, wars are started, acts of terror
committed, and so on. In this module, we focus on the basic principles underlying IR. So, let us
begin by thinking big; what is international relations?, how was it made?, and how did it come to
be that way?

Objectives
After completing this chapter, you will be able to:

 Define the meanings and nature of nation, states and nationalism

 Describe the meaning and evolution of International Relations

 Acquaint yourself with different perspectives, approaches and paradigm of

international relations
 Identify and analyze the roles different actors play using the three levels of
analysis
 Examine the structure of international system and the laws governing its
operation

1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States

Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs. It is used to reshape and
reinforce regimes in history. Nationalism‘s triumph is the coming of the nation-state as key
actors in world politics-accepted as ultimate, legitimate and the most basic form of political
entity. According to Heywood (2014), nationalism is the doctrine that asserts the nation as the
basic political unit in organizing society. For Heywood, nations are historical entities that evolve
organically out of more similar ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths,
legends, and songs.

1
A nation, in contrast to a state, constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and
by common social practices. Communities of various kinds have always existed but they now
became, for the first time, a political concern, and come to known as ‘nation-state’. As a new
breed of nationalist leaders came to argue, the nation should take over the state and make use of
its institutional structures to further the nation‘s ends. The nation added an interior life to the
state; the nation was a soul added to the body of the early modern state machinery. The
revolutions that took place in Britain‘s North American colonies in 1776, and in France in 1789,
provided models for other nationalists to follow.

Nationalism in the first part of the nineteenth century was a liberal sentiment concerning self-
determination – the right of a people to determine its own fate. This programme had far-reaching
implications for the way politics was organized domestically, but it also had profound
ramifications for international politics. Most obviously, the idea of self-determination
undermined the political legitimacy of Europe‘s empires.

In 1848, the prospect self-determination seemed to become a reality as nationalist uprisings

quickly spread across the continent. Everywhere the people demanded the right to rule
themselves. Yet it was only with the conclusion of the First World War in 1918 that self-
determination was acknowledged as a right. After the First World War most people in Europe
formed their own nation-states.

As a result of the nationalist revolutions, the European international system became for the first
time truly ‘inter-national’. That is, while the Westphalian system concerned relations between
states, world affairs in the nineteenth century increasingly came to concern relations between
nation-states. In most respects, however, the inter-national system continued to operate in much
the same fashion as the Westphalian inter-state system. Nation-states claimed the same right to
sovereignty.

In international politics, nevertheless, the implication of nationalism and its essence is highly
questioned. Especially in the contemporary period, nation states are put under pressure and their
role in world politics is significantly challenged. However, with the post-cold war, a revival of
nationalism is happening across the world with the post-cold war assertions of religion, culture
and ethnicity as potent forces in world politics.

2
1.2. Understanding International Relations

One crucial feature of the world in which we live is its interconnectedness – geographically,
intellectually and socially – and thus we need to understand it. Originally, the study of
international relations was seen largely as a branch of the study of law, philosophy or history.
However, given the diverse origins of IR, there is no one accepted way of defining or
understanding international relations. Any attempt to define the field of international relations is
bound to be somewhat arbitrary.

Today, international relations could be used to describe a range of interactions between people,
groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or states or between these and (non) governmental
international organizations. These interactions usually take place between entities that exist in
different parts of the world – in different territories, nations or states. More obviously, events
such as international conflict, international conferences on global warming and international
crime play a fundamental part in the study of international relations.

No individual, people, nation or state can exist in splendid isolation or be master of its own fate;
but none, no matter how powerful in military, diplomatic or economic circles, even a giant
superpower, can compel everyone to do its bidding. Every people, nation or state is a minority in
a world that is anarchic, that is, there is an absence of a common sovereign over them. There is
politics among entities that have no ruler and in the absence of any ruler that world is pluralistic
and diverse.

On the other hand, there are legal, political and social differences between domestic and
international politics. Domestic law is generally obeyed, and if not, the police and courts enforce
sanctions. International law rests on competing legal systems, and there is no common
enforcement. Domestically a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In
international politics no one has a monopoly of force, and therefore international politics has
often been interpreted as the realm of self-help. It is also accepted that some states are stronger
than others. Based on underlying sense of community – in international politics, divided peoples
do not share the same loyalties – people disagree about what seems just and legitimate; order and
justice. Studying international relations, therefore, provides the necessary tools to analyze events,

3
and to gain a deeper comprehension of some of the problems that policy-makers confront and to
understand the reasoning behind their actions.

Scholars and practitioners in international relations use concepts and theories to make their study
more manageable. Hobbes, writing in 1651, interpreted the state of society to be: ‘continual fear,
and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short‘. J.
Locke took a more optimistic view and suggested that sociability was the strongest bond between
men –men were equal, sociable and free; but they were not licentious because they were
governed by the laws of nature. He was clear that nature did not arm man against man, and that
some degree of society was possible even in the state preceding government.

International politics involves the delicate adjustment of power to power. If physical force were
to be used to resolve every disagreement there would result an intolerable existence for the
world‘s population. In order to resolve these disagreements it is necessary that states and
international organizations can come up with a way of resolving differences. Although such
ideals have been difficult to establish across the board it has become the case that there are non-
violent options available to states.

International politics is also about maintaining international order. But that order has to be
maintained in an anarchical world. The arena of international relations and politics seems to be
continually expanding with the multiplication of independent states. When the United Nations
Charter was signed in October 1945, 51 states signed it. In the first decade of twenty-first century
the UN grew between 189 and 192 member states. There has also been the continuing growth of
governmental and international services. International relations and politics are necessary for all
states, but political power is not centralized and unequal. That is why power, coercion and
bargaining still hold sway.

1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations

In medieval Europe there were two institutions with pretensions to power over the continent as a
whole – the (Catholic) Church and the Empire. The Church was the spiritual authority, with its
centre in Rome and it occupied a crucial role in the cultural and intellectual life of the middle
Ages.

4
The Empire known as the Holy Roman Empire was established in the tenth century in central,
predominantly German-speaking, Europe. It derived legitimacy from the Roman Empire, but had
none of its political power. The Holy Roman Empire is best compared to a loosely structured
federation of many hundreds of separate political units. The political system of medieval Europe
was thus a curious combination of the local and the universal. Yet, from the fourteenth century
onward this system was located at an intermediate level between the local and the universal. The
new states simultaneously set themselves in opposition to popes and emperors on the universal
level, and to feudal lords, peasants and assorted other rulers on the local level. This is how the
state came to make itself independent and self-governing.

With the Reformation in the sixteenth century the notion of a unified Europe broke down
completely as the Church began to split apart. By supporting the Reformation, they could free
themselves from the power of Rome. All over northern Europe, the new ‘Protestant’ churches
became state-run and church lands became property of the state.

The increasingly self-assertive states were not only picking fights with universal institutions but
also with local ones. In order to establish themselves securely in their new positions of power,
the kings rejected the traditional claims of all local authorities. This led to extended wars in next
to all European countries. Peasants rose up in protest against taxes and the burdens imposed by
repeated wars. In France, in the middle of the seventeenth century, the nobility rose up in
Defence of its traditional rights and in rebellion against the encroachments of the king.

The early modern state was more than anything institutional machinery designed to develop and
extract resources from society. In return for their taxes, the state provided ordinary people with
defense and a rudimentary system of justice. If they refused to pay up, state officials had various
unpleasant ways to make them suffer. The European states emerged in the midst of struggle and
strife, and struggle and strife have continued to characterize their existence. The Thirty Years’
War, 1618–1648, was the bloodiest and most protracted military confrontation of the era. Thirty
Years’ War is often called a religious conflict since Catholic states confronted Protestants.
However, the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of warfare, has come to
symbolize the new way of organizing international politics.

5
From this point onwards, international politics was a matter of relations between states and no
other political units. All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the exclusive
right to rule their own territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw fit.
All states were formally equal and they had the same rights and obligations. Taken together, the
states interacted with each other in a system in which there was no overarching power.
Sovereignty and formal equality led to the problem of anarchy.

The practices of diplomacy soon expanded to include a number of mutually advantageous

provisions: the embassies were given extraterritorial rights and legal immunity, diplomatic
dispatches were regarded as inviolable and ambassadors had the right to worship the god of their
choice. Diplomatic practices were never powerful enough to prevent war, indeed wars continued
to be common, but they did provide Europeans with a sense of a common identity. On the other
hand, most of what happened in Europe before the nineteenth century was of great concern to the
Europeans but of only marginal relevance to people elsewhere. And yet, it was the European
model of statehood and the European way of organizing international relations that eventually
came to organize all of world politics. It was only in the nineteenth century that relations
between Europe and the rest of the world were irrevocably transformed. The reason is above all
to be found in economic changes taking place in Europe itself.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, other European countries joined in this scramble for
colonies, not least in Africa. Colonial possessions became a symbol of ‗great power‘ status, and
the new European nation-states often proved themselves to be very aggressive colonizers. After
all, a colonized country is the very opposite of a sovereign state; the colonized peoples had no
nation-states and enjoyed no self-determination. It was instead through the process of liberating
themselves from the colonizers that the European models were copied. Since the Europeans only
would grant sovereignty to states that were similar to their own, the only way to become
independent was to become independent on European terms. To create such Europe-like states
was thus the project in which all non-European political leaders engaged. Once they finally made
themselves independent in the decades after the Second World War, as an international climate
of decolonization took hold, all new states had a familiar form. They had their respective
territories and fortified borders.

6
1.4. Actors in International Relations

1.4.1. State Actors

International Relations (IR) traditionally focused on interactions between states. However, this
conventional view has been broadened over the years to include relationships between all sorts of
political entities (polities), including international organizations, multinational corporations,
societies and citizens.

States are obviously very different from each other, but they are also similar to each other in
important respects. All states are located somewhere, they have a territorial extension; they are
surrounded by borders which tell us where one state ends and another begins. Moreover, all
states have their own capitals, armies, foreign ministries, flags and national anthems. All states
call themselves ‘sovereign’, meaning that they claim the exclusive right to govern their
respective territories in their own fashion. But states are also sovereign in relation to each other:
they act in relation to other states, declaring war, concluding a peace, negotiating a treaty, and
many other things.

Considered in relation to the primacy of the state, international politics come to be defined in
terms of interactions between states in an international system of states where these are
‘sovereign’ entities, territorially bound, and independent ultimately of any external authority.
The ‘international’ is hence structurally differentiated from the ‘domestic’ in that where the
former, according to this ‘realist’ perspective, is defined as ‘anarchical’, the latter is hierarchical.
State sovereignty comes to be the defining element in the study of international relations, even
where other perspectives challenge the primacy of the state.

1.4.2. Non-State Actors

Our everyday lived experience is influenced by global firms, international governmental

institutions, and non-governmental organizations that necessitate the remit of our investigations
in order to account for the diversity of actors and forms of inter-actions which take place in
global politics. Multinational corporations (MNCs) often with headquarters in one state and
operational capability in a range of others contribute significantly to international relations.
Additionally there are other trans-governmental organizations where the relations between

7
players are not controlled by the central foreign policy of the state such as the exchange rate of a
state‘s currency being determined by the money markets.

Thus, contrary to the narrow traditionalist realist view of international relations and foreign
policy/relations, which focuses on the physical security and protection of the territory of the state
and its people, one needs to look wider. The majority of global interactions, be they related to
global finance, production, education, personal and professional travel, labor migration or
terrorism, no longer occur via state channels the way they once did. We could say that the
increased focus on non-state actors and cross-border issues has marked a close-to-revolutionary
turn in IR; something that could be interpreted as a shift away from the inter-national (‘between-
states’) to the ‘trans-national’ (‘across/beyond-states’ and their borders). Thinking about world
affairs in ‘trans-national’ rather than in purely ‘international’ terms seems more of an analytical
necessity than just a choice. The ability for common people to store, transfer and distribute large
amounts of information, the possibility for data to travel across the world in virtually no time,
and the increasing availability of high-speed internet have not only changed lives at personal and
community levels but also dramatically altered the general dynamics in politics and global
affairs.

1.5. Levels of Analysis in International Relations

In the early days of IR, from 1919 until after the Second World War – a lot of what could be
called traditional or conventional IR was not concerned with any potential distinctions between
different levels of analysis or theoretical perspectives. From the 1950s onwards, more and more
IR scholars endeavored to specify the focus of their analysis more clearly. The most prominent
example was Kenneth Waltz‘s Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (1959) which
introduced an analytical framework for the study of IR that distinguished between what he
referred to as different ‘images’ of an issue: the individual, the state and the international system.
Waltz‘s contributions to the discipline generated interest in analyzing the international system as
a place of interactions between states.

8
1.5.1. The individual level

International relations can be analyzed from the perspective of individuals. Here we would look
at the behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation of the individual in affecting a particular
international phenomenon. If looking at the actions of individuals, we would likely also need to
engage with the implications of human nature. This can be seen in the psychology and emotions
behind people‘s actions and decisions, their fears and their visions as well as their access to
information and capacity to make a difference. Psychological factors do not only matter at the
level of individual members of society or of a group. They are also an important factor in the
analysis of foreign policy, whenever particular mindsets and perceptions of political leaders and
key actors might influence their decisions and behavior. Focusing on the individual level and,
say, particular actions of specific personalities in the public realm–be they politicians, diplomats
or bankers – would lead us to drawing different conclusions again about the causes and
consequences that phenomenon.

1.5.2. The group level

A group level analysis would try and break the analysis down into certain kinds of groups, how
they relate to the state level and where they position themselves with respect to the global
dimension of the issues they are dealing with. An example of this can be seen in the work of
Engelen et al. (2012), who discuss the global financial crisis as the ‘misrule of experts’, pointing
at the politicized role of technocratic circles and the relative lack of democratic control over the
boards of large banks and corporations. A group-level analysis focusing on foreign policy would
look, for example, at the role of lobbying groups and the way they influence national decision
making on an issue. In this sense, a group-level analysis would be more interested in the actions
of groups of individuals, such as all voters of a country and the way they express their views in
the general election, political parties picking up on the issue in their campaigns or social
movements forming to counter the effects of the crisis on society. A group-level analysis could
be interested in activist/pressure groups like ‘Anonymous’ that seek to influence the global
debate about the winners and losers of globalization and capitalism, and so forth.

9
1.5.3. The state level

The main focus of this level remains on the state as the dominant unit of analysis. This enduring
focus on the state is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of the discipline. This means that
IR scholars would generally not only regard states as the central unit of analysis as such, they
also conceive of the state as a point of reference for other types of actors. From this perspective,
the state acts as the arena in which state officials, politicians and decision-makers operate. The
state is seen as the framework that encapsulates society and as the main point of reference for the
individual.

This predominant focus on the state is strongly related to an assumption that the state being the
main location of power within the international sphere. This idea that the state is where power is
primarily concentrated and located has to be seen against the historical context within which
some of the most prominent IR scholars operated – the Cold War. It was an era in which much of
international affairs appeared to be run via state channels and in line with particular state
interests.

States still hold the exclusive right to the legitimate use of physical force. The state as a unit of
analysis and frame of reference will certainly not go away any time soon, nor will the
interactions of states as a key level of analysis in IR.

1.5.4. The system level

The system level perspective would like to conceive the global system as the structure or context
within which states cooperate, compete and confront each other over issues of national interest.
Particularly important in that context is the distribution of power amongst states, meaning,
whether there is one main concentration of power (uni-polarity), two (bipolarity) or several
(multi-polarity). In this perspective, global circumstances are seen to condition the ability and
opportunity of individual states and groups of states to pursue their interests in cooperative or
competitive ways. The view of states being embedded in a global context traditionally comes
with the assumption that our international system is ‘anarchic’. An anarchic system is one that
lacks a central government (or international sovereign) that regulates and controls what happens
to states in their dealings with each other.

10
The international system can be conceived of as made up of states, groups of states,
organizations, societies or individuals within and across those societies. A system-level study
would need to consider global linkages that go beyond single interactions between states. It
would need to look at such things as the balance of power between states and how that
determines what happens in global politics. This could include developments that are even
outside the immediate control of any particular state or group of states, such as the global
economy, transnational terrorism or the internet.

1.6. The Structure of International System

International Relations scholars maintain that political power is usually distributed into three
main types of systems namely: (i) uni-polar system, (ii) bipolar system and, (iii) multipolar
system. These three different systems reflect the number of powerful states competing for power
and their hierarchical relationship. In a uni-polar international system, there is one state with
the greatest political, economic, cultural and military power and hence the ability to totally
control other states. On the other hand, in both bipolar and multipolar systems there is no one
single state with a preponderant power and hence ability to control other states.

As a result, the states in such systems are forced to balance each other‘s power. In the case of the
bipolar system, for instance, there are two dominant states (super powers) and the less powerful
states join either sides through alliance and counter alliance formations. The problem with
bipolar system is that it is vulnerable for zero-sum game politics because when one superpower
gains the other would inevitably lose. One typical historical example where the world was under
bipolar system is the cold war period. Multipolar system is the most common throughout
history. During the period around World War I it was a typical world system. It usually reflects
various equally powerful states competing for power. It is not necessary for states to change their
relationship with zero-sum game. In such system, it is possible to bring change without gaining
or losing power.

Power

Power is the currency of international politics. As money is for economics, power is for
international relations (politics). In the international system, power determines the relative

11
influence of actors and it shapes the structure of the international system. That is also why it is
often said that international relations is essentially about actors’ power relations in the
supranational domain. It thus follows from this that power is the blood line of international
relations. Power can be defined in terms of both relations and material (capability) aspects.
Robert Dahl’s definition understands power as A’s ability to get ‘B’ to do something it would not
otherwise do.

Anarchy

Anarchy is a situation where there is absence of authority (government) be it in national or

international/global level systems. Within a country ‘anarchy’ refers to a breakdown of law and
order, but in relations between states it refers to a system where power is decentralized and there
are no shared institutions with the right to enforce common rules. States had to rely on their own
resources or to form alliances through which the power of one alliance of states could be
balanced against the power of another alliance.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is another basic concept in international relations and it can be defined as an

expression of: (i) a state‘s ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal sovereignty)
and, (ii) the state‘s involvement in the international community (external sovereignty). In short,
sovereignty denotes double claim of states from the international system, i.e., autonomy in
foreign policy and independence/freedom in its domestic affairs.

1.7. Theories of International Relations

Theories of international relations allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world
around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective. In
order to consider the field as a whole for beginners it is necessary to simplify International
Relations theory. This section introduces the traditional theories, middle-ground theories and
critical theories of international relations.

12
1.7.1. Idealism/Liberalism

Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory and is still recognized as such to some
degree today. Its proponents view human beings as innately good and believe peace and
harmony between nations is not only achievable, but desirable. Immanuel Kant developed the
idea in the late eighteenth century that states that shared liberal values should have no reason for
going to war against one another. In Kant‘s eyes, the more liberal states there were in the world,
the more peaceful it would become, since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and citizens are
rarely disposed to desire war. This is in contrast to the rule of kings and other non-elected rulers
who frequently have selfish desires out of step with citizens. Further, liberals have faith in the
idea that the permanent cessation of war is an attainable goal.

In the early years, from 1919 to the 1930s, the discipline was dominated by what is
conventionally referred to as liberal internationalism. The primary concern of this approach
was that conditions which had led to the outbreak of the First World War and the devastation
which followed should not be allowed to occur in the future. With foundations in the
Enlightenment and the eighteenth century, liberal internationalism, as Scott Burchill points out,
suggested that ‘the prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference for democracy over
aristocracy, free trade over autarky, and collective security over the balance of power system‘
(Burchill, 1996: 31).

The two interrelated ideas that emerge from Kant‘s reflections on a perpetual peace and which
formed the basic foundations for the liberal internationalism centered on democratic
governance and institutionalized law-governed relations of cooperation between states. The
two formative pillars of liberal internationalism, democracy and free trade, required the
establishment of international relations which would promote collectivist aspirations in place of
the conflictual relations which formed the basis of balance-of-power thinking.

Liberals also argue that international law offers a mechanism by which cooperation among states
is made possible. International law refers to the body of customary and conventional rules which
are binding on civilized states in their intercourse with each other. Notwithstanding this,
however, states are the subjects of international law in the sense that they are in principle obliged
to implement the decisions of international tribunals or courts. Essentially, international law

13
provides the normative framework for political discourse among members of the international
system. The framework does not guarantee consensus, but it does foster the discourse and
participation needed to provide conceptual clarity in developing legal obligations and gaining
their acceptance. In playing this role, international law performs two different functions. One is
to provide mechanisms for cross-border interactions (operating system), and the other is to shape
the values and goals these interactions are pursuing (normative system). In short, the purpose of
international law is thus to regulate the conducts of governments and the behaviors of individuals
within states

1.7.2. Realism

Realists argue that values are context bound, that morality is determined by interest, and that the
conditions of the present are determined by historical processes. The formative assumptions of
realism as a school of thought centre on the view that the international system is ‘anarchic’, in
the sense that it is devoid of an all-encompassing authority. The international system of states
lacks single system of government and renders inter-national law non-binding and ultimately
ineffectual in the regulation of relations between states. Conflict is hence an inevitable and
continual feature of inter-national relations. Realism locates its roots further back, citing
Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as its founding voices. Thucydides and his account of the
Peloponnesian War is read as the formative paradigmatic text in that it covers themes such as
power, intrigue, conquest, alliance-building and the intricacies of bargaining.

Hans Morgenthau, whose Politics among Nations (1948), leads the realist perspective, points to a
clear line of descent from Thucydides when he asserts that “realism assumes that its key concept
of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but it does not
endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all”. Morgenthau‘s text starts with
the assumption that there are objective laws which have universal applicability, “international
politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power”. Morgenthau, like other realists, hence assumes
a clear separation of fact and value, of theory and practice.

Realism gained momentum during the Second World War when it appeared to offer a convincing
account for how and why the worst conflict in known history originated after a period of
supposed peace and optimism. As its name suggests, advocates of realism purport it reflects the

14
‘reality’ of the world and more effectively accounts for change in international politics. War
seems more common than peace to realists indeed they see war as inevitable. When they
examine history they see a world that may change in shape, but is always characterized by a
system of what they call “international anarchy” as the world has no sovereign to give it order.

Kenneth Waltz (1959 and 1979) defines a neo-realist agenda and absolutely dominated the
discipline and some would argue do so to the present day. The international system is, for Waltz,
anarchical and hence perpetually threatening and conflictual. What is of interest to Waltz is not
the set of motives which may determine state behavior, but the imperatives of the international
system and the distribution of capabilities within it.

Realists do not typically believe that human beings are inherently good, or have the potential for
good, as liberals do. Instead, they claim individuals act in their own self-interests. For realists,
people are selfish and behave according to their own needs without necessarily taking into
account the needs of others. Realists believe conflict is unavoidable and perpetual and so war is
common and inherent to humankind. Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, is known for his
famous statement “all politics is a struggle for power” (Morgenthau 1948). This demonstrates the
typical realist view that politics is primarily about domination as opposed to cooperation between
states.

Realists tend to dismiss optimism as a form of misplaced idealism and instead they arrive at a
more pessimistic view. This is due to their focus on the centrality of the state and its need for
security and survival in an anarchical system where it can only truly rely on itself. As a result,
realists reach an array of accounts that describe IR as a system where war and conflict is
common and periods of peace are merely times when states are preparing for future conflict.

Both liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant actor in IR, although liberalism
does add a role for non-state actors such as international organizations. Nevertheless, within both
theories states themselves are typically regarded as possessing ultimate power. In terms of
liberalism, its proponents argue that organizations are valuable in assisting states in formulating
decisions and helping to formalize cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes. Realists on the
other hand believe states partake in international organizations only when it is in their self-
interest to do so.

15
1.7.3. Structuralism/Marxism

Marxism is an ideology that argues that a capitalist society is divided into two contradictory
classes – the business class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). The
proletariats are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie who control their wages and therefore their
standard of living. Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class society and overthrow of the
bourgeoisie by the proletariat.

This other paradigm which emerged as a critique of both realism and pluralism concentrated on
the inequalities that exist within the international system, inequalities of wealth between the rich
‘North’ or the ‘First World’ and the poor ‘South’ or the ‘Third World’. Inspired by the writings
of Marx and Lenin, scholars within what came to be known as the structuralist paradigm focused
on dependency, exploitation and the international division of labor which relegated the vast
majority of the global population to the extremes of poverty, often with the complicities of elite
groups within these societies. As many in this tradition argued, most states were not free. Instead
they were subjugated by the political, ideological and social consequences of economic forces.
Imperialism generated by the vigor of free enterprise capitalism in the West and by state
capitalism in the socialist bloc imposed unequal exchange of every kind upon the Third World
(Banks, 1984).

The basis of such manifest inequality was the capitalist structure of the international system
which accrued benefits to some while causing, through unequal exchange relations, the
impoverishment of the vast majority of others. The class system that pre-dominated internally
within capitalist societies had its parallel globally, producing centre–periphery relations that
permeated every aspect of international social, economic and political life. Thus, neoMarxist
structuralism viewed these processes as the basis of inequality, the debt burden, violence and
instability.

1.7.4. Constructivism

Constructivism is another theory commonly viewed as a middle ground, between mainstream

theories and the critical theories. Constructivists highlight the importance of values and shared
interests between individuals who interact on the global stage. Alexander Wendt, a prominent

16
constructivist, described the relationship between agents (individuals) and structures (such as the
state) as one in which structures not only constrain agents but also construct their identities and
interests. His famous phrase “anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt 1992) sums this up
well.

The essence of international relations exists in the interactions between people. After all, states
do not interact; it is agents of those states, such as politicians and diplomats, who interact. As
those interacting on the world stage have accepted international anarchy as the defining
principle, it has become part of our reality. However, if anarchy is what we make of it, then
different states can perceive anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change
over time. To understand constructivism is to understand that ideas, or “norms” as they are often
called, have power. IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change chronicling the accumulation
of the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future.

1.7.5. Critical Theories

Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have been established in response to
mainstream approaches in the field, mainly liberalism and realism. In a nutshell, critical theorists
share one particular trait – they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR that have
been central since its establishment. Thus, altered circumstances call for new approaches that are
better suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find ourselves in. Critical theories
are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked
within IR. They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been marginalized,
particularly women and those from the Global South.

Critical theorists who take a Marxist angle often argue that the internationalization of the state as
the standard operating principle of international relations has led ordinary people around the
globe becoming divided and alienated, instead of recognizing what they all have in common as a
global proletariat. For this to change, the legitimacy of the state must be questioned and
ultimately dissolved. In that sense, emancipation from the state in some form is often part of the
wider critical agenda.

17
Post-colonialism differs from Marxism by focusing on the inequality between nations or regions,
as opposed to classes. This approach acknowledges that politics is not limited to one area or
region and that it is vital to include the voices of individuals from other parts of the world.
Edward Said (1978) developed the prominent ‘Orientalist’ critique, describing how the Middle
East and Asia were inaccurately depicted in the West. Postcolonial scholars are, therefore,
important contributors to the field as they widen the focus of enquiry beyond IR‘s traditionally
“Western” mindset.

Summary

Academic study of international relations or politics is much more complex. Students of

international relations need to go beyond the “alleged facts” or “photo-opportunity” and instead
use theoretical tools of analysis. Not all courses in international relations or politics will enable
you to answer all questions; indeed, there is no international relations view and many
departments have members who disagree about these fundamentals. Our understanding of
international relations or politics is often about conflicting views and students need to
comprehend the origins of such conflicting views and to consider their philosophical or
theoretical basis. This is particularly true given that our world has entered a period of dramatic
and confusing change that is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. The discipline of
international relations has moved through a number of defining theoretical perspectives as
successive scholars have sought to make sense of the apparently simple word ‘international’.

18