Chapter One: Understanding International Relations

.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States

Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs. It has caused the outbreak of
revolutions and wars across the globe. 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.

In common parlance, the words ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘country’ are used interchangeably and this
is not correct. In international politics, it is also common but incorrect to refer the ‘Chinese’, the
‘Americans’ and the ‘Russians’ as ‘nations’. Hence, the question remains: what is a nation?
According to Heywood, ‘nations are historical entities that evolve organically out of more
similar ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs (2014).

A nation, in contrast to a state, constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and
by common social practices. 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.

1.2. Understanding International Relations

International relations is not merely a field of study at university but is an integral aspect of our
(increasingly international) everyday lives.

Originally, the study of international relations (a term first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1798)
was seen largely as a branch of the study of law, philosophy or history. Participation in
international relations or politics is also inescapable. 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.
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. Outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and
avian flu exemplify how domestic incidents can become international and can lead to foreign
policy changes and commitments. . 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’. Whereas, 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.

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. Society would not prosper and every human being would be suspicious of
every other human. International politics is also about maintaining international order. But that
order has to be maintained in an anarchical world.

1|Page
1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations

The rise of the sovereign state in medieval Europe consisted of a complicated pattern of
overlapping jurisdictions and loyalties 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.

1.4. Actors in International Relations

1.4.1. State Actors

International Relations (IR) traditionally focused on interactions between states. There are a lot
of states in the world – in fact, according to the latest count there are no fewer than 195 of them.
States are obviously very different from each other, but they are also similar to each other in
important respects. All states call themselves ‘sovereign’, meaning that they claim the exclusive
right to govern their respective territories in their own fashion. 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.

1.4.2. Non-State Actors

Our every day lived experience is influenced by global firms, international governmental
institutions, and non-governmental organizations that necessitates 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.

Similarly, multinational corporations (MNCs) – often with headquarters in one state and
operational capability in a range of others – contribute significantly to international relations.
Furthermore, are the relations between states governed by mutual cooperation and
interdependence or are they best conceived as conflictual and subject to the imperatives of a self-
help system based on survival in an anarchical system? .If we look at the world around us, state
borders do not seem to accurately delimitate global affairs.

Robert Keohane, one of the leading scholars in the field, recently stated that ‘International
Relations’ is no longer a suitable label and that we should instead refer to the discipline as
‘Global Studies’ or ‘World Politics’ (Keohane 2016). In today’s world, few societal and political
issues, challenges and problems are neatly confined by the borders of individual states or even
groups of states. International commercial aviation and the rapid spread of information
technologies has further increased people’s mobility and the rate at which interactions occur

2|Page
across and beyond state borders. 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.

Various political agendas – be they progressive, revolutionary or outright dangerous – can unfold
in a relatively uncontrolled and unregulated way, posing real challenges to governmental
agencies and the political leaders that try to improve and direct them. Random individuals can
potentially start a revolution from their homes, bypassing any conventional conceptions of power
and transcending spatial and material boundaries to the point where political activity.

1.5. Levels of Analysis in International Relations

We also need to acknowledge the analytical consequences of drifting between levels: that our
search for evidence will need to be comprehensive and that we might have to look at a different
set of data or material for each additional aspect. if you were to explain Germany’s decision to
open its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees in 2015 you might want to look at the
external pressures as much as the personal motivations of German chancellor Angela Merkel.
You would investigate factors at the system level (such as economic indicators, refugee flows,
the attitude of key partners) and at the individual level (such as Merkel’s ideological background,
her interests and perceptions of the problem as it emerges from statements and key decisions
throughout her career).

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.

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. 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.
as a reader, it is important to stay critical and to look closely and enquire whenever an argument
presented to us appears to straddle potentially conflicting analytical lenses.

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. A group-level analysis focusing on foreign policy
would look, for example, at the role of lobbying groups and the way they influence national

3|Page
decision-making on an issue. 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.

1.5.3. The state level

the state level of analysis, 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, States form the primary kind of actor in major international organizations such as the
United Nations, , and states still hold what famous German sociologist Max Weber called the
monopoly on violence – the exclusive right to the legitimate use of physical force. The state as a
unit of analysis and frame of reference will A state-level study would also require careful
consideration of what kinds of states we are looking at (how they are ordered politically),
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.
You might visualize it as a level above the state. Particularly important in that context is the
distribution of power amongst states, meaning, whether there is one main concentration of power
(unipolarity), two (bipolarity) or several (multipolarity). 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.

The international system can be conceived of as made up of states, groups of states,

organizations, societies or individuals within and across those societies. IR generally
distinguishes between three levels of analysis: the system, the state, and the individual – but the
group level is also important to consider as a fourth. 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.

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. 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. The problem with bipolar system is
that it is vulnerable for zero-sum game politics because when one superpower gains the other

4|Page
would inevitably lose. Multipolar system is the most common throughout history. During the
period around World War I it was a typical world system.

Power

Power is the currency of international politics. In the international system, power determines the
relative influence of actors and it shapes the structure of the international system. Hans
Morgenthau, a famous thinker of realism theory in IR, argues that International politics, like all
other politics, is a struggle for power. 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. An anarchical world is a world
where everyone looks after themselves and no one looks after the system as a whole.

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.

1.7.1. Idealism/Liberalism

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. since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and citizens are rarely disposed
to desire war. most notably in the democratic peace theory, which posits that democracies do not
go to war with each other, 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.
liberal internationalism, as Scott Burchill points out, suggested that ‘the prospects for the

5|Page
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).

liberal internationalism that dominated the discipline of international relations in its early days
centered on democratic governance and institutionalized law-governed relations of cooperation
between states. The two formative pillars of liberal internationalism, democracy and free trade, .
A system of ‘collective security’ was advocated to replace antagonistic alliance systems with an
international order based on the rule of law and collective responsibility. Liberals also argue that
international law offers a mechanism by which cooperation among states is made possible. ,
international law performs two different functions. One is to provide mechanisms for cross-
border interactions, and the other is to shape the values and goals these interactions are pursuing.
, the legal standing of international law is a contentious issue among scholars. There are three
competing views on this matter. Some scholars say international law is not a law at all but a
branch of international morality. Others say it is a law in all senses of the term. Yet, others say it
is a matter of definition.

1.7.2. Realism

Carr called for a ‘science’ of international relations, one which would move away from what he
saw as the wishful thinking of liberal internationalism. 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. Conflict is hence an inevitable and continual feature of inter-national
relations.

Enlightenment and the birth of reason so 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. Here we see portrayed a system of
city states, the units or members of which are self-reliant and independent, with war breaking out
in 431 BC.

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, . Morgenthau’s
text starts with the assumption that there are objective laws which have universal applicability,
Where liberal internationalism had been openly normative and prescriptive in orientation, the
realism expressed by Morgenthau purports to be scientific and explanatory. based as these were
on the state as the primary unit of analysis, on interactions between states governed by the
relentless pursuit of power, and on a substantive empirical agenda defined by Cold War
concerns.

6|Page
Hobbes described human beings as living in an order-less ‘state of nature’ that he perceived as a
war of all against all. To remedy this, he proposed that a ‘social contract’ was required between a
ruler and the people of a state to maintain relative order.

Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Man, the State and War’ (1959) and his later ‘Theory of International Politics’
(1979) define 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. That is why war seems more common than peace to
realists indeed they see war as inevitable.

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. the realist lens, the world appears to be one of domination. , both realism and liberalism
have been updated to more modern versions (neoliberalism and neorealism) that represent a shift
in emphasis from their traditional roots

Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order can be improved, with peace
and progress gradually replacing war. Conversely, 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. 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.

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 third perspective or 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’. the

7|Page
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. . 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). 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.
producing centre–periphery relations that permeated every aspect of international social,
economic and political life. neo-Marxist 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, but this time between
mainstream theories and the critical theories that we will explore later. constructivists highlight
the importance of values and shared interests between individuals who interact on the global
stage. Alexander Wendt, a prominent 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. to explain the core of constructivism, is that the
essence of international relations exists in the interactions between people. After all, states do not
interact; it is agents of those states, 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.

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. altered circumstances call for new approaches that are better
suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find ourselves in.

Post-colonialism differs from Marxism by focusing on the inequality between nations or regions,
as opposed to classes. when much activity in international relations centered around
decolonization and the ambition to undo the legacies of European imperialism. Generally,
realists believe that international organizations appear to be successful when they are working in
the interests of powerful states. Finally, post-colonialists would argue that the discourse
perpetuated by the United Nations is one based on cultural, national or religious privilege

8|Page
What is Feminism?

Feminism refers to political, cultural, and economic movements aimed at establishing greater
rights and legal protections for women. It is a progressive movement transformed from
individual struggle to mass revolutionary movements.It is also a social and political philosophy
(ontology and epistemology) and theory.It is a movement for social, structural and personal
transformation.

They have struggled to protect women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and
rape. Womens should have abortion rights and reproductive rights, rights of contract, property
rights, and voting rights.Workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay, and against
other forms of gender-specific discrimination against women. Feminism did not make matirarcal
thinking over patriracal thinking.

9|Page