Chapter One: Understanding

International Relations

Course Name: Global Trends

Instr., Kedir Daro (MA in International Relations)
Hawassa University
March, 2022
 Chapter Contents
1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and
States
1.2. Understanding International Relations
1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International
Relations
1.4. Actors in International Relations
 1.5. Levels of Analysis in International
Relations
1.6. The Structure of International System
1.7. Theories of International Relations
 Chapter 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
Q: Why does it matter to understand nationalism, nation
and states?
=outbreak of revolutions and wars across the globe are
due to nationalism
nationalism is the doctrine that asserts the nation as the
basic political unit in organizing society.
‘nations are historical entities that evolve organically out
of more similar ethnic communities and they reveal
themselves in myths, legends, and songs. constitutes a
community of people joined by a shared identity and by
common social practices.
 ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘country’, not the same
=United Nations-----misnomer/wrong connotation
 Differences between Nationalism, Nation and State

Nation Nationalism State

- People with more - A belief in nations as - An entity having
common backgrounds supreme and at the population, its own
center of every government, defined
political territory and
actions/decisions sovereignty

The 1776 American war of independence

The 1789 French Revolution
Westphalia treaty==Inter-state (1648)
Bentham===Inter-national(1789)
1848 nationalist uprisings quickly spread across
Europe
 1.2. Understanding International Relations
 What is international Relations (IR)?
 Why do we study International Relations?
 How do international relations affect you in your daily life?
 IRs as a practice- all cross-bordering relations
 IRs as a field of study (discipline)- the study of who gets what, when
and how at global level.
 Subsequently, the first university chair of international relations was
founded at the University of Wales in 1919.
 Participation in international relations is inescapable

 Distinction between domestic and international politics: real but

declining
 Philosophical debates on human nature analogy to IRs: Hobbesian vs

Lockean realist(anarchic) vs liberal(ordered))

How is international peace and order
maintained?
Who is responsible for maintaining
international peace and order?
International politics is also about
maintaining international order. But that order
has to be maintained in an anarchical world.
- self-help system
- No sovereign body to rule over others
 1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations
Where and how do you think modern international relations
emerged?
Struggles in the process of rise to state
Catholic church for long ruled Europe
Holy Roman Empire (a kind of loose federation)
Evolving of Protestantism after Reformation
16th C onwards, rising states to protect interests of their peasants
European states emerged in the midst of struggle and strife
The Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648, was the bloodiest and most
protracted military confrontation of the era.
Was a religious conflict since Catholic states confronted Protestants
The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of
warfare, has come to symbolize the new way of organizing
international politics (based on Sovereignty).
 Cont…
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.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary
conflicts, the different rulers began dispatching ambassadors
to each other’s courts.
 Cont…
This diplomatic network provided a means of gathering
information, of spying, but also a way of keeping in touch
with one another, of carrying out negotiations and
concluding deals.
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.
• These originally north Italian practices gradually
expanded to embrace more states and by the middle of the
seventeenth century, the system included France, Spain,
 Cont….
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.
A European state was, more than anything, a state that
participated in the system of shared diplomatic practices.
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.
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.
 Cont…
At the end of the eighteenth century, new ways of
manufacturing goods were invented which made use of
machines powered by steam, and later by electricity, which
made it possible to engage in large-scale factory production.
As a result of this so called ‘industrial revolution’, the
Europeans could produce many more things and do it far
more efficiently.
As cheap, mass-produced goods flooded European markets,
the Europeans began looking for new markets overseas.
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.
 Cont…
France added West Africa and Indochina to its growing empire, and
the Germans and Italians also joined the race once their respective
countries were unified.
This explains how, by the time of the First World War in 1914, most
parts of the world were in European hands.
There were some exceptions to this rule – China, Japan, Siam,
Persia, Ethiopia and Nepal, among others – but even in these
ostensibly independent countries, the Europeans had a strong
presence.
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
 1.4. Actors in International Relations
 Who are the dominant role players in IRs?
 What are roles/ways of affecting interactions used by each in IRs?
1.4.1. State Actors
 In old times, States were the only actors.
 Now, are not the only but the primary one
 States conduct IRs as sovereign through declaring war, concluding a
peace, negotiating a treaty, and many other things
1.4.2. Non-State Actors
 Those interactions that happen b/n and among bodies other than States
 global firms(MNCs), international governmental institutions, and non-
governmental organizations
 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
 Cont…
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 ‘inter-national’ terms therefore seems more of an
analytical necessity than just a choice.
Advancement in Science and Technology is an engine behind
the transition
Social media provide accessible platforms of communication
Random individuals can potentially start a revolution from their
homes, bypassing any conventional conceptions of power and
transcending spatial and material boundaries
 Cont…
1.5. Levels of Analysis in International Relations
Have you ever thought that a single international political
phenomenon can be analyzed at different levels? How?
In the early days of IR – say, 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.
Keneth Waltz: A theoretical Analysis of Man, the state and War
(1959) is a pioneering theoretical ground
Level of Analysis is all about triangulating why something
happened from d/t levels (from global, state, group, individual
roles)
1.5.1. The individual level
- Analyzing IRs from the perspective of individuals
- It is in depth look at the behaviors, motivations, Biological and
historical records, beliefs and orientation of the individual in
affecting a particular international phenomenon
- 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 affects IRs.
1.5.2. The group level
 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.
 would be more interested in the actions of groups of individuals,
such as all voters of a country, political parties, or social
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
is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of the discipline i.e.
so conceive of the state as a point of reference for other types of
actors.
Interested in states’ preferences, policies(mainly foreign),
relations, roles, capabilities, geographical positions, historical
ties and experiences, etc
From this perspective, the state acts as the arena in which state
officials, politicians and decision-makers operate.
the state also being the main location of power within the
international sphere
States form the primary kind of actor in major international
organizations
1.5.4. The system level (a level above the State)
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 unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity
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
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
NB: complete understanding of IRs requires studying 4
1.6. The Structure of International System
Q: Have you ever thought that the international system has a structure? If so
discuss how?
Q: What would the international system look like if it is left to the whims of
sovereign states?
Common concepts in Int’l System:
 Power:
 is the currency of international politics (the blood line of international
relations)
 determines the relative influence of actors and it shapes the structure of
the international system
 Power can be defined in terms of both relations and material (capability)
aspects. Relational “A” forces “B” to do, otherwise cannot do
Global political power can be found in three forms/systems
• Unipolar-----only one state too powerful
• Bipolar-------two states are competitive (cold war era)
• Multipolar----more than two states
Anarchy
- a situation where there is absence of authority (government)
- a world where everyone looks after themselves and no one
looks after the system as a whole
- Dependence on own resource or alliance formation  warfare
Sovereignty
(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
- was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory
- view human beings as innately good and believe peace and
harmony between nations as achievable and desirable
- Immanuel Kant states that shared liberal values should have no
reason for going to war against one another
- democratic peace theory posits that democracies do not go to
war with each other,
- faith in the idea that the permanent cessation of war is an
attainable goal
- US President Woodrow Wilson addressed his famous ‘Fourteen
Points’ ========== League of Nations (1919)
1919 to the 1930s ideas dominated by what is conventionally
referred to as liberal internationalism (conditions conducive for
war should not repeated)
underlying assumption the academic study of IRs had the
potential to contribute to the prevention of war and the
establishment of peace.
Scott Burchill points out ‘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’
foundations for the liberal internationalism: democratic
governance and institutionalized law-governed relations of
cooperation between states
 The two formative pillars of liberal internationalism,
democracy and free trade=>promote collectivist aspirations
A system of ‘collective security’ was advocated to replace
The domestic analogy of a social contract was deemed to be
transferable for the international level through Int’l law
International Law: ‘‘operating system’’(provide mechanisms
for cross-border interactions) and ‘‘normative system” (shape
the values and goals these interactions are pursuing)
1.7.2. Realism
The ‘idealism’ of the interwar period was henceforth to be
replaced by ‘realism’, and it is this school of thought which, in
its various articulations, remains dominant in the discipline.
E.H. Carr’s ‘Twenty Years’ Crisis’, published in 1939, was the
text which positioned what he called utopianism in opposition
to realism.
separates the ‘what is’ from the ‘what ought to be’,
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 centred on the view that
the international system is ‘anarchic’
Conflict is hence an inevitable and continual feature of inter-
national relations. Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as its
founding voices
Hans Morgenthau‘international politics, like all politics, is a
struggle for power’; domination as opposed to cooperation
1950s and into the 1960s, IRs dominated by realist conceptions
of international relations, based as these were on the state as the
primary unit of analysis, and governed by the relentless pursuit
of power
Realists on the other hand believe states partake in international
organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do so
Kenneth Waltz  a neo-realist agenda
- focuses on the international system itself and seeks to provide a
1.7.3. Structuralism/Marxism
 divides capitalist society into two contradictory classes – the business class
(the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat).
 The proletariats are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie
 Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class society and overthrow of the
bourgeoisie by the proletariat
 Marxists would argue that any international body, including the United
Nations, works to promote the interests of the business class
 concentrated on the inequalities that exist within the international system,
inequalities created by capitalist system of wealth between the rich ‘North’
or the ‘First World’ and the poor ‘South’ or the ‘Third World’. producing
centre–periphery relations
 focused on dependency, exploitation and the international division of labor
which relegated the vast majority of the global population to the extremes
of poverty
 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.
 increasing international cooperation as the basis of inequality, the
debt burden, violence and instability (neo-Marxist structuralism).
 Major writers in the structuralist perspective emerged from Latin
America, Africa and the Middle East, Andre Gunter Frank and
Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein
1.7.4. Constructivism
 viewed as a middle ground between mainstream theories and the critical theories
 highlight the importance of values and shared interests between
agents who interact on the global stage
 Its central assumption: the meaning constructed by an individual
matters in IRs. It is ideas or norms that 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. As such, constructivists seek to study this
process
 Structures(states) not only constrain agents(individuals) but also
construct their identities and interests
‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Alexander Wendt)
the essence of international relations exists in the interactions
between people (states do not interact; it is agents of those states,
such as politicians and diplomats, who interact)
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.
International anarchy could even be replaced with a different
system if a critical mass of other individuals (and by proxy the
states they represent) accepted the idea.
1.7.5. Critical Theories
 established in critical response to mainstream approaches in the
field
 they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR that
have been central since its establishment
 call for new approaches that are better suited to understand, as well
Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that
have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR
provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been
marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global
South
Assume state centered IRs divided and alienated ordinary
peoples around the world.
the legitimacy of the state must be questioned and ultimately
dissolved
Devised emancipation from the state in some form is often part
of the wider critical agenda.
Post-colonialism differs from Marxism by focusing on the
inequality between nations or regions, as opposed to classes
Summery
Liberalism depicts optimism by arguing that human
beings are good, cooperation is possible and conflict can
be resolved peacefully
Realism depicts pessimism by arguing that human
beings are bad, conflict is inevitable and war is the most
prominent instrument of resolving conflict
Structuralism/Marxism focused on the structure of
dependency and exploitation caused by the
international division of labor
Constructivism/Critical Theories challenge the
foundations of the dominant perspectives and argue for
the marginalized and the voiceless
 EN
CH D
AP F O
ON TE
E! R
!!