CHAPTER ONE

Understanding International Relations

CHAPTER OUTLINES;
• 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
 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 Nationalis State

m
- People with - A belief in - An entity having
more common nations as population, its
backgrounds supreme and at own government,
the center of defined territory
every political and sovereignty
The 1776 American war of
independence
actions/decisions
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 Locke an 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.
 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.

 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 non-European political leaders engaged.
 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
 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
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
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 of the levels
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)
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
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
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
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
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
‘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 as question, the world we find ourselves
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
 EN
CH D
AP F O
ON TE
E! R
!!