Chapter 1: Introduction to international relations.

Chapter 1: 

Introduction to international relations. 

A. Concept of international relations: 

• International relation is a branch of social science which is concerned with relation among nations and other issues like non state actors.
• It is the study of the interactions among the various actors that participate in international politics.

Definitions given by scholars:

• It is a discipline which tries to explain political activities across the state boundaries. Trevor Taylor. 
• "International relations are the study of all forms of interactions that exist between  members of separate entities or nations within the international system".  -Ola, Joseph.
• “The investigating and study of patterns of action and “reactions among sovereign states as  represented by their governing elites” -Seymon Brown. 
• “The discipline of international relations is concerned with the factors and the activities  which affect the external policies and power of the basic units into which the world is  divided.”   -Stanley Hoffman.
• Therefore, it is not  just a field of academic study, we can also participate in it and contribute to international relations on a daily basis.
• Furthermore, it attempts to manage the deeply complex nature of world politics.

IR includes 4 sets of relations: 

1. Relation between States. 
2. Relations between societies. 
3. Relation between state and society within each country.
4. Relation between state and society across borders.

Major actors' of international relations include: 

• States.
• International organizations. ( Like the UN, WHO).
• Non government organizations. (NGOs).
•  Individuals.
• Multinational corporations. ( Like Apple, Toyota, Coca-Cola).

B. Different Theories of International Relations:

Importance of Theory:

• Analytical Tool: Helps understand, explain, and predict subject matters.
• Guiding Principle: Structures observations systematically.
• Predictive Capability: Explains empirical observations and future events.
• Avoids Confusion: Helps observers systematically analyze observations among contradictory facts.

 Hedley Bull, has divided the various approaches for the study of international politics into two categories: 

1. classical approaches. 
2. scientific approaches. 

Traditional/Classical Approaches: 

 The Major contributors; Hedley Bull, E.H. Carr, Hans J.  Morgenthau, Martin Wright, Reymond Aron etc. This classical approach of IR encompasses following approaches: 

1. Historical Approach:
   • Examines specific periods or sequences of events (e.g, patterns of war).
   • Criticism: May be misguided due to lack of comprehensive, unbiased information.
2. Philosophical Approach:
   • Develops rationales from core texts and analytical thinking.
   • Focuses on the state and its leaders.
   • Example: Marxist philosophy emphasizes economic class divisions.
3. Legal Approach:
   • Emphasizes international law to regulate state behavior.
   • Advocates for a code of international law to ensure peace and security.
4. Institutional Approach:
   • Focuses on formal structures for maintaining peace and enforcing international law.
   • Studies organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Criticism of Traditional Approaches:

• Lack of Isolation: Studies multiple factors without isolating specific ones, causing confusion.
• Case Focus: Emphasizes individual cases/events without discovering broad patterns.
• Overemphasis on Differences: Focuses on differences between events (e.g., wars) rather than general causes.

Scientific Approach:

1. System theory:

Introduction:

• Origins: First expounded by McClelland (1955), systematically presented by Morton Kaplan.
• Definition: A system is a pattern of relations between basic units (states) of world politics, characterized by their objectives, tasks, and means to achieve goals.
• Core Idea: States interact and depend on one another, forming an international system.

Key Points:

• Interaction: States are constantly interacting and exchanging with the international environment.
• Analysis Tool: Focuses on the arrangement, interaction, and behavior patterns of actors.
• Adaptation and Survival: The international system adapts to changes and survives crises through cooperation and mutual development.

Kaplan's Models of Global Political Organization: 

1. Balance of Power System:
   • Historical reality in 18th and 19th century Europe.
   • Major powers maintain equilibrium to prevent dominance by any one state.
   • Usually there is a balancer state to balance the power. 
   • Six rules to maintain balance, includes negotiation, protection of national interests, preventing coalition supremacy, no elimination of an essential nation actor from the system, restriction by nation actors to other actors from achieving supremacy in power relationship, re entry of defeated actors in the system.
2. Loose Bipolar System:
   • Post-World War II scenario with US and USSR dominance.
   • Two superpowers lead opposing blocs and control old politics. 
   • Non-aligned countries influence system stability. (They don't align with super power blocs).
3. Tight Bipolar System:
   • Non-aligned countries align with superpower blocs.
   • Stability depends on tight control by superpower leaders.
4. Universal Actor System:
   • Hypothetical model where a powerful international agency (like the UN) controls national actors.
   • Ensures peace and stability, with national actors pursuing objectives within the framework set by the universal actor.
5. Hierarchical International System:
   • Hypothetical model with a single universal actor controlling world politics.
   • Can be directive (authoritarian) or non-directive (democratic).
   • Example; USA after the cold war.

1. Unit Veto System:
   • Hypothetical model where all states possess immense destructive power (e.g., nuclear weapons).
   • Stability through mutual deterrence and readiness to retaliate.

Additional 3 Models by Couloumbis and Wolfe: 

1. Multi-Bloc Model:
   • World divided into 5-7 spheres of influence, each controlled by a major power, creating a multipolar world.
2. National Fragmentation Model:
   • Result of political and territorial disintegration due to ethnic, tribal, or racial separatist movements (e.g., former USSR, Yugoslavia).
3. Post-Nuclear War Model:
   • Hypothetical aftermath of a catastrophic nuclear war, requiring a new order to overcome chaos.

Criticisms of Systems Theory:

1. Exclusion of Non-State Actors: Fails to recognize the significant roles of non-state actors and individuals in IR.
2. Methodological Issues: Concept of 'elements' (nation-states) is unclear and overlooks other influential factors.
3. Improbability of Some Models: Universal actor system, non-directive hierarchical system, and unit veto system are unlikely realities.
4. Neglect of Dynamics: Fails to address how national interests and values are formed and their impact on collective state behavior. Lacks discussion on the forces driving changes in the international system. 

2. Game Theory: 

Origin and Development:

• Created with the publication of "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" (Princeton, 1994) by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern.
• Extended to international relations by Herman Kahn, Thomas Schelling, Anatol Rapoport.
• Further contributions by Martin Shubik and John Nash.

Overview:

• Branch of applied mathematics used in international relations (IR).
• Analyzes conflict, competition, and cooperation among states.
• Helps explain and address social problems by suggesting strategies for real-world situations.

Application in IR:

• Replicates real-world competitive or cooperative situations.
• States act like players in games, following rules to achieve goals.
• Used to model strategic interactions and predict behavior.
• States aim to maximize gains or minimize losses under uncertainty.
• It assumes that the players make rational decisions, comprehend the rules, and assign identical values to the outcomes.

Key Elements of a Game:

1. Players or Decision Makers: (e.g., USA and Soviet Union)
2. Strategies: Options available (e.g., Arm or Disarm)
3. Rules: Governing behavior
4. Payoffs: Incentives (e.g., Victory or Peace)
5. Information: Knowledge of the situation
6. Rationality: Decision-making process to avoid defeat.

Types of Games:

1. Zero-Sum Game: One party's loss equals the other’s gain.
2. Non-Zero-Sum Game: Both can gain or lose; not necessarily equal.

Prisoner's Dilemma:

• Two prisoners must decide to confess or not without knowing the other’s choice.
• Optimal individual choice (confession) leads to worse collective outcome (both get 10 years).

• Applied to IR, because states face similar dilemmas without knowing opponents' intentions. 

Chicken Game:

• Two drivers heading towards each other; one must swerve to avoid a crash.
• In IR, states must sometimes yield to benefit both parties.

Limitations of Game Theory:

• Assume states are single units without internal factors.
• Assume states know all possible outcomes and choose the best option.
• One-time game assumption vs. repeated interactions in IR.
• Assumes games have an end; IR is an ongoing process.

3. Communication Theory in International Relations: 

Contributors:

• Quincy Wright, Karl Deutsch, Ernst B. Haas, Charles A. McClelland, John W. Burton, Marshall McLuhan.
• Karl Deutsch is the pioneer of communication theory in IR.

Essence of Communication in IR:

• Central to all international activities.
• Determines the character of international relations.
• Revolution in communications changed human contacts and social relations.

Categories of Communication Channels:

• Non-technological: Language, tourism, migration, international organizations.
• Technological: Print materials, postal services, radio, television, telecommunications, internet.

Impact of Communication:

• Influences human behavior and world affairs.
• Developments in communication amplify opportunities and problems.
• Useful for education, propaganda, national objectives, international cooperation, political control.

Applications in IR:

• Communication theory helps to analyze political recruitment, mobilization, and socialization.
• Studies flow of communications within and across nations.
• According to McClelland, it is useful to understand these Key areas: cross-cultural relations, public opinion and attitudes, decision-making processes.

Communication as an Alternative to Power:

• Social communication is the basis and source of all forms of power.
• Aids in resolving international conflicts through negotiation and bargaining.
• Correlates with international integration, promoting cooperation.

Broad Definition:

• Includes all forms of transactions among the structural units of an international system.(economic, political, military, diplomatic, technological, cultural).

Cybernetics Model:

• Views IR as a network of communication channels.
• Karl Deutsch: Politics as 'steering' rather than power. According to Deutsch, a government's primary function is to steer the nation rather than engage in power, as pursuing power can be dangerous for the country
• Focus on communication and control.
• Helps understand message flow among decision-makers and their impact on decisions.

Mechanisms of Communication Flow:

1. Information: Knowledge about events in the system.
2. Entropy: Uncertainty of outcomes, acting on probabilities.
3. Load: Gap between goals and information about the environment.
4. Lag: Time taken to respond to information.
5. Distortion: Changes in information during reception and response.
6. Gain: Reaction to load and extent of changes made.
7. Lead: Ability to anticipate future stress and make adjustments.
8. Feedback: Information on the success or failure of responses.

Significance of Communication Theory:

• Provides an alternative to power politics (steering).
• Replaces traditional concepts like balance of power.
• Aids in policy planning and analysis.
• Helps understand state reactions in the nuclear age.

Limitations:

• Cybernetics may not apply to all political problems.
• IR may not constitute a 'system' suitable for the model.
• Overwhelming to examine all IR events/issues through cybernetics mechanisms.
• Steering doesn’t cover all government activities; power still relevant for analyzing state functions, especially in national interest/security.

Realism: balance of power:  

Basic idea of realism:

A.  A pessimistic view of human nature.

•  Human nature is power seeking, so humans try to attain the maximum power. 
• So, the world is in the stage of power struggle where each and every state tries to ensure the maximum power.

B. International relations are necessarily conflictual and that international conflicts are ultimately resolved by war.

C.  High regard for the values of national security and state survival. 

Key concepts: 

1. National interest. 
2. National power. 
3. National security. 

Key elements of realism: 

1. Statism: -states are primary actors of international politics.
2. Survival: - there is anarchy in the international arena, so there is always the situation of war and conflict.
3. Self-help: - because of anarchy, there is no global government. Thus, the state must have to ensure their survival through self-help.

Types of realism:

1. Classical realism.
2. Structural Realism (Neorealism).
3. Neoclassical Realism. 

Classical realism: 

Overview:

• Oldest Realist tradition can be traced back to Hobbes and Machiavelli.
• Key scholars: E.H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, George Kennan, Reinhold Niebuhr, John Herz, Raymond Aron.
• Most influential scholar: Hans J. Morgenthau with "Politics Among Nations" (1948).

Core Beliefs:

• Human Nature: Root cause of war and conflict in international politics is human nature.
  • Humans have an inherent desire for power and to dominate others.
  • Constant danger of violence due to unchanging human nature.

Key Concepts:

• National Interest: Defined in terms of power.
  • States pursue their national interest, which equates to accumulating more power.

Morgenthau's Six Principles of Political Realism:

1. Objective Laws: Politics governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, which must be understood.
2. Interest Defined as Power: International politics understood through this lens.
3. Constant Interest Concept: While state power can change, the concept of interest remains constant.
4. Moral Principles: Universal moral principles do not guide state behavior, though behavior may have moral consequences.
5. No Universal Moral Framework: No universally agreed moral framework applicable.
6. Autonomy of Politics: Politics operates independently of other domains.

Balance of Power: Seen as a tool used by statesmen to prevent domination of the international system by a single state.

Structural Realism (Neorealism) in International Relations.

Overview:

• Emerged in the 1970s to make Realism more scientific.
• Focuses on international system structure to explain outcomes like war.
• Ignores domestic and individual level variables.
• Key figure: Kenneth Waltz with his book "Theory of International Politics" (1979).

Core Beliefs:

• Primary Purpose of States: Survival within the international system.
• Systemic Theory: System level is crucial for explaining international politics.

Key Concepts:

• Anarchical Structure: Compels states to act as they do.
  • Anarchy is the permissive cause of war, meaning war is always a possibility due to the anarchic system.
  • Not caused by human nature or flawed domestic systems (contrast with classical realism).
• Relative Power: Especially military power is the defining element.
  • Distribution of relative power among Great Powers determines the system's nature (unipolar, bipolar, multipolar) and international outcomes.

Sub-Variations:

1. Defensive Realism:
   • States aim to maximize security.
   • States typically avoid expansionist policies.
2. Offensive Realism:
   • States aim to maximize power to ensure survival.
   • Leads to more aggressive, expansionist policies.

Neoclassical Realism in International Relations

Overview:

• Emerged in the 1990s due to structural realism's failure to explain the end of the Cold War and various foreign policies of Great Powers.
• Incorporates individual and domestic level factors to explain state behavior.
• Leading figures: Randall Schweller, Thomas Christensen, Jack Snyder, Jeffrey Taliaferro, Chris Layne, William Wolforth.
• Term coined by Gideon Rose in a 1998 article.

Core Beliefs:

• External and Internal Variables: Both shape state behavior. Written by Gideon Rose in a1998 article.
• Foreign Policy Scope and Ambition: Determined by a country's place in the international system and its relative material power capabilities.

Key Concepts:

• Diverse State Interests: Contrary to structural realism, states do not have a uniform set of interests.
  • States differ in interests and their ability to extract and direct resources from their societies.
• Capacity for Power Translation: Different states possess different capacities to translate national power into state power.
  • Not all states are ‘like units’ as posited by Waltz.

Intervening Variables:

• Domestic Politics: Acts as an intervening variable between the distribution of power and foreign policy behavior.
  • Leaders’ perceptions of the distribution of power and domestic policies are crucial.
• Leaders' Interpretation: Understanding state behavior requires analyzing how external factors are perceived by decision makers and domestic policies.

Purpose: To explain why states pursue certain policies over others in international relations.

Criticisms of Realism in International Relations

Core Criticisms:

1. Anarchy:
   • Realists see anarchy as a primary cause of conflict.
   • Critics argue anarchy is just one of many characteristics of international politics and does not necessarily result in conflict.
   • Some scholars acknowledge traditional anarchy but believe it has evolved over time.
2. State as Fundamental Unit:
   • Realism assumes the state is the fundamental unit of analysis.
   • Critics highlight the increasing influence of non-state actors on various issues.
3. State as Unitary and Rational:
   • Realism assumes states are unitary and rational actors in foreign policy.
   • Critics argue this assumption is flawed, as different governments or societies can lead to different foreign policies.
   • It is commonly believed that a state’s foreign policy varies with different parties or forms of government in power.
4. Practical Usefulness:
   • Realism is criticized for its practical applicability.
   • It does not predict when wars will occur, only stating that power distribution is the ultimate cause when they do occur.

Theories in realism: 

1. Balance of power theory.
2. Hegemonic stability theory. 

Liberalism/Pluralism:

Overview:

• Associated scholars: John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith.
• Fundamental belief: Progress in human affairs is possible.
• Optimistic about human nature and the ability to achieve freedom, prosperity, and peace.

Core Beliefs:

• Human nature is inherently good; societal progress is achievable.
• War and unacceptable behavior are due to corrupt social institutions and misunderstandings.
• Institutional reforms can moderate aggressive behavior.
• States can cooperate to eliminate the possibility of war.

Focus:

• How to achieve peace and harmony among nations.
• Removing obstacles to cooperation in international relations.

Common Assumptions:

• Rationality is a universal characteristic of humans.
• Potential for a "harmony of interests" exists between people.
• Cooperation is central but not automatic.
• Communication and information are crucial for overcoming barriers to cooperation.

 Three elements for more peaceful world: or (more emphasized areas by Liberals are):

1. Stable democracy. 

• Woodrow Wilson: “democratic government will make war less likely”. 
• Franklin Roosevelt: “The continued maintenance and improvement of democracy constitutes the most important guarantee of international peace.”

1. Free trade. 

• Commerce helps promote conflict resolution. This idea has its roots in the work of Montesquieu, Adam Smith.
• Web of trade between Nations increases communication and encourages both sides to avoid clashes.

1. International institutions.

•  Liberals recommend replacing balance of power politics with an organization-based system.
• Because they can mediate disputes between the states and provide a platform for cooperation.

Historical Context:

• Idealism: Early liberal IR theory before WWII aimed for an ideal world order.
• Post-WWII Revival: New ideas enriched the study of international relations.
• Pluralism: Focuses on non-state actors alongside states in international relations.

Complex Interdependence: liberals assert that complex interdependence between Nations will become the dominant feature of international relations. Outcomes of complex independence are: 

• Multiple channels and issues.
• Decline in the use and effectiveness of military force.
• States cooperate because hostile actions harm mutual interests.
• Interdependence encourages states to avoid conflicts.

Pluralist Theory:

• Recognizes individuals, groups, associations, and institutions as important actors.
• Studies informal relations beyond formal state-to-state relations.
• Non-state actors reduce state-sponsored anarchy and promote cooperation.

Variants of Liberal Theories:

1. Democratic Peace Theory: Democracies are more peaceful and do not fight each other.
   • Influenced by Immanuel Kant’s "Perpetual Peace."
   • Democracies avoid war due to public opposition and mutual respect.
2. Neoliberal Institutionalism: Focuses on international institutions promoting cooperation.
   • Influenced by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane.
   • Institutions provide information, reduce transaction costs, and monitor compliance.

Criticisms of Liberalism:

• Realists criticize liberal optimism and view it as 'idealistic.'
• Liberalism misreads actual world politics and overemphasizes cooperation.
• Conflict of interests among states is the reality.
• Human nature is self-seeking, leading to state-centric self-interest.
• Democratic states can be aggressive.
• State remains the most important actor in international politics, opposing pluralist views.

Constructivism: In between the global and domestic politics. 

Overview: 

• Not a new theory but highlighted in the era of post-Cold War by thinkers like Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, Peter Katzenstein, and Friedrich Kratochwil.
• Historical roots: Giambattista Vico (18th century) argued that human beings shape social and world history.
• Core assumptions:
  1. Fundamental structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material.
  2. Structures shape actors' identities and interests, not just behavior.

Key Concepts: 

• Human ideas define international structure, shape identities, interests, and foreign policies of states.
• Material forces (money, territory, weapons) are seen through the lens of human ideas and beliefs.
• Social structures are human-made Security communities (e.g., NATO) and security dilemmas are created by human ideas.
• Social norms and identities: Norms shape interests and actions. Identity formation is a dynamic process influenced by culture, norms, ideas, and interactions.
• Inter-subjective beliefs: Shared ideas that influence social and political actions (e.g., state sovereignty).

Influential Thinkers and Ideas

• Alexander Wendt: Social structures are created through human ideas.
• Finnemore and Sikkink: State sovereignty as an inter-subjective belief.

Human Relations in IR

• Both cooperative and conflicting: Based on inter-subjective beliefs, cooperation and conflict arise from agreements or disagreements among people.
• Constructivist vs. Positivist:
  • Constructivists see cooperation as ideational, driven by human desires.
  • Positivists (neo-realists) see cooperation driven by material advantages.

Theoretical Debates

• Ideas vs. material forces: Constructivists emphasize ideas, while rationalists and critical theorists highlight material forces.
• Social structures and transformation: Constructivists focus on ideational aspects of international society.

Limitations and Criticisms:

• Material needs vs. ideas: It's debated whether ideas or material interests come first in shaping international events (e.g., NATO formation).

Empirical research challenges: Studying inter-subjective beliefs is difficult and prone to errors. These beliefs can be uncertain and changeable. 

                 Prepared and edited by Madhu Dahal and Manish Rajak.