Basics of International Relations | International Relations for UPSC 2024 (Pre & Mains) PDF Download

 Page 2


• International Relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries, the roles of sovereign states, inter-
governmental organizations (IGO), international non-governmental organizations (INGO), non-governmental 
organizations (NGO), and multinational corporations (MNC).  
•  It can be positive and normative, because it analyzes and formulates the foreign policy of a given State. The 
scope of International Relations comprehends globalization, state sovereignty, and international security, 
ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, and nationalism, economic development and global finance, 
terrorism and organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism, and human rights. 
• Realism: For Realists, the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority (Waltz). 
States are sovereign and thus autonomous of each other; no inherent structure or society can emerge or even 
exist to order relations between them. They are bound only by forcible ? coercion or their own ? consent.  
•  In such an anarchic system, State power is the key—indeed, the only—variable of interest, because only through 
power can States defend themselves and hope to survive. Realism can understand power in a variety of ways—
eg militarily, economically, diplomatically—but ultimately emphasizes the distribution of coercive material 
capacity as the determinant of international politics.  
• This vision of the world rests on four assumptions (Mearsheimer).  
• First, Realists claim that survival is the principal goal of every State. Foreign invasion and occupation are thus the 
most pressing threats that any State faces. Even if domestic interests, strategic culture, or commitment to a set of 
national ideals would dictate more benevolent or cooperative international goals, the anarchy of the international 
system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance 
their interests necessary for survival. 
• Second, Realists hold States to be rational actors. This means that, given the goal of survival, States will act as 
best they can in order to maximize their likelihood of continuing to exist.  
•  Third, Realists assume that all States possess some military capacity, and no State knows what its neighbours 
intend precisely. The world, in other words, is dangerous and uncertain.  
•  Fourth, in such a world it is the Great Powers—the States with most economic clout and, especially, military 
might, that are decisive. In this view international relations is essentially a story of Great Power politics.  
• Realists also diverge on some issues. So-called offensive Realists maintain that, in order to ensure survival, States 
will seek to maximize their power relative to others (Mearsheimer). If rival countries possess enough power to 
threaten a State, it can never be safe. ? Hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can. 
Defensive Realists, in contrast, believe that domination is an unwise strategy for State survival (Waltz). 
• Instead, defensive Realists emphasize the stability of ? balance of power systems, where a roughly equal 
distribution of power amongst States ensures that none will risk attacking another. ‘Polarity’—the distribution of 
power amongst the Great Powers—is thus a key concept in Realist theory. 
• Liberalism: Liberalism pays attention to the national/individual characteristics of the states as well stressing on 
the fact that cooperation is possible. One of the most prominent developments within liberal theory has been the 
phenomenon known as the democratic peace (Doyle). First imagined by Immanuel Kant, the democratic peace 
describes the absence of war between liberal States, defined as mature liberal democracies.  
• Andrew Moravcsik has developed a more general liberal theory of international relations, based on three core 
assumptions:  
Page 3


• International Relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries, the roles of sovereign states, inter-
governmental organizations (IGO), international non-governmental organizations (INGO), non-governmental 
organizations (NGO), and multinational corporations (MNC).  
•  It can be positive and normative, because it analyzes and formulates the foreign policy of a given State. The 
scope of International Relations comprehends globalization, state sovereignty, and international security, 
ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, and nationalism, economic development and global finance, 
terrorism and organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism, and human rights. 
• Realism: For Realists, the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority (Waltz). 
States are sovereign and thus autonomous of each other; no inherent structure or society can emerge or even 
exist to order relations between them. They are bound only by forcible ? coercion or their own ? consent.  
•  In such an anarchic system, State power is the key—indeed, the only—variable of interest, because only through 
power can States defend themselves and hope to survive. Realism can understand power in a variety of ways—
eg militarily, economically, diplomatically—but ultimately emphasizes the distribution of coercive material 
capacity as the determinant of international politics.  
• This vision of the world rests on four assumptions (Mearsheimer).  
• First, Realists claim that survival is the principal goal of every State. Foreign invasion and occupation are thus the 
most pressing threats that any State faces. Even if domestic interests, strategic culture, or commitment to a set of 
national ideals would dictate more benevolent or cooperative international goals, the anarchy of the international 
system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance 
their interests necessary for survival. 
• Second, Realists hold States to be rational actors. This means that, given the goal of survival, States will act as 
best they can in order to maximize their likelihood of continuing to exist.  
•  Third, Realists assume that all States possess some military capacity, and no State knows what its neighbours 
intend precisely. The world, in other words, is dangerous and uncertain.  
•  Fourth, in such a world it is the Great Powers—the States with most economic clout and, especially, military 
might, that are decisive. In this view international relations is essentially a story of Great Power politics.  
• Realists also diverge on some issues. So-called offensive Realists maintain that, in order to ensure survival, States 
will seek to maximize their power relative to others (Mearsheimer). If rival countries possess enough power to 
threaten a State, it can never be safe. ? Hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can. 
Defensive Realists, in contrast, believe that domination is an unwise strategy for State survival (Waltz). 
• Instead, defensive Realists emphasize the stability of ? balance of power systems, where a roughly equal 
distribution of power amongst States ensures that none will risk attacking another. ‘Polarity’—the distribution of 
power amongst the Great Powers—is thus a key concept in Realist theory. 
• Liberalism: Liberalism pays attention to the national/individual characteristics of the states as well stressing on 
the fact that cooperation is possible. One of the most prominent developments within liberal theory has been the 
phenomenon known as the democratic peace (Doyle). First imagined by Immanuel Kant, the democratic peace 
describes the absence of war between liberal States, defined as mature liberal democracies.  
• Andrew Moravcsik has developed a more general liberal theory of international relations, based on three core 
assumptions:  
o  individuals and private groups, not States, are the fundamental actors in world politics (? Non-State 
Actors);  
o States represent some dominant subset of domestic society, whose interests they serve; and  
o  the configuration of these preferences across the international system determines State behaviour 
(Moravcsik) 
• In this view States are not simply ‘black boxes’ seeking to survive and prosper in an anarchic system. They are 
configurations of individual and group interests who then project those interests into the international system 
through a particular kind of government. Survival may very well remain a key goal. But commercial interests or 
ideological beliefs may also be important.  
•  Increasing globalization, the rapid rise in communications technology, and the increase in international trade 
meant that states could no longer rely on simple power politics to decide matters. Liberal approaches to 
international relations are also called theories of complex interdependence.  
• For example, the United States has significant disagreements with its European and Asian allies over trade and 
policy, but it is hard to imagine a circumstance in which the United States would use military power against any 
of these allies. Instead, the United States relies on economic pressure and incentives to achieve its policy aims. 
• Institutionalism: Institutionalists share many of Realism’s assumptions about the international system— that it 
is anarchic, that States are self-interested, rational actors seeking to survive while increasing their material 
conditions, and that uncertainty pervades relations between countries.  
•  They argue that co-operation may be a rational, self-interested strategy for countries to pursue under certain 
conditions (Keohane). They that institutions—defined as a set of rules, norms, practices and decision-making 
procedures that shape expectations—can overcome the uncertainty that undermines co-operation. 
• First, institutions extend the time horizon of interactions, creating an iterated game rather than a single round.  
• Second, Institutionalists argue that institutions increase information about State behaviour. Recall that uncertainty 
is a significant reason Realists doubt co-operation can be sustained. Institutions collect information about State 
behaviour and often make judgments of compliance or non-compliance with particular rules. States thus know 
they will not be able to ‘get away with it’ if they do not comply with a given rule.  
•  Third, Institutionalists note that institutions can greatly increase efficiency. It is costly for States to negotiate with 
one another on an ad hoc basis. Institutions can reduce the transaction costs of co-ordination by providing a 
centralized forum in which States can meet. They also provide ‘focal points’—established rules and norms—that 
allow a wide array of States to quickly settle on a certain course of action.  
•  It is important to note that ? reciprocity and reputation play in bolstering international legal obligations. 
• Critical Approaches: The dominant international relations theories and their underlying positivist epistemology 
have been challenged from a range of perspectives. Scholars working in Marxist, feminist, post-colonial, and 
ecological fields have all put forward critiques of international relations’ explanations of State behaviour (? 
Colonialism; ? Developing Country Approach to International Law; ? Feminism, Approach to International Law). 
Most of these critiques share a concern with the construction of power and the State, which theories like Realism 
or Institutionalism tend to take for granted.  
•  For example, Marxist scholars perceive the emphasis on State-to-State relations as obscuring the more 
fundamental dynamics of global class relations (? Marxism). Only by understanding the interests and behaviour 
of global capital can we make sense of State behaviour. Similarly, feminists have sought to explain aspects of 
State behaviour and its effects by emphasizing gender as a variable of interest. 
• This focus has lead, for example, to notions of security that move beyond State security (of paramount importance 
Page 4


• International Relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries, the roles of sovereign states, inter-
governmental organizations (IGO), international non-governmental organizations (INGO), non-governmental 
organizations (NGO), and multinational corporations (MNC).  
•  It can be positive and normative, because it analyzes and formulates the foreign policy of a given State. The 
scope of International Relations comprehends globalization, state sovereignty, and international security, 
ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, and nationalism, economic development and global finance, 
terrorism and organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism, and human rights. 
• Realism: For Realists, the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority (Waltz). 
States are sovereign and thus autonomous of each other; no inherent structure or society can emerge or even 
exist to order relations between them. They are bound only by forcible ? coercion or their own ? consent.  
•  In such an anarchic system, State power is the key—indeed, the only—variable of interest, because only through 
power can States defend themselves and hope to survive. Realism can understand power in a variety of ways—
eg militarily, economically, diplomatically—but ultimately emphasizes the distribution of coercive material 
capacity as the determinant of international politics.  
• This vision of the world rests on four assumptions (Mearsheimer).  
• First, Realists claim that survival is the principal goal of every State. Foreign invasion and occupation are thus the 
most pressing threats that any State faces. Even if domestic interests, strategic culture, or commitment to a set of 
national ideals would dictate more benevolent or cooperative international goals, the anarchy of the international 
system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance 
their interests necessary for survival. 
• Second, Realists hold States to be rational actors. This means that, given the goal of survival, States will act as 
best they can in order to maximize their likelihood of continuing to exist.  
•  Third, Realists assume that all States possess some military capacity, and no State knows what its neighbours 
intend precisely. The world, in other words, is dangerous and uncertain.  
•  Fourth, in such a world it is the Great Powers—the States with most economic clout and, especially, military 
might, that are decisive. In this view international relations is essentially a story of Great Power politics.  
• Realists also diverge on some issues. So-called offensive Realists maintain that, in order to ensure survival, States 
will seek to maximize their power relative to others (Mearsheimer). If rival countries possess enough power to 
threaten a State, it can never be safe. ? Hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can. 
Defensive Realists, in contrast, believe that domination is an unwise strategy for State survival (Waltz). 
• Instead, defensive Realists emphasize the stability of ? balance of power systems, where a roughly equal 
distribution of power amongst States ensures that none will risk attacking another. ‘Polarity’—the distribution of 
power amongst the Great Powers—is thus a key concept in Realist theory. 
• Liberalism: Liberalism pays attention to the national/individual characteristics of the states as well stressing on 
the fact that cooperation is possible. One of the most prominent developments within liberal theory has been the 
phenomenon known as the democratic peace (Doyle). First imagined by Immanuel Kant, the democratic peace 
describes the absence of war between liberal States, defined as mature liberal democracies.  
• Andrew Moravcsik has developed a more general liberal theory of international relations, based on three core 
assumptions:  
o  individuals and private groups, not States, are the fundamental actors in world politics (? Non-State 
Actors);  
o States represent some dominant subset of domestic society, whose interests they serve; and  
o  the configuration of these preferences across the international system determines State behaviour 
(Moravcsik) 
• In this view States are not simply ‘black boxes’ seeking to survive and prosper in an anarchic system. They are 
configurations of individual and group interests who then project those interests into the international system 
through a particular kind of government. Survival may very well remain a key goal. But commercial interests or 
ideological beliefs may also be important.  
•  Increasing globalization, the rapid rise in communications technology, and the increase in international trade 
meant that states could no longer rely on simple power politics to decide matters. Liberal approaches to 
international relations are also called theories of complex interdependence.  
• For example, the United States has significant disagreements with its European and Asian allies over trade and 
policy, but it is hard to imagine a circumstance in which the United States would use military power against any 
of these allies. Instead, the United States relies on economic pressure and incentives to achieve its policy aims. 
• Institutionalism: Institutionalists share many of Realism’s assumptions about the international system— that it 
is anarchic, that States are self-interested, rational actors seeking to survive while increasing their material 
conditions, and that uncertainty pervades relations between countries.  
•  They argue that co-operation may be a rational, self-interested strategy for countries to pursue under certain 
conditions (Keohane). They that institutions—defined as a set of rules, norms, practices and decision-making 
procedures that shape expectations—can overcome the uncertainty that undermines co-operation. 
• First, institutions extend the time horizon of interactions, creating an iterated game rather than a single round.  
• Second, Institutionalists argue that institutions increase information about State behaviour. Recall that uncertainty 
is a significant reason Realists doubt co-operation can be sustained. Institutions collect information about State 
behaviour and often make judgments of compliance or non-compliance with particular rules. States thus know 
they will not be able to ‘get away with it’ if they do not comply with a given rule.  
•  Third, Institutionalists note that institutions can greatly increase efficiency. It is costly for States to negotiate with 
one another on an ad hoc basis. Institutions can reduce the transaction costs of co-ordination by providing a 
centralized forum in which States can meet. They also provide ‘focal points’—established rules and norms—that 
allow a wide array of States to quickly settle on a certain course of action.  
•  It is important to note that ? reciprocity and reputation play in bolstering international legal obligations. 
• Critical Approaches: The dominant international relations theories and their underlying positivist epistemology 
have been challenged from a range of perspectives. Scholars working in Marxist, feminist, post-colonial, and 
ecological fields have all put forward critiques of international relations’ explanations of State behaviour (? 
Colonialism; ? Developing Country Approach to International Law; ? Feminism, Approach to International Law). 
Most of these critiques share a concern with the construction of power and the State, which theories like Realism 
or Institutionalism tend to take for granted.  
•  For example, Marxist scholars perceive the emphasis on State-to-State relations as obscuring the more 
fundamental dynamics of global class relations (? Marxism). Only by understanding the interests and behaviour 
of global capital can we make sense of State behaviour. Similarly, feminists have sought to explain aspects of 
State behaviour and its effects by emphasizing gender as a variable of interest. 
• This focus has lead, for example, to notions of security that move beyond State security (of paramount importance 
to Realists) to notions of human security. In such a perspective the effects of war, for example, reach far beyond 
the battlefield to family life and other aspects of social relations. 
•  Issues such as refugee crisis in Myanmar or in the Levant due to ISIS, point to an expanded idea of security. 
Similarly developing countries facing economic crisis or the burden of climate change due to the past activities 
of the developed world may be viewed from this crisis. The me too movement worldwide provides the gender-
based power relations operating. 
• Sovereignty: The idea of sovereignty is seen crucial to States with them being in control of their decisions and 
policies both internally and externally so as to cater to their national interests. Jean Bodin describes sovereignty 
as being a state, that the sovereign power(s) have absolute power over their territories, and that such a power is 
only limited by the sovereign's "own obligations towards other sovereigns and individuals." 
• Power: The concept of power in international relations can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, 
and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up into the concepts of hard power and soft power, hard 
power relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering 
economics, diplomacy and cultural influence.  
• National Interest: National interest is a state’s actions in relation to other states where it seeks to gain advantage 
or benefits to itself. National interest, whether aspirational or operational, is divided by core/vital and 
peripheral/non-vital interests. Core or vital interests constitute the things which a country is willing to defend or 
expand with conflict such as territory, ideology (religious, political, economic), or its citizens. Peripheral or non-
vital are interests which a state is willing to compromise. 
• Survival: The primary objective of all States is survival. It is considered the supreme national interest to which all 
political leaders must adhere. The accumulation of power is meant to design first and foremost the survival of 
State. States are guided by the logic of the "national interest," usually defined in terms of survival, security, power, 
and relative capabilities.  
• Self-help: For realists, the world politics are characterised by perpetual uncertainty due to absence of a global 
government. Hence, a State can’t rely on any other State/institution for help and has to ensure the same for itself. 
Co-existence is achieved through maintenance of Balance of Power. 
• Polarity: Polarity in international relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. 
The concept arose from bipolarity during the Cold War, with the international system dominated by the conflict 
between two superpowers, and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was 
notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two opposing powerbases 
and ideologies.  
• Consequently, the international system prior to 1945 can be described as multi-polar, with power being shared 
among Great power empires of the world in 1910. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had led to what some 
would call unipolarity, with the United States as a sole superpower.  
• Hegemonic stability theory (developed by Robert Gilpin) also draws upon the idea of polarity, specifically the 
state of unipolarity. Hegemony is the preponderance of power at one pole in the international system, and the 
theory argues this is a stable configuration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in 
the international system. 
• Power Blocs: The existence of power blocs in international relations is a significant factor which is related to 
Polarity. Particularly during the Cold War, the alignment of several nations to one side or another based on 
ideological differences or national interests has become an endemic feature of international relations.  
• Unlike prior, shorter-term blocs, the Western and Soviet bloc’s sought to spread their national ideological 
Page 5


• International Relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries, the roles of sovereign states, inter-
governmental organizations (IGO), international non-governmental organizations (INGO), non-governmental 
organizations (NGO), and multinational corporations (MNC).  
•  It can be positive and normative, because it analyzes and formulates the foreign policy of a given State. The 
scope of International Relations comprehends globalization, state sovereignty, and international security, 
ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, and nationalism, economic development and global finance, 
terrorism and organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism, and human rights. 
• Realism: For Realists, the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority (Waltz). 
States are sovereign and thus autonomous of each other; no inherent structure or society can emerge or even 
exist to order relations between them. They are bound only by forcible ? coercion or their own ? consent.  
•  In such an anarchic system, State power is the key—indeed, the only—variable of interest, because only through 
power can States defend themselves and hope to survive. Realism can understand power in a variety of ways—
eg militarily, economically, diplomatically—but ultimately emphasizes the distribution of coercive material 
capacity as the determinant of international politics.  
• This vision of the world rests on four assumptions (Mearsheimer).  
• First, Realists claim that survival is the principal goal of every State. Foreign invasion and occupation are thus the 
most pressing threats that any State faces. Even if domestic interests, strategic culture, or commitment to a set of 
national ideals would dictate more benevolent or cooperative international goals, the anarchy of the international 
system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance 
their interests necessary for survival. 
• Second, Realists hold States to be rational actors. This means that, given the goal of survival, States will act as 
best they can in order to maximize their likelihood of continuing to exist.  
•  Third, Realists assume that all States possess some military capacity, and no State knows what its neighbours 
intend precisely. The world, in other words, is dangerous and uncertain.  
•  Fourth, in such a world it is the Great Powers—the States with most economic clout and, especially, military 
might, that are decisive. In this view international relations is essentially a story of Great Power politics.  
• Realists also diverge on some issues. So-called offensive Realists maintain that, in order to ensure survival, States 
will seek to maximize their power relative to others (Mearsheimer). If rival countries possess enough power to 
threaten a State, it can never be safe. ? Hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can. 
Defensive Realists, in contrast, believe that domination is an unwise strategy for State survival (Waltz). 
• Instead, defensive Realists emphasize the stability of ? balance of power systems, where a roughly equal 
distribution of power amongst States ensures that none will risk attacking another. ‘Polarity’—the distribution of 
power amongst the Great Powers—is thus a key concept in Realist theory. 
• Liberalism: Liberalism pays attention to the national/individual characteristics of the states as well stressing on 
the fact that cooperation is possible. One of the most prominent developments within liberal theory has been the 
phenomenon known as the democratic peace (Doyle). First imagined by Immanuel Kant, the democratic peace 
describes the absence of war between liberal States, defined as mature liberal democracies.  
• Andrew Moravcsik has developed a more general liberal theory of international relations, based on three core 
assumptions:  
o  individuals and private groups, not States, are the fundamental actors in world politics (? Non-State 
Actors);  
o States represent some dominant subset of domestic society, whose interests they serve; and  
o  the configuration of these preferences across the international system determines State behaviour 
(Moravcsik) 
• In this view States are not simply ‘black boxes’ seeking to survive and prosper in an anarchic system. They are 
configurations of individual and group interests who then project those interests into the international system 
through a particular kind of government. Survival may very well remain a key goal. But commercial interests or 
ideological beliefs may also be important.  
•  Increasing globalization, the rapid rise in communications technology, and the increase in international trade 
meant that states could no longer rely on simple power politics to decide matters. Liberal approaches to 
international relations are also called theories of complex interdependence.  
• For example, the United States has significant disagreements with its European and Asian allies over trade and 
policy, but it is hard to imagine a circumstance in which the United States would use military power against any 
of these allies. Instead, the United States relies on economic pressure and incentives to achieve its policy aims. 
• Institutionalism: Institutionalists share many of Realism’s assumptions about the international system— that it 
is anarchic, that States are self-interested, rational actors seeking to survive while increasing their material 
conditions, and that uncertainty pervades relations between countries.  
•  They argue that co-operation may be a rational, self-interested strategy for countries to pursue under certain 
conditions (Keohane). They that institutions—defined as a set of rules, norms, practices and decision-making 
procedures that shape expectations—can overcome the uncertainty that undermines co-operation. 
• First, institutions extend the time horizon of interactions, creating an iterated game rather than a single round.  
• Second, Institutionalists argue that institutions increase information about State behaviour. Recall that uncertainty 
is a significant reason Realists doubt co-operation can be sustained. Institutions collect information about State 
behaviour and often make judgments of compliance or non-compliance with particular rules. States thus know 
they will not be able to ‘get away with it’ if they do not comply with a given rule.  
•  Third, Institutionalists note that institutions can greatly increase efficiency. It is costly for States to negotiate with 
one another on an ad hoc basis. Institutions can reduce the transaction costs of co-ordination by providing a 
centralized forum in which States can meet. They also provide ‘focal points’—established rules and norms—that 
allow a wide array of States to quickly settle on a certain course of action.  
•  It is important to note that ? reciprocity and reputation play in bolstering international legal obligations. 
• Critical Approaches: The dominant international relations theories and their underlying positivist epistemology 
have been challenged from a range of perspectives. Scholars working in Marxist, feminist, post-colonial, and 
ecological fields have all put forward critiques of international relations’ explanations of State behaviour (? 
Colonialism; ? Developing Country Approach to International Law; ? Feminism, Approach to International Law). 
Most of these critiques share a concern with the construction of power and the State, which theories like Realism 
or Institutionalism tend to take for granted.  
•  For example, Marxist scholars perceive the emphasis on State-to-State relations as obscuring the more 
fundamental dynamics of global class relations (? Marxism). Only by understanding the interests and behaviour 
of global capital can we make sense of State behaviour. Similarly, feminists have sought to explain aspects of 
State behaviour and its effects by emphasizing gender as a variable of interest. 
• This focus has lead, for example, to notions of security that move beyond State security (of paramount importance 
to Realists) to notions of human security. In such a perspective the effects of war, for example, reach far beyond 
the battlefield to family life and other aspects of social relations. 
•  Issues such as refugee crisis in Myanmar or in the Levant due to ISIS, point to an expanded idea of security. 
Similarly developing countries facing economic crisis or the burden of climate change due to the past activities 
of the developed world may be viewed from this crisis. The me too movement worldwide provides the gender-
based power relations operating. 
• Sovereignty: The idea of sovereignty is seen crucial to States with them being in control of their decisions and 
policies both internally and externally so as to cater to their national interests. Jean Bodin describes sovereignty 
as being a state, that the sovereign power(s) have absolute power over their territories, and that such a power is 
only limited by the sovereign's "own obligations towards other sovereigns and individuals." 
• Power: The concept of power in international relations can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, 
and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up into the concepts of hard power and soft power, hard 
power relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering 
economics, diplomacy and cultural influence.  
• National Interest: National interest is a state’s actions in relation to other states where it seeks to gain advantage 
or benefits to itself. National interest, whether aspirational or operational, is divided by core/vital and 
peripheral/non-vital interests. Core or vital interests constitute the things which a country is willing to defend or 
expand with conflict such as territory, ideology (religious, political, economic), or its citizens. Peripheral or non-
vital are interests which a state is willing to compromise. 
• Survival: The primary objective of all States is survival. It is considered the supreme national interest to which all 
political leaders must adhere. The accumulation of power is meant to design first and foremost the survival of 
State. States are guided by the logic of the "national interest," usually defined in terms of survival, security, power, 
and relative capabilities.  
• Self-help: For realists, the world politics are characterised by perpetual uncertainty due to absence of a global 
government. Hence, a State can’t rely on any other State/institution for help and has to ensure the same for itself. 
Co-existence is achieved through maintenance of Balance of Power. 
• Polarity: Polarity in international relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. 
The concept arose from bipolarity during the Cold War, with the international system dominated by the conflict 
between two superpowers, and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was 
notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two opposing powerbases 
and ideologies.  
• Consequently, the international system prior to 1945 can be described as multi-polar, with power being shared 
among Great power empires of the world in 1910. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had led to what some 
would call unipolarity, with the United States as a sole superpower.  
• Hegemonic stability theory (developed by Robert Gilpin) also draws upon the idea of polarity, specifically the 
state of unipolarity. Hegemony is the preponderance of power at one pole in the international system, and the 
theory argues this is a stable configuration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in 
the international system. 
• Power Blocs: The existence of power blocs in international relations is a significant factor which is related to 
Polarity. Particularly during the Cold War, the alignment of several nations to one side or another based on 
ideological differences or national interests has become an endemic feature of international relations.  
• Unlike prior, shorter-term blocs, the Western and Soviet bloc’s sought to spread their national ideological 
differences to other nations. Pacts such as Truman Doctrine and Warsaw Pact were used to spread their spheres 
of influence. After the Cold War, and the dissolution of the ideologically homogenous Eastern bloc still gave rise 
to others such as the South-South Cooperation movement.  
• Balance of Power: At the core of balance of power theory is the idea that national security is enhanced when 
military capabilities are distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others. When confronted 
by a significant external threat, states may balance or bandwagon. Balancing is defined as allying with others 
against the prevailing threat, whereas bandwagoning refers to alignment with source of danger.  
• Buffer state: The creation of a buffer state is also a technique of maintaining the balance of power. A buffer sate 
is a natural zone sandwiched between two powerful nations. It is usually a weak state. Its function is to keep two 
giants apart and thus reduce the chances of friction between them. 
• Deterrence: The idea of deterrence rests on accumulation of nuclear weapons to prevent aggressors from 
attacking the said state because of fear of retaliation of equal measure. The success of deterrence rests on the 
concepts of Mutually Assured Destruction and Second-Strike Capability. 
•  Mutually Assured Destruction: A military doctrine, also known as the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, 
which states that when two adversaries possess nuclear weapons, neither of them is likely to use them. This is 
because both sides are likely to suffer severe losses from a nuclear attack, irrespective of who attacks first. The 
MAD doctrine is considered an application of the Nash equilibrium, wherein the threat of a strong retaliatory 
attack prevents both sides from initiating a conflict. The result is lasting prevention of a nuclear attack. 
•  Second Strike Capability: Secure second strike, the ability, after being struck by a nuclear attack, to strike back 
with nuclear weapons and cause massive damage to the enemy. Secure second strike was a concern that followed 
the massive retaliation doctrine (also known as nuclear utilization theory), in which nuclear retaliation would be 
threatened in the event of an attack. 
• Collective Security: Collective Security refers to an arrangement where each state in the system accepts that the 
Security of one is the concern of all and agrees to join in a collective response to aggression. This idea was 
envisioned by Woodrow Wilson as underlying principle of League of Nation. As per Article 16 of the League’s 
Charter, the obligation was laid that in the event of war, all members states must cease normal relation with the 
offending state, impose sanction, and if necessary, comment their armed forces to the disposal of league council 
should the use of force be required to restore the status quo. 
•  Regionalisation: Regionalism is the theory a practice of coordinating social, economic or political activities 
within a geographical region comprising a number of states. On an institutional level, regionalism involve the 
growth of norms, rules and formal structures through which coordination is brought about. On an affective level, 
it implies a realignment of political identities and loyalties from state to the region e.g. EU, ASEAN, SCO etc. 
• Terrorism: The Central feature of terrorism is that it is a form of political violence that aims to achieve its objective 
through creating a climate of fear and apprehension. As such, it uses violence in a very particular way, not primarily 
to bring about death and destruction, but to create unease and anxiety about possible future acts of death and 
destruction. It is by no means a modern phenomenon.  
• There are 4 kinds of terrorism that can be pointed out:  
o  Insurrectionary – Revolutionary overthrow of state (Anarchist & Revolutionary Marxist). 
o  Loner or Issue Terrorism- It is aimed at the promotion of single cause (abortion clinic bombings) 
o  Nationalist Terrorism  
o Global Terrorism 
• Interdependence: Many advocates that the current international system is characterized by growing