Approaches to study International Relations - 1 | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Evolution of International Relations Theory

1. Emergence of Nation States: International relations refer to the interactions between nations. The concept of international relations began with the advent of nation-states, which were formally acknowledged for the first time in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty concluded the Thirty Years War in Europe and led to the recognition of nation-states as distinct political entities.
2. Pre-Nation State Era: Before the emergence of nation-states, Europe was under the Roman Empire, a confederation-based system. This form of political organization was eventually replaced by nation-states, which brought about a new and different approach to international relations.
3. Characteristics of Nation States: Nation-states are characterized by centralized authority, fixed territorial boundaries, and sovereignty. These elements are essential in understanding the dynamics of international relations and the various theories that have evolved over time.
4. Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty: Territorial integrity and sovereignty are often used interchangeably and are considered sacrosanct principles in international politics. They are fundamental to the national interest of a country, as they preserve its identity, security, and independence.
5. Evolution of International Relations Theory: International relations theory has continuously evolved since the establishment of nation-states. Various theories have been developed to explain the dynamics of international relations and the behavior of states in the global arena. Some of the prominent theories include realism, liberalism, constructivism, and Marxism. Each of these theories offers a different perspective on how states interact with one another and the factors that drive their actions in the international system.

Nature of the discipline of international relations

International relations (IR) is often referred to as an American social science due to its origin, development, and dominance by American scholars, as well as its center on US foreign policy. Many theories within this discipline are also formulated with the objective of maintaining US hegemony. The first chair of international politics was established in 1919 at the University of Wales, named the Woodrow Wilson chair, highlighting the influence of the United States in the field of IR.

• Development of International Relations after World War I: The end of the First World War marked a significant shift in global politics, with the United States playing a crucial role in bringing the conflict to an end. US President Woodrow Wilson then proposed the establishment of a "new world order," which was aimed at replacing the old Westphalian world order that had characterized European politics for centuries.
• Old World Order: Westphalian System: Before the emergence of international relations as a distinct discipline, global politics primarily revolved around European nations. This old world order, also known as the Westphalian system, was based on the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and the balance of power between nation-states. However, this system was challenged by the involvement of the United States in world affairs and the subsequent rise of new global powers.
• American Influence and the New World Order: The new world order proposed by Woodrow Wilson aimed to create a more just, peaceful, and cooperative international system. This vision was based on the principles of democracy, self-determination, and collective security. The League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, was established as part of this new order, signifying the increasing influence of the United States in global politics.
• The Dominance of American Scholars: The study of international relations has been largely shaped by American scholars, who have contributed significantly to the development of various theories and approaches within the discipline. This dominance is evident in the focus on US foreign policy, as well as the prevalence of American perspectives in shaping global political discourse.
• The Role of US Hegemony in IR Theories: Many theories and concepts within international relations are designed to maintain or analyze US hegemony, reflecting the influence of the United States in the global arena. These theories often prioritize American interests, values, and perspectives, further reinforcing the notion of international relations as an American social science.

Nature of politics among European nations

• The Balance of Power in European Politics: European nations were frequently at war, leading to a constant need to protect their territories. To achieve this, they relied on the concept of the 'balance of power.' Balancing power could be done through internal means, such as acquiring arms, or external means, like forming alliances. This system promoted arms races and alliances, which sometimes escalated local conflicts into world wars.
• Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points: A Blueprint for Peace: In response to the instability caused by the balance of power, Woodrow Wilson proposed a new approach to international politics in his famous "14 Points" speech. Among the main ideas he presented were:
  • Establishment of the League of Nations: Wilson proposed creating an international organization where nations could come together to discuss and resolve issues, with the ultimate goal of maintaining peace.
  • Collective Security: Instead of relying on the balance of power, Wilson suggested that nations should work together to ensure the security of all members. This way, an attack on one nation would be considered an attack on all, discouraging aggression.
  • Free Trade and Freedom of Navigation: Wilson argued for the promotion of free trade and the freedom to navigate the high seas, fostering greater economic interdependence and cooperation among nations.
  • Promotion of Democracy: Wilson believed that the spread of democratic governance would lead to a more peaceful world, as democracies would be less likely to engage in war with each other.
  • Self-Determination: Wilson also advocated for the recognition of people's right to determine their own political futures, which would help prevent conflicts arising from territorial disputes and the suppression of minority groups.
• The Emergence of Liberalism in International Politics: These principles laid out by Woodrow Wilson form the core of the liberal school of international politics. As the foundations of US foreign policy, these ideas are deeply rooted in capitalist philosophy and aimed at establishing American hegemony in the international system. Through the promotion of these principles, the objective of international politics became the quest for lasting peace, leading to the development of peace theories.

Phases of International Politics

1. First Phase: Westphalian World Order (1648-1919)
Features of Westphalian World Order:

• International politics was primarily focused on European nations, making it essentially regional politics.
• Great powers shaped politics in Europe, leading to the idea that international politics is synonymous with great power politics.
• Billiard Ball model: European countries were like free-standing balls with hard shells, constantly colliding with each other in the absence of a superpower or international actor, leading to a situation of anarchy.

2. Second Phase: Interwar Period (1919-1939)

• Attempts were made to change the way politics was conducted among states, with the establishment of the League of Nations.
• The idea of collective security was introduced to replace the balance of power system.
• However, the League of Nations ultimately failed, and old-style politics (protectionism, arms race, alliances, and counter-alliances) led to the outbreak of World War II.

3. Third Phase: Cold War (1945-1991)

• The Cold War era was marked by the rise of superpowers (USA and USSR), leading to a bipolar world order.
• Traditional balance of power politics was replaced by nuclear deterrence.
• International politics became truly global, as the influence of the superpowers extended beyond Europe.

4. Fourth Phase: Post-Cold War (1991-Present)

• A new world order was declared, characterized by interdependence and globalization.
• The focus shifted from state-centric geopolitics to geo-centric global politics.
• However, since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, there has been a decline in the liberal world order, and countries are returning to old-style, state-centric geopolitics.

Current Scenario

• The present world order can be described as a '3D Chess Board,' with unipolarity in military power, multipolarity in economic power, and diffusion of socio-cultural power among various organizations and groups.
• The Billiards Ball model has been replaced by the Cobweb model, which represents complex interdependence among nations and people.

Approaches to Study International Relations

Cobweb Model

• In the Cobweb model, people and nations are connected through multiple channels, resembling a spider's web.
• This model represents the complex interdependence that characterizes the current global political landscape.

Realism

Realism is considered the dominant theory in international relations because it provides an explanation for the state of war, which is a regular condition of life in the international system. This theory has its roots in the works of ancient Greek historian Thucydides and has evolved through the works of philosophers like Machiavelli and Hobbes.

(A) Thucydides and the Origins of Realism
Thucydides suggested that the primary cause of war is fear, as states are uncertain about the intentions of other states. This leads to an arms race and a shift in the balance of power, giving rise to the concept of the Thucydides trap.

(B) Decline of Classical Realism

• Rise of Roman Empire and Pax Romana: With the rise of the Roman Empire, there were no competing states, and the concept of balance of power lost its relevance.
• Spread of Christianity: The spread of Christian Universalism promoted the idea of a kingdom of heaven, leading to a decline in the importance of realism in international relations.

(C) Revival of Realism: Machiavelli and Hobbes

• Machiavelli: In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli argued that a ruler's primary responsibility is to protect his power and subjects. He believed that war, not peace, is the normal condition in world affairs.
• Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes explored the relationship between internal order and international anarchy, arguing that the independence and jealousy of states are the primary reasons for rivalry and competition.

(D) Second Decline in Classical Realism

• Westphalian Peace Treaty: The Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War, laid the foundation for modern international law and established three essential principles:
• Whose realm, his religion: Religion should be an exclusive internal affair, and fighting for religious values instead of material interests was forbidden.
• Sovereignty and equality: All nations are equal and independent, with each ruler being the ultimate authority in his own kingdom.
• Balance of Power: Nations should work together to prevent any single nation from becoming dominant in Europe.
• These principles marked a shift away from classical realism in international relations.

The Revival in Works of Morgenthau

War has always been a significant driver in the development of the field of International Relations. From ancient to modern times, wars such as the Peloponnesian War, the Thirty Years War, and World War 1 have led to the emergence of theories and scholars that shaped the discipline. One such scholar is Hans Morgenthau, who revived the doctrine of realism in the aftermath of World War 1. In this article, we will explore the key features of realism, its various types, and the relevance of Morgenthau's works in contemporary International Relations.

Key Features of Realism

• State-centric view: Realism emphasizes the central role of nation-states in international politics, often neglecting the importance of other actors, such as international organizations and non-state actors.
• Anarchy: Realists believe that the international system is characterized by a lack of centralized authority, leading to a state of anarchy.
• Self-help: In the absence of a world government, the security of states depends on their ability to protect themselves, which makes self-help a crucial aspect of international politics.
• Survival: According to realists, the primary goal of nation-states is to ensure their survival in an anarchic international system.
• Power and Security Dilemma: Realists maintain that power is a zero-sum game, meaning that when one country increases its power, others feel insecure and enter into a struggle for power.

The Three 'S's of Realism

1. Statism: Realism focuses on the state as the center of world politics and largely disregards the influence of other actors.
2. Survival: The key national interest of states, according to realists, is their survival in the international system.
3. Self-help: Realists believe that self-help is the best and perhaps the only option for states in an anarchic international system.

Types of Realism

Realism can be considered a meta-ideology with various schools of thought sharing some basic assumptions. These schools include:

1. Classical Realism: Morgenthau was a key figure in the development of classical realism, which is based on the scientific analysis of human nature. In his book "Politics Among Nations," Morgenthau outlined six principles of realism, which he believed were necessary for understanding international politics.
2.  Neorealism: Also known as structural realism, this school of thought emphasizes the structure of the international system, rather than human nature, as the primary determinant of state behavior.
3. Offensive Realism: This approach argues that states are inherently aggressive and constantly seek to maximize their power to ensure their survival.
4. Defensive Realism: In contrast to offensive realism, defensive realists argue that states primarily seek security and that their actions are driven by the need to maintain their position in the international system.

Morgenthau's Relevance in Contemporary International Relations

• Morgenthau's works and ideas continue to be influential in the study of International Relations. His emphasis on the role of power in international politics remains a central tenet of realism, and his insights on the dynamic nature of national interest and the importance of pragmatism in foreign policy have shaped the way scholars and policymakers approach international affairs.
• However, some critics argue that Morgenthau's dismissal of the role of ethics, ideology, and international organizations in international politics is outdated and does not accurately reflect the complexities of contemporary global issues.

Criticism of Morgenthau (Realism)

Morgenthau's realism theory of international politics has faced criticism from various scholars and schools, including liberalism and feminism. Here, we will discuss some of these criticisms and look at the feminist critique of Morgenthau in detail.

• Lack of Scientific Approach: Kenneth Waltz criticized Morgenthau for not being scientific in his approach to international politics. Similarly, Benno Wasserman finds Morgenthau's description of human nature unscientific.
• Pessimistic View of Human Nature: Liberals criticize Morgenthau for taking a pessimistic view of human nature, which they believe undermines the potential for cooperation and peaceful resolution of conflicts.
• Power Monism: Stanley Hoffman accuses Morgenthau of suffering from "power monism," meaning that he focuses only on power as the determining factor in international politics. Critics argue that such a narrow focus ignores other essential factors, such as economic and social issues.

Feminist Critique of Morgenthau

The feminist school of international politics has gained significant importance recently, with countries such as Sweden adopting feminist foreign policies. Feminist critiques of Morgenthau include:

• Limitations in Understanding Security: Feminist foreign policy recognizes the limitations in conventional understanding of security, which often ignores human security. Critics argue that Morgenthau's focus on power and territorial security overlooks the importance of human security, especially for vulnerable populations, such as women.
• Neglecting Women's Perspectives and Rights: Feminist scholars argue that Morgenthau's realism neglects women's perspectives and rights in international politics. For example, Hillary Clinton emphasized the need for the US to prioritize women's rights in its foreign policy dealings with countries like Saudi Arabia.
• Masculinist Discourse: Feminists argue that international politics is a heavily masculinist discipline, which can lead to a distorted worldview and contribute to violence against women and recurring wars. Cynthia Enloe, in her book "Bananas, Beaches, and Bases," highlights the subordinate roles given to women by states and emphasizes the need to include women in decision-making structures.
• Reformulating Morgenthau's Six Principles: Ann J Tickner, in her book "Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security," reformulates Morgenthau's six principles from a feminist perspective. She advocates for a greater emphasis on ethics in politics and prioritizing human security over territorial security.

Six Principles

1. Critique of Morgenthau's Description of Human Nature: Tickner disagrees with Morgenthau's portrayal of human nature as being solely driven by power and self-interest. She argues that this perspective is culturally biased and overlooks the diverse aspects of human nature, which include both masculine and feminine traits. Morgenthau's limited view of human nature could lead to a misleading understanding of international politics.
2. Rethinking the Concept of National Interest: Tickner challenges the traditional notion of national interest being solely defined in terms of power. She argues for a multidimensional perspective that takes into account various factors such as economic, social, and environmental concerns. This broader view recognizes that international politics involve both competition and cooperation among nations.
3. Reevaluating the Notion of Power: Tickner argues that power should not be understood only in terms of domination and control, as is often portrayed in traditional international relations theories. She proposes that power can also be seen in a constructive sense, as a means of empowering and enabling others. This alternative view of power has important implications for understanding and addressing global issues.
4. Interconnectedness of Politics and Ethics: Tickner asserts that it is impossible to separate politics from ethics, as every political action has moral implications. By recognizing the ethical dimensions of political decisions, policymakers can be held accountable for their actions and strive to promote the common good rather than merely pursuing their own interests.
5. The Role of Ethics in Preventing Wars: By taking moral principles into account in international politics, Tickner believes that it is possible to avoid wars and conflicts. She argues that the disregard for ethics in political decisions can lead to disastrous consequences, and that the survival of the human race depends on upholding ethical principles. Politicians should not be absolved from the moral responsibility of their actions.
6. Rejecting the Autonomy of Politics from Ethics: Tickner contends that the notion of politics being autonomous from ethics is a narrow and misleading view. She suggests that an inclusive understanding of politics must recognize the interplay between political actions and ethical considerations. By integrating ethics into the study and practice of politics, a more holistic and responsible approach to addressing global issues can be developed.

Conclusion of feminist theory of international politics

• Challenging Conventional Discourses: Feminist perspectives challenge the distortions of reality present in conventional discourses of international politics, which have been historically dominated by malestream theories. By raising the critical questions about power, violence, and gender, the feminist approach provides a unique lens through which to analyze global affairs.
• Feminist Foreign Policies: Countries are increasingly adopting feminist foreign policies, which prioritize gender equality, women's rights, and the empowerment of women in all aspects of foreign policy. This shift represents a move away from traditional patriarchal approaches to international politics and acknowledges the vital role that women play in global affairs.
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325: This landmark resolution recognizes the importance of involving women in decisions related to peace and security. It urges member countries to integrate feminist perspectives into their foreign policies and acknowledges the historical exclusion of women from these critical decision-making processes.
• International Institutions and Women's Empowerment: Global institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, and the United Nations have recognized the central role of women in development and security. Both the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the importance of women's empowerment, further highlighting the relevance of the feminist perspective in international politics.
• War and Masculinity: Feminist theories argue that the root cause of war in international politics is linked to masculinity. It is suggested that "men make war because war makes men," highlighting the need for a more gender-sensitive approach to understanding and addressing the causes of conflict.

Structural Realism (Neo-realism)

Difference between Classical and Neo-Realists
Both classical and neo-realists share basic assumptions about international politics, but they differ in their methodology. While Morgenthau claims his theory is scientific, it cannot be considered as such because it is based on the analysis of human nature, which is unpredictable and cannot be scientifically understood. To overcome this issue, Kenneth Waltz shifted the methodology from actor-level analysis (unit-level analysis) to structure-level analysis, hence the term "structural realism" or "scientific realism."

• Purpose of Kenneth Waltz's Theory: Waltz aimed to establish the principles of realism on a scientific basis by shifting the analysis from human nature to the structure of international politics. His goal was to defend realism as a scientific theory of international politics and prove its "timeless wisdom."
• Context of Kenneth Waltz's Theory: Waltz's theory emerged during the détente period of the Cold War when tensions between superpowers eased, and liberal scholars challenged the status of realism as a scientific theory of international politics. His book, "The Theory of International Politics," was published in 1979, the same year when the Cold War re-emerged.

Key Ideas of Kenneth Waltz's Theory

• Structure-Level Analysis: Waltz shifted the focus from the unit-level analysis (human nature) to the structure-level analysis.
• Anarchy: The structure of international politics is anarchical, meaning there is an absence of world government.
• Impact of Anarchy: Anarchy creates a security dilemma and leads to a struggle for power in international politics.
• Functional Differentiation: Unlike domestic politics, there is no functional differentiation in international politics since all states have to perform similar functions.
• Capabilities: States differ in terms of their capabilities or power.
• Mearsheimer's Contribution: John Mearsheimer is also a structural realist who shifted the analysis from actors to structures. His book, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," was published in 2001.
• Context of Mearsheimer's Work: Mearsheimer's work addressed the question of realism's relevance in the post-Cold War era, marked by increased cooperation, international institutions, and globalization. He focused on the future of US-China relations and warned against the notion of US-China cooperation.

Key Ideas of Mearsheimer's Work

• Power Maximizers: States aim to increase their power not just for security but also for dominance.
• US-China Relations: Mearsheimer advised the US to take steps to contain China's rise, arguing that the gap between the powers of the US and China is disappearing fast.
• Policy Options: Mearsheimer suggested various indirect actions for the US to adopt, such as buck-passing, bait and bleed, and bloodletting.

Difference between Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz

1. Power Acquisition
Kenneth Waltz's View (Defensive Realism)

• Waltz believes that nations should acquire power only to the extent that it is sufficient for their defense.
• He supports the concept of "security maximization" rather than "power maximization."
• According to Waltz, unnecessary power acquisition is counterproductive because it forces other countries to form counter-coalitions and balance the hegemon.

Mearsheimer's View (Offensive Realism)

• Mearsheimer, on the other hand, believes that no amount of power is enough.
• He, like Morgenthau, sees power as an end in itself.
• Mearsheimer argues that nations should aspire for hegemony rather than balance and should prevent any country from gaining a balance of power against them.

2. Security Guarantee
Kenneth Waltz's View

• According to Waltz, acquiring sufficient power for defense ensures a nation's security.

Mearsheimer's View

• Mearsheimer believes that the only guarantee of security is hegemony.
• He argues that nations are power maximizers rather than security maximizers.

3. Offensive vs. Defensive Approach
Kenneth Waltz's View

• Waltz supports a defensive approach to international relations.

Mearsheimer's View

• Mearsheimer believes that nations are inherently offensive and that "offense is the best defense."
• He argues that history has shown that countries that adopt an offensive approach generally win wars, and thus, the United States should adopt an offensive approach towards China.

4. Counter-Coalitions vs. Bandwagoning
Kenneth Waltz's View

• Waltz argues that when a nation acquires excessive power, other countries form counter-coalitions to balance the hegemon.

Mearsheimer's View

• Mearsheimer disagrees with Waltz's view and suggests that in such situations, nations may prefer "bandwagoning" (aligning with the dominant power) instead of forming counter-coalitions.

Criticism of Structural Realism

• Ignorance of Domestic Politics: Structural realism, also known as neorealism, does not take into account the role of domestic politics in shaping the behavior of states in the international system. Neorealists argue that the structure of the international system is the primary determinant of state behavior, leaving little room for the influence of domestic political factors. This perspective overlooks the importance of internal decision-making processes, public opinion, and the role of political institutions in shaping foreign policy choices.
• Inadequacy in Explaining Foreign Policy Decision-Making: Structural realism's focus on the international system as the primary determinant of state behavior leaves it unable to adequately explain foreign policy decision-making processes. By assuming that states are rational, unitary actors focused solely on security concerns, structural realism does not account for the complex deliberations, negotiations, and compromises that often characterize foreign policy decisions. Moreover, this approach neglects the importance of political culture, norms, and values in shaping state behavior.
• Overemphasis on Security Issues: Structural realism places a heavy emphasis on security concerns as the driving force behind state behavior. While this perspective can provide useful insights into military and strategic issues, it is less adept at analyzing economic relations and other non-security-related aspects of international politics. By focusing primarily on security issues, structural realism limits its analytical reach and fails to account for the full range of factors that influence state behavior.
• Underestimation of Non-State Actors: Structural realism primarily focuses on the role of states in the international system and tends to overlook the importance of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. These actors often play crucial roles in shaping international outcomes, from economic development to conflict resolution. By neglecting the role of non-state actors, structural realism offers an incomplete picture of the international system.
• Challenges Posed by the Post-Cold War Era: The end of the Cold War and the subsequent structural reconfiguration of the international system have posed significant challenges to the neorealist theory. With the collapse of the bipolar system and the emergence of new actors and issues, structural realism struggles to provide a comprehensive explanation for the diverse range of dynamics at play in the contemporary international system. This has led to calls for the development of more nuanced and complex theoretical frameworks that can better account for the evolving nature of international politics.

Neo Classical Realism

Neo-classical realism is a theoretical approach in international relations that combines both structural realist and actor-level analysis. It acknowledges the constraints imposed by the international political structure on a nation's foreign policy choices while also emphasizing the role of individual actors, such as political leaders, in shaping those policies. This approach aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of international politics by recognizing the interplay between structural factors and the personalities of political leaders.

• Incorporating Actor-Level Analysis: One of the main distinctions between structural realism and neo-classical realism is the inclusion of actor-level analysis. This means that neo-classical realism recognizes the significance of individual political leaders and their personalities in shaping a nation's foreign policy. While structural factors may limit the range of choices available to a country, the preferences and decision-making processes of political leaders can still significantly influence the direction of foreign policy. For example, the foreign policies of India during the tenures of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi exhibited notable differences due to their contrasting personalities and worldviews.
• Continuity and Change in Foreign Policy: Neo-classical realism posits that while the international political structure constrains a nation's foreign policy choices, resulting in a certain degree of continuity, it does not entirely determine the outcomes of those choices. Political leaders, with their distinct personalities and beliefs, can bring about significant changes in foreign policy. This interplay between structural constraints and individual agency results in both continuity and change in a nation's foreign policy over time.
• For instance, the United States' foreign policy during the Cold War was largely shaped by its rivalry with the Soviet Union, a structural constraint. However, the strategies and tactics adopted by different U.S. presidents, such as containment under Harry S. Truman and détente under Richard Nixon, demonstrated the influence of individual political leaders on foreign policy choices.

Both Waltz and Mearsheimer contributed to the development of structural realism as a theoretical approach to understanding international politics. While their theories differ in some aspects, they both emphasize the importance of the anarchical structure of international politics and its implications for state behavior. Structural realism provides a helpful framework for analyzing power dynamics and state interactions in the global arena.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolution of international relations theory has been marked by the emergence of nation-states, the shift from regional to global politics, and the development of various theoretical approaches, such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism. The discipline of international relations has been predominantly shaped by American scholars and their focus on US foreign policy. Realism, in particular, has undergone multiple transformations with classical and structural variants emphasizing different aspects of international politics. Despite criticisms, realism remains a dominant approach in understanding power dynamics and state behavior, while other theories like liberalism and constructivism provide alternative perspectives on global politics. The continuous evolution of international relations theory and the incorporation of diverse perspectives, such as feminist critiques, enrich our understanding of the complex and interconnected world we live in today.