Key Concepts of International Relations - 2 | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Collective Security

Collective Security vs. Balance of Power
Collective security and balance of power (BoP) are both methods of managing power in international relations. However, they differ in their approach and implementation.
1. Conceptual Differences:

• Collective security is a liberal approach, based on the idea of BoP, and can be considered as an 'institutionalized form of balance of power'.
• BoP is an ad-hoc concept, which operates in a state of anarchy, while collective security requires the presence of an international organization, such as the United Nations or the League of Nations.

2. Operational Differences:

• BoP is characterized by uncertainty, as it does not automatically emerge in response to a threat. For example, it took a long time for countries to check the rise of Napoleon.
• Collective security, on the other hand, provides theoretical certainty, as it operates through international organizations.

3. Relevance to Different States:

• BoP may be more relevant for great powers, as they have the resources and capabilities to maintain a balance of power.
• Collective security is highly useful for smaller and poor countries, as it allows them to avoid arms races and the necessity to form alliances.

4. Impact on Peace:

• Collective security is conducive to peace, as it reduces arms race and promotes cooperation among states.
• However, it has not been successful in ending arms races or preventing conflicts, as seen in the failures of the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Collective Security and Collective Defence

It is important not to confuse collective security with collective defence. NATO, for example, is an instance of collective defence.
1. Scope:

• Collective security is universal, with no predefined enemy. Any country can approach the United Nations for assistance.
• Collective defence is regional, limited to its members, and the enemy is known in advance.

2. Indian Perspective:

• India has always opposed collective defence pacts, as they undermine faith in collective security.
• However, India supports the concept of collective security, which it sees as a means to ensure peace and stability.

3. US Perspective:

• The United States does not view collective defence as contradictory to collective security.
• It believes that collective defence is a practical way to operationalize collective security, in accordance with the UN Charter, which allows countries the right to self-defence.

Collective Security: Working and Challenges

Collective security is a concept in international relations that aims to maintain peace and order by promoting cooperation among nations through a collective response to aggression or threats to peace. The idea is based on the assumption that international peace is the primary objective of states and that they will work together to achieve it.

Collective Security under the League of Nations

However, the implementation of collective security under the League of Nations faced several challenges:

• Absence of key powers: The United States and Russia did not participate in the League of Nations, which weakened its effectiveness.
• Lack of faith: Britain and France, two major powers at the time, did not have faith in the concept of collective security.
• Policy of appeasement: Countries followed a policy of appeasing fascist powers due to their fear of communism.
• Flaws in the concept: The League of Nations allowed all member countries to have veto powers, making it difficult to reach a consensus on collective security measures.
• False assumptions: The concept of collective security is based on the assumption that states prioritize international peace over their national interests, which is not always the case.

Collective Security under the United Nations

The United Nations has attempted to improve the implementation of collective security:

1. Improved procedures: The UN Charter requires the consent of only the five permanent members of the Security Council for collective security measures to be implemented.
2. East-West conflict: The Cold War paralyzed collective security efforts within the UN.
3. National interests: Countries continue to prioritize their national interests over international peace, order, and justice.

The UN has only successfully implemented collective security measures in two cases: the 1950 Korean Crisis and the 1989 Gulf War.

Challenges and Alternatives to Collective Security

1. Peacekeeping: The failure of collective security led UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld to propose the concept of peacekeeping to maintain the UN's relevance in promoting international peace. Peacekeeping is not part of the UN Charter and is considered an extra-constitutional growth. It differs from collective security in that peacekeepers are only deployed with the consent of the parties in conflict and can only use force in self-defense.
2. Uniting for Peace resolution: In cases where the Security Council is deadlocked, the General Assembly can authorize collective security measures by a two-thirds majority. However, this resolution has faced legal challenges, and it has been difficult for the United States to gain support for many resolutions.

India's Role in Peacekeeping and Collective Security

India has made significant contributions to UN peacekeeping efforts, which has helped to maintain the UN's relevance in its primary objective of preventing wars. India's contribution to peacekeeping is one of the strongest reasons for its demand for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. If any country has kept the UN relevant in its core objectives, it is India, and it is a paradox that India is not a permanent member of the Security Council.

Security: Importance and Theories

The importance of security
Security is a fundamental value in human life, as emphasized by political philosopher Thomas Hobbes. All other values are dependent on the security of life. In the realm of international politics, security is the core concept, and theories of international relations can be considered as theories of security.
The main debates among different schools of security revolve around the following questions:

• Whose security is important? (territorial or human)
• Security from whom? (state itself or non-state actors)
• Security of what? (life, culture, environment, social)

There are two types of theories: instrumentalist and reflectivist. Instrumentalist theories include liberals, Marxists, and realists, while reflectivist theories focus on ideas, norms, values, and culture as a means of acquiring security.
Prominent theories of security
1. Realist theory

• State-centric
• Security from other states as a source of insecurity
• Methods: Balance of power, diplomacy, deterrence

2. Liberal theory

• Security of both states and persons
• Reasons for insecurity: Anarchy, protectionist policies, limited interaction, militaristic state, absence of democracy
• Methods: Liberal institutionalism, functionalism, security community, trading state, democratic peace

3. Marxist theory

• Human security
• Security from capitalism
• Method: Revolution against capitalism

4. Feminist theory

• Human security
• Security from patriarchy
• Solution: Empowerment of women, bringing women's perspective, incorporating ethics into politics

5. Critical/Emancipatory school

• Human security
• Suggestion: End territorial boundaries, promote moral boundaries, grassroots democracy

6. Social constructivist theory

• Human and state security
• Security from the way we think, achieved by communication and changing norms

7. Copenhagen school (Barry Buzan)

• Security as a speech act, depending on how we talk about it
• Focus on who is speaking, what they are speaking about, and who the audience is
• Multidimensional approach to security, including military, political, economic, social, and ecological aspects

Securitization: This is the process by which state actors transform subjects into matters of security, enabling extraordinary means to be used in the name of security.

Deterrence: Definition and Concept

Deterrence is derived from the Latin word "De terre," which means to frighten. The primary objective of deterrence is to prevent potential adversaries from attacking by instilling fear. Deterrence is a psychological concept based on the assumption that actors are rational. For deterrence to be effective, the adversary must believe in its credibility. The adversary must be convinced that if it chooses to attack or start a war, the victory will come at a cost that is not worth paying.

Deterrence and Nuclear Weapons

• Traditionally, deterrence was associated with conventional weapons. However, it has now become closely linked with nuclear weapons. Prominent scholars who support deterrence include Bernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, John Mearsheimer, and Thomas Schelling. The concept of deterrence was developed by game theorists and has evolved with the changing postures of superpowers, particularly the United States.
• During the Cold War, the US's security policy was based on deterrence, with the only way to avoid war with the Soviet Union being to achieve "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD). MAD relies on developing the second-strike capability, ensuring that a country can survive an attack and retaliate with unacceptable damage. This requires the development of a nuclear triad.

Relevance of Deterrence in the Modern World

There are several reasons why the relevance of deterrence, particularly nuclear deterrence, has been questioned in recent times:

• Complex interdependence: The emergence of complex interdependence has led to a reduction in the likelihood of conflicts between major powers.
• Non-state actors: The primary security threat now comes from non-state actors, against whom nuclear deterrence is less effective.
• Democratic peace theory: Some scholars argue that the spread of democracy has made large-scale wars less likely, reducing the need for nuclear deterrence.
• Nuclear taboo: Social constructivist scholar Nina Tannenwald suggests that a nuclear taboo has developed, making it less likely that countries will use nuclear weapons.

Despite these arguments, major countries like the USA, Russia, and France continue to rely on nuclear deterrence in their security policies. The US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty indicates the potential for a new arms race. The Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in February 2018, reaffirms the US's reliance on nuclear weapons for its security and that of its allies.

Pre-emptive Strike
A pre-emptive strike is a first-strike attack with nuclear weapons aimed at destroying an enemy's capacity to respond. It is based on the anticipation of a future attack from the enemy. This strategy has several drawbacks:

• Lack of international support: Since a pre-emptive strike is based on anticipation rather than aggression, other countries may not support it.
• Imperfect intelligence: A pre-emptive strike relies on accurate intelligence, which is not always guaranteed.
• Nuclear triad: The development of a nuclear triad makes it more difficult to carry out a successful pre-emptive strike.

National Interest

In international politics, national interest is considered the prime motivation for a country's foreign policies, as per the realist school of thought. The concept of national interest is highly dynamic, and power is often utilized as a means to secure these interests.

1. Morgenthau's Classification of National Interest
Hans Morgenthau, the father of realism, has categorized national interest into two types:

• Core National Interest: These interests are fundamental and unchanging, leading to continuity in a country's foreign policy.
• Variable National Interest: These interests are subject to change, and thus, foreign policies may show continuity with changes.
• Robinson's Classification of National Interest

Scholar Robinson has provided a further classification of national interest, including:

• Primary
• Secondary
• Permanent
• Variable
• General
• Specific

Robinson also suggests various ways in which countries protect their national interests, such as balance of power, deterrence, diplomacy, international law and organizations, propaganda, intelligence, ideology, and incentives.

2. Indian Perspective: Sixfold and Fourfold Policies
In the Indian context, national interest is often understood through the sixfold and fourfold policy frameworks.

3. Criticisms of National Interest as a Pseudo Theory
National interest has been criticized as a pseudo theory, mainly due to its highly subjective nature. Marxist scholars like Charles Beard argue that the concept of national interest is often manipulated by elites to serve their own interests. Raymond Aron also declared national interest as a pseudo theory, stating that its vagueness and subjectivity hinder the formulation of an acceptable theory.

4. Joseph Frankel's View on National Interest
Joseph Frankel believes that any search for a theory of national interest is futile, as the term is used in various ways for different purposes, with no single meaning or content.

5. Burchill Scott's Opinion on National Interest
Burchill Scott argues that despite the widespread use of the concept, the theory of national interest lacks any substance.

6. Mohammad Younus on National Interest
According to Mohammad Younus, national interest is a means to promote the interests of elites. He has demonstrated how the army in Pakistan often equates its interests with national interest.

Security Dilemma in International Politics

Security dilemma is a core concept of realism, based on the Westphalian world order. Several scholars have contributed to the development of this concept:

• John Herz and the Hobbesian Theory: John Herz has applied the Hobbesian theory of the state of nature to develop the security dilemma, which is a vicious cycle of insecurity that makes power politics a permanent feature.
• Robert Jervis' Offense-Defense Theory: Robert Jervis has developed the offense-defense theory to explain the severity of the security dilemma.
• Social Constructivist Perspective on Security Dilemma: Social constructivists argue that the security dilemma arises due to the specific interpretation of anarchy. They suggest that communication can address the security dilemma.
• George Sorenson's Insecurity Dilemma: George Sorenson has introduced the concept of insecurity dilemma, which posits that nations in the 21st century face internal security threats due to the rise of ethnic movements, non-state actors, failed states, and civil wars.
• Prof. Amitabh Acharya on Security Dilemma: Prof. Amitabh Acharya also believes that the security dilemma may not be a relevant concept for third world states.

Hegemonic Stability Theory

Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) is a concept developed by scholars like Robert Gilpin and Charles Kindleberger, which justifies the existence of a dominant power to maintain peace and order in the international system. According to this theory, global stability requires a 'global policeman' that can establish the rule of law and punish those who violate it.

Key Themes

• Justification of Hegemony: HST argues that hegemony is necessary to maintain peace and order in the international society. A hegemon is a powerful state that can establish norms and a liberal international order, ensuring that other states follow these rules.
• Qualities of a Hegemon: A hegemon should possess both the capacity and willingness to enforce norms and punish those who violate them. For example, the United States had the capacity to act as a hegemon before World War II but lacked the willingness to do so.
• Examples of Hegemonic Powers: Historically, Great Britain (Pax Britannica) acted as a hegemon until the Second World War, after which the United States (Pax Americana) took over this role. The term 'Pax' denotes a dictated peace by the hegemon.
• Span of Hegemony: A hegemonic power typically lasts for around 100 years before it starts declining due to overstretch and free riders taking advantage of the hegemon's resources.
• Benefits of Hegemony: Countries accept a hegemon because it provides order and security, while the hegemon benefits from dictating the rules and reaping the rewards of the system.

Hegemonic Stability Theory and Realism

HST is a realist theory that acknowledges the need for a liberal international order. However, its view of hegemony differs from the Gramscian theory, which sees ideology and culture as the basis of hegemony. The realist perspective emphasizes the importance of military and economic power in establishing hegemony.

Role of Transnational Actors

Transnational actors are non-state entities that operate across national borders. They play a crucial role in international politics, as they can influence and shape global governance, policies, and cooperation among states. Some examples of transnational actors include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), and terrorist organizations. In this article, we will explore the role of transnational actors in international politics and the perspectives of various theories on their impact.

Types of Actors in International Politics

• State Actors: These are the primary actors in international politics, such as governments and their institutions.
• International Actors: These are organizations created by states, such as the United Nations (UN), which facilitate cooperation and dialogue among nations.
• Transnational Actors: These are non-state actors that operate beyond national borders, such as NGOs, MNCs, and terrorist organizations.

Debate on the Role of Transnational Actors

The role of transnational actors in international politics is a matter of debate among various theories and schools of thought.

• Realists: Realism is a state-centric view that primarily focuses on the power and interests of states. Realists argue that even terrorist organizations act as proxies for state interests, and thus, transnational actors do not play a significant role in international politics.
• Liberals: Liberals acknowledge the positive role of transnational actors in international politics, particularly in fostering development, promoting human rights, and facilitating global cooperation.
• Marxists: While Marxists recognize the role of transnational actors, they view MNCs as exploiters that perpetuate inequality and injustice in the global system.
• Feminists: Feminist scholars also consider MNCs as exploiters, arguing that they contribute to gender inequality and perpetuate patriarchal structures in society.

Reasons for the Growing Role of Non-State Actors

• Growth of Society-Centric World: The rise of globalization and increasing interconnectedness among societies have enabled non-state actors to play a more significant role in international politics.
• Growth of Interdependence: As countries become more interdependent, they must collaborate with various stakeholders, including transnational actors, to address complex global challenges.

Models Recognizing the Role of Non-State Actors

• Cobweb Model: This model acknowledges the complex web of interactions among various actors, including transnational actors, in international politics.
• Complex Interdependence: This theory argues that states are not the only actors in international politics, and non-state actors play a crucial role in shaping global policies and cooperation.
• Three-Dimensional Chessboard Model: This model recognizes the multi-layered nature of international politics, where transnational actors operate alongside state and international actors.

Analysis of the Role of MNCs, NGOs, and Terrorist Organizations in International Relations

1. Role of MNCs (Multinational Corporations)

• Realist Perspective: Realists do not acknowledge the role of MNCs in international relations, as they focus primarily on states as the main actors in global politics.
• Liberal Perspective: Liberals appreciate the role of MNCs but consider their involvement in international relations as a relatively recent phenomenon.
• Marxist Perspective: Marxists criticize both realist and liberal approaches for their ignorance or promotion of false consciousness regarding MNCs. According to them, MNCs have led to the continuation of wealth drain and the development of underdevelopment by not adopting sustainable development approaches. They argue that MNCs have been influential since the 17th century, with the East India Company being a prime example.

2. Role of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations)

• Realist Perspective: Realists do not give importance to NGOs in international relations, as they primarily focus on states as the main actors.
• Liberal Perspective: Liberals recognize NGOs as positive agents in international relations. The UN Charter even acknowledges the role of NGOs as consultative bodies attached to ECOSOC (Article 72).
• Marxist Perspective: According to Marxists, the role of NGOs is not new, as they have been working in close nexus with MNCs. They argue that NGOs, like MNCs, have sometimes been accused of attempting regime change.

3. Role of Terrorist Organizations

• Historical Role: The role of terrorist organizations can be traced back to the First World War, which began with the assassination of the Archduke of Austria by Serbian extremists.
• Middle East Conflicts: Since the creation of Israel and the failure of Arab nations in direct warfare, the growth of terrorist organizations attempting proxy wars has increased. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was initially considered a terrorist organization.
• Global Phenomenon: Terrorism has now become a global phenomenon, with states sponsoring terrorism as a part of their foreign policy. Noam Chomsky refers to the USA as the "first terrorist state in the world."
• Post-Cold War Security Scenario: John Lewis Gaddis predicted a more significant role for asymmetrical actors in the post-Cold War world order, as he suggested that the USA had defeated the Soviet Union but had given rise to numerous smaller, dangerous actors. The security scenario for the USA in the post-Cold War world has become more challenging due to the diffusion of security threats, making them more difficult to control.

Conclusion

In conclusion, international politics is a complex and dynamic field influenced by various actors, ranging from state and international actors to transnational entities such as MNCs, NGOs, and terrorist organizations. While theories like realism, liberalism, and Marxism offer different perspectives on the roles and impacts of these actors, it is evident that the growing interconnectedness and interdependence of nations have given rise to a more significant role for non-state actors in shaping global policies and cooperation. As the world continues to evolve, understanding the interactions among these diverse actors is essential to effectively address global challenges and promote peace and stability.