Chapter One:

Understanding International Relations

• Introduction
• In the World, as it is presented in the flow of daily news concern, There are a
large number of disparate events:
Leaders are meeting,
Negotiations are concluded,
Wars are started,
Acts of terror committed, and so on.
• In order to make sense of all this information ;
We need to know a lot about the contemporary world and its history;
We need to understand how all the disparate events hang together.
• But, at university, all these topics are basic tenet (principles) of the academic
study of international politics.
• So, Instead of focusing on the flow of daily news, we focus on the basic
principles underlying it.
• 1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States
• Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs.
• It has caused the outbreak of revolutions and wars across the
globe.
• Nationalism is noted as a:
Factor for the collapse of age old empires,
Marker for new borders, a
Powerful component for the emergence of new states and
It is used to reshape and reinforce regimes in history.
• Nationalism’s triumph (success) is the coming of the nation-
state as key actors in world politics-accepted as ultimate,
legitimate and the most basic form of political entity.
• According to Heywood (2014), nationalism is the doctrine that
asserts the nation as the basic political unit in organizing
society.
• In common phraseology, the words ‘nation’, ‘state’ and
‘country’ are used interchangeably and this is not correct.
• For instance, the word the ‘United Nations’ is a misnomer since
in reality it is an association of states-instead of nations.
• In international politics, it is also common but incorrect to refer
the ‘Chinese’, the ‘Americans’ and the ‘Russians’ as ‘nations’.
• So, according to Heywood, ‘nations’ are historical entities that
evolve organically out of more similar ethnic communities and
they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs.
• But, at the end of the 18thC, this state came to be radically
transformed.
• The ‘state’ was combined with a ‘nation’ forming a compound
noun – the ‘nation-state’ – which was organized differently and
pursued different goals.
• A nation, in contrast to a state, constitutes:
A community of people joined by a shared identity
and by common social practices.
Communities of various kinds have always existed,
but they now became a political concern.
• As a new breed of nationalist leaders came to
argue;
The nation should take over the state and
Make use of its institutional structures to further
the nation’s ends.
The nation added an interior life to the state,
The nation was a soul added to the body of the
early modern state machinery.
• The revolutions that took place in Britain’s North American
colonies in 1776, and in France in 1789, provided models for other
nationalists to follow.
• In America:
‘We the People of the United States’ – the first words of the Preamble to
the US Constitution – which itself would have been literally unthinkable
in an earlier era.
• In France:
The king was officially the only legitimate political actor and
The people as a whole were excluded from politics.
The power of the aristocracy and the church remained strong,
In the countryside, the aristocracy and the church were the largest
landowners.
• In the revolution of 1789:
The old regime was overthrown with its entire social order.
The French nation was started to be governed by the people and the
nation, in accordance with the principles of liberty, equality and
brotherhood.
• At the time of Congress of Vienna of 1815,
A settlement was reached at the end of the Napoleonic Wars,
Europe was supposed to have returned to its pre-revolutionary
ways.
The nationalist sentiments were growing across the continent and
they constantly threatened to undermine the settlement.
Europe national communities demanded to be included into the
politics of their respective countries.
• Nationalism in the first part of the 19thC was a liberal
sentiment concerning self-determination – the right of a
people to determine its own fate (destiny).
• This programme had far-reaching implications for the way
politics was organized domestically, but it also had profound
ramifications for international politics.
• Most obviously, the idea of self-determination undermined
the political legitimacy of Europe’s empires.
• Although, the nationalist revolutions of 1848 were defeated
by the political establishment;
The sentiments themselves were impossible to control.
Across Europe, there is an increasingly prosperous middle-class
demanded inclusion in the political system and their demands were
increasingly expressed through the language of nationalism.
The Finns wanted an independent Finland;
The Bulgarians an independent Bulgaria;
The Serbs an independent Serbia, and so on.
• In 1861 Italy too –
Long divided into separate city-states and dominated by the
Church –
Became a unified and an independent nation.
• At the conclusion of the WWI in 1918, self-determination
was acknowledged as a right. After the WWI most people in
Europe formed their own nation-states.
• As a result of the nationalist revolutions:
The European international system became for the first time truly ‘inter-
national’.
That is, while the Westphalian system concerned relations b/n states, world
affairs in the 19thC increasingly came to concern relations b/n nation-states.
The word ‘international’ itself was coined only in 1783, by the British
philosopher Jeremy Bentham. However, the inter-national system continued
to operate in much the same fashion as the Westphalian inter-state system.
Nation-states claimed the same right to sovereignty which meant that they
were formally equal to each other.
• In the contemporary period of international politics;
The implication of nationalism and its essence is highly questioned.
Nation states are put under pressure and their role in world politics is
significantly challenged.
There is also an emerging narrative which advances the idea that a revival of
nationalism is happening across the world with the post-cold war assertions
of religion, culture and ethnicity as potent forces in world politics –
Hence, we have S.P. Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ as an alternative to
Francis Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’ thesis on world politics.
• 1.2. Understanding International Relations
• International relations is an integral aspect of our every day's lives.
• We now live in a world where it is impossible to isolate our experiences
and transactions from an international dimension.
• The limits to how international relations will continue to impact your life
is tremendous.
• Studying international relations enables students and professionals:
To better comprehend the information we receive daily from newspapers,
television and radio.
To form part of the wider networks that constitute villages, towns, regions,
nations and states.
To be equally aware of both their rights and responsibilities – and
To be capable of engaging in important debates concerning the major issues
facing the modern international community.
• One crucial feature of the world in which we live, is its
interconnectedness – geographically, intellectually and socially – and thus
we need to understand it.
• Originally, the study of international relations was seen largely as a
branch of the study of law, philosophy or history
• Today, IR could be used to describe a range of interactions b/n people,
groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or states or between these
and (non) governmental international organizations.
• These interactions usually take place between entities that exist in
different parts of the world – in different territories, nations or states.
• To the layperson interactions such as going on holiday abroad, sending
international mail, or buying or selling goods abroad may seem
personal and private, and of no particular international concern.
• Other interactions such as choosing an Olympics host or awarding a
film Oscar are very public, but may appear to be lacking any significant
international political agenda.
• However, any such activities could have direct or indirect implications
for political relations between groups, states or inter-national
organizations.
• More obviously, events such as:
International conflict,
International conferences on global warming
International crime play a fundamental part in the study of IR.
• So, if our lives can be so profoundly influenced by such
events, and
The responses of states and people are so essential to
international affairs,
Then it is incumbent(obligatory) on us to increase our
understanding of such events.
Participation in IR or politics is also inescapable.
• No individual, people, nation or state can exist in splendid
isolation or be master of its own fate; but, no matter how
powerful in military, diplomatic or economic circles, even a
giant superpower, can compel everyone to do its bidding.
• No one can maintain their rate of social or
economic progress or keep people alive without the
contributions of foreigners or foreign states.
• Every people, nation or state is a minority among
humankind in a world that is anarchic, that is, there
is an absence of a common sovereign over them.
• In the world of pluralistic and diverse, there is
politics among entities that have no ruler.
• No matter how large or small, every state or nation
in the world must take account of ‘foreigners’
• On the other hand, there are legal, political and
social differences between domestic and
international politics.
• Domestic law is generally obeyed, and if not, the police and
courts enforce sanctions. International law rests on competing
legal systems, and there is no common enforcement.
• Domestically a government has a monopoly on the legitimate
use of force. In international politics no one has a monopoly
of force, and therefore international politics has often been
interpreted as the realm of self-help.
• Domestic and international politics also differ in their
underlying sense of community.
• That is, in international politics:
Divided peoples do not share the same loyalties –
People disagree about what seems just and legitimate; order and
justice.
• To be political, it should be recognized that conflict or
disagreement lies at the heart of politics and has to be about
public issues.
• Studying IR provides the necessary tools:
To analyze events,
To gain a deeper comprehension of some of the problems that
policy-makers confront and
To understand the reasoning behind their actions.
• Scholars and practitioners in IR use concepts and theories to
make their study more manageable.
• This, however, was complicated due to the emergence of
major philosophical disputes about the fundamental nature
of IR:
The Hobbesian Vs the Lockean state of nature in the 17thC; and
The Realist Vs Idealist debate of the first part of the 20thC.
• Hobbes, writing in 1651, interpreted the state of society to
be:
Continual fear and Danger of violent death; and
The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.
• Locke took a more optimistic view and suggested that
sociability was the strongest bond between men –men
were equal, sociable and free; but they were not licentious
because they were governed by the laws of nature.
• Locke was clear that nature did not arm man against man,
and that some degree of society was possible even in the
state preceding government.
• International politics is also about maintaining international
order. But that order has to be maintained in an anarchical
world.
• The arena of IR and politics seems to be continually
expanding.
• IR and politics are necessary for all states, but political
power is not centralized and unequal. That is why power,
coercion and bargaining still hold sway.
• 1.3. Actors in International Relations
• 1.3.1. State Actors
• IR traditionally focused on interactions b/n states and
to include relationships b/n all sorts of political entities
(‘polities’), such as:
International organizations,
Multinational corporations,
Societies and Citizens.
• IR captures a vast array of themes ranging from the
growing
Interconnectedness of people to old and new forms of
security, dialogue .
Conflict b/n visions, beliefs and ideologies, the environment,
space, the global economy, poverty and climate change.
• 1.3.2. Non-State Actors
• Our everyday lived experience is influenced by global firms,
international governmental institutions, and NGOs that
necessitates the remit of our investigations in order to account
for the diversity of actors and forms of inter-actions which take
place in global politics.
• Considered in terms of the dynamics of change and how we
provide explanations of change, the question begins to shift
attention back to an earlier problematic, namely the capacity to
make a difference.
• When thought of in terms of ‘capacity’, the ‘agency’ of states is
as much as that of the UN or Amnesty International, for each
acts within a wider whole, whether this is conceived in terms of
the
International political economy ,
International legal order,
Anarchical international system (Giddens, 1984).
• Similarly, multinational corporations– often with
headquarters in one state and operational capability in a
range of others – contribute significantly to IR.
• Additionally there are other trans-governmental
organizations where the relations between players are not
controlled by the central foreign policy of the state – such
as the exchange rate of a state’s currency being determined
by the money markets.
• However, despite all the challenges and many new theories
of international politics/relations the state remains, for
many, the primary actor in international politics.
• Contrary to the narrow traditionalist realist view of IR and
foreign policy, which focuses on the physical security and
protection of the territory of the state and its people, one
needs to look wider.
• 1.4. Levels of Analysis in International Relations
• 1.4.1. The individual level
• IR can be analyzed from the perspective of individuals.
• Here we would look at the behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation
of the individual in affecting a particular international phenomenon.
• This can be seen in the psychology and emotions behind people’s actions
and decisions, their fears and their visions as well as their access to
information and capacity to make a difference.
• Psychological factors do not only matter at the level of individual
members of society or of a group.
• They are also an important factor in the analysis of foreign policy,
whenever particular mindsets and perceptions of political leaders and key
actors might influence their decisions and behavior.
• For example, a Prime Minister, encountering the leader of another state
to negotiate an important financial agreement, the head of a large
corporation adopting a policy to rescue their business or even the
situation of individual citizens and their attitude towards austerity
measures?
• 1.4.2. The group level
• A group level analysis would try and break the analysis down into
certain kinds of groups, how they relate to the state level and
where they position themselves with respect to the global
dimension of the issues they are dealing with.
• A group-level analysis focusing on foreign policy would look, for
example, at the role of lobbying groups and the way they
influence national decision-making on an issue.
• A group-level analysis would be more interested in the actions of
groups of individuals, such as:
All voters of a country and the way they express their views in the
general election,
Political parties picking up on the issue in their campaigns or
Social movements forming to counter the effects of the crisis on society.
• A group-level analysis could be interested in activist/pressure
groups like ‘Anonymous’ that seek to influence the global debate
about the winners and losers of globalization and capitalism
• 1.4.3. The state level
• Although this idea of the global or system level as a context of
anarchy features in many contributions to the IR literature, the
main focus remains on the state as the dominant unit of analysis
• A state level analysis might be interested to look at any one of the
following:
It can consider states as actors in their own right as if they were clearly
defined entities that have certain preferences, and accordingly, look at
their actions and decisions to find an answer to our analytical questions;
It may look at how states interact with each other to deal with the crisis
– in other words, their foreign policy;
How they build off each other’s suggestions and react to international
developments and trends;
How they cooperate, say, in the framework of international
organizations; or
How we look at them as competitors and antagonists, each of them
pushing for a stronger position in what makes up the world economy.
• A state-level study would also require careful
consideration of:
What kinds of states we are looking at (how they are ordered
politically),
Their geographical position,
Their historical ties and experiences and
Their economic standing.
Looking at the foreign policy of states, meaning their approach
to and practice of interacting with other states.
• Key indicators of the foreign policy of states would be:
The policies proposed and decided by governments,
Statements of top-level politicians but also the role and
Behavior of diplomats and their adjoining bureaucratic
structures.
• 1.4.4. The system level
• The system level perspective would like to conceive the global system as
the structure or context within which states cooperate, compete and
confront each other over issues of national interest.
• You might visualize it as a level above the state.
• Particularly important in that context is the distribution of power amongst
states, meaning, whether there is one main concentration of power
(unipolarity), two (bipolarity) or several (multipolarity).
• In this perspective, global circumstances are seen to condition the ability
and opportunity of individual states and groups of states to pursue their
interests in cooperative or competitive ways.
• The view of states being embedded in a global context traditionally comes
with the assumption that our international system is ‘anarchic’.
• An anarchic system is one that lacks a central government (or
international sovereign) that regulates and controls what happens to
states in their dealings with each other.
• 1.5. The Structure of International System
• IR scholars maintain that political power is usually distributed
into three main types of systems namely:
A. Uni-polar system,
B. Bipolar system and,
C. Multipolar system.
• These three different systems reflect the number of powerful
states competing for power and their hierarchical relationship.
• In a uni-polar international system, there is one state with the
greatest political, economic, cultural and military power and
hence the ability to totally control other states.
• On the other hand, in both bipolar and multipolar systems
there is no one single state with a preponderant power and
hence ability to control other states.
• As a result, the states in such systems are forced to balance
each other’s power.
• In the case of the bipolar system, for instance, there are two
dominant states (super powers) and the less powerful states join
either sides through alliance and counter alliance formations.
• The problem with bipolar system is that it is vulnerable for zero-sum
game politics because when one superpower gains the other would
inevitably lose.
• One typical historical example where the world was under bipolar
system is the cold war period.
• Multipolar system is the most common throughout history.
• During the period around World War I it was a typical world system. It
usually reflects various equally powerful states competing for power.
• It is not necessary for states to change their relationship with zero-
sum game.
• In such system, it is possible to bring change without gaining or
losing power.
• Power
• Power is the currency of international politics. As money is for
economics, power is for IR (politics).
• In the international system,
Power determines the relative influence of actors
Power shapes the structure of the international system.
• That is why it is often said that IR is essentially about actors’
power relations in the supra-national domain.
• For instance, Hans Morgenthau, a famous thinker of Realism
in IR, argues that International politics, like all other politics,
is a struggle for power.
• It follows from this that power is the blood line of IR.
• Power can be defined in terms of both relations and material
(capability) aspects.
• The Robert Dahl’s Relational definition understands power as ‘A’s
ability to get ‘B’ to do something, it would not otherwise do.
• To better understand this definition, consider this historical
example: The United States and Soviet Union had roughly
balanced capabilities during the cold war era.
• Even though they can mutually destruct each other, the two world
powers were in a stalemate (deadlock) for the whole of the cold
war period. Why? Because wherever capabilities are equal, power
tends to vanish totally.
• However, a small rise in the capabilities of one of the two nations
could translate into a major advantage in terms of power balance.
• With the demise of the Soviet Union, for instance,
The power balance between Russia and the United States has changed in
favour of the latter, i.e. the United States emerged as more powerful than
Russia and in consequence managed to exercise power over Russia-
meaning the USA owned the ability to get Russia to do what Russia would
not otherwise do.
• Anarchy
• Anarchy is a situation where there is absence of authority (government) be
it in national or international level systems.
• Anarchy within a:
Country:- refers to a breakdown of law and order, but
Relations b/n states, it refers to a system where power is decentralized and there
are no shared institutions with the right to enforce common rules.
World refers to a world where everyone looks after themselves and no one looks
after the system as a whole.
• Instead, states had to rely on their own resources or to form alliances
through which the power of one alliance of states could be balanced against
the power of another alliance.
• However, as such power balances were precarious, easily subverted, and
given the value attached to territorial acquisitions, states had an incentive to
engage in aggressive wars.
• As a result, the new international system was characterized by constant
tensions and threats of war – which often enough turned into actual cases of
warfare.
• Sovereignty
• Sovereignty is a basic concept in IR and it can
be defined as an expression of:
i. A state’s ultimate authority within its territorial
entity (internal sovereignty) and,
ii. The state’s involvement in the international
community (external sovereignty).
• Sovereignty denotes double claim of states
from the international system, i.e.,
Autonomy in foreign policy and
Independence/freedom in its domestic affairs.
• 1.6. Theories of International Relations
• The politics of global interactions is more accessible in the
present age than it ever has been in the past.
• Whether it is conflict in the Middle East, the break-up of
Yugoslavia, human rights violations or poverty in Sub-
Saharan Africa, we are daily confronted by images of
global interactions which in some way:
Cross-national boundaries,
Involve a variety of factors, and
Impact upon a widespread number of issues which may/not
affect our own lives, values and welfare.
• What is beyond dispute is that we, as individuals, may no
longer claim immunity or distance from events which
occur elsewhere, and which affect others beyond our
shores.
• Relationships that across state boundaries seem to
include interactions involving:
The diplomatic core
The business community,
The media,
The charitable organizations and so on.
• Theories of IR allow us to understand the world
around us through various lenses, each of which
represents a different theoretical perspective.
• International Relations theory can be simplified as
follows:
Traditional theories,
Middle-ground theories
Critical theories
• 1.6.1. Idealism/Liberalism
• Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory and
developed by the Immanuel Kant in the late 19thC.
• The proponents of Liberalism view that:
States that shared liberal values should have no reason for going
to war against one another.
Human being is innately good and believe in peace and
Harmony between nations is not only achievable, but desirable.
• In Kant’s eyes,
The more liberal states there were in the world, the more
peaceful it would become,
Since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and citizens are
rarely disposed to desire war.
• This is in contrast to the rule of kings and other non-elected
rulers who frequently have selfish desires out of step with
citizens.
• Liberals have faith in the idea that the permanent cessation of
war is an attainable goal.
• In the early years, from 1919 to the 1930s, the discipline was
dominated by liberal internationalism.
• The primary concern of this approach was to the:
Conditions which had led to the outbreak of the WWI and the
devastation which followed should not be allowed to occur in the future.
The driving force which was normative in orientation and
The underlying assumption that the academic study of IR had the
potential to contribute to the prevention of war and establishment of
peace.
• As Scott Burchill points out, liberal internationalism suggested
the prospects for the elimination of war that lay with a
preference for:
Democracy over aristocracy,
Free trade over autarky, and
Collective security over the balance of power system
• The two interrelated ideas that emerge from Kant’s
reflections on a perpetual peace and which formed the
basic foundations for the liberal internationalism were:
Democratic governance and
Institutionalized law-governed r/ns of cooperation b/n states.
• The two formative pillars (democracy and free trade) of
liberal internationalism:
Required the establishment of IR
Promote the collectivist aspirations in place of the conflictual
relations
Formed the basis of balance-of-power thinking.
• A system of ‘collective security’ was advocated to replace
antagonistic alliance systems with an international order
based on the rule of law and collective responsibility.
• Liberals also argue that, International law refers to the body
of customary and conventional rules that:
Offers a mechanism by which cooperation of states is possible.
Are obligatory on civilized states in their intercourse.
Provides the normative framework for political discourse among
members of the international system.
States are the subjects of international law and are obliged to
implement the decisions of international courts.
• In playing this role, international law performs two different
functions.
To provide mechanisms for cross-border interactions- called the
‘‘operating system’’ functions.
To shape the values and goals pursuing in these interactions- Called
the ‘‘normative system.” functions.
• International law is thus to regulate the conducts of
governments and the individuals within states.
• 1.6.2. Realism
• Though liberal internationalist ideals are now
recognized for their significant contribution in the
development of normative approaches to the subject,
they seemed futile and utopian at the outbreak of the
WWII at the outset of the 1930s.
• Thus, since the subject matter of IR had been
dominated by international law and diplomatic history,
IR was transformed to an intellectual agenda which placed
power and self-interest at the forefront of concern.
The ‘idealism’ of the interwar period was henceforth to be
replaced by realism,
The Realism school of thought in its various articulations,
remains dominant in the discipline of IR.
• The formative assumptions of realism as a school of thought
center on the view that:
The international system is ‘anarchic’, as it is devoid of an all-
encompassing authority.
Domestic society is ruled by a single system of government
International system of states renders inter-national law which is
non-binding and ultimately ineffectual in the regulation of relations
between states.
Individuals act in their own self-interests without necessarily taking
into account the needs of others
• Realist internationalism assumes a clear Separation of fact
and value, of theory and practice
• Thucydides interpreted the Peloponnesian War as the
formative model that covers themes such as power, intrigue,
conquest, alliance-building and the workings of bargaining.
• Morgenthau, is known for his famous statement ‘all politics is
a struggle for power’
Liberal internationalism Realist internationalism

Openly Normative and Prescriptive  Purports to be Scientific and

in orientation Explanatory in orientation

Locates its foundations in the Locates its roots further back and citing
Enlightenment and the birth of Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as
reason its founding voices.

Realists and liberals look at the very same world through the different lenses
and they can paint a slightly different picture of the same world.

For Liberalist: For Realists:

 The World and Politics are  The world and Politics appear to be
one of the areas of the area of domination of States
cooperation between States  IR is a system where war and
 World order can be conflict is common and periods of
improved with peace and peace are only times when states
progress gradually replacing are preparing for future conflict
war
Approaches in IR possesses a different perspective on the nature of the state
For Liberalism: For Realism:
 State is the dominant actor and  State is the dominant actor in IR,
possess the ultimate power in IR,  States possess the ultimate power.
 Non-state actors such as  State play a vital role for security
international organizations have and survival in an anarchical
valuable roles in IR and in assisting system
states in formulating decisions and  States participate in international
cooperation that leads to peaceful organizations only when it is in
outcomes their self-interest to do so.
Each scholar of Realism and liberalism has a particular
interpretation of the world, which includes, Ideas of peace, war
and the role of the state in relation to individuals.
Liberalism and Realism have been updated to more modern
versions (neoliberalism and neorealism) that represent a shift in
emphasis from their traditional roots.
Theories of IR Key Concepts

Liberalism Depicts optimism by arguing that:

 Human beings are good,
 Cooperation is possible
 Conflict can be resolved peacefully

Realism Depicts pessimism by arguing that

 Human beings are bad,
 Conflict is unavoidable and perpetual
 War is common and inherent to humankind and
considered as the most prominent instrument of
resolving conflict.

Structuralism/ Focused on the structure of dependency and

Marxism exploitation caused by the international division of
labor
Constructivism/ Challenge the foundations of the dominant
Critical Theories perspectives and argue for the marginalized and the
voiceless
• 1.6.3. Structuralism/Marxism
• Marxism is an ideology that argues a capitalist society is divided
into two contradictory classes –
The business class (bourgeoisie)
The working class (proletariat).
• The proletariats are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie who control
their wages and standard of living.
• Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class society and
overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.
• It was during the 1960s,that constitute as an alternative modes
of conceptualizing international politics.
• Economic and financial relations, development, social issues and
regional integration seemed to challenge the primacy of the :
State as sole unit of analysis
Power as the ultimate determinant of relations between states.
• Global relations were:
Multiform in content and
Involved a number of different types of actors (individuals, states and
non-state organizations).
• This paradigm was emerged as a critique of both
realism and pluralism concentrated on the:
Inequalities that exist within the international system,
Inequalities of wealth between the rich ‘North’ or the ‘First
World’ and the poor ‘South’ or the ‘Third World’.
• The structuralist paradigm focused on dependency,
exploitation and the international division of labor
which relegated:
The vast majority of the global population to the extremes of
poverty,
The complicities of elite groups within these societies.
• As many in structuralist tradition argued,
Most states were not free and were subjugated by the
political, ideological and social consequences of economic
forces.
Imperialism generated by the vigor of free enterprise
capitalism in the West and by state capitalism in the socialist
bloc imposed unequal exchange of every kind upon the Third
World.
• The capitalist structure of the international system:
Accumulate the benefits to some while
Initiating the unequal exchange relations,
Causing the impoverishment of the vast majority of
others.
• The class system that pre-dominated internally
within capitalist societies:
Had its parallel globally,
Producing Centre–periphery relations that permeated
every aspect of international social, economic and
political life.
• Neo-Marxist structuralism viewed the networks of
economic interdependence founded on trade and
financial interactions as the basis of inequality, the
debt burden, violence and instability.
• 1.6.4. Constructivism
• Constructivism is a theory commonly viewed as a
middle ground between mainstream (liberalism
and realism) theories and the critical theories.
• Unlike scholars from other perspectives,
constructivists highlight the importance of values
and shared interests between individuals who
interact on the global stage.
• Alexander Wendt described the relationship
between agents (individuals) and structures
(such as the state) as one in which structures not
only constrain agents but also construct their
identities and interests.
• For constructivism,
The essence of international relations exists in the
interactions between people.
States do not interact; it is agents of those states,
such as politicians and diplomats, who interact.
As those interacting on the world stage have
accepted international anarchy as the defining
principle, it has become part of our reality.
If anarchy is what we make of it, then different
states can perceive anarchy differently and the
qualities of anarchy can even change over time.
International anarchy could even be replaced with
a different system if a critical mass of other
individuals (and by proxy the states they
represent) accepted the idea.
• 1.6.5. Critical Theories
• Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that
have been established in response to mainstream (mainly
liberalism and realism) approaches in the field.
• Critical theorists:
Oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR
Identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked
within IR.
Provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been
marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global South.
• Critical theorists who take a Marxist angle often argue that:
The internationalization of the state as the standard operating
principle of international relations has led ordinary people around the
globe becoming divided and alienated, instead of recognizing what
they all have in common as a global proletariat.
For this to change, the legitimacy of the state must be questioned
and ultimately dissolved.
In that sense, emancipation from the state in some form is often part
of the wider critical agenda.
• Post-colonialism differs from Marxism by
focusing on the inequality b/n nations, as
opposed to classes.
• Post-colonialism’s origins can be traced to the
Cold War period when:
Much activity in IR centered around decolonization,
The ambition to undo the legacies of European
imperialism.
• This approach acknowledges that politics is not
limited to one area/region and that it is vital to
include the voices of individuals from other
parts of the world.
• Generally, realists believe that international
organizations appear to be successful when they
are working in the interests of powerful states.
• Marxists would argue that any international body,
including the UN:
Works to promote the interests of the business class.
UNs is composed of states who are the chief protagonists in
global capitalism – the very thing that Marxism is opposed to.
UN can be said to be dominated by imperial (or neo-imperial)
powers.
• According to Marxist doctrine,
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.
UN cannot offers any hope of real emancipation for citizens.
UN legitimizes the humanitarian actions that are merely Band-
Aids over a system of perpetual state-led exploitation.
• Finally, post-colonialists would argue that:
The discourse perpetuated by the UN is one based on cultural,
national or religious privilege.
The presence of former colonial powers on the Security Council
and how their ability to veto proposals put forward by other
countries perpetuates a form of continued indirect colonial
exploitation of the Global South.
 Chapter Two
Understanding Foreign Policy and Diplomacy