IPC2602 Notes - International Political Dynamics PDF

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL DYNAMICS?? Introduction: It is imperative that we outline what international political dynamics entails before we tackle the study guide. Understanding the definition and the basic concepts will assist you to navigate the study guide. International political dynamics...

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL DYNAMICS?? Introduction: It is imperative that we outline what international political dynamics entails before we tackle the study guide. Understanding the definition and the basic concepts will assist you to navigate the study guide. International political dynamics entails the analysis of the formal or non-formal aspects of political relations or interactions between actors in the international system. As a student of international politics, you will need to sharpen your analytical skills. This module will help you with such skills as it deals with key concepts in the international relations, equips you to understand the phenomenon in the international system and be able to analyze them within the context. In order to understand and excel with this module, you will need to be someone who is up to date with historical events and current affairs as these form the basis for your analysis. Analysis of international political dynamics can be viewed either from micro or macro analysis. Micro-Analysis/Approach: Also known as a foreign policy analysis focuses on individual actors in international politics. It seeks to analyze individual actors at the state level and how their involvement influences issues in the international system. The main actor in this perspective is the state which is viewed to have particular interests and a strategy to protect or pursue them in the international arena. Macro-Analysis/Approach: Also known as systems analysis focuses on the interaction between actors in the international system. From the state-centric point of view it analysis the interaction of states and how they pursue their national interests in the international system. The reason it is called systems analysis is that it looks at how power is regulated and relationships navigated in the international arena. Macro-analysis also brings into the picture other actors in the system. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM IN CONTEXT: WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM? The system is defined as a set of assembled units or a form of interdependence. Therefore, when we look at the international system, we seek to analyze the interaction between different interconnected and interdependent units. According to Roskin and Berry (1997:5) system is defined within the context of interaction and how through interaction the components or the actors in this regard influences each other. It is therefore important to mention that in the process of interaction among the components or the actors the system is bound to be either stable or unstable. Secondly, there is also a notion that as it evolves, the system is bound to become self-correcting especially when lessons from the past are learned and new policies are formulated to regulate the interaction within the components. When analyzing the system it is important to note the following: Interdependence: In order to understand the system it is important to note the interdependence of identifiable components, parts, or even in the aspect of the international system the actors. These components/parts/actors can be material  or immaterial (meaning that they could be significant or insignificant), but their activities within the system are considered purposeful. Feedback Process: As mentioned earlier, these components somehow influence each other due to their interdependence. The interaction and reaction of these components do have a way of influencing the system hence understanding the feedback process is important. For example, how does the action of state A influences state B, and thus how does that affect the interaction in the system? Influence: As mentioned above due to interdependence the nature and behavior of the components/actors do influence the functioning of the system as a whole. Complexity: The system can be defined as a complex whole or the composition of and the interaction between the parts. Definitions: The system is bounded by definable system boundaries. It is said that these boundaries can be either physical or purely analytical. Subsystems: A most complex system consisting of distinguishable subsystems It is, therefore, important that when one wishes to understand the international, he/she should be able to pinpoint the roles of the components/actors in the system. These can only be understood through the shifting dynamics that are identifiable in the distribution or concentration of power. Understanding how this distribution and thus the interaction operates one will, therefore, be able to define the international system. In the next topic, we will deal with the definitions of the key concepts in international political dynamics. These concepts will help us navigate the murky waters or the complexities in the international system. THEME 1: THE MODERN WORLD SYSTEM, THE NATION- STATE AND THE WORLD ORDER: LESSON 1 Introduction: In the previous topic I introduced you to two levels of analysis, one being actor-level analysis and the second one being system-level analysis. In defining a system, I mentioned that it is the conglomeration of different units that interact and influence each other and operate as one. The international system is defined and understood through the sequence of historical events. As a student of international politics, you need to have in-depth knowledge of history, especially how the current system came to being. It is also very important to note and remember the key events and phenomena that shaped the system. These phenomena and events in history are crucial in understanding the rationale behind certain traditions, treaties, and norms in the international system. Therefore, the evolution of the international system can be defined or understood as the organization of interactions among different actors in international politics. In its inception, the system was dominated by the states as sole actors. The evolution of the system takes us on a journey on how the system evolved to where we are today. The international system is systems and structures created in the international arena guiding the interaction among the actors. The evolution of the international system looks at how the system and concept of statehood came into being. It is within this context whereby we need to understand the concepts like the modern world system, nation-states, and world order. In defining the world-system analysis, Taylor (2005) says that it “is an approach to understanding social change based upon geohistorical systems.” According to his definition, geohistorical systems denote specific structures of social relations that are concretely realized through time and space. He further defines time within the context of trends and cycles and space within the context of extent and order. Therefore, within the scope of international political dynamics, one needs to be informed as to how the system evolved to be what it is today. This deals with the change that took place over the years and was shaped mainly by the shifts in power. These changes define the rules of engagement and the levels of interaction in the international system. Understanding the historical context is crucial in aiding our understanding of the functioning of the international system. The theme we will be dealing with aims to guide you in your understanding of the evolution of the international system. It forms a solid foundation in the study of international political dynamics. This topic aims to guide you in understanding the origins and the nature of the modern world system. The Origins and the Nature of the modern world-system: The proponent of the modern world-system concept is Immanuel Wallerstein an American historian and economist who viewed and defined the system within the context of the capitalist ideology. His premise is that the modern world system is highly influenced by capitalism. His definition is quite balanced and outlines the key characteristics of the global system. He defined the modern world system as “a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life comprises the conflicting forces that hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to its advantage. It has the characteristics of an organism, in that it has a life span over which its characteristics change in some respects and remain stable in others. One can define its structures as being at different times strong or weak in terms of the internal logic of its functioning.” (Wallerstein 1974:347) This is the definition of the global system. Understanding the International System: From the definition above we can deduce the following: When we look at the international system, we seek to analyze the interaction between different interconnected and interdependent units. According to Roskin and Berry (1997:5) system is defined within the context of interaction and how through interaction the components or the actors in this regard influences each other. Therefore, it is important to mention that in the process of interaction among the components or the actors, the system is bound to be either stable or unstable. Secondly, there is also a notion that as it evolves, the system is bound to become self-correcting especially when lessons from the past are learned and new policies are formulated to regulate the interaction within the components. When analyzing the system it is important to note the following as outlined in the definition by Wallerstein: Interdependence: To understand the system it is important to note the interdependence of identifiable components, parts, or even in the aspect of the international system the actors. These components/parts/actors can be material or immaterial (meaning that they could be significant or insignificant), but their activities within the system are considered purposeful. Feedback Process: As mentioned earlier, these components somehow influence each other due to their interdependence. The interaction and reaction of these components do have a way of influencing the system hence understanding the feedback process is important. For example, how does the action of state A influences state B, and thus how does that affect the interaction in the system? Influence: As mentioned above due to interdependence the nature and behavior of the components/actors do influence the functioning of the system as a whole. Complexity: The system can be defined as a complex whole or the composition of and the interaction between the parts. Definitions: The system is bounded by definable system boundaries. It is said that these boundaries can be either physical or purely analytical. Subsystems: A most complex system consisting of distinguishable subsystems It is, therefore, important that when one wishes to understand the international system, he/she should be able to pinpoint the roles of the components/actors in the system. These can only be understood through the shifting dynamics that are identifiable in the distribution or concentration of power. Understanding how this distribution and thus the interaction operates one will, therefore, be able to define the international system. In the next topic, we will outline the timelines in the evolution of the international system up until the modern world system and then continue to discuss the key characteristics of the modern world system. THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM Introduction: In the previous topic we dealt with the definition of the modern world system and briefly outlined key issues and how they influence the interaction in the international system. In this topic, we will deal first with the factors that describe the system and then briefly deal with the timelines in the evolution of the international system up to the modern world system. Factors that define the international system: Kok et al (2020) mention three key factors that define the system. Tension and Power Hierarchy: The international system is mainly seen as having no authoritative, directing, and controlling center, and the nature of interaction varies, in the main, according to the number, behavior, and objectives of the significant units or subsystems. This approach is a classic approach based on the  premise that the system is anarchic as there is no central power to enforce compliance, however, due to the interdependence of states, the system is able to regulate itself as the actors develop norms and a system for self-regulation. However, it is important to acknowledge that the system is defined by tension power hierarchy. According to Kok et al (2020) in modern days, “the power hierarchy, can be explained in terms of the tension that exists between the core (North) and periphery (South) states, in which the powerful and wealthy societies of the global North (core) dominate and exploit the weak and poor societies from the global South (periphery). Instability: The shape and the structure of the international system are not stable. As we have mentioned above states jostle for power and control. The arrangement of power in the system has the ability to change and influence the structure of the system. The main cause for instability can be ascribed to the lack of central authority in the system. Therefore, the shape and the structure of the system depend on the power shifts in the system. Historically we can refer to the system during the Cold War and the system post-Cold War. Internal Logic: One of the things I mentioned in the previous topic is the complexity of the international system. This complexity emanates from internal contradictions. It is imperative to understand that interaction or engagement in the international system is premised on the state seeking to pursue and protect its national interests. Due to a lack of central authority, any changes we see in the system are a reflection of the internal dynamics. The Evolution of the system: The evolution of the international system looks at how the system and concept of statehood came into being. There are key factors that defined this evolution: Popular sovereignty: Treaty of Westphalia which culminated in the concept of the sovereignty of the state. 1. This was a transition from monarchy to democracy whereby the sovereign power moved from the monarchy to the people. 2. The collapse of the empire was defined by the French and the American Revolution and the ascension of democracy. This is viewed as having contributed to the nationalistic tendencies in the system. The Dominance of the West in the development of the international system: This can be defined as the dominance of mainly Europe within the international system. Their dominance influenced the philosophies and the rationale which defines international politics and by default the international system. The dominance of the West in the international system or what we can call the North/South divide can be traced back to the time of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution culminated in colonialism or the dominance of capitalism which is foundational to the modern world system. Colonialism is seen as the major impediment to the development of the South in comparison to  the development of the North. It thus has contributed to the system that is highly dominated by capitalism. Kok et al (2020) said; “it can be argued that the modern world-system is characterized by domination and exploitation. These are sustained by the continued existence of global coloniality without which, domination and exploitation will be inconceivable”. The International System in the 20th Century Key Issues: Wars and instability within the system affected the structure and the shape of the international system. 1. WWI saw the collapse of big empires like the Ottoman and Austria- Hungarian. It saw the European system moving from a multi-polar system into a system dominated by two hostile powers in the form of the Central Power and the Allied Power. 2. WWII destabilized Europe but also ushered in the change in the international system. Secondly, it also ushered in the emergence of America as a dominant power leading one pole led by the Allied Power and Russia leading another pole. 3. This era saw the emergence of the Bipolar System in the international system. This was characterized by the Cold War, nuclear arms race, etc. Modern World System: The modern world system though defined through the lenses of capitalism gives us the tools of analysis to understand the power dynamics in the system. It is imperative to mention that the modern world system though using the state as central actor in the system also focuses on the role of non-state actors. This is based on the premise that these actors are enabled by the system and by default by the states who shape the rules of the game in the system. In the next topic, we will deal with the emergence of the nation-state in the international system. THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN NATION-STATE Introduction: Though the international system has evolved, states remain the critical actors with legal legitimacy to act on behalf of their citizens in the international system. Jackson and Rosberg (1982:2) define the state as a; corporate group (unit) that has compulsory jurisdictions, exercises continuous organization and claims a monopoly of force over a territory and its population including all action taking place in the area of its jurisdiction. States' involvement in the international system serves different purposes. According to Holsti (1995) states to participate in the international system for the purposes of security, autonomy, welfare, and status and prestige. As we have mentioned in the previous forums, states are driven by the quest to pursue and protect the national interest. One of the tools used as a tool for international relations is "foreign policy". Foreign policy is a well-defined set of goals and objectives that determines the actions that a state takes in its effort to achieve its objectives in the international system. It finds resonance in the actions, reactions, and interactions of actors in the international system. Therefore, international relations from the perspective of the state is an implementation of a set of actions, goals, and strategies contained in their foreign policy. It is important to reiterate that central to the international system and states is the issue of power and the ability to influence the actions of other states. Modern Nation-State can be traced back to the Peace of Westphalia. According to Kok et al (2020) Peace of Westphalia Treaty of 1648 was part of a long process that saw European powers come together and agreed to respect the territorial sovereignty of each other. This came in the background of fierce wars under the feudal system. This treaty came with the norms and rules of engagement. It is imperative within the context of this study to mention that this kind of arrangement was highly influenced by capitalist interests. Let us, therefore, look at what the definition of state and sovereignty mean within this context. STATE: DEFINITIONS In the definition of the state there are four critical elements that define the state; Defined Territory: This is an area or the sphere in which the state has jurisdiction and is determined by well-defined and recognized borders. In the current global emergency, we have been drawn to the debate on these defined territories. We have seen states closing the borders and even making decisions as to who is allowed within these borders. The defined territory also speaks about the legitimacy which is conferred to the state of the international community. One of the key elements for recognition as an actor in the international domain is a recognized territory. Citizens: Population which recognizes the legitimacy of the state and has pleaded allegiance to it. We also saw South Africa taking a decision to go and repatriate its citizens from Wuhan in China. The state has constitutional obligations toward its citizens. These are people who are either by birth or naturalization recognized as the citizens of a set country. Sovereignty: State sovereignty asserts that there is no other authority within the territory other than the state itself. Authority is not contested. Sovereignty basically means that the state is empowered to make decisions without being questioned by other states. This is as long as these decisions abide by international laws, norms, and traditions. The decision to close the borders in regard to the current situation, or even the decision to not allow certain airplanes from the highly affected countries to land at the country's airport. Government: State’s machinery. That are the instruments and institutions through which the state fulfills its political mandate, develops policies, and enforces the laws of the country. Another element to this is that of recognition by other governments. Africa in the bigger scheme of things: What we need to put into perspective is that the evolution of the international system within the context of the nation-state system was not the same world over. If you are to look at the Western states, you will realize that there is a sense of homogeneity in the form of language and culture. On the other side, Africa is a different story. Africa as we see it today is the product of the Berlin conference of 1884 knowns for the scramble for Africa which led to Colonialism. The scramble for Africa which was driven by the industrial revolution or the capitalist ambition gave Africa the arbitrary borders that we see today. Therefore, when using state-centric analysis one needs to bear in mind that the characteristics of the definition of the state differ from one area to another. Nation-States are regarded as the main actors in the international system. What defines the system is the interaction between these actors and is defined by power. In the coming themes, we will be discussing other key concepts in the international political dynamics. THE WORLD ORDER Introduction: The topics dealt with earlier sought to introduce the study of the international political economy. They laid the foundation for the key pillars of analysis in international political dynamics. One defined and discussed the world-systems approach. It was discussed on the premise that the current world system is capitalist by nature and is defined by skewed global relations dominated by the global North. It also sought to outline the state of Africa within the context of coloniality which condemned it to the abyss of the periphery in the system. The other topic dealt with was the modern nation- state and it sought to trace the emergence of the nation-states as the main actors in the international system. We traced the emergence of this modern nation-state from the peace of Westphalia and concluded that it is dominated by the capitalist world. Issues dealt with were the definitions and the key characteristics of the state. Also, there we concluded that Africa’s evolution or the emergence of the modern nation-state system is a by-product of colonialism. As we conclude theme one we will be looking at the world order in relation to what we have discussed Definitions: Sorenson (2006) defines the world order as a governing arrangement among the states. In the previous topics, we mentioned that as the main actors in the international system states operated or interact on the premise of sovereignty. That is, they do not regard anyone as superior to them. Secondly, states interact at that level to pursue and protect their national interest. We, therefore, conclude that the international system is chaotic by nature, as there is no central supreme authority. However, it is imperative to mention that due to the nature of the system, states have found a way of self-governance through the world order. Kok et al (2020) believe that, unlike the world system that is static and defined by its capitalist posture, the world order changes from time to time. These changes are highly influenced by the power dynamics in the international dynamics. Origins: In the previous topic, we traced the origin of the modern nation-state from the Peace of Westphalia Treaty. This treaty defined and outlined the concept of the nation-state. It is from this premise that the World Order should be traced. Kok et al (2020) posit that the world order is a political construct that emerged after the Peace of Westphalia was signed and it operates and transforms with the defined world system. In basic terms, world order cannot be defined or understood outside the already defined posture of the world system which is capitalist. The difference between the two is that the world system is static whereas the world order is fluid. Hegemony: Kok et all (2020) believe that the world order is managed and maintained by a strong hegemony that attempts to create stability within the world system. This hegemony will be defined further when we discuss the power dynamics in the international system because it speaks as to who makes the rules in the system. World Order though has a defined set of rules is subject to the balance of power in the world system. Political and Military Power: Maintenance of the global order is through politics and the military. This is through the systems or machinery of governance like the United Nations Security Council or by military intervention. The sole purpose of the world order is to maintain stability and peace in the system. Wherever there seems to be a disorder, the solution is either political or military. Kosovo and Libya situations come to mind. Key Components of the World Order: One of the foundations of the modern nation- state is state sovereignty, which defines and determines the state's position in the international system. Sovereignty basically means that there is no other authority within a set of boundaries except the state. But then how do we define this sovereignty within the world order?: Westphalian Sovereignty: Above we have defined the term sovereignty as outlined post the signing of the Peace of Westphalia. Nimako (2011:22) believes that this posture of sovereignty gave rise to the colonialization of Africans and placed Africa at the periphery of the world system. This is based on the notion that the newfound European states did not recognize anyone outside their collective. Africa and Asia were up for grabs hence the rush to colonize them. The fate of Africa was decided at the Berlin conference where it was carved and sub- divided. This process basically defined and determined the status of Africa on the table in the international system. United Nations Sovereignty: It is imperative to note that after WW I a global order or governance system in the form of the League of Nations was formed and its intended purpose was to maintain world peace. However, it failed, and the United Nations came to being. As part of its mandate, it redefines certain constructs and one of those constructs is sovereignty. Another assertion by Nimako (2011:22) is that the United Nations' sovereignty gave rise to  decolonization and thus the expansion of the world system. On the other side, it transformed Africans into subjects of neo-colonial states. What Nimako means is that Africa was never the master of her destiny and identity, but had to assimilate into the already defined structure of the world order. World order is basically about governance in the world system. The evolution of the world system and the world order helps us understand the international political dynamics. It helps us to understand the inequality that is in the system. As Africans, it also helps us understand why we occupy our occupying position in the system. Kok et al (2020) say that Africa is part of the world order within the modern world system that is defined and shaped by the global coloniality of power that continues to maintain the asymmetrical relationship between the global North and the global South. THEME 1 REVIEW Now that we have finished theme 1, it is imperative that check if we understand the fundamental concepts: 1. Discuss the difference between the world system and the world order. 2. What are the key concepts that underpin the world system? 3. Define a state. What are the key characteristics of a "state"? 4. Discuss the world order represented by the Westphalian sovereignty and the United Nations sovereignty. What is sovereignty and why is it so important in the world system? 5. Discuss the status of Africa in the world system. What are the conditions that Africa finds itself in today due to colonialism? 6. Discuss the global north and global south conundrum within the context of power relations in the world system. 7. Define the concept of hegemony and how it is employed within the context of the world order. 8. Discuss the current world order under the hegemony of the United States of America. What are the global power dynamics? 9. Discuss the emergence of China's dominance in Africa within the context of the global world order. THEME 1: REVISION: EVOLUTION OF THE WORLD SYSTEM Factors that define the international system: Kok et al (2020) mention three key factors that define the system. Tension and Power Hierarchy: The international system is mainly seen as having no authoritative, directing, and controlling center, and the nature of interaction varies, in the main, according to the number, behavior, and objectives of the  significant units or subsystems. This approach is a classic approach based on the premise that the system is anarchic as there is no central power to enforce compliance, however, due to the interdependence of states, the system is able to regulate itself as the actors develop norms and a system for self-regulation. However, it is important to acknowledge that the system is defined by tension power hierarchy. According to Kok et al (2020) in modern days, “the power hierarchy, can be explained in terms of the tension that exists between the core (North) and periphery (South) states, in which the powerful and wealthy societies of the global North (core) dominate and exploit the weak and poor societies from the global South (periphery). Instability: The shape and the structure of the international system are not stable. As we have mentioned above states jostle for power and control. The arrangement of power in the system has the ability to change and influence the structure of the system. Internal Logic: One of the things I mentioned in the previous topic is the complexity of the international system. This complexity emanates from internal contradictions. The Evolution of the system: The evolution of the international system looks at how the system and concept of statehood came into being. There are key factors that defined this evolution: Popular sovereignty: Treaty of Westphalia culminated in the concept of the state's sovereignty. 1. This was a transition from monarchy to democracy whereby the sovereign power moved from the monarchy to the people. 2. The collapse of the empire was defined by the French and the American Revolution and the ascension of democracy. This is viewed as having contributed to the nationalistic tendencies in the system. The Dominance of the West in the development of the international system: This can be defined as the dominance of mainly Europe within the international system. 1. Definition and the Philosophies: Their dominance influenced the philosophies and the rationale which defines international politics and by default the international system. This has led to the global order and the shape of institutions favoring the dominant North. 2. The Divide: The dominance of the West in the international system or what we can call the North/South divide can be traced back to the time of the industrial revolution. 3. Global Coloniality: The industrial revolution culminated in colonialism or the dominance of capitalism which is foundational to the modern world system. Colonialism is seen as the major impediment to the development of the South in comparison to the development of the North. It thus has  contributed to the system that is highly dominated by capitalism. Kok et al (2020) said; “it can be argued that the modern world-system is characterized by domination and exploitation. The continued existence of global coloniality sustains these without which, domination and exploitation will be inconceivable”. The International System in the 20th Century Key Issues: Wars and instability within the system affected the structure and the shape of the international system. 1. WWI saw the collapse of big empires like the Ottoman and Austria- Hungarian. It saw the European system moving from a multi-polar system into a system dominated by two hostile powers in the form of the Central Power and the Allied Power. 2. WWII destabilized Europe but also ushered in the change in the international system. Secondly, it also ushered in the emergence of America as a dominant power leading one pole led by the Allied Power and Russia leading another pole. 3. This era saw the emergence of the Bipolar System in the international system. This was characterized by the Cold War, nuclear arms race, etc. Modern World System: The modern world system defined through the lenses of capitalism gives us the tools of analysis to understand the power dynamics in the system. It is imperative to mention that the modern world system though using the state as a central actor in the system also focuses on the role of non-state actors. This is based on the premise that these actors are enabled by the system and by default by the states who shape the rules of the game in the system. THEME 2: THE THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY: INTRODUCTION Introduction: It is important to explain that even though theories are very important to this module, we need to apportion an equal amount of time to other parts of the module. Most of the students in the past have gone out of their way to memorize the theories and neglected the other parts of the module thinking that this will benefit them during the exam. The application of these theories in the analysis is what we would like to see. Therefore, in learning the theories, I will advise that you look at the cases or incidents in the international political arena and then use the theories to explain the phenomenon. International Political Dynamics as a subfield of International Relations is primarily about the changes in the international political system. To understand these changes, one ought to do so within a defined framework. The study of international political dynamics must be holistic. One must be able to use history to define the changes and the evolution of the system. Theories are basically just the tools to help you to analyze in context. Defining a theory: Theory is defined as a set of ideas that we develop in our minds to make it clear how certain aspects of reality stand to other aspects. Popper (1976:31) defines theory as the net that we throw out to catch the world- to rationalize, explain and dominate it. Different theories of international politics make different assumptions about the most important actors in international politics, the characteristics or even perceptions of the system, the features of human nature, and changes in international politics. Theories are also based on different schools of thought in defining international politics. It is, therefore, important to understand that when using a theory to define a phenomenon in international politics or system you are basically using a certain school of thought. In science and mathematics, certain defined formulae are used to understand and solve a problem. Within the studies of political sciences, theories serve the same purpose. They help us as students of politics to make sense of the phenomenon in the system. These phenomena are in the form of changes in the political systems. The changes in the international political system have far-reaching consequences and failure to identify and analyze them within the proper context will be dangerous. Understanding the Changes in the International System: Many changes are happening in the system either daily or over time. These changes define and shape the global order. Let us briefly look at these changes: Security of states: in the past issues of security were mainly concerned about conventional wars, hence the arms race during the Cold War era. The security of the modern state has become complicated as new actors have come to the fore. Issues like terrorism, cyber terrorism, and biological warfare. What is more concerning are the roles of non-state actors in this regard. These non-state actors either reside and operate within the borders of a sovereign state or wage a war against another state. Another threat to the security of the state is the phenomenon like the Covid-19 pandemic. This threatens the welfare of the citizens of the state hence it is a security concern. Changes in the security of the state are critical and ought to be analyzed within a set context. That context is defined through the theories. Domestic Policies: These are viewed as the posture of the state towards their citizens and at times towards other states. Domestic policies that are impacting other states do inform the change in the system. Domestic policies might as well be informed by the external threats or the policies of other states. Currently, countries are adjusting their migration policies due to covid-19. To contain the spread of the viruses, strict measures have been adopted internally. Countries are closing their borders and choosing whom they allow into their countries. This has affected global trade and many other things. Economic Changes: These involve commercial interactions between the states. In the past few days, the discussion around the IP rights for vaccines has been a topic of discussion. This is because the USA has posited that IP rights on the  vaccine should be waived to assist the developing countries to manufacture for themselves. EU and WTO have entered that discussion. These are discussions that can bring about changes in the system and have to be correctly analyzed. What Role Do Theories Play? Framework: Theories are basically the structures that pull together different facts and assign meaning to them. International politics are analyzed differently by different people, what gives coherence is in understanding which school of thought one comes from. Theories are therefore a framework for analysis. It is, therefore, critical that one understand which framework deals with what. Theories give coherence to observation: According to Waltz (1986:37), theories arrange phenomena so that they are seen as mutually dependent. It connects otherwise separate facts. It shows how changes in some of the phenomena necessarily entail changes in others. Theories assist in establishing the hypothesis in research: A hypothesis is defined as a proposed explanation of phenomena. For the hypothesis to be credible it must be embedded in a credible scientific theory. Theories, therefore, play a crucial role in answering the questions used to test the credibility of the hypothesis. Theories do help to trace the correlation and links between events and issues. According to Burchill (1996:13), International Relations Theories involve testing hypotheses, proposing causal explanations, describing events, and explaining general trends and phenomena, to construct a plausible image of the world. Influences Foreign Policy: In addition to using theory to gain a deeper understanding of facts or phenomena, other scholars believe that International Relations Theory can influence foreign policymakers or practitioners in international relations. For example, Brown (2016:40) believes it is about improving the practice of international relations. Identification: Theories help us to identify aspects of reality that we might otherwise not observe, and to understand and explain these. Facts do not speak for themselves; observers give them a voice by sorting out those that are relevant from those that are irrelevant, and, in so doing, they bring a theoretical perspective to bear. A theory provides guidelines; it sensitizes observers to alternative possibilities; it highlights where levers might be pulled and influence wielded; it links ends to means and strategies to resources; and perhaps most of all, it infuses context and patterns into a welter of seemingly disarrayed and unrelated phenomena (Rosenau 2003:220). It is, therefore, important to acquaint yourself with these theories to make sense of the forever-changing world of international politics. In the next topic, we will be trying to address the issue of why there are so many theories THEME 2: THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY: WHY ARE THERE MANY THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?? Introduction: In the previous topic, I mentioned that theories basically represent different schools of thought. These schools of thought use different tools to analyze and define different phenomena in the international system. Kok et al (2020) are of the opinion that different theorists would formulate theories based on what they consider to be important relationships between facts or even perceptions of foreign policymakers. In formulating these theories they sought to create the framework through which facts can be tested and a uniform understanding and definition of the phenomenon can be created. It is important to re-emphasize that international relations theories are critical in helping us understand the way the system works or is structured as well as giving us the idea of how the states engage with each other in the system. They also help us understand the rules of engagement and shapes our worldviews around international politics. These topics seek to build from the previous one and give you an understanding as to why there are so many theories. Let us then look at some of the reasons put forward by different scholars about why there are so many theories; Theories help to explain changes in the international system: Though we have to be clear that not everything can or is explained through theories. In defining the international system in the earlier topic, we mentioned that it is an anarchic system as there is no central power. What we also mentioned is that the international system is quite fluid and volatile. In order to understand and conceptualize the changes that happen in the system, theories play a crucial role. Dunne et al (2016) posit that “the proliferation of theories allows the discipline of International Relations to explain changes in world politics as seen from a variety of different cultural, economic, gendered, political, ethnic, and social locations”. Theories provide us with a conceptual framework: One of the arguments within the field of science is that social sciences can not be classified as science. That is, the phenomena that are human interaction do not fit a certain formula. What then has happened in the past is that social scientists have developed theories that are widely adopted and used as a conceptual framework. As a conceptual framework, we can say theories are what is to the natural sciences formulas. According to Burchill (1986), the events and issues that comprise international relations can only be interpreted and understood by reference to a conceptual framework. The theories of International Relations provide us with many choices of conceptual frameworks. These theories basically help us to formulate a plausible explanation of the events in the international system. Theories help us better understand or make sense of the system: The international system is quite sophisticated due to the number of actors and the number of events that affect it. Theories are therefore developed in such a way that they give us a better understanding of any change in the system This understanding is, therefore, used not only by the scholars but also by the actors  to develop strategies for interaction. Burchill (1986) continues to say that “one aim of studying a wide variety of International Relations Theories is to make international politics more intelligible and better understood. In other words, to make better sense of the institutions, events, and processes that exist in the contemporary world”. Theories are different and can tell different stories: In explaining theories, I mentioned that they help consolidate the facts and guide the understanding of the phenomenon. However, it is important to mention that as alluded to earlier theories represent different schools of thought. One scholar can look at a phenomenon and come up with a totally different conclusion. Theories are tools of analysis that though performing the same task are abounding to come to different conclusions. Organizes facts: The infinite material of any realm can be organized in endlessly different ways (Waltz 1986:36). Burchill (1996:13) sums up the role of theories: they provide an intellectual order to the subject matter of International Relations. They enable us to conceptualize and contextualize both past and contemporary events. He also goes further to outline the criteria through which theories are evaluated as; A theory’s understanding of an issue or process The explanatory power of the theory The theory’s success in predicting events The theory’s intellectual consistency and coherence The scope of the theory The theory’s capacity for critical self-reflection and intellectual engagement with contending theories. Theories are therefore very important in helping us understand the international system and conceptualize the events and the changes accordingly. In conclusion, I have to agree with Herrmann (2002:119) when he explains that: “the study of International Relations includes diverse theories purporting to explain substantive patterns in world politics. The field is so characterized by different perspectives on how to defend these claims. One strategy, of course, is to connect the concepts that constitute a theory to observable indicators, spell out what expectations to follow from the theory, and then demonstrate whether these expectations materialize or not”. From the next topic, we will start looking at each of those theories in-depth and also deal with the issue of application thereof. THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: REALISM AND BALANCE OF POWER Introduction: This topic will deal with realism and the balance of power. This will be done by defining the concept, then giving a little bit of background on this theory, and introducing you to the basic principle of realism. Definition: Antunes and Camisao (2018) claim that “in the discipline of International Relations (IR), realism is a school of thought that emphasizes the competitive and conflictual side of international relations”. Korab-Karpowicz (2017) defines political realism, as a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. The theory of realism is basically premised on the notion that interactions in the international system are based on the permanent state of conflict. Realists, therefore, define the international system as anarchic. Background: Thucydides: The rise of realism or the balance of power can be traced back to the 5th Century BC during the rise of the Greek Wars. Thucydides coined the term the balance of power. This was based on the premise that within the system no power can go unchecked. The term, therefore, carried on to this day. Thomas Hobbes: The realists are basing this theory on the theory of a British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. His philosophy or theory is that human nature is evil, therefore, if it goes unchecked it can cause greater harm. Thomas Hobbes is the author of the famous Levithan. He is the proponent of the social contract. That is people laying down or compromising some of their natural rights to the sovereign in the interest of the common good. Realists, therefore, define the international system within the precepts of Thomas Hobbes. That is human beings are by nature evil and will do anything to pursue their own interests. However, they are also capable to compromise in pursuit of the common good. The other aspect of Hobbes is that of Sovereign or the absolute power held by the king. Realists, therefore, believe that the state as the actors in the international system operates on the premise that there they do not recognize any other power within their own territory. This premise forms their assumption that the international system is, therefore, anarchic as there is no central power. Kenneth N Waltz: In his book Man, the State and War: A theoretical analysis (2001), Waltz emphasizes the primacy of the state in international politics and how states interact with each other in the context of anarchy, in other words, in the absence of a supranational government to guarantee their security. Waltz subscribes to the Hobbesian ideology that the state or the sovereign possesses uncontested power. What he did though was to take that further to define the international system as the terrain whereby “these uncontested powers” interact with one another. This interaction is therefore viewed and defined as a contest. National interests and the security of the sovereignty form the basis for contestation. Waltz (2001:201) claims that if security is something the state wants, then this desire, together with the conditions in which all states exist, imposes certain requirements on a foreign policy that pretends to be rational. The requirements are imposed by automatic sanction: Departure from the rational model imperils the survival of the state. But the actions of one state to provide for its own security are dependent on the actions of other states (Waltz 2001:201). It is important to note that realism is used a lot in the development of foreign policy. That is, it defines the interests and strategies of the state to pursue those  interests while maintaining its sovereignty of security. Realists believe that states are the main actors in the international system. Basic Principles of Realism: The basic premise – human beings are constantly in a state of war Actors in the international system – the state Nature of society and international system – anarchic Main concern – survival or self-preservation through dominance Foreign policy strategy – driven primarily by military considerations Universal concept – equilibrium Intellectual source – Thomas Hobbes (Book: Leviathan, first published in 1651) Influential theorist – Hans Morgenthau (Book: Power Among Nations, first published in 1948) Contemporary theorist – Kenneth Waltz (Book: Man, the State and War, first published in 1959) Linking theory to evidence – 17th-century wars, World War I, World War II, and the US War on Terror We will explore the concept or theory of the balance of power further in the next topic. BALANCE OF POWER IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM Introduction: Through the eyes of the realists, the international system can be defined as an arena of highly contested interests. States pursue, lobby, and even defend their national interests. It is imperative to mention that this happens within the premise of sovereignty. That is, the state does not recognize any other power within its own border. Therefore, it is assumed that when states engage in the international system, they do so based on their perceived power. The interaction in the international system is defined through the mitigation process which is the manifestation of power. Susan Strange (1996) defines “power as: “simply the ability of a person or group of persons so to affect outcomes that their preferences take precedence over the preferences of others.” That is; power can be defined within the context of one’s ability to influence another one to do something that they would not have done in any given circumstance. Power is based on two dynamics, coercive power which is brute force, and authority which is basically defined as the power to influence. The issue of influence is based on the premise of either negotiated settlement or coerced settlement. Power relations within the system deal with how states relate to one another within an environment which is viewed as anarchic because of the absence of the central authority. Power on the other side is defined differently by the different schools of thought. As a concept, power determines the structure, politics, and dynamics of the international system. It can serve as a source of stability or instability. It is also important to mention that power is not static, but quite fluid in nature. The power shifts have shaped the world we live in and how international relations are conducted. What we will be looking at in this post is more about what many scholars call the balance of power in the international system. This is known as the equilibrium and it is based on the premise that the survival of the state in the international system is dependent on its ability to prevent other states to gain more military power. The balance of power is basically about creating a state of equilibrium in the international system. That is the state of equality or a state whereby no single or hegemonic power emerges. To understand this, we need to look at issues like power in the international system, then look at the international system within the context of power before we move on to discuss the concept of the balance of power. POWER IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: The degree to which power is concentrated or dispersed in the international system determines the degree or the level of stability in the system itself. Relative power equality in the system is viewed as the source of war or conflicts in the system. The concentration of power in one pole is likely to be a source of war or conflict. Power in the international system is not constant as states do experience increases and decreases in power. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF POWER: Uncertainty: Kok et al (2020) mentioned that realism builds into its theoretical postulations the measure of uncertainty that inevitably makes the international system descriptively anarchic. The international system is a highly contested terrain as the states use it to pursue their national interests. These could be economic, political, or security interests. States engage with each other from the position of perceived equality. However, we also have to mention that within this arena states will always be working hard to increase their powers. This is either the military or economic power. This constant attempt to gain the upper hand and the fact that there is no central authority makes the international system more uncertain. States keeping each other in check: Kok et al (2020) believe that in the specific case of the nation-state, the power that needs to be balanced is that of another state. Though there is no central authority, states have formed institutions or forums to keep each other in check. This is to basically minimize uncertainty and create avenues for engagement. Alliances: In their quest to increase their bargaining powers and limit uncertainty most states will go into alliances. These are strategic alliances either aimed at providing security or creating markets. Some of these alliances could be your NATO (Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization) or even the European Union. EQUILIBRIUM IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: Equilibrium in the international system followed the development of the realist theory. It was championed by Hans Morgenthau in his book, Power Among Nations published in 1966. He believes that a sense of equilibrium or balance of power exists in all fields of study. In his opinion equilibrium signifies stability within a system composed of different autonomous units. The international system as we have explained in the earlier topic is composed of units (states) who believe in their sovereignty (not recognizing any other power). Therefore, according to Morgenthau (1966), any small thing that affects the equilibrium of the system will turn the whole system into disarray. According to this premise by Morgenthau (1966), Equilibrium must “therefore aim at preventing any element from gaining ascendancy over the others. The means employed to maintain the equilibrium consist of allowing the different elements to pursue their opposing tendencies up to the point where the tendency is not strong enough to overcome the tendency of the others, but strong enough to prevent the others from overcoming its own. Foundations of the Equilibrium: 1. States as Elements of Equilibrium: According to Morgenthau (1966) these elements are necessary or are allowed to exist. This basically represents the actors and the legitimacy of their existence in the international system. Their existence legitimizes the system. Waltz (1979) believes that states are the principal actors in the international system, as they “set the terms of the intercourse”, monopolize the “legitimate use of force” within their territories, and generally conduct foreign policy in a “single voice”. This basically sums up the realist assumption that states are considered to be unitary actors in the international system. 2. Disequilibrium: Without a state of equilibrium among them, one element will gain ascendency over the others, encroach upon their interests and rights, and may ultimately destroy them. The state of disequilibrium is brought about by the conflict that happens in the process of interaction within an environment where there is no central authority. Without the central authority, states are in a race to increase their influence as power is defined. This might be a military or economic power. This race basically has the potential to cause disequilibrium in the system. Watlz (1979) views this as a state of “self-help” or a situation whereby everyone does as they please. He thus claims that because of this “self-help” nature of the system, states do not have a world government to resort to in a situation of danger, but they can only try to increase their capabilities relative to one another through either internal efforts or self-strengthening, or external efforts of alignment and realignment with other states. 3. Responsibility of the state: It is the purpose of all such equilibriums/states to maintain the stability of the system without destroying the multiplicity of the elements composing it. Realists believe that the international system is anarchic since it does not have a central authority for governance. However, the concept of the balance of power is premised on the notion that states are responsible to maintain stability without destroying the elements of the system. EFFECTS OF DISEQUILIBRIUM IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: Change to the sources of power or the distribution of power among great powers is likely to impact the operation of the system. Change in the distribution of power affects the system. Weakening of the system’s Western Orientation.  Power transition in the international system may cause instability. Hegemonic power in the international system is viewed by some as a source of stability. What we have learned from this topic is that from the perspective of the realists, the international system is anarchic. We also learned that in their interaction in the international system, states are fighting to prevent the emergence of a single global hegemony. This they do, by always trying to increase their military and economic powers. This is the view of the realist that will create equilibrium and therefore, stability in the international system. In the next topic, we will deal with alliances in the international system and the scaffolding or the formation of the international order. THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNAL RELATIONS: REALISM: THE SCAFFOLDING OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM Introduction: Realism operates on the premise that states are the rational actors in the international system. Though based on the assumption that due to lack of central authority, realism theorists believe that states will act rationally and that on their own will help maintain the global order. It is, therefore, imperative to note that though other theories acknowledge the role of actors other than the state, realists believe that the state is the only legitimate actor in the system as they possess legitimate coercive power. In the previous topic, we dealt with the issue of equilibrium in the system. We discussed that states in the international system will always be racing to increase their military and economic influence. This is to maintain balance and order in the system. We also mentioned that states would form an economic, military, and political alliance to maintain the equilibrium or accelerate the pursuit of their national interests. The topic we are dealing with now addresses the issue of the scaffolding of the global order. That is, outlining the genesis of the global order as propagated by the realists. Peace of Westphalia Treaty: Kissinger (2014) believes that for more than a thousand years, in the mainstream of modern Europe statecraft order has derived from equilibrium, and identity from resistance to universal rule. The Westphalian concept of state sovereignty (brought into being by the balance of power between competing states) took multiplicity as its starting point and drew a variety of multiple societies, each accepted as a reality, into a common search for order. The signing of the treaty is believed to have been the beginning of the state system as we know it today. It is important to emphasize that this order or the formation of the states was based on capitalist interests. As mentioned in the previous topics Africa’s statehood formation is different. What we need to understand or outline is, what is a state and what is a state system, and how do these build the international order. Definitions: States: Weber (1946) defined a state as; “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Certain characteristics define the state. They are; A territory with defined boundaries A population or with or without a common national identity A government or administration A recognition of sovereignty by other sovereign states Sovereignty: In defining sovereignty Mansbach and Taylor (2012) said; “sovereignty involves two principles and related conditions; a state’s authority over everything within its territorial borders (an internal hierarchy of authority) and the legal of states regardless of size or power (the absence of hierarchy)”. The definition, therefore, defines the authority bestowed upon the states internally and the perceived equality within the international domain. State sovereignty is the cornerstone of the international system, as it defines and dictates interaction between these entities The definitions above the “state” as a concept are one of the oldest followed in international political dynamics. It is based on the premise of the state as the main or the most important actor in the system. This premise is from the school of thought that states as the most important actors in the system shape the global agenda and thus determines how the system operates. It is important to note that this approach has been challenged, as the international system is viewed to have evolved and thus the emergence of other more influential actors. Using this approach an attempt is made to measure how and why changes take place in the system based on which state is doing what. Bottom-line here is to be able to understand the amount of influence that the state has over one another. International Order: In the previous topics we said that the international system is permanent as it is the arena in which states interact. We also mentioned that the global order is highly fluid as it depends on the power dynamics in the system. The United Nations Association of Australia (2015) defines the international order as; “a shared commitment by all countries to conduct their activities following agreed rules that evolve, such as international law, regional security arrangements, trade agreements, immigration protocols, and cultural arrangements”. From this perspective, the international system though viewed as anarchic has developed a system that can keep the states in check. Organization of Authority: International order as a set of rules governing the international system revolves around how authority is organized in the international domain. This is how states' powers are curbed for mutual benefit. Remember that the international system is viewed by some as anarchic as there is no formal structure with absolute authority over the states. The international system is based on a horizontal authority structure dictated mainly by the fact that this system is made for entities who are sovereign. That is entities that recognize no other authority above themselves. Therefore, the international system is based on the equality of the states. The system created, therefore, deals with disputes arising from these entities. Though the concept of statehood is under review because of the new dynamics in international politics, states still play a major role in the international system. Some scholars might claim that the role of the state in the international system is diminishing. However, this is open for debate. Based on the discussion above the European statecraft which is the result of the Peace of Westphalia is foundational in the formation of the international system. It brought about the state as the main actor in the system and due to the instability states developed the international order in the form of rules and organizations to uphold them. In the next topic, we will link the theory to evidence. THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNAL RELATIONS: REALISM: LINKING THEORY TO EVIDENCE Introduction: In defining the theories in international politics, I mentioned that theories are used as the framework to analyze, understand or define a phenomenon in the international system. Theories are linked to different schools of thought who developed frameworks that serve as standards in political sciences or any other science for that matter. In defining realism, I mentioned that it is based on the assumption; that states are the main actors in the international system. that the concept of state is based on the premise of sovereignty and thus create an environment whereby the international system is anarchic as there is no central figure or governance that states are jockeying to achieve the state of equilibrium in the system through increasing their military or economic powers and through forming alliances. One must know how and where to use these theories in the process of trying to understand a phenomenon in the international system. This topic will deal with linking realism to evidence. That is, how to use realism as a tool of analysis. TWO APPROACHES: Hermann (2002) proposes two strategies to use: Objective Strategy: External Environment: Hermann (2002) claims that objective strategy assumes that the external environment can be described by the scholar in terms of what is objectively accurate. This is premised on the assumption that the scholar or even those making decisions possess the ability of rational thinking. External environment refers to issues that are not in the control of the decision-maker but have the potential to influence their decision or how they perceive the situation. The objectivity of the actors: It then assumes that actors correctly see objective power distribution and incentives in the environment.  Description: According to Kok et al (2020) “The assumption is that once we can describe the environment, we would know what kind of foreign policy action a state will take concerning a specific issue”. Phenomenological Strategy: Smith (2003) defines “phenomenology as the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first-person point of view”. In essence, the phenomenological strategy is based on how the actors perceive or interpret the phenomena through the lenses of their lived experience. The perception of interpretation, therefore, becomes the basis of their analysis and the decision they take. This strategy emphasizes the empirical identification of the perceptions and world-views held by actors. It seeks to explain actions by referring to the cognitive understandings and ideas that actors have, rather than searching for primarily explanatory leverage in the objective structure of the environment. In using this strategy it is important to always understand the state of mind of the realists. Phenomenological strategy is purely based on the perception held by the realists. That is, how they perceive the action of other actors or their perception of the environment. In this instance, their long-held view is that the international system is anarchic and that the only way to maintain balance or power or equilibrium is through increasing the military or economic power. Therefore, their foreign policy decision- making is always influenced by the so-called national security. Take time to familiarize yourself with the USA’s foreign policy discussions especially around the travel bans of the people from the Muslim countries after 9/11 or the discussions around the pandemic in the early stage. TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE: THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: REALISM Please take time to go through the notes/lessons provided on the theory of realism and attempt to answer the questions below. The purpose of this exercise is to test your knowledge on this subject. 1. Define realism theory? 2. What does sovereignty mean? How does it play itself out in the international system? 3. Outline the basic premise of this theory regarding the international system? 4. Define the realists' perception of power and the international system? Your understanding of the balance of power? Equilibrium and the alliances in the international system? Give one example in history that defines the states actions in trying to maintain the equilibrium?  5. Discuss the Cold War within the context of the realists theory? What was in play? 6. Write one page where you discuss Russia's invasion of Ukraine attack within the context of this theory? Why did Russia attack Ukraine? Analyze the case using realism? THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: LIBERALISM Introduction: The theory we dealt with is realism, which is based on the premise that the international system is anarchic as there is no central authority. It views the states as rational actors who approach engagement in the international system with rationality to pursue and defend their national interests. The rational theory does not recognize other actors in the international system except the states. Its view is anchored on the balance of power and equilibrium in the system. It basically defines the international system and the interaction of the states within the context of power. Now we will change gears and focus on the theory of liberalism. This will be done by defining it and then outlining the key tenets of this theory. Definitions: Liberalism is the school of thought based on the premise of individual freedom and the assumption that states derive their power from these individuals. It is based on the democratic principles of basic human rights. With realism, the state derives its mandate to participate or engage in the international system from itself, whereas, with liberalism, individuals who are the citizens of a country dictate how the state engages. Liberalism believes that any engagement or interaction between the states is based on enhancing the welfare of their citizens. Kok et al (2020) subscribe to the idea that “liberal theory contains both a political element and an economic element. Liberalism is primarily concerned with enhancing the freedom and welfare of individuals. It proposes that humankind can employ reason better to develop a sense of harmony of interests among individuals and groups within a wider community, domestic or international”. Key Premises of Liberal Theory in International Relations: Recognition: Man is driven by the desire for recognition. In dealing with realism theory in the international system we defined the term “sovereignty” in simple terms of absolute power and authority within set boundaries. However, within the sphere of international relations sovereignty is determined by recognition. Anarchy as advocated by the realists in the international system can be ascribed to the quest of the states to be recognized. According to Fukuyama (1992) “Just as human history began with the bloody battles for pure prestige, so international conflict begins with a struggle for recognition among states, which is the source of imperialism.” Actor in the international system: The state and non-state actors. Liberalism is based on liberal democracy which is based on the power of individuals in the  system. Fukuyama (1992) thinks that “the expansion of civil peace had three consequences: first, the desire of states for legitimacy; second, the end of colonial conquests by major powers motivated in part by the adoption of liberal norms of human rights outlined in the Atlantic Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights; third, the peaceful co-existence among liberal democracies; and fourth, the expansion of commerce which, in turn, served as a disincentive for war among liberal states.” This was the posture that the system took post-Cold War. Liberal democracy brought about the end to imperialism and colonialism. A prerequisite to recognition in the international system is the basic principle of human rights as defined by liberal democracy. Nature of society and international system: Pacific federation. This was the term used by Immanuel Kant in his pamphlet “The Perpetual Peace” which advocated for world governance in the form of the League of Nations. This is governance that seeks peace at all costs. Pacific Federation is therefore about a system of pacifists. Main concern: Prosperity through peaceful cooperation Foreign policy strategy: Republican constitutionalism expressed in international relations. Universal concepts: Desire for recognition and universal history Intellectual source: Immanuel Kant (Book: Perpetual Peace, first published in 1795) Contemporary theorists: Francis Fukuyama (Book: The End of History and the Last Man, published in 1992) The next topic will expand on some of these premises above as we deal with foreign policy implications within the context of liberal theory. THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: LIBERALISM: FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS Introduction: When we began Theme 2, we outlined that theories are the frameworks that assist us as students of politics and policy specialists in understanding and defining phenomenon in the international system. We mentioned that these theories are basically different schools of thought which have been developed over the years. These schools of thought influence the development of foreign policy by the states. Foreign policy is the sum total of all the engagements of states in the international system. It outlines the strategies and the interests of a particular state. In dealing with realist theory we mentioned that it is premised on the power in the international system. That is, the states are looking at ways to increase their sphere of military and economic influence. With the liberal theory, we mentioned that it is based on the need to be recognized. This need to be recognized takes into cognizance the role and the rights of individuals in the process. The topic that we will be dealing with outlines the foreign policy implications of the liberalism theory. How does it influence the shaping of foreign policy? How do states perceive their interaction in the international system? Fukuyama (1992) in developing the theory, divided the evolution of the system into two parts; Post-historical part: He believes that “the post-historical part is the part that has completed its ideological evolution and reached a point where rational forms of recognition have become possible. This part is the one in which liberal democracy has been established”. This is based on the notion that the end of the Cold War completed the cycle of history and ushered the global system into the democratic system. According to him the end of the Cold War was basically the “end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the universalization of liberal democracy. Historical part: According to Fukuyama (1992) this is the world or the system that is still stuck in history and has not fully evolved to embrace the new system of liberal democracy. This he cites the realists' theories etc. Foreign Policy Implications: Clash of the Worlds: Fukuyama (1992) believes that “the historical half of the world persists in operating according to the realist principles, and the post-historical half must use realist methods when dealing with the part still in history. The relationship between democracies and nondemocracies will still be characterized by mutual distrust and fear, and despite the growing degree of economic interdependence, the force will continue to be the ultima ratio in their mutual relations”. This clash of the world basically means that interaction in the international system is based on ideological contradictions. That is; some still engage or develop their strategies or rules of engagement in the international system based on the historical strategies whereas others have adopted the post- historical stance. One can see this in the approaches to resolving issues in the UN Security Council. Democratic Legitimacy: One of the key principles of liberalism is recognition based on the liberal democratic norms. Fukuyama (1992) believes that “it would seem natural that liberal democracy, which seeks to abolish the distinction between masters and slaves by making men the masters of themselves, should have different foreign policy objectives altogether. What will produce peace in the post-historical world will not be the fact that the major states share a common principle of legitimacy. Peace will arise instead out of the specific nature of democratic legitimacy, and its ability to satisfy the human longing for recognition”. This assertion apportions a great responsibility for legitimacy on the individuals. If you were to look at the drive after the Cold War, liberal democracy was and is viewed as the yardstick of legitimacy. According to the realists' sovereignty determines recognition in the international system, but according to the liberals “democratically elected government” based on the will of the people determines recognition. So Fukuyama believes that this posture will totally change how foreign policy is developed and perceived. Most of the IGO’s tend to use this yardstick for their membership. Countries that are not perceived to be democratic are at times side-lined or even expelled. The belief is that this approach will guarantee world peace. Three Definitive Articles of Peace: Fukuyama based his assertion on Immanuel Kant’s articles of peace. Civil Constitution of State: Moving away from the monarchy to the state that is based on the will of the people. Kant said it should be a republic based on the following principles: 1. Freedom for all members of society, 2. Dependence of everyone upon single common legislation 3. Equality before the law. Pacific Federation: Pacific Federation: The second article proposed that liberal states will progressively establish peace among themselves through the pacific federation or union. The reason, as the highest legislative moral power, absolutely condemns war as a test of right and sets up peace as an immediate duty. (Kant 1970) Cosmopolitan Law: According to Kant (1970) this is the law that guarantees a strange a safe passage or some rights in a foreign territory. This has become the basis of diplomatic protocols and treaties. Looking at the current postures in the international system we can safely say that there is a slight move towards the engagement or interactions based on liberal democracy. However, we must be cautious as Fukuyama mention that some are still stuck in the historical era. Liberalism has influenced the formation of the IGOs and informed the rules of engagement as we see in the international system. Any seating President in the USA cannot go to war without seeking the approval of the House and the Senate. American system uses representative democracy whereby people elect individuals who will take decisions on their behalf. The next topic will be dealing with the versions of liberal internationalism. THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNAL RELATIONS: LIBERALISM: VERSIONS OF LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM Introduction: In the previous topic we dealt with the foreign policy implication of the liberal theory. This dealt with how civil liberties of the liberal democracy find expression in how the state interacts in the international system. It is imperative to remember that central to liberalism is what defines recognition in the international system. We have seen how the end of the Cold War ushered in the new world order based on the principles of liberal democracy. This is evident in the intergovernmental organization (IGO) formation and how their membership is linked to liberal democracy. I want to add that theory though having a solid ideological foundation is subject to evolve as new knowledge is discovered or developed. Liberalism over the years has manifested itself differently. It is important to emphasize that when the realists are looking for equilibrium, liberalists focus on the relationship which reflects interdependence in the international system. This topic seeks to outline how liberalism manifested itself through the years. This will be done by looking at different versions, especially the internationalization of this theory. Version 1.0: Kok et al (2020) asserts that this version is associated with the ideas of President Woodrow Wilson and the post-WW1 international settlement. President Woodrow is an American president who ascended to power after WW1 and was instrumental in the formation of the League of Nations. The formation of the League of Nations was based on the following; 1. Global Security and Peace: An international system organized around a global collective security body in which sovereign states would act together to uphold a system of territorial peace. 2. Global Trade: Open trade, national self-determination, and a belief in the importance of progressive global change. 3. Dispute Resolution: The formation of the League of Nations was to develop the mechanisms for dispute resolution among states. Unfortunately, this initiative died as many nations refused to cede some of their powers to enhance the prestige and the credibility of the League of nations. Version 1.0 is basically based on the organization of the global collective. This approach sought to create a system of global governance. It was, however, re-established after WWII and remodeled into the United Nations. Version 2.0: After the formation of the United Nations, the United States was instrumental in the formation of the Bretton Woods Institutions. This is the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. This is viewed as a rule-based order written and led by the United States. These institutions came in the background of global economic collapse. They were meant to aid the global economic recovery, but they also were used to enforce liberal democratic principles. To some commentators, these institutions aided the dominance of the United States during the Cold War and even way beyond the Cold War. IMF and the World Bank are notorious for their stringent conditions for their loans to the states. These conditions are always about state reforms and democracy. Structural Adjustment Programs come to mind. This also aided the emergence of non-state actors in the international system. Version 3.0: This version is basically in the making as there is a push to reform the system to reflect the global representation. Smaller countries are calling for the reform of the United Nations Security Council to reflect the global dynamics not based on power. Version 1.0 outlines the development of world governance, version 2.0 the spread and internationalization of liberal democracy through the multilateral organizations like the IMF and the World Bank, and version 3.0 is an anticipation of the reform in the international order to reflect the global diversity. In the next topic, we will look at how to link the theory to evidence. THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNAL RELATIONS: LIBERALISM: LINKING THEORY TO PRACTICE Introduction: In defining the theories, we mentioned that they are used as a framework to define phenomena in the international system. Central to these phenomena is how states relate to one another and also how they interact. With the liberal theory, we mentioned that it is based on the premise that world peace depends on the adoption of the liberal democratic principle. States’ recognition in the international system depends on them adopting the liberal democratic principle at home. Liberals believe that democratic states are always inclined to collaborate within the context of what Immanuel Kant called the “pacific union”. For any theory to be credible it should be linked to evidence. That is, it ought to be able to help us define how issues are being dealt with in the international system. Pacification of foreign relations: Doyle (1996) in his study about war and peace speaks about the pacification of foreign relations amongst the liberal states. Liberal states are presumed as those that have adopted the democratic principle. According to him, this process started in the 18th Century and is continuing today. The pacification of relations is based on the move from the state-centric or anarchic approach adopted by the realists to a more comprehensive rule-based approach that includes other actors. Another aspect is that based on the realists’ states, they tend to form alliances to increase their influence in the international system. Pacification of foreign relations means that these alliances are based on the notion of the member states being democratic. We can look at the alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which is lead by the United States. Or we can look at the conditions imposed by the IMF and the World Bank in bailing out the countries. Even the African Union has the same conditions. Any member state that does not conform to the conditions is at times suspended or expelled. Peaceful Restraints: According to Doyle (1996) peaceful restraints seem to work among the liberal states. This is based on the premise that states are no longer fighting for their own prestige in the international system but are representing the interests of their own people. History can prove that most of the wars we had after WWII have been wars waged against the states that are not in the pacific union. These wars are always waged on the agenda of liberal democracy. In a nutshell, what we have seen in international relations, is that engagements and alliances are formed based on liberal democracy. This has helped the world to enjoy a peaceful era. TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE: LIBERALISM In your own words, define realism? Outline and discuss key premises of liberal theory in international relations?  Provide an example of an international institution established as part of liberal international order? What kind of foreign policy can be expected among liberal states? What form of government is informed by liberalism? What are the differences between realism and liberalism? THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNAL RELATIONS: DELL'S THEORY OF CONFLICT PREVENTION INTRODUCTION: International relations is about the interaction between the states as actors in the international system. This interaction is defined by tension as the states pursue and protect their national interests. Conflict either open or overt is the order of the day in the system. As mentioned in the introductions theories gives us the framework to properly understand and conceptualize the dynamics around the interaction. Through the years the international actors have developed systems and forums to mediate the differences and minimize open conflict. Dell's theory of conflict prevention is one of the recent theories which seek to debunk the myth that states are in a constant state of conflict. The theory is further a challenge to the realism theory which deals with issues of power dynamics and the premise that states are always preparing for war. It is important to mention that the theory does not totally rule out the prospect for conflict between the states. It just assumes that by being in the same global value chains, states are inclined to collaborate as they do not want to threaten their economic well-being. The proponent of this theory is Thomas Friedman who is basically arguing that the rivalry of yesteryears over the security concerns in the international system has been replaced by the primacy of commerce (Friedman 2006). This topic will seek to define, outline and discuss the Dell theory of conflict prevention. The reason we started with it, is to aid you in the finalization of your assignment. The Evolution of this theory: Earlier attempts: 1. Immanuel Kant. Though not highly punted the principle of conflict prevention can be traced as far back as the 17th century in a piece by Immanuel Kant title “Perpetual Peace.” In the piece, Kant (1970) believes that “for the spirit of commerce sooner or later takes hold of every person, and it cannot exist side by side with war. And of all the powers (or means) at the disposal of the power of the state, financial power can probably be relied on the most”. In his reflections about the state of war and peace, he proposed that commercial interdependence can play a crucial role in bringing about peace. His premise was that the state would prioritize collaboration for common good. 2. Susan Strange and others: John Stopford and Susan Strange (with John S Henley) argued the globalization of production, fast-tracked by declining transport costs have turned the world economy into a division of labor and  changes the relationship between states and firms so that diplomacy is no longer confined to states. States have to have diplomatic relationships with firms and vice versa. The change in international production is significant as it diminishes the power of states to control economic events. Based on this premise Susan Strange et al believe that globalization has changed the state of diplomacy and thus brought in new players. These new players in the form of the conglomerates advocate for peace as they belong to the same global value chain. 3. Friedman: He first flirted with the concept and called it, “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”. The theory stipulated that when a country has reached the level of economic development where it had a big enough middle class to support a network of McDonald’s, it became a McDonald’s country. People in McDonald’s countries did not like to fight wars anymore. They preferred to wait in line for burgers. He then updated the Dell theory in his script of the World is Flat. He leveraged the evolution of globalization and the role it played in created an integrated system. Premises of the Theory: Global Integration: In defining the world system, we mentioned that it is a system that is based on capitalist ideals. Therefore Friedman (2006) in developing this theory believes that global integration and economic interdependence can prevent conflict. He argued that to the extent that countries tied their economies and futures to global integration and trade, it would act as a restraint on going to war with their neighbors. Levels of Economic Development determines the country’s status in the system: Friedman (2006) further says that “when a country has reached the level of economic development where it had a big enough middle class to support a network of McDonald’s, it became a McDonald’s country. People in McDonald’s countries did not like to fight wars anymore. They preferred to wait in line for burgers.” This serves as a point of identity which basically encourages collaboration instead of conflict. Global Value Chain: The theory is basically based on the premise that the shared global value chain is a deterrence for conflict. The reason it is called the Dell theory is because of the many countries where Dell Computers components are making. These countries do not share values, culture nor similar economic status, but their welfare is tight to a product which they co-produce. The Dell Theory stipulates that no two countries that are both parts of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both parts of the same global supply chain. Because people embedded in major global supply chains do not want to fight old-time wars anymore. Interventions by non-state actors: Global value chains are by enlarge dominated by the Multinational Companies which are privately owned. However, what we have seen in the past is that if the welfare or profitability of these companies is threatened, they played a huge role in averting conflict. For  example in the stand-off between India and Pakistan was averted by the intervention of the Confederation of India Industry. THE DELL THEORY IN SUMMARY The basic premise – prosperity outweighs war Actors in the international system – states and firms Nature of society and the international system – cooperative Main concern – rising standards of living Foreign policy strategy – less conflict, more commercial diplomacy Universal concepts – desire to improve living standards Historical source – Immanuel Kant (Book: On Perpetual Peace, first published in 1795) Contemporary theorists – Thomas Friedman (Book: The World is Flat: The globalized world in the twenty-first century, first published in 2005) Linking theory to evidence – Cooperation between China and Taiwan, and between India and Pakistan THEME 2: THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: COMPLEX THEORY AND COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCE THEORYND Introduction: In defining political theories, we mentioned that they are used as a framework to analyze, interpret and understand the phenomena and events in the international system. In defining the system we said that it is a set of assembled units that are interdependent. These units are then defined as the actors in the system. The study of international politics is the study of interaction amongst these units in the system. These interactions can be in the form of foreign policies or foreign policy decisions. They can be interpreted differently depending on the theory used or the school of thought that one a