Unit 1 (Global Trends) PDF

UNIT-1 GLOBAL TRENDS (UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS) 1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs which has brought countless revolutions and wars. Its success comes from nation-state being key actors in the worlds po...

UNIT-1 GLOBAL TRENDS (UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS) 1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs which has brought countless revolutions and wars. Its success comes from nation-state being key actors in the worlds politics as the most basic form of political entity. It is also a doctrine that asserts the nation as the basic political unit in organizing society. The words ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘country’ are used interchangeably and this is not correct. Nations are historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs. On the other hand, at the end of the eighteenth century, the concept of “nation-state” emerged. Also new breed of nationalists came to argue that nations should take over states to fulfill their needs and were successful in doing so. The nation was a soul added to the body of the early modern state machinery. The revolutions that took place in Britain’s North American colonies in 1776, and in France in 1789, provided models for other nationalists to follow. The French nation was from now on to be governed by the people, the nation, and in accordance with the principles of liberté, égalité et fraternité– liberty, equality and brotherhood. The Congress of Vienna of 1815 was supposed to have returned Europe to its pre-revolutionary ways. Yet, nationalist views were growing across the continent. Nationalism in the first part of the nineteenth century was a liberal view concerning self-determination – the right of a people to determine its own fate. It was only with the conclusion of the First World War in 1918 that self-determination was acknowledged as a right. After the First World War most people in Europe formed their own nation-states. As a result of the nationalist revolutions, the European international system became for the first time truly ‘inter-national’. The world “international” itself was coined by Jeremy Bentham. 1.2. Understanding International Relations International relations aren’t something avoidable. The limits of its impact in people’s lives are tremendous. One crucial feature in our world is interconnectedness – geographically, intellectually and socially. Originally, the study of international relations was seen as a branch of the study of law. After the WW1, the first university chair of international relations was founded at the University of Wales. Due to its diverse origin, it will be difficult to define it. International relations could be used to describe a range of interactions between people, groups, firms, organizations … etc. Events such as international conflict, international conferences and international crime play a fundamental part in the study of international relations. Every people, nation or state is a minority in a world that is anarchic (single body don’t control them), pluralistic (people and states coexist) and diverse. Every state or nation in the world must take account of “foreigners”. There are differences between domestic and international politics. Domestic law is generally obeyed, and if not, the police and courts enforce sanctions. International law rests on competing legal systems, and there is no common enforcement. Domestically a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In international politics no one has a monopoly of force, and therefore international politics has often been interpreted as the realm of self-help. It should be recognized that conflict or disagreement lies at the heart of politics. The fundamental nature of international relations: the Hobbesian versus the Lockean state of nature in the seventeenth century; and the Realist versus Idealist debate of the first part of the twentieth century. Hobbes interpreted state as continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Locke took a more optimistic view and suggested that sociability was the strongest bond between men –men were equal, sociable and free; but they were not unprincipled because they were governed by the laws of nature. International politics is pre-eminently concerned with the art of achieving group ends against the opposition of other groups. But this is limited by the will and ability of other groups to impose their demands. International politics is also about maintaining international order. International relations and politics are necessary for all states, but political power is not centralized and unequal. That is why power, coercion and bargaining still hold sway. 1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations The rise of the sovereign state in medieval Europe consisted of a complicated pattern of overlapping jurisdictions and loyalties. In medieval Europe there were two institutions with pretensions to power over the continent as a whole – the (Catholic) Church and the Empire. The political system of medieval Europe was thus a curious combination of the local and the universal. Yet, from the fourteenth century onward this system was greatly simplified as the state emerged as a political entity located at an intermediate level between the local and the universal. The new states simultaneously set themselves in opposition to popes which led to states being independent and self - governing. The increasingly self-assertive states were not only picking fights with universal institutions but also with local ones. In order to establish themselves securely in their new positions of power, the kings rejected the traditional claims of all local authorities. The European states emerged in the midst of struggle and strife. The Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648, was the bloodiest and most protracted military confrontation of the era. International politics was a matter of relations between states and no other political units. All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the exclusive right to rule their own territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw fit. States interacted with each other in a way where there wasn’t overarching power. Sovereignty and formal equality led to the problem of anarchy. States relations had become vastly more complicated. In order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts, the different rulers began dispatching ambassadors to each other’s courts. This provided a means of gathering info (spying on people). Embassies were formed. This change had a great impact in Europe and US but had marginal relevance elsewhere like in Africa. It was only in the nineteenth century that relations between Europe and the rest of the world were transformed due to industrial revolution and through the process of liberating colonies from the colonizers that the European models were copied. 1.4. Actors in International Relations 1.4.1. State Actors The sheer number of actors and issues that are relevant to IR can be overwhelming. We can talk about international politics as a ‘world stage’ on which the states are the leading actors. Considered in relation to the primacy of the state, international politics come to be defined in terms of interactions between states in an international system of states where these are ‘sovereign’ entities, territorially bound, and independent ultimately of any external authority. The ‘international’ is hence structurally differentiated from the ‘domestic’ in that where the former, according to this ‘realist’ perspective, is defined as ‘anarchical’, the latter is ‘hierarchical’. 1.4.2. Non-State Actors The field has expanded to encompass relationships between a wider variety of political entities, including global firms, international governmental institutions (UN, WHO) and non-governmental organizations (Red Cross). Similarly, multinational corporations (MNCs) – often with headquarters in one state and operational capability in a range of others – contribute significantly to international relations. Additionally, there are other trans-governmental organizations where the relations between players are not controlled by the central foreign policy of the state – such as the exchange rate of a state’s currency being determined by the money markets. Despite all these actors, the state remains, for many, the primary actor in international politics. The increased focus on non-state actors and cross-border issues has marked a close-to-revolutionary turn in IR; something that could be interpreted as a shift away from the inter-national (‘between-states’) to the ‘trans-national’ (‘across/beyond-states’ and their borders). In today’s world, few societal and political issues, challenges and problems are neatly confined by the borders of individual states or even groups of states. Thinking about world affairs in ‘trans-national’ rather than in purely ‘international’ terms therefore seems more of an analytical necessity than just a choice. Due to this complex issue, the discipline of international relations should be instead referred to as ‘Global Studies’ or ‘World Politics’. 1.5. Levels of Analysis in International Relations Traditional or conventional IR was not concerned with any potential distinctions between different levels of analysis or theoretical perspectives. J. David Singer highlights another value in thinking of IR as something that can be studied from different and distinctive perspectives. Being clear about our level of analysis encourages a more comprehensive and balanced approach, preventing selective or biased reasoning. There was a growing recognition of the need for greater analytical clarity and rigor. The most prominent example was Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the State and war. 1.5.1. The Individual Level The individual level of analysis focuses on the role of individuals in shaping international outcomes. It examines: Behaviors: How do individual leaders act in international situations? Motivations: What drives their decisions and actions? Beliefs and Orientations: What are their underlying assumptions and worldviews? For example, to understand why a particular country decided to go to war, an individual-level analysis might focus on the personality, ideology, and past experiences of the country's leader. 1.5.2. The Group Level The group level of analysis looks at the influence of different groups within states, such as: Political parties Interest groups Bureaucratic agencies Social movements These groups can exert pressure on governments to adopt particular foreign policies. For example, a group-level analysis of a trade dispute might examine the role of industry lobbies in shaping their government's negotiating position. 1.5.3. The State Level The main focus remains on the state as the dominant unit of analysis. This focus on the state is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of the discipline. This means that IR scholars would generally not only regard states as the central unit of analysis as such, as a point of reference for other types of actors which state officials, politicians and decision-makers operate. This such focus was due to the assumption that a state also being the main location of power within the international sphere. This was seen in the Cold war - an era in which much of international affairs appeared with particular state interests. A state level analysis might be interested to look at any one of the following: it can consider states as actors in their own right; it may look at how states interact with each other to deal with the crisis; how they build off each other’s suggestions and react to international developments and trends; how they cooperate, say, in the framework of international organizations and due to monopoly on violence (the legitimate use of force within their borders). 1.5.4. The System Level Particularly important in that context is the distribution of power amongst states, meaning, whether there is one main concentration of power (unipolarity), two (bipolarity) or several (multipolarity). Here global circumstances are seen to condition the ability and opportunity of individual and groups of states to pursue their interests in cooperative or competitive ways. The assumption here is that our international system is an anarchic system, one that lacks a central government (or international sovereign). IR generally distinguishes between three levels of analysis: the system, the state, and the individual – but the group level is also important to consider as a fourth. A global level helps us to grasp wide ranging factors that emerge from the global economic ‘system’ to affect its various components, states, national economies, societies, and individuals. 1.6. The Structure of International System International Relations scholars maintain that political power is usually distributed into three main types of systems namely: (i) uni-polar system, (ii) bipolar system and, (iii) multipolar system. These reflect the number of powerful states competing for power. In a uni-polar international system, there is one state with the greatest political, economic, cultural and military power and hence the ability to totally control other states. In the case of the bipolar system, for instance, there are two dominant states (super powers) and the less powerful states join either side through alliance and counter alliance formations. Multipolar system is the most common throughout history. During the period around WWI, it was a typical world system. It usually reflects various equally powerful states competing for power. Power: is the currency of international politics. As money is for economics, power is for international relations (politics). It determines the relative influence of actors and shapes the structure of the international system. Hence why international politics, unlike other politics, is a struggle for power. It can also be defined in terms of both relations and material (capability) aspects as ‘A’s’ ability to get ‘B’ to do something it would not otherwise do. Anarchy: is a situation where there is absence of authority (government) be it in national or international/global level systems. It refers to a system where power is decentralized and there are no shared institutions with the right to enforce common rules. An anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after themselves, rely on their own resources and no one looks after the system as a whole. However, the new international system was characterized by constant tensions and threats of war due to power balance being precarious. Sovereignty: is a state’s ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal sovereignty) and the state’s involvement in the international community (external sovereignty). It denotes double claim of states from the international system. 1.7. Theories of International Relations 1.7.1. Idealism/Liberalism Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory. It views human beings as innately good and believe peace and harmony between nations is not only achievable, but desirable. Immanuel Kant developed the idea that states that the more liberal states there were, the more peaceful it would become, since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and citizens are rarely disposed to desire war. The discipline was dominated by what is conventionally referred to as liberal internationalism. Its concern was that conditions and devastation that occurred due to WW1 and so it won’t happen again. It’s driving fore was that international relations will lead to peace. The two formative pillars of liberal internationalism, democracy and free trade, required the establishment of international relations. The creation of the League of Nations was the culmination of the liberal ideal of international relations. Liberals also argue that international law offers a mechanism by which cooperation among states is made possible. International law refers to the body of customary and conventional rules which are binding on civilized states in their intercourse with each other. international law performs two different functions. One is to provide mechanisms for cross-border interactions, and the other is to shape the values and goals these interactions are pursuing. The first set of functions are called the ‘‘operating system’’ of international law, and the second set of functions are the ‘‘normative system.” 1.7.2. Realism Carr’s ‘Twenty Years’ Crisis’ was the text which positioned what he called utopianism in opposition to realism. Carr called for a ‘science’ of international relations. By presenting the fact–value distinction, that which separates the ‘what is’ from the ‘what ought to be’, he called to move away from liberalism. Realists argue that values are context bound, that morality is determined by interest, and that the conditions of the present are determined by historical processes. Realism views the international system as ‘anarchic’. Conflict is hence an inevitable and continual feature of inter-national relations. It uses Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as its founding voices. Where liberal internationalism had been openly normative and prescriptive in orientation, the realism was to be scientific and explanatory. As its name suggests, advocates of realism purport it reflects the ‘reality’ of the world and more effectively accounts for change in international politics. Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Man, the State and War’ (1959) and his later ‘Theory of International Politics’ (1979) define a neo-realist agenda. Where Morgenthau’s realism concentrates on the attributes and behavior of states within the international system, Waltz focuses on the international system itself. The international system is, for Waltz, anarchical and hence perpetually threatening and conflictual. One central area that sets realism and liberalism apart is how they view human nature. Realists do not typically believe that human beings are inherently good and believe they act for self-interests and selfish. Realists believe conflict is unavoidable and perpetual and so war is common and inherent to humankind. They also believe “all politics is a power struggle”. Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order can be improved. Conversely, realism arrive at a more pessimistic view. And, both realism and liberalism have been updated to more modern versions (neoliberalism and neorealism) Both liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant actor in IR, although liberalism does add a role for non-state actors such as international organizations. In terms of liberalism, its proponents argue that organizations are valuable in assisting states in formulating decisions and helping to formalize cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes. Realists on the other hand believe states partake in international organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do so. 1.7.3. Structuralism/Marxism Marxism is an ideology that argues that a capitalist society is divided into two classes – the business class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). He believes that the working class are controlled by the business class and should overthrow them. One of the foremost challengers to the belief that state was sole unit of analysis was John Burton who believed global relations were multiform and involved a number of different types of actors. This third perspective concentrated on the inequalities that exist within the international system, dependency, exploitation and the international division of labor. Due to the class system in capitalism, while liberalists argue that such economic interdependence is a basis of increasing international cooperation, neo-Marxist structuralism viewed these processes as the basis of inequality, the debt and instability. Major writers in the structuralist perspective emerged from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. 1.7.4. Constructivism Constructivism is another theory commonly viewed as a middle ground, but this time between mainstream theories and the critical theories. They highlight the importance of values and shared interests between individuals who interact on the global stage. Alexander Wendt is a prominent constructivist. His famous phrase ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992) sums the idea of constructivism up well. Constructivism core is that the essence of international relations exists in the interactions between people. To understand constructivism is to understand that ideas, or ‘norms’ as they are often called, have power and change over time. 1.7.5. Critical Theories Critical approaches are theories that challenge mainstream approaches in the field, mainly liberalism and realism. Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR. They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global South. Emancipation from the state in some form is often part of the wider critical agenda. More focus within the discipline was placed on including the viewpoints of those from the Global South to ensure that Western scholars no longer spoke on their behalf. Generally, realists believe that international organizations appear to be successful when they are working in the interests of powerful states. But, if that condition is reversed and an organization becomes an obstacle to national interests, then the equation may change hence why league of nations failed. On the other hand, liberals would argue that without the United Nations, international relations would likely be even more chaotic – devoid of a respectable institution to oversee relations between states and hold bad behavior to account. A constructivist would look at the very same example and say that while it is true that the United States ignored the United Nations and invaded Iraq, by doing so it violated the standard practices (Norms) of international relations. In contrast to liberals and constructivists, who value the United Nations to an extent, critical theories offer different perspectives. Marxists would argue that any international body, including the United Nations, works to promote the interests of the business class. The United Nations can be said to be dominated by imperial (or neo-imperial) powers. Imperialism, according to Marxist doctrine, is the highest stage of capitalism. Finally, post-colonialists would argue that the actions done by the United Nations is one based on cultural, national or religious privilege. They would suggest, for instance, that, as it has no African or Latin American permanent members, the Security Council fails to represent the current state of the world.