International Relations_and World Economy

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 57 | Comments: 0 | Views: 319
of 18
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

International relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"International Relations" redirects here. For the academic journal, see Internat
ional Relations (journal).
"International affairs" redirects here. For the academic journal, see Internatio
nal Affairs (journal). For other uses, see International affairs (disambiguation
).
See also: Foreign policy and Politics
The Palace of Nations. In 2012 alone, the Palace of Nations hosted more than 10
000 intergovernmental meetings.[1] Geneva (Switzerland) is the city that hosts t
he highest number of international organisations in the world.[2]
The field of international relations dates from the time of the Greek historian
Thucydides.
International relations (IR) or international affairs, depending on academic ins
titution, is either a field of political science or an interdisciplinary academi
c field similar to global studies, in which students take a variety of internati
onally focused courses in social science and humanities disciplines. In both cas
es, the field studies relationships among countries, the roles of sovereign stat
es, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international non-governmental orga
nizations (INs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corpor
ations (MNCs). International relations is an academic and a public policy field,
and so can be positive and normative, because it analyzes and formulates the fo
reign policy of a given State.
As political activity, international relations dates from the time of the Greek
historian Thucydides (c. 460 395 BC), and, in the early 20th century, became a dis
crete academic field (No. 5901 in the 4-digit UNESCO Nomenclature) within politi
cal science. In practice International Relations and International Affairs forms
a separate academic program or field from Political Science, and the courses ta
ught therein are highly interdisciplinary.[3]
For example, international relations draws from the fields of: technology and en
gineering, economics, history, and international law, philosophy, geography, soc
ial work, sociology, anthropology, criminology, psychology, gender studies, cult
ural studies, culturology, diplomacy. The scope of international relations compr
ehends globalization, diplomatic relations, state sovereignty, international sec
urity, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic d
evelopment, global finance, as well as terrorism and organized crime, human secu
rity, foreign interventionism, and human rights, as well, as, more recently, com
parative religion.
Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Study of IR
2 Theory
2.1 Normative theory
2.2 Epistemology and IR theory
2.3 Positivist theories
2.3.1 Realism
2.3.2 Liberalism/idealism/liberal internationalism
2.3.3 Neoliberalism
2.3.4 Regime theory
2.4 Post-positivist/reflectivist theories
2.4.1 International society theory (the English school)
2.4.2 Social constructivism
2.4.3 Marxism
2.5 Leadership theories

2.5.1 Interest group perspective
2.5.2 Strategic perspective
2.5.3 Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psycholo
gy
3 Post-structuralist theories
4 Concepts in international relations
4.1 Systemic level concepts
4.1.1 Sovereignty
4.1.2 Power
4.1.3 National interest
4.1.4 Non-state actors
4.1.5 Power blocs
4.1.5.1 Polarity
4.1.6 Interdependence
4.1.7 Dependency
4.1.8 Systemic tools of international relations
5 Unit-level concepts in international relations
5.1 Regime type
5.2 Revisionism/status quo
5.3 Religion
6 Individual or sub-unit level concepts
7 Institutions in international relations
7.1 Generalist inter-state organizations
7.1.1 United Nations
7.1.2 Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
7.1.3 Other
7.2 Economic institutions
7.3 International legal bodies
7.3.1 Human rights
7.3.2 Legal
7.4 Regional security arrangements
8 See also
9 Notes and references
10 Bibliography
10.1 Theory
10.2 Textbooks
10.3 History of international relations
History[edit]
See also: International relations of the Great Powers (1814 1919)
The history of international relations can be traced back to thousands of years
ago; Barry Buzan and Richard Little, for example, consider the interaction of an
cient Sumerian city-states, starting in 3,500 BC, as the first fully-fledged int
ernational system.[4]
The official portraits of King Wladyslaw IV dressed according to French, Spanish
and Polish fashion reflects the complex politics of the Polish Lithuanian Commonw
ealth during the Thirty Years' War
The history of international relations based on sovereign states is often traced
back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, a stepping stone in the development of
the modern state system. Prior to this the European medieval organization of po
litical authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order. Contrary
to popular belief, Westphalia still embodied layered systems of sovereignty, esp
ecially within the Holy Roman Empire.[5] More than the Peace of Westphalia, the
Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 is thought to reflect an emerging norm that sovereigns
had no internal equals within a defined territory and no external superiors as
the ultimate authority within the territory's sovereign borders.
The centuries of roughly 1500 to 1789 saw the rise of the independent, sovereign
states, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. The French Revolution

added to this the new idea that not princes or an oligarchy, but the citizenry
of a state, defined as the nation, should be defined as sovereign. Such a state
in which the nation is sovereign would thence be termed a nation-state (as oppos
ed to a monarchy or a religious state). The term republic increasingly became it
s synonym. An alternative model of the nation-state was developed in reaction to
the French republican concept by the Germans and others, who instead of giving
the citizenry sovereignty, kept the princes and nobility, but defined nation-sta
tehood in ethnic-linguistic terms, establishing the rarely if ever fulfilled ide
al that all people speaking one language should belong to one state only. The sa
me claim to sovereignty was made for both forms of nation-state. (It is worth no
ting that in Europe today, few states conform to either definition of nation-sta
te: many continue to have royal sovereigns, and hardly any are ethnically homoge
neous.)
The particular European system supposing the sovereign equality of states was ex
ported to the Americas, Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the "standards of c
ivilization". The contemporary international system was finally established thro
ugh decolonization during the Cold War. However, this is somewhat over-simplifie
d. While the nation-state system is considered "modern", many states have not in
corporated the system and are termed "pre-modern".
Further, a handful of states have moved beyond insistence on full sovereignty, a
nd can be considered "post-modern". The ability of contemporary IR discourse to
explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed. "Levels of
analysis" is a way of looking at the international system, which includes the i
ndividual level, the domestic state as a unit, the international level of transn
ational and intergovernmental affairs, and the global level.
What is explicitly recognized as international relations theory was not develope
d until after World War I, and is dealt with in more detail below. IR theory, ho
wever, has a long tradition of drawing on the work of other social sciences. The
use of capitalizations of the "I" and "R" in international relations aims to di
stinguish the academic discipline of international relations from the phenomena
of international relations. Many cite Sun Tzu's The Art of War (6th century BC),
Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC), Chanakya's Artha
shastra (4th century BC), as the inspiration for realist theory, with Hobbes' Le
viathan and Machiavelli's The Prince providing further elaboration.
Similarly, liberalism draws upon the work of Kant and Rousseau, with the work of
the former often being cited as the first elaboration of democratic peace theor
y.[6] Though contemporary human rights is considerably different from the type o
f rights envisioned under natural law, Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and Jo
hn Locke offered the first accounts of universal entitlement to certain rights o
n the basis of common humanity. In the 20th century, in addition to contemporary
theories of liberal internationalism, Marxism has been a foundation of internat
ional relations.
Study of IR[edit]
Flags of the member states of the United Nations
Initially, international relations as a distinct field of study was almost entir
ely British-centered. IR only emerged as a formal academic "discipline" in 1919
the Woodrow Wilson
with the founding of the first "chair" (professorship) in IR
Chair at Aberystwyth, University of Wales (now Aberystwyth University),[7] from
an endowment given by David Davies, became the first academic position dedicated
to IR. In the early 1920s, the London School of Economics' department of intern
ational relations was founded at the behest of Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip N
oel-Baker, and was the first institute to offer a wide range of degrees in the f
ield. This was rapidly followed by establishment of IR at U.S. universities and
Geneva, Switzerland. Furthermore, the International History department at LSE, d

eveloped as primarily focused on the history of IR in the early modern, colonial
and Cold War periods.[8]
The first university entirely dedicated to the study of IR was the Graduate Inst
itute of International Studies (now the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies), which was founded in 1927 to form diplomats associated to
the League of Nations, established in Geneva some years before. The Graduate Ins
titute of International Studies offered one of the first Ph.D. degrees in intern
ational relations. Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Ser
vice is the oldest international relations faculty in the United States, founded
in 1919. The Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago
was the first to offer a graduate degree, in 1928. In 1965, Glendon College and
the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs were the first institutions
in Canada to offer an undergraduate and a graduate program in international stud
ies and affairs, respectively. Universities in the United States, UK, Europe, In
dia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Africa, Russia, Indonesia offer Grad
uate, Post-Graduate and PhD degrees in IR.
Theory[edit]
Main article: International Relations theory
Normative theory[edit]
In the academic discipline of international relations, Smith, Baylis & Owens (20
08) make the case that the normative position or normative theory is to make the
world a better place, and that this theoretical worldview aims to do so by bein
g aware of implicit assumptions and explicit assumptions that constitute a non-n
ormative position and align or position the normative towards the loci of other
key socio-political theories such as political liberalism, Marxism, political co
nstructivism, political realism, political idealism and political globalization.
[9]
Epistemology and IR theory[edit]
International relations theory
Realism[show]
Liberalism[show]
Constructivism[show]
Marxism[show]
Other theories[show]
Classifications[show]
Other approaches[show]
Portal icon Politics portal
v t e
IR theories can be roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: "posit
ivist" and "post-positivist". Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods o
f the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. They typicall
y focus on features of international relations such as state interactions, size
of military forces, balance of powers etc. Post-positivist epistemology rejects
the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way
. It rejects the central ideas of neo-realism/liberalism, such as rational choic
e theory, on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied to the soc
ial world and that a "science" of IR is impossible.
A key difference between the two positions is that while positivist theories, su
ch as neo-realism, offer causal explanations (such as why and how power is exerc
ised), post-positivist theories focus instead on constitutive questions, for ins
tance what is meant by "power"; what makes it up, how it is experienced and how
it is reproduced. Often, post-positivist theories explicitly promote a normative
approach to IR, by considering ethics. This is something which has often been i
gnored under "traditional" IR as positivist theories make a distinction between
"facts" and normative judgments, or "values".

During the late 1980s and the 1990s, debate between positivists and post-positiv
ists became the dominant debate and has been described as constituting the Third
"Great Debate" (Lapid 1989).
Positivist theories[edit]
Realism[edit]
Realism focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realists such
as E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, powerseeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of surv
ival.[10] Cooperation between states is a way to maximize each individual state'
s security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons). Similarly, any act of war mu
st be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many realists saw World W
ar II as the vindication of their theory.
Thucydides, the author of Peloponnesian War is considered to be the founding fat
her of the realist school of political philosophy.[11] Amongst others, philosoph
ers like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau are considered to have contributed to
the Realist philosophy.[12] However, while their work may support realist doctri
ne, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves as realists in t
his sense. Political realism believes that politics, like society, is governed b
y objective laws with roots in human nature. To improve society, it is first nec
essary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these law
s being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the r
isk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of
politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory t
hat reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It beli
eves also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth
and opinion between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence
and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced fro
m the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.
Placing realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however. E. H. Carr's
"What is History" was a deliberate critique of positivism, and Hans Morgenthau'
s aim in "Scientific Man vs Power Politics" was to demolish any conception that
international politics/power politics can be studied scientifically.
Liberalism/idealism/liberal internationalism[edit]
is the perspective based on the assumption of the innate goodness of the individ
ual and the value of political institutions in promoting social progress.[13] Ac
cording to liberalism, individuals are basically good and capable of meaningful
cooperation to promote positive change. Liberalism views states, nongovernmental
organizations, and intergovernmental organizations as key actors in the interna
tional system. States have many interests and are not necessarily unitary and au
tonomous, although they are sovereign. Liberal theory stresses interdependence a
mong states, multinational corporations, and international institutions. Theoris
ts such as Hedley Bull have postulated an international society in which various
actors communicate and recognize common rules, institutions, and interests. Lib
erals also view the international system as anarchic since there is no single ov
erarching international authority and each individual state is left to act in it
s own self-interest. Liberalism is historically rooted in the liberal philosophi
cal traditions associated with Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant that posit that huma
n nature is basically good and that individual self-interest can be harnessed by
society to promote aggregate social welfare. Individuals form groups and later,
states; states are generally cooperative and tend to follow international norms
.[13]
Liberal international relations theory arose after World War I in response to th
e inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations.
Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell, who argued that state
s mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be esse
ntially futile.[14]

Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collecti
vely and derisively termed idealism by E. H. Carr. A new version of "idealism" t
hat focused on human rights as the basis of the legitimacy of international law
was advanced by Hans Köchler.
Major theorists include Brède et de Montesquieu, Immanuel Kant, Robert Keohane, an
d John Mueller.[15]
Further information: liberal internationalism
Neoliberalism[edit]
Further information: Complex interdependence
Neoliberalism seeks to update liberalism by accepting the neorealist presumption
that states are the key actors in international relations, but still maintains
that non-state actors (NSAs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) matter.
Proponents such as Maria Chattha argue that states will cooperate irrespective o
f relative gains, and are thus concerned with absolute gains. This also means th
at nations are, in essence, free to make their own choices as to how they will g
o about conducting policy without any international organizations blocking a nat
ion's right to sovereignty.
Neoliberalism also contains an economic theory that is based on the use of open
and free markets with little, if any, government intervention to prevent monopol
ies and other conglomerates from forming. The growing interdependence throughout
and after the Cold War through international institutions led to neo-liberalism
being defined as institutionalism, this new part of the theory being fronted by
Robert Keohane and also Joseph Nye.
Regime theory[edit]
Regime theory is derived from the liberal tradition that argues that internation
al institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states (or other international
actors). It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of stat
es, indeed, regimes are by definition, instances of international cooperation.
While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relatio
ns, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they c
ite cooperation in trade, human rights and collective security among other issue
s. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definitio
n of regimes comes from Stephen Krasner, who defines regimes as "principles, nor
ms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations conver
ge in a given issue-area".[16]
Not all approaches to regime theory, however, are liberal or neoliberal; some re
alist scholars like Joseph Grieco have developed hybrid theories which take a re
alist based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say
cooperation never happens, just that it is not the norm; it is a difference of d
egree).
Post-positivist/reflectivist theories[edit]
International society theory (the English school)[edit]
International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the sha
red norms and values of states and how they regulate international relations. Ex
amples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and international law. Unlike neo
-realism, it is not necessarily positivist. Theorists have focused particularly
on humanitarian intervention, and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend t
o advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value in order and soverei
gnty. Nicholas Wheeler is a prominent solidarist, while Hedley Bull and Robert H
. Jackson are perhaps the best known pluralists.
Social constructivism[edit]

Social constructivism encompasses a broad range of theories that aim to address
questions of ontology, such as the structure-and-agency debate, as well as quest
ions of epistemology, such as the "material/ideational" debate that concerns the
relative role of material forces versus ideas. Constructivism is not a theory o
f IR in the manner of neo-realism, but is instead a social theory which is used
to better explain the actions taken by states and other major actors as well as
the identities that guide these states and actors.
Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Ted Hopf (1998) calls "conventiona
l" and "critical" constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is a
n interest in the role that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivi
st scholar, Alexander Wendt, noted in a 1992 article in International Organizati
on and later in his 1999 book Social Theory of International Politics that "anarchy
is what states make of it". By this he means that the anarchical structure that
neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is so
cially constructed and reproduced by states.
For example, if the system is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or
death situation (what Wendt terms a Hobbesian" anarchy) then the system will be
characterised by warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted (a
"Lockean" anarchy) then a more peaceful system will exist. Anarchy in this view
is constituted by state interaction, rather than accepted as a natural and immut
able feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR scholars.
Marxism[edit]
Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state
conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects.
It makes the assumption that the economy trumps other concerns; allowing for the
elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international syste
m as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, c
olonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports,
while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.
A prominent derivative of Marxian thought is critical international relations th
eory which is the application of "critical theory" to international relations. E
arly critical theorists were associated with the Frankfurt School which followed
Marx's concern with the conditions that allow for social change and the establi
shment of rational institutions. Their emphasis on the "critical" component of t
heory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of pos
itivism. Modern-day proponents such as Andrew Linklater, Robert W. Cox and Ken B
ooth focus on the need for human emancipation from the nation-state. Hence, it i
s "critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend to be both positivist and state
-centric.
Further linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory and the core peripher
y model, which argue that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, approp
riate developing states through international banking, security and trade agreem
ents and unions on a formal level, and do so through the interaction of politica
l and financial advisors, missionaries, relief aid workers, and MNCs on the info
rmal level, in order to integrate them into the capitalist system, strategically
appropriating undervalued natural resources and labor hours and fostering econo
mic and political dependence.
Marxist theories receive little attention in the United States, where no signifi
cant socialist party has flourished. It is more common in parts of Europe and is
one of the more important theoretic contributions of Latin American academia to
the study of global networks.
Leadership theories[edit]
Interest group perspective[edit]

Interest group theory posits that the driving force behind state behavior is sub
-state interest groups. Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists,
the military, and the corporate sector. Group theory argues that although these
interest groups are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in t
he exercise of state power.
Strategic perspective[edit]
Strategic perspective is a theoretical approach that views individuals as choosi
ng their actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of
others with the intention of maximizing their own welfare.
Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology[edi
t]
Further information: Bad faith and inherent bad faith model
The "inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in politica
l psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship
between John Foster Dulles beliefs and his model of information processing.[17] I
t is the most widely studied model of one's opponent.[18] A state is presumed to
be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dism
issed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles'
position regarding the Soviet Union, or Israel's initial position on the Palest
inian Liberation Organization.[19]
Post-structuralist theories[edit]
Post-structuralist theories of IR developed in the 1980s from postmodernist stud
ies in political science. Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of conc
epts traditionally not problematic in IR (such as "power" and "agency") and exam
ines how the construction of these concepts shapes international relations. The
examination of "narratives" plays an important part in poststructuralist analysi
s; for example, feminist poststructuralist work has examined the role that "wome
n" play in global society and how they are constructed in war as "innocent" and
"civilians". (See also feminism in international relations.)
Concepts in international relations[edit]
Systemic level concepts[edit]
International relations are often viewed in terms of levels of analysis. The sys
temic level concepts are those broad concepts that define and shape an internati
onal milieu, characterised by anarchy.
Sovereignty[edit]
Main article: Westphalian sovereignty
Preceding the concepts of interdependence and dependence, international relation
s relies on the idea of sovereignty. Described in Jean Bodin's "Six Books of the
Commonwealth in 1576, the three pivotal points derived from the book describe s
overeignty as being a state, that the sovereign power(s) have absolute power ove
r their territories, and that such a power is only limited by the sovereign's "o
wn obligations towards other sovereigns and individuals".[20] Such a foundation
of sovereignty permits, is indicated by a sovereign's obligation to other sovere
igns, interdependence and dependence to take place. While throughout world histo
ry there have been instances of groups lacking or losing sovereignty, such as Af
rican nations prior to Decolonization or the occupation of Iraq during the Iraq
War, there is still a need for sovereignty in terms of assessing international r
elations.
Power[edit]
Main article: Power (international relations)
The concept of Power in international relations can be described as the degree o
f resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs. It is often d
ivided up into the concepts of hard power and soft power, hard power relating pr
imarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly cov

ering economics, diplomacy and cultural influence. However, there is no clear di
viding line between the two forms of power.
National interest[edit]
Perhaps the most significant concept behind that of power and sovereignty, natio
nal interest is a state s action in relation to other states where it seeks to gai
n advantage or benefits to itself. National interest, whether aspirational or op
erational, is divided by core/vital and peripheral/non-vital interests. Core or
vital interests constitute the things which a country is willing to defend or ex
pand with conflict such as territory, ideology (religious, political, economic),
or its citizens. Peripheral or non-vital are interests which a state is willing
to compromise. For example, in the German annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938
(a part of Czechoslovakia) under the Munich Agreement, Czechoslovakia was willi
ng to relinquish territory which was considered ethnically German in order to pr
eserve its own integrity and sovereignty.[21]
Non-state actors[edit]
In the 21st century, the status-quo of the international system is no longer mon
opolized by states alone. Rather, it is the presence of non-state actors, who au
tonomously act to implement unpredictable behavior to the international system.
Whether it is transnational corporations, liberation movements, non-governmental
agencies, or international organizations, these entities have the potential to
significantly influence the outcome of any international transaction. Additional
ly, this also includes the individual person as while the individual is what con
stitutes the states collective entity, the individual does have the potential to
also create unpredicted behaviors. Al-Qaeda, as an example of a non-state actor
, has significantly influenced the way states (and non-state actors) conduct int
ernational affairs.[22]
Power blocs[edit]
The existence of power blocs in international relations is a significant factor
related to polarity. During the Cold War, the alignment of several nations to on
e side or another based on ideological differences or national interests has bec
ome an endemic feature of international relations. Unlike prior, shorter-term bl
ocs, the Western and Soviet bloc s sought to spread their national ideological dif
ferences to other nations. Leaders like U.S. President Harry S. Truman under the
Truman Doctrine believed it was necessary to spread democracy whereas the Warsa
w Pact under Soviet policy sought to spread communism. After the Cold War, and t
he dissolution of the ideologically homogenous Eastern bloc still gave rise to o
thers such as the South-South Cooperation movement.[23]
Polarity[edit]
Main article: Polarity (international relations)
Polarity in international relations refers to the arrangement of power within th
e international system. The concept arose from bipolarity during the Cold War, w
ith the international system dominated by the conflict between two superpowers,
and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was
notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar on
e with two opposing powerbases and ideologies. Consequently, the international s
ystem prior to 1945 can be described as multipolar, with power being shared amon
g Great powers.
Empires of the world in 1910.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had led to unipolarity, with the United
States as a sole superpower, although many refuse to acknowledge the fact. Chin
a's continued rapid economic growth (in 2010 it became the world's second-larges
t economy), combined with the respectable international position they hold withi
n political spheres and the power that the Chinese Government exerts over their
people (consisting of the largest population in the world), resulted in debate o

ver whether China is now a superpower or a possible candidate in the future. How
ever, China's strategic force unable of projecting power beyond its region and i
ts nuclear arsenal of 250 warheads (compared to 7700 of the United States[24]) m
ean that the unipolarity will persist in the policy-relevant future.
Several theories of international relations draw upon the idea of polarity. The
balance of power was a concept prevalent in Europe prior to the First World War,
the thought being that by balancing power blocs it would create stability and p
revent war. Theories of the balance of power gained prominence again during the
Cold War, being a central mechanism of Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism. Here, the con
cepts of balancing (rising in power to counter another) and bandwagonning (sidin
g with another) are developed.
Robert Gilpin's Hegemonic stability theory also draws upon the idea of polarity,
specifically the state of unipolarity. Hegemony is the preponderance of power a
t one pole in the international system, and the theory argues this is a stable c
onfiguration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in th
e international system. This is contrary to many neorealist arguments, particula
rly made by Kenneth Waltz, stating that the end of the Cold War and the state of
unipolarity is an unstable configuration that will inevitably change.
The case of Gilpin proved to be correct and Waltz's article titled "The Stabilit
y of a Bipolar World" [25] was followed in 1999 by William Wohlforth's article t
itled "The Stability of a Unipolar World"[26]
Waltz's thesis can be expressed in power transition theory, which states that it
is likely that a great power would challenge a hegemon after a certain period,
resulting in a major war. It suggests that while hegemony can control the occurr
ence of wars, it also results in the creation of one. Its main proponent, A.F.K.
Organski, argued this based on the occurrence of previous wars during British,
Portuguese, and Dutch hegemony.
Extending the comparative analysis to pre-modern civilizations, Max Ostrovsky[27
] agrees that hegemony leads to a major anti-hegemonic war but sometimes only in
the very long range and usually the hegemonic power emerges from this war victo
rious. To prevent the recrrence of anti-hegemonic wars, the hegemonic power subs
equently transforms its hegemonic grand strategy into imperial. The hegemonies o
f Rome and Ch'in resulted in major anti-hegemonic wars in which the hegemonic po
wers prevailed and established universal empires.
Interdependence[edit]
Many advocate that the current international system is characterized by growing
interdependence; the mutual responsibility and dependency on others. Advocates o
f this point to growing globalization, particularly with international economic
interaction. The role of international institutions, and widespread acceptance o
f a number of operating principles in the international system, reinforces ideas
that relations are characterized by interdependence.
Dependency[edit]
NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
Dependency theory is a theory most commonly associated with Marxism, stating tha
t a set of core states exploit a set of weaker periphery states for their prospe
rity. Various versions of the theory suggest that this is either an inevitabilit
y (standard dependency theory), or use the theory to highlight the necessity for
change (Neo-Marxist).
Systemic tools of international relations[edit]
Diplomacy is the practice of communication and negotiation between representativ
es of states. To some extent, all other tools of international relations can be

considered the failure of diplomacy. Keeping in mind, the use of other tools are
part of the communication and negotiation inherent within diplomacy. Sanctions,
force, and adjusting trade regulations, while not typically considered part of
diplomacy, are actually valuable tools in the interest of leverage and placement
in negotiations.
Sanctions are usually a first resort after the failure of diplomacy, and are one
of the main tools used to enforce treaties. They can take the form of diplomati
c or economic sanctions and involve the cutting of ties and imposition of barrie
rs to communication or trade.
War, the use of force, is often thought of as the ultimate tool of international
relations. A widely accepted definition is that given by Clausewitz, with war b
eing "the continuation of politics by other means". There is a growing study int
o "new wars" involving actors other than states. The study of war in internation
al relations is covered by the disciplines of "war studies" and "strategic studi
es".
The mobilization of international shame can also be thought of as a tool of inte
rnational relations. This is attempting to alter states' actions through 'naming
and shaming' at the international level. This is mostly done by the large human
rights NGOs such as Amnesty International (for instance when it called Guantana
mo Bay a "Gulag"),[28] or Human Rights Watch. A prominent use of was the UN Comm
ission on Human Rights 1235 procedure, which publicly exposes state's human righ
ts violations. The current UN Human Rights Council has yet to use this mechanism
The allotment of economic and/or diplomatic benefits such as the European Union'
s enlargement policy; candidate countries are only allowed to join if they meet
the Copenhagen criteria.
Unit-level concepts in international relations[edit]
As a level of analysis the unit level is often referred to as the state level, a
s it locates its explanation at the level of the state, rather than the internat
ional system.
Regime type[edit]
It is often considered that a state's form of government can dictate the way tha
t a state interacts with others in the international system.
Democratic peace theory is a theory that suggests that the nature of democracy m
eans that democratic countries will not go to war with each other. The justifica
tions for this are that democracies externalise their norms and only go to war f
or just causes, and that democracy encourages mutual trust and respect.
Communism justifies a world revolution, which similarly would lead to peaceful c
oexistence, based on a proletarian global society.
Revisionism/status quo[edit]
States can be classified by whether they accept the international status quo, or
are revisionist i.e., want change. Revisionist states seek to fundamentally chang
e the rules and practices of international relations, feeling disadvantaged by t
he status quo. They see the international system as a largely western creation w
hich serves to reinforce current realities. Japan is an example of a state that
has gone from being a revisionist state to one that is satisfied with the status
quo, because the status quo is now beneficial to it.
Religion[edit]
Religion can have an effect on the way a state acts within the international sys
tem. Different theoretical perspectives treat it in somewhat different fashion.
One dramatic example is the Thirty Years War (1618 48) that ravaged much of Europe
. Religion is visible as an organizing principle particularly for Islamic states
, whereas secularism sits at the other end of the spectrum, with the separation
of state and religion being responsible for the liberal international relations
theory. Events since 9-11, the role of Islam in terrorism, and the strife in the
Middle East have made it a major topic.[29]

Individual or sub-unit level concepts[edit]
The level beneath the unit (state) level can be useful both for explaining facto
rs in international relations that other theories fail to explain, and for movin
g away from a state-centric view of international relations.
Psychological factors in international relations
Evaluating psychological factor
s in international relations comes from the understanding that a state is not a
"black box" as proposed by realism, and that there may be other influences on fo
reign policy decisions. Examining the role of personalities in the decision maki
ng process can have some explanatory power, as can the role of misperception bet
ween various actors. A prominent application of sub-unit level psychological fac
tors in international relations is the concept of Groupthink, another is the pro
pensity of policymakers to think in terms of analogies.
Bureaucratic politics
Looks at the role of the bureaucracy in decision making, a
nd sees decisions as a result of bureaucratic in-fighting, and as having been sh
aped by various constraints.
Religious, ethnic, and secessionist groups Viewing these aspects of the sub-unit
level has explanatory power with regards to ethnic conflicts, religious wars, t
ransnational diaspora (diaspora politics) and other actors which do not consider
themselves to fit with the defined state boundaries. This is particularly usefu
l in the context of the pre-modern world of weak states.
Science, technology and international relations
How science and technology impac
t the global health, business, environment, technology, and development.
International political economy, and economic factors in international relations
[30]
International political culturology Looks at how culture and cultural variables
impact in international relations[31][32][33]
Personal relations between leaders[34]
Institutions in international relations[edit]
The United Nations Secretariat Building at the United Nations headquarters in Ne
w York City.
International institutions form a vital part of contemporary international relat
ions. Much interaction at the system level is governed by them, and they outlaw
some traditional institutions and practices of international relations, such as
the use of war (except in self-defence).
See also: International organization
Generalist inter-state organizations[edit]
United Nations[edit]
Main article: United Nations
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself a
s a "global association of governments facilitating co-operation in internationa
l law, international security, economic development, and social equity"; It is t
he most prominent international institution. Many of the legal institutions foll
ow the same organizational structure as the UN.
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation[edit]
Main article: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is an international organization c
onsisting of 57 member states. The organisation attempts to be the collective vo
ice of the Muslim world (Ummah) and attempts to safeguard the interests and ensu
re the progress and well-being of Muslims.
Other[edit]
Other generalist inter-state organizations include:
BRICS
SAARC

African Union
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Arab League
Commonwealth of Independent States
European Union
G8
G20
League of Nations
Organization of American States
Economic institutions[edit]
The World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C.
NATO E-3A flying with USAF F-16s in a NATO exercise.
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
New Development Bank
Asian Development Bank
African Development Bank
Bank of International Settlements
Inter-American Development Bank
International Monetary Fund
Islamic Development Bank
World Bank
World Trade Organization
International legal bodies[edit]
Human rights[edit]
European Court of Human Rights
Human Rights Committee
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
International Criminal Court
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
United Nations Human Rights Council
Legal[edit]
African Court of Justice
European Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Regional security arrangements[edit]
Main article: Collective security
United Nations Security Council
Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific
GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development
Maritime security regime
NATO
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
Union of South American Nations
See also[edit]
Development Cooperation Issues Wikibooks
Diplomatic history
Global studies
List of international relations institutes and organisations
List of scholarly journals in international relations
Multilateralism
Notes and references[edit]
Jump up ^ (French) Simon Petite, "Rénovation du Palais des Nations : vote crucial"
, Le Temps, Monday 23 December 2013, p. 5.
Jump up ^ (French) François Modoux, "La Suisse engagera 300 millions pour rénover le
Palais des Nations", Le Temps, Friday 28 June 2013, page 9.

Jump up ^ International Relation , Columbia Encyclopedia (1993) pp.000 0000.
Jump up ^ Barry Buzan, Richard Little. International Systems in World History: R
emaking the Study of International Relations. published 2000
Jump up ^ Stéphane Beaulac: The Westphalian Model in defining International Law: Ch
allenging the Myth , Australian Journal of Legal History Vol. 9 (2004), http://www
.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJLH/2004/9.html; Krasner, Stephen D.: Westphalia and
all that in Judith Goldstein & Robert Keohane (eds): Ideas and Foreign Policy (I
thaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993), pp.235-264
Jump up ^ "Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy". Stanford press. Retrieved 5 Mar
ch 2014.
Jump up ^ http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/interpol/ Department of International Politic
s, Aberystwyth University
Jump up ^ Walter Carlsnaes et al eds. (2012). Handbook of International Relation
s. SAGE Publications. pp. 1 28.
Jump up ^ ISBN 9780199297771, Fourth edition, pp.2-13
Jump up ^ Morganthau, Hans (1978). Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Powe
r and Peace. New York. pp. 4 15.
Jump up ^ Norris, Cochrane, Charles (1929). Thucydides and the Science of Histor
y. Oxford University Press. p. 179.
Jump up ^ Baylis, John; Smith, Steve (2001). The globalization of world politics
: an introduction to international relations (2. ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Un
iv. Press. p. 149. ISBN 0198782632.
^ Jump up to: a b Mingst, Karen A., & Arreguín-Toft, Ivan M. (2011). Essentials of
International Relations (5th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Jump up ^ Wilson, Woodrow. "History Learning site". Retrieved 5 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Mingst, Karen A., & Snyder, Jack L. (2011). Essential Readings in Worl
d Politics (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Jump up ^ Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. Structural Causes and Regime Consequence
s: Regimes as Intervening Variables. In International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell Un
iversity Press, pp. 1.
Jump up ^ Stuart, Douglas; Starr, Harvey (1981). "The 'Inherent Bad Faith Model'
Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger". Political Psychology 3 (3/4): 1 33
. doi:10.2307/3791139. JSTOR 3791139.
Jump up ^ "...the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one s opp
onent...", The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1-2, edited by Daniel T. G
ilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey
Jump up ^ "...the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one's o
pponent", The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1-2, edited by Daniel T. Gi
lbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey
Jump up ^ p. 13, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. "Globalization: The Politics of Global Eco
nomic Relations and International Business." Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 20
12.
Jump up ^ p. 17-20, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. "Globalization: The Politics of Global
Economic Relations and International Business." Durham: Carolina Academic Press,
2012.
Jump up ^ pp. 14-15, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. "Globalization: The Politics of Global
Economic Relations and International Business." Durham: Carolina Academic Press
, 2012.
Jump up ^ pp. 15-16, N. Oluwafemi Mimiko. "Globalization: The Politics of Global
Economic Relations and International Business." Durham: Carolina Academic Press
, 2012.
Jump up ^ Historical nuclear weapons stockpiles and nuclear tests by country
Jump up ^ Daedalus, 93/3: (1964), 881-909
Jump up ^ International Security, 24/1: (1999), 5-41
Jump up ^ Y = Arctg X: The Hyperbolae of the World Order, Lanham: University Pre
ss of America, 2007
Jump up ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL10/014/2005/en>
Jump up ^ Snyder, ed., Jack (2011). Religion and International Relations Theory.
Columbia University Press. pp. 1 23.
Jump up ^ E.g., Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations

: Economic Paths to War and Peace, Oxford University Press, 2006. Donald Markwel
l, Keynes and International Economic and Political Relations, Trinity Paper 33,
Trinity College, University of Melbourne. [1]
Jump up ^ Fabrice Rivault, (1999) Culturologie Politique Internationale : Une ap
proche systémique et matérialiste de la culture et du système social global, McGill Di
ssertation, Montréal, publiée par Culturology Press
Jump up ^ Xintian, Yu (2005) "Cultural Factors In International Relations", Chin
ese Philosophical Studies.
Jump up ^ Xintian, Yu (2009),"Combining Research on Cultural Theory and Internat
ional Relations"
Jump up ^ http://rbth.ru/opinion/2013/08/15/us-russian_relations_demanding_equal
_treatment_28927.html
Bibliography[edit]
Carlsnaes, Walter, et al eds. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE
Publications.
Reus-Smit, Christian, and Duncan Snidal, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Internation
al Relations (2010)
Theory[edit]
Norman Angell The Great Illusion (London: Heinemann, 1910)
Hedley Bull Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977)
Robert Cooper The Post-Modern State
Enloe, Cynthia. "'Gender' Is Not Enough: The Need for a Feminist Consciousness".
International Affairs 80.1 (2004): 95-97. Web. 17 Sept. 2013.
Goodin, Robert E., and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds. A New Handbook of Political
Science (1998) ch 16-19 pp 401 78 excerpt and text search
Charlotte Hooper "Masculinities, IR and the 'Gender Variable': A Cost-Benefit An
alysis for (Sympathetic) Gender Sceptics." International Studies 25.3 (1999): 47
5-491.
Robert Keohane After Hegemony
Hans Köchler, Democracy and the International Rule of Law. Vienna/New York: Spring
er, 1995
Andrew Linklater Men and citizens in the theory of international relations
Reinhold Niebuhr Moral Man and Immoral Society 1932
Joseph Nye Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs Lt
d 2004
Max Ostrovsky, Y = Arctg X: The Hyperbolae of the World Order, (Lanham: Universi
ty Press of America, 2007).
Paul Raskin The Great Transition Today: A Report from the Future
J. Ann Tickner Gender in International Relations (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1992)
Kenneth Waltz Man, the State, and War
Kenneth Waltz Theory of International Politics (1979), examines the foundation o
f By Bar
Michael Walzer Just and Unjust Wars 1977
Alexander Wendt Social Theory of International Politics 1999
J. Martin Rochester Fundamental Principles of International Relations (Westview
Press, 2010)
An Introduction to International Relations Theory
Textbooks[edit]
Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politi
cs: An Introduction to International Relations (2011)
Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations
(5th ed. 2010)
Nau, Henry R. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, Idea
s (2008)
Roskin, Michael G., and Nicholas O. Berry. IR: The New World of International Re
lations (8th ed. 2009)
History of international relations[edit]
Main article: International relations of the Great Powers (1814 1919) § Further read
ing

Beaulac, Stéphane. The Westphalian Model in defining International Law: Challenging
the Myth , Australian Journal of Legal History Vol. 9 (2004).
Black, Jeremy. A History of Diplomacy (2010)
Calvocoressi, Peter. World Politics since 1945 (9th Edition, 2008) 956pp excerpt
and text search
E. H. Carr Twenty Years Crisis (1940), 1919 39
Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Economic Change and Militar
y Conflict From 1500-2000 (1987), stress on economic and military factors
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy (1995), not a memoir but an interpretive history of
international diplomacy since the late 18th century
Krasner, Stephen D.: Westphalia and All That in Judith Goldstein & Robert Keohane
(eds): Ideas and Foreign Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993), pp. 235 264
New Cambridge Modern History (13 vol 1957-79), thorough coverage from 1500 to 19
00
Pella, John & Erik Ringmar, History of International Relations Open Textbook Pro
ject, Cambridge: Open Book, forthcoming.
Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 (Oxford His
tory of Modern Europe) (1994) 920pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy
Taylor, A.J.P. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848 1918 (1954) (Oxford History
of Modern Europe) 638pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy
Terra.pngInternational relations portal
Categories: International relationsInternational relations education
Navigation menu
Create accountNot logged inTalkContributionsLog inArticleTalkReadEditView histor
y
Search
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Alemannisch
???????
Asturianu
Az?rbaycanca
?????

Bân-lâm-gú
??????????
?????????? (???????????)?
?????????
Català
Ce tina
Cymraeg
Deutsch
Eesti
????????
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
?????
Français
???
???????
??????
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
?????
Basa Jawa
?????
???????
???????
Lietuviu
??????????
??????
?????
Bahasa Melayu
??????????
Nederlands
???
Occitan
Polski
Português
Româna
???????
Scots
Shqip
Simple English
Slovencina
?????? / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / ??????????????
Tagalog
?????
???
??????
Türkçe
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 October 2015, at 01:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; add
itional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and P
rivacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, I
nc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersMobile viewWi

kimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close