TyroCity: International Relations

Legacies of World War II

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

World War II ended with the surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945 and the surrender of Japan on August 14, 1945. Statistically, this military conflict overshadows every war ever fought. Some 1.7 billion people from 61 nations engaged in a struggle waged on the land, on the sea, and in the skies of Europe, East and Southeast Asia, North Africa, and the islands of the Pacific Ocean. The clash left behind a trail of carnage and destruction unparalleled in human history. World War II took the lives of some 55 million soldiers and civilians and destroyed untold amounts of property. It cost more to finance World War II than any war before it. Beyond the awesome and almost unfathomable statistics, the conflict left a permanent mark on all aspects of human experience and shaped the history of the postwar world. For a generation of men and women everywhere, World War II was “the war.”

World War II vastly affected the world, so some sort of understanding of the war is needed to grasp much of the present. However, how people know the war relates directly to their experience of the world after it. The war was global, so participants experienced only some aspect of it, thus making their war experiences unique. While the Japanese refer to World War II as the Greater East Asia War, the Chinese call it the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. For most citizens of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the war remains the Great Patriotic War, while Solomon Islanders call it, simply and appropriately, Big Death.

Contemporary politics and historical hindsight also affect current visions of the war and, therefore, visions of the world after the war. For example, Russian historians often have omitted or downplayed the importance of the 1944 Allied invasion of Normandy in concluding the war. However, they stress the strategic importance of the eastern front and the Red Army’s heroic campaigns against the Third Reich. Conversely, Americans have tended to view D-Day in Normandy as a key military operation, frequently ignoring the pivotal role of the USSR in ending the war in Europe.

In short, varying views on World War II have resulted in different histories and interpretations. Perhaps the most balanced assessment of World War II and its legacies is found in a global approach; one that downplays national or regional views, and instead focuses on war legacies affecting the larger world.

The Price of Total War

The most immediate legacy of World War II was the material damage and human suffering it inflicted. World War I (1914-1918) established a pattern of total war that nations quickly adopted in this conflict. Fundamental to the concept of total war was the premise that warfare is conducted between entire societies and their populations. Accordingly, World War II made enormous demands on economic resources and human beings. For example, governments collectively mobilized some 110 million people for military service. Moreover, the nature of the conflict ensured that an unprecedented number of women and children participated, often fighting in uniform alongside men. By 1943 Soviet leadership had added approximately 900,000 women (about 8 percent of all Soviet military personnel) to the Red Army. Meanwhile, as the Third Reich crumbled, Hitler called on 12-year-old boys to defend the fatherland. The mobilization of human resources, the unprecedented physical destruction, and the obscene number of human casualties were all part of waging total war.

During the course of the war, entire populations had become the legitimate targets of warfare, and by 1945 at least 55 million people had died. Any distinction between battlefront and home front had vanished, and over half of the dead were civilians, the victims of bombs, massacres, and famines. An even darker side of the war was the persecution and murder of entire populations viewed as enemies or undesirables. The Nazi regime targeted European Jews for physical annihilation, and in the resulting Holocaust more than 5 million Jews perished. The deliberate uprooting of ethnic populations and the transfer of prisoners of war and slave laborers resulted in the death of many more untold millions.

Total war also affected the economies of the world. At the end of the war, the United States accounted for almost half of all the goods and services produced in the global economy. The war had laid waste to every major industrial region in the world except for those of North America. The landscapes of much of Japan and central and eastern Europe were barren: their cities jagged with bombed-out ruins, their industries and shipping destroyed, and their waterways choked with debris. Agricultural production everywhere had fallen precipitously, and in Europe most of the 45 million homeless survivors of the war relied on American aid for sustenance. But while the war was measured in costs to human life, habitat, and industry, it produced much more than that.

The United Nations

Another legacy of World War II was the creation of a new international organization dedicated to promoting peace, cooperation, and human rights. In 1945 nations determined to maintain the hard-won peace of that total war founded the United Nations (UN). The UN is an association of sovereign nations that provides the machinery to cope with international disputes and to find solutions to problems that exceed the boundaries and means of national states.

The organization’s founding document, the United Nations Charter, was an international treaty obligating member states to settle their disputes by peaceful means—that is, to refrain from the threat or use of force against other states. The primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security rests with the 15-member Security Council. To enforce its decisions, the Council can impose economic sanctions on countries that threaten the peace. It can send peacekeeping missions to troubled areas to wedge opposing forces apart or implement a peace agreement. As a last resort, the Council can authorize coalitions of member states to use military action to deal with a conflict.

While the effectiveness of the UN’s peacekeeping efforts often is debated, most experts acknowledge that the UN positively affects the lives of many people. Through its specialized agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Program, or the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN tackles problems facing people everywhere. Throughout the world, the UN and its agencies fight epidemics, combat famine, help advance the rights of women and children, assist refugees, help expand food production, and make loans to developing countries. For example, in the last 10 years UN agencies have made safe drinking water available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas, helped institute family planning programs in developing countries, and eradicated smallpox from the planet.

Justice in Nürnberg (Nuremberg) and Tokyo

World War II also contributed to the development of international law. The victorious Allies were determined to bring to justice those believed to be responsible for starting the war and committing many of its atrocities. At the end of the war the Allies convened international military tribunals to try those who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace.

At the war crime trials in Nürnberg, Germany (November 1945–October 1946), the primary defendants were the surviving leaders of the Nazi regime. Others, such as Adolf Hitler, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, and German Police Commander Heinrich Himmler had committed suicide to avoid prosecution. The postwar trials in Nürnberg also tried industrialists who had taken advantage of slave labor as well as physicians charged with cruelly experimenting on human beings. Of the 22 major war criminals arraigned at Nürnberg, 12 were executed. The Western Allies held additional trials in their zones of occupation, and by 1960 they had tried more than 5,000 war criminals and executed 500 of those convicted. In separate proceedings, the Soviets tried 10,000 additional Germans and executed many of them.

The International War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo (May 1946–November 1948) sentenced 7 out of 25 Japanese wartime leaders to death, including the former prime minister General Tojo Hideki. Throughout Japan’s former empire, additional war trials charged Japanese detainees with crimes ranging from the mistreatment of prisoners of war to cruelty inflicted on local populations. Over 900 of the accused faced execution.

While there was little controversy over trials and convictions on charges of war crimes, the introduction at Nürnberg and Tokyo of charges involving crimes against peace and against humanity raised two criticisms. First, before the war, no specific laws addressed crimes against peace or humanity, so those on trial could not have committed any crimes in a legal sense. Second, only persons from or allied with the defeated nations were tried, so the tribunals and their proceedings were seen by some as unfair. Nevertheless, in 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations affirmed the principles recognized by the Tribunals’ judgement. And in 1950 an International Law Commission recognized war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity as violations of international law.

Jewish Survivors and the Establishment of Israel

An unintended outcome of the Nazis’ war against the Jews of Europe was the establishment of a Jewish state. The Holocaust had deepened the desire of Jewish survivors and Zionists (Jewish nationalists) to establish Palestine as a Jewish state capable of defending the world’s remaining Jews. Zionists had been settling in Palestine since the late 1800s, but the end of World War II heightened the Zionist yearning for these lands as a refuge and for religious fulfillment. Palestine, however, was no empty haven waiting to receive the Jews of Europe. Since the end of World War I, Britain had ruled Palestine and tried desperately to balance the interests of Jewish immigrants and the Palestinian Arabs who possessed the land. Britain limited the migration and settlement of Jews while it promised to protect Arab political and economic rights, but its efforts to balance these competing aims fairly proved futile. Arab hostility to British rule and Zionist settlement, in conjunction with Jewish resistance to immigration quotas, resulted in repeated outbreaks of violence that British military forces could barely contain.

Shortly after the end of World War II, Britain announced its intention to withdraw from Palestine. The British placed the Palestine issue before the newly founded UN in 1947. The UN General Assembly recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states and the creation of international enclaves that included Jerusalem and Bethlehem, both of which contained sites of religious significance for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. While the partition plan was acceptable to most Jews, Arabs inside and outside of Palestine found this solution unacceptable. As the British completed their withdrawal, a civil war erupted between Arabs and Jews. In May 1948 the Jews in Palestine proclaimed the creation of the independent state of Israel, which provoked an attack by surrounding Arab nations. This first Arab-Israeli war ended in victory for the Jewish state. It also resulted in the flight of more than half of Palestine’s Arab population. To this day, the hostility engendered by the creation of Israel threatens the peace and stability of the Middle East.

Science and Technology

World War II catalyzed advances in science and technology and stimulated the maturation of planned research and development. Before the outbreak of the war, scientists in British, German, and Soviet research labs had been engaged in a “wizard war” of new combat-weapon technology. As governments made war-related research and development a national priority, scientists and engineers produced a dazzling array of new products and devices. For example, military demands for the ability to identify and pinpoint the location of targets propelled the development of radar. Likewise, the modern jet engine was born out of military demands. The U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development stimulated the production of destructive technologies, such as the proximity fuse and antitank bazooka rockets. But it also helped introduce DDT to combat malaria and sparked the widespread use of antibiotic penicillin for treating wounds.

Yet nothing shaped postwar military strategy and politics more than the scientific and technological developments that resulted in the ballistic missile and the atom bomb. As the tide of the war turned, the Nazi government called upon German rocket scientists to develop ballistic missiles, which carry explosives along a long, arced trajectory. In 1944 the Germans deployed some 4,300 V-2 rockets against targets in Western Europe and England. The harnessing of the atom for military aims was more dramatic in its effects. In 1938 German physicists had effectively demonstrated nuclear fission, and scientists in Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States subsequently assessed the prospects of constructing an atomic device. Ultimately, the U.S. government-sponsored efforts, code-named the Manhattan Project, developed the world’s first atomic bomb. In July 1945 a test explosion in New Mexico ushered in the nuclear age. Little or no official thought was given to the consequences of this potentially cataclysmic creation. In the Cold War world that existed after World War II, nuclear weapons, especially when attached to ballistic missiles, threatened to engulf the entire planet in an atomic blaze.

Superpower Rivalry and Cold War

The end of World War II signaled a dramatic change in global relations. The war seriously undermined the ability of Germany, Japan, Britain, and France to continue playing leading roles in the world. As these countries ceased to be great powers in economics, politics, and military might, two new superpowers, the United States and the USSR, took their place. The collective policies and actions of these superpowers dominated international relations and the global balance of power for more than 45 years.

The leaders of the United States and the USSR joined forces in 1941 to defeat their common enemies. Ultimately, it was the material and military resources of the two nations that ended the war. Yet this wartime alliance, which always had been a marriage of convenience, collapsed shortly after 1945 in the face of conflicting postwar aims and deep-seated ideological animosities. By 1947, both sides were engaged in what political observers labeled a “cold war.” Devoid of direct military confrontation, the Cold War soon extended beyond Europe and assumed the character of a global geopolitical and ideological rivalry that lasted until the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

The Cold War was not simply a great-power rivalry. At its heart was a conflict between different social, economic, and political systems, a conflict that dated back to the Russian Revolution of 1917. This clash of capitalism and democracy against socialism and one-party politics manifested itself in the division of the world into military alliances and political blocs. This division led to an unprecedented arms race that repeatedly threatened the world with nuclear annihilation. The Cold War also was responsible for diplomatic crises and warfare between pro U.S. and pro USSR forces in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other countries. Moreover, the competition between the superpowers influenced the foreign policies, political institutions, and economic systems of societies in almost every corner of the world.

Many nations—especially those recently freed from colonial rule—tried to avoid becoming pawns in the Cold War by announcing policies of nonalignment. However, the USSR and the United States used military and economic strategies to win what U.S. president John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) described as “the hearts and minds of the underdeveloped and uncommitted peoples of the world.” Both sides backed often-brutal dictatorships to further their own geopolitical advantages. As the Cold War intensified during the 1960s, the process of decolonization kept pace.

Decolonization

Like the Cold War, decolonization—or the loss of colonial possessions—gave rise to great changes in global politics. World War II set the stage for the rapid collapse of European and Japanese empires. On the eve of World War II, the countries of Western Europe, with the notable exception of Spain, still ruled or otherwise controlled immense territories in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. In 1941 British Prime Minister Winston Churchill confidently announced, “I have not become His Majesty’s Chief Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.” But Churchill was decidedly mistaken in his optimism.

German and Japanese victories in Europe and Asia had dealt a devastating blow to the military might of the European colonial powers and shattered their aura of invincibility. As nationalist independence movements in the colonies and protectorates arose, the public back home began to view overseas empires as liabilities. Continued imperial rule loomed as an unappealing financial burden as the prolonged war also seriously sapped the economic strength of imperial societies. Beginning in 1945 decolonization accelerated rapidly. As European imperialism expired, more than 90 independent nations joined the global community of national states, and some 800 million people became responsible for their own destinies.

By the 1990s the process of decolonization had essentially run its course. European empires either are extinct or are now miscellaneous claims to scattered real estate. Likewise, the resurgence of democracy in Eastern Europe, the collapse of the USSR, and the unification of Germany ended the Cold War. World War II gave rise to decolonization and the Cold War, and together they were responsible for forging the political and economic contours of the postwar world. While it is apparent that their force has been spent, it is less clear what will take their place. Meanwhile, technological and scientific advancements have continued to thrive in the world’s growing economies. The Jewish-Palestinian conflicts of the Middle East are largely unresolved. And the power of the UN and international law are challenged and reasserted continually. How these developments of World War II will continue to shape our world in the coming centuries is yet to be known, but understanding war gives us a greater possibility for understanding the world as it unfolds.

End of the Cold War

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Certain structural weaknesses in Soviet‐style communism are associated with the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War. Centrally planned economies proved to be less effective than capitalist economies.

Because of the economic crisis, the communist regimes in Eastern Europe fell one by one.

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev adopted certain policies: political openness and economic restructuring in the mid‐1980s to address the economic crisis.

In order for his reforms to take place, he needed to end the Cold War to lower defense spending.

Gorbachev thus announced that the satellite states should be free to choose their own government.

Communist regimes in these countries started to collapse.

The Soviet Union did not intervene as one after another communist regimes collapsed in 1989‐90.

The key external factors contributing to the collapse of communism were the policies of the US administration at that period and the advance of economic and cultural globalization that created demands for western‐style economic and political reforms in Eastern Europe.

The USA and the USSR agreed to disarm a whole category of nuclear weapons through Arms control process.

The dismantling of the Berlin Wall began on November 10, 1989. By mid‐1990, many of the Soviet republics had declared their independence.

On December 8, 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved

The Cold War thus ended with the demise of Soviet Union. With the disintegration of the USSR, Russia came out losing the status and position of a superpower.

The supremacy of the USA has been established making the world unipolar.

UNO vs. League of Nations

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The U.N.O. is a much wider organization than the League of Nations was. In fact, the League during the years between the two wars, (1919-1939) almost became a forum of imperialist powers, an instrument to maintain their own interests and resolve, if possible, their imperialist conflicts. The U.N.O. is a more representative body. The U.S.S.R. is one of the original and permanent members along with the imperialist powers.

Secondly, the Security Council takes decisions by seven votes including five permanent members while the League Council took decisions by unanimity. Even a small state could bloc the work of the League even if all the big powers and most of the states were in agreement. That cannot happen in the Security Council. On the other hand, its decisions are assured at only by agreement between permanent members.

The U.N.O. also enjoys an advantage over the League in so far as Asian and African states have come into existence and always throw their weight on the side of peace forces. The imperialist countries and states with aggressive designs cannot have an easy run. All decisions are to be taken on the basis of the unanimity of big five powers. Entire possibility of peace and war has been thrown on their shoulders.

The principle of unanimity has got its own benefits. Now no major power can have shelter behind the veto of a small state as was the case with the League of Nations when one hostile vote of Portugal made the League ineffective to take any action against Italy when she attacked Abbyssinia. In fact, the U.N.O. today takes decisions which arc unfavorable at time to the interests of these powers.

The economic and social functions of the U.N.O. have been separated from political and legal functions. In case of the League these were blurred. Similarly, the Trusteeship Council is a distinct improvement over the mandatory system of the League. Today the forces of peace are more powerful than those during the inter-war period. The U.N.O. thus functions under better conditions. That is the reason why the U.N.O. has been able to maintain peace for four decades or so.

The League of Nations and the United Nations

The imposition of a peaceful world order was a key objective for the League of Nations, established in the aftermath of World War One. How can its successor, the United Nations, react to the challenges of the 21st century? Charles Townshend assesses its chances.

The birth of the League ideal

The League of Nations, born of the destruction and disillusionment arising from World War One, was the most ambitious attempt that had ever been made to construct a peaceful global order. It was rooted in a comprehensive liberal critique of the pre-war international system, which was widely believed to have been the cause of the carnage of 1914-18.

The idea of the League was to eliminate four fatal flaws of the old European states: in place of competing monarchical empires – of which the Hapsburg Empire was perhaps the most notorious – the principle of national self-determination would create a world of independent nation states, free of outside interference; the secret diplomacy of the old order would be replaced by the open discussion and resolution of disputes; the military alliance blocs would be replaced by a system of collective guarantees of security; and agreed disarmament would prevent the recurrence of the kind of arms race that had racked up international tensions in the pre-war decade.

Before this, the closest approach to an international political structure had been the Congress System, in which the European great powers held occasional summit meetings to discuss issues they found urgent. (To his credit, the much-maligned Tsar Nicholas II of Russia had sponsored international efforts to ban ‘inhumane’ weapons such as expanding or exploding bullets; but these efforts were only partially successful.)

The surviving victorious great powers at the end of the Great War – Britain and France – would have preferred to go no further than regularising the old Congress System. The spirit of the times, however, which was overbearingly personified in the president of the USA, Woodrow Wilson, pushed towards the creation of a more comprehensive global organisation, which would include all independent states, and in which even the smallest state would have a voice.

The growth of a system

America failed to ratify the League Covenant Unfortunately, Wilson’s thinking about the way that self-determination would work in the real world, and about getting his idea for a ‘community of power’ off the ground, remained vague. Partly this was to avoid alarming US isolationist opinion, but in any case, when the League Covenant was agreed at the Paris peace conference in 1919, the US Senate refused to ratify it.

How the League would have worked with American participation remains one of the great ‘what ifs’ of modern history. As it was, the direction of the system was left in the hands of states – primarily Britain and France – whose altruism was questionable and whose economic resources had been crippled by the war

Yet the League of Nations did work surprisingly well, at least for a decade after the war. By December 1920, 48 states had signed the League Covenant, pledging to work together to eliminate aggression between countries. A series of disputes – between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia, between Italy and Greece, and between Greece and Bulgaria – were resolved under its auspices.

Though relatively minor, these were just the kind of incidents that had in the past triggered regional conflicts – and indeed World War One itself. There was a widespread belief, or hope, that the League’s prestige was growing incrementally. Methods of investigating disputes, and helping to keep the peace, were regularised.

Another crucial function was the establishment of Mandates to bring all the territories that had been liberated from German and Turkish rule, at the end of the Great War, to eventual self-determination. In Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the process seemed to be moving steadily forward. (In view of its subsequent history, the formal admission of Iraq to the League in 1933 was indeed premature.) The machinery of the League organisation grew more substantial, and the secretariat began to carve out the basis for a quasi-independent role, although this was unplanned and unlooked-for by the old great powers.

The proliferation of League activity, however, carried risks: as one of its founders, Lloyd George, put it, ‘it had weak links spreading everywhere and no grip anywhere’. ‘Grip’ ultimately meant the capacity to use force. When the crucial concept of collective security was put to the acid test in the 1930s, it dissolved. Once big powers started to challenge the status quo, as Japan did in Manchuria, the League found it practically impossible to reach a clear verdict on who was guilty of ‘aggression’.

Or, still more disastrously, in the case of Italian pressure on Abyssinia, the guilt was clear enough but the key powers, Britain and France, were unwilling to antagonise the guilty party because of their wider strategic fears. The failed attempt to impose an oil embargo on Italy demonstrated that any credible system of economic sanctions was far distant.

Death and transfiguration?

Like the proverbial old soldier, the League never died, but rather faded away. Between the humiliation of seeing one of its members, Austria, taken over by Germany in 1938 without even a formal protest, and the absurdity of expelling the USSR after the outbreak of World War Two in 1939 (an event that neither the USSR nor the League were involved in), all that remained were such wraithlike undertakings as the British Mandate in Palestine.

When the Allies finally began to prepare for the end of World War Two, they rejected any idea of restoring the League, and instead moved to establish a new organisation, the United Nations (UN). The structure of the United Nations was to give a much stronger position to the traditional great powers through the UN Security Council; the most significant thing about its creation, perhaps, is that this time the USA did not back away.

A significant number of the old League’s aims and methods were transmitted into the new organisation in 1945. Among these were not only such low-key but effective institutions as the International Court and the International Labour Organisation, but also the working assumptions of the secretariat, and some key operations – including those that would soon come to be called ‘peacekeeping’ operations.

The UN may have almost stumbled sideways into its peacekeeping role, but the motive and sustaining force in the process was the survival – and the strengthening – of the expectation of international involvement in the preservation of global security. Gradually this came to include the defence of human rights as well as the resolution of territorial conflict. The UN’s first attempt to resolve a serious conflict, in Palestine in 1947-8, was unsuccessful, even disastrous: it failed to implement its own partition plan, and its special mediator was assassinated.

None-the-less, UNTSO (the UN Truce Supervision Organisation) opened the gates to a wave of – often bafflingly labelled – successors: UNMOGIP, UNEF, UNOGIL, UNFICYP, UNIMOG, ONUMOZ, UNPROFOR. Some, like the observer force in Kashmir, have remained active for 50 years: not evidence of brilliant success, admittedly, but evidence of hard necessity and a degree of usefulness at least.

Other UN organisations had a shorter but more spectacular life: notably the Operation in the Congo (ONUC) from 1960 to 1964, which prefigured the alarming future for missions to states that were dissolving into civil war. In the Congo, the UN found itself using military force against Katangan rebels to preserve the unity of the state of Congo – a departure from the principle of strict neutrality which has usually been thought vital to the success of its peacekeeping missions.

Dealing with such internal conflict was a far more ambitious and demanding task than the traditional role of assisting consenting states to observe ceasefires. In effect it showed that the UN might need to take governmental responsibility in some situations.

A new international age?

The development towards taking responsibility in countries at risk of disintegration, was due to a dramatic increase in the prestige and initiative of the UN Secretary-General. This was especially at the time when the position was held by the charismatic Dag Hammarskjöld – from 1953 until his death in a plane crash in the Congo in 1961. The UN secretariat came to represent the apparent ‘democratisation’ of the organisation, as the General Assembly began to assert itself after a decade of US domination. (A vivid insight into how this American pressure operated can be found in Conor Cruise O’Brien’s To Katanga and Back.)

What some have called the ‘third world UN’ emerged out of the shadow of the ‘cold war UN’, to the horror of conservative American opinion, which had expected the UN to function as a vehicle for US values – or in effect US policy.

The end of the cold war triggered an unprecedented upsurge in UN commitments. Despite the recurrent funding problems, of the kind that had also dogged the old League, the upbeat official view was that the organisation’s prestige had never been so high. But the nature of the problems emerging in the last decade of the 20th century was extremely worrying.

The title ‘nation’ had always been (for both League and UN) a polite fiction for a club of sovereign states, who often contained within them various ethnically diverse minority groups, sometimes with a claim to nationhood in their own right. These states often denied the rights of their constituent nations to self-determination, and the breakdown of such states as Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and Somalia during the 1990s, revealed a maelstrom of elemental national forces. These could not be compartmentalised into old-fashioned sovereign states of the kind that the UN exists to guarantee, leaving the organisation unsure of how to treat them.

The challenge ahead

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of the Islamic group Hamas Still more worrying was the explosive upsurge of terrorist violence, which in many places has dissolved the shape of military conflict in ways that make the traditional methods of monitoring ineffective. If there is to be a new age of terrorism, it can only be countered by the development of international – indeed global – security agencies. Only the UN could provide a framework for these; yet the possibility of taking effective measures is likely to be frustrated by the difficulty of finding a common definition of terrorism.

The League of Nations tried to draw up a Convention against Terrorism the 1930s, and could not get general agreement. The wider circumstances of that time were unpropitious, but the basic problem persists: as President Assad of Egypt told Tony Blair, in the wake of the attack on New York on September 11 2001, labelling is inescapably a political act. Members of Hamas (the Islamic resistance movement), and the Islamic Jihad organisation, may be terrorists to the government of Israel, but to others they are fighters against oppression. Does the UN have the ‘grip’ to impose a common view?

Various Theories Short Description

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Balance of Power Theory

As a theory, balance of power predicts that rapid changes in international power and status—especially attempts by one state to conquer a region—will provoke counterbalancing actions. For this reason, the balancing process helps to maintain the stability of relations between states. A balance of power system functions most effectively when alliances are fluid, when they are easily formed or broken on the basis of expediency, regardless of values, religion, history, or form of government. Occasionally a single state plays a balancer role, shifting its support to oppose whatever state or alliance is strongest. A weakness of the balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring power. (Extract from ‘Balance of Power,’ Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000.)

Behavioralism
An approach to the study of politics or other social phenomena that focuses on the actions and interactions among units by using scientific methods of observation to include quantification of variables whenever possible. A practitioner of behavioralism is often referred to as a behavioralist. Behaviorism refers to the ideas held by those behavioral scientists who consider only observed behavior as relevant to the scientific enterprise and who reject what they consider to be metaphysical notions of “mind” or “consciousness” (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Chaos Theory
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. Since the International System can be considered a nonlinear dynamic system, it is reasonable to take this theory into account for the study of the International Order.

Classical Realism
Also called human realism and associated with Morgenthau’s exposition of realism in which the power pursuit propensity of states is derived from the basic nature of human beings as power maximisers. This perspective holds that ideological, as well as material, factors may constitute ‘power’ (e.g. power over public opinion) and hence has some social underpinning.

Collective Defence
Though the term existed before 1949, a common understanding of collective defence with regards to NATO can be found in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty: ‘The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area’ (NATO Handbook: 232). In the context of NATO, then, collective defence is based on countering traditional challenges as understood by the realist/neorealist paradigm, specifically to territory, and finds its focus on an identifiable external threat or adversary.

Collective Security
Employed during the construction of the League of Nations, the concept of collective security goes beyond the pure idea of defence to include, according to Inis Claude, ‘arrangements for facilitating peaceful settlement of disputes,’ assuming that the mechanisms of preventing war and defending states under armed attack will ‘supplement and reinforce each other’ (1984:245). Writing during the Cold War, Claude identifies the concept as the post-WWI name given by the international community to the ‘system for maintenance of international peace… intended as a replacement for the system commonly known as the balance-of-power’ (1984:247). Most applicable to widely inclusive international organizations such as the League and the United Nations, ideally, the arrangement would transcend the reliance on deterrence of competing alliances through a network or scheme of ‘national commitments and international mechanisms.’ As in collective defence, collective security is based on the risk of retribution, but it can also involve economic and diplomatic responses, in addition to military retribution. From this, it is theorized that perfected collective security would discourage potential aggressors from angering a collectivity of states. Like balance-of-power, collective security works on the assumption that any potential aggressor would be deterred by the prospect of joint retaliation, but it goes beyond the military realm to include a wider array of security problems. It assumes that states will relinquish sovereignty and freedom of action or inaction to increasing interdependence and the premise of the indivisibility of peace. The security that can be derived from this is part of the foundation of the neoliberal institutionalist argument.

Communitarianism
Suggested text for this entry welcome. Please contribute!

Complex Adaptive Systems Theory
Suggested text for this entry welcome. Please contribute!

Complex Interdependence Theory
The term ‘complex interdependence’ was developed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye and refers to the various, complex transnational connections (interdependencies) between states and societies. Interdependence theorists noted that such relations, particularly economic ones, were increasing; while the use of military force and power balancing were decreasing (but remained important). Reflecting on these developments, they argued that the decline of military force as a policy tool and the increase in economic and other forms of interdependence should increase the probability of cooperation among states. The complex interdependence framework can be seen as an attempt to synthesise elements of realist and liberal thought. Finally, anticipating problems of cheating and relative gains raised by realists, interdependence theorists introduced the concept of ‘regimes’ to mitigate anarchy and facilitate cooperation. Here, we can see an obvious connection to neo-liberal institutionalism. See Keohane, R. and J. Nye. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little-Brown, Boston. (2nd edition,1989).

Complexity Theory

Constitutional Order Theory
Philip Bobbitt’s central thesis (in his book The Shield of Achilles, 2002) that the interplay between strategic and constitutional innovation changes the constitutional order of the state. In putting his thesis, Bobbitt also contends that: epochal wars have brought a particular constitutional order to primacy; a constitutional order achieves dominance by best exploiting the strategic and constitutional innovations of its era; the peace treaties that end epochal wars ratify a particular constitutional order for the society of states; and each constitutional order asserts a unique basis for legitimacy. In terms of the current international system, Bobbitt argues that it is transitioning from an order of nation-states to market-states. The value of Bobbitt’s thesis is that it better explains relations between states, as well as changes within states and in the international system, than the (previously) dominant theory of neo-realism, which assumes that all states are the same and seek only to survive in an anarchical and competitive system through on-going power balancing.

Constitutive Theory
Constitutive theory is directly concerned with the importance of human reflection on the nature and character of world politics and the approach to its study. Reflections on the process of theorizing, including epistemological and ontological issues and questions, are typical. Constitutive theory is distinguished from explanatory or empirical theory (see below) and may be described as the philosophy of world politics or international relations.

Constructivism
Constructivist theory rejects the basic assumption of neo-realist theory that the state of anarchy (lack of a higher authority or government) is a structural condition inherent in the system of states. Rather, it argues, in Alexander Wendt’s words, that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’. That is, anarchy is a condition of the system of states because states in some sense ‘choose’ to make it so. Anarchy is the result of a process that constructs the rules or norms that govern the interaction of states. The condition of the system of states today as self-helpers in the midst of anarchy is a result of the process by which states and the system of states was constructed. It is not an inherent fact of state-to-state relations. Thus, constructivist theory holds that it is possible to change the anarchic nature of the system of states. (See Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It’, International Organization, 46, 2, Spring 1992.)

Corporatism

Cosmopolitanism
The word ‘cosmopolitan’, which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês (‘citizen of the world’), has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy. The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, do (or at least can) belong to a single community, and that this community should be cultivated. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. The philosophical interest in cosmopolitanism lies in its challenge to commonly recognized attachments to fellow-citizens, the local state, parochially shared cultures, and the like. (From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Cosmopolitanism)

Critical Social Theory
Not really a theory, but an approach or methodology which seeks to take a critical stance towards itself by recognising its own presuppositions and role in the world; and secondly, towards the social reality that it investigates by providing grounds for the justification and criticism of the institutions, practices and mentalities that make up that reality. Critical social theory therefore attempts to bridge the divides in social thought between explanation and justification, philosophical and substantive concerns, pure and applied theory, and contemporary and earlier thinking.

Defensive Realism
Defensive realism is an umbrella term for several theories of international politics and foreign policy that build upon Robert Jervis’s writings on the security dilemma and to a lesser extent upon Kenneth Waltz’s balance-of-power theory (neorealism). Defensive realism holds that the international system provides incentives for expansion only under certain conditions. Anarchy (the absence of a universal sovereign or worldwide government) creates situations where by the tools that one state uses to increase it security decreases the security of other states. This security dilemma causes states to worry about one another’s future intentions and relative power. Pairs of states may pursue purely security seeking strategies, but inadvertently generate spirals of mutual hostility or conflict. States often, although not always, pursue expansionist policies because their leaders mistakenly believe that aggression is the only way to make their state secure. Defensive realism predicts great variation in internationally driven expansion and suggests that states ought to generally pursue moderate strategies as the best route to security. Under most circumstances, the stronger states in the international system should pursue military, diplomatic, and foreign economic policies that communicate restraint. Examples of defensive realism include: offense-defense theory (Jervis, Stephen Van Evera, Sean Lynn-Jones, and Charles Glaser), balance-of-power theory (Barry Posen, Michael Mastanduno), balance-of-threat theory (Stephen Walt), domestic mobilization theories (Jack Snyder, Thomas Christensen, and Aron Friedberg), and security dilemma theory (Thomas Christensen, Robert Ross, and William Rose). (Sources: Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, ‘Security-Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Reconsidered,’ International Security, 25, 3, Winter 2000/2001: 152-86; and John J. Mearsheimer, (2002), Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton, New York).

Democratic Peace
All democratic peace theories seek to explain the disputed empirical fact that two constitutional democracies have never gone to war with each other in recent history (1816 onwards). As such, they rest on a similar hypothesis: that relations between pairings of democratic states are inherently more peaceful than relations between other regime-type pairings (i.e. democratic versus non-democratic or non-democratic versus non-democratic). To prove the reality of the democratic peace, theorists such as Michael Doyle have sought to show a causal relationship between the independent variable – ‘democratic political structures at the unit level’ – and the dependant variable – ‘the asserted absence of war between democratic states’. Critics, such as Ido Oren, dispute the claims of democratic peace theorists by insisting that there is a liberal bias in the interpretation of ‘democracy’ which weakens the evidence.

Dependency Theory
Dependency theorists assert that so-called ‘third-world’ countries were not always ‘poor’, but became impoverished through colonial domination and forced incorporation into the world economy by expansionist ‘first-world’ powers. Thus, ‘third-world’ economies became geared more toward the needs of their ‘first-world’ colonial masters than the domestic needs of their own societies. Proponents of dependency theory contend that relationships of dependency have continued long after formal colonization ended. Thus, the primary obstacles to autonomous development are seen as external rather than internal, and so ‘third-world’ countries face a global economy dominated by rich industrial countries. Because ‘first-world’ countries never had to contend with colonialism or a world full of richer, more powerful competitors, dependency theorists argue that it is unfair to compare contemporary ‘third-world’ societies with those of the ‘first-world’ in the early stages of development.

Deterrence Theory
Deterrence is commonly thought about in terms of convincing opponents that a particular action would elicit a response resulting in unacceptable damage that would outweigh any likely benefit. Rather than a simple cost/benefits calculation, however, deterrence is more usefully thought of in terms of a dynamic process with provisions for continuous feedback. The process initially involves determining who shall attempt to deter whom from doing what, and by what means. Several important assumptions underlie most thinking about deterrence. Practitioners tend to assume, for example, that states are unitary actors, and logical according to Western concepts of rationality. Deterrence also assumes that we can adequately understand the calculations of an opponent. One of the most important assumptions during the Cold War was that nuclear weapons were the most effective deterrent to war between the states of the East and the West. This assumption, carried into the post-Cold War era, however, may promote nuclear proliferation. Indeed, some authors suggest that the spread of nuclear weapons would deter more states from going to war against one another. The weapons would, it is argued, provide weaker states with more security against attacks by stronger neighbors. Of course, this view is also predicated on the assumption that every state actor’s rationality will work against the use of such weapons, and that nuclear arms races will therefore not end in nuclear warfare. (Edited extract from Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.)

Dialectical Functionalism
Domino Theory
Dynamic Interaction Theory
Emancipatory International Relations
Emancipatory international relations is characterised by a number of schools of thought most broadly falling under the umbrella of Western or Hegelian Marxism, such as neo-Gramscian theory and approaches to IR based on the Frankfurt School philosophy. These approaches to emancipatory IR can be shown to be reformist rather than revolutionary, in the sense that visions of an alternative world order fail to transcend the state. Thus, some would suggest that approaches to IR that are derived from an anarchist political philosophy, for example, are more appropriate for an emancipatory conception of IR which is revolutionary rather than reformist.

Empirical Theory
An empirical theory in the social or natural sciences relates to facts and provides an explanation or prediction for observed phenomena. Hypotheses associated with empirical theories are subject to test against real-world data or facts. The theorist need not have any purpose in developing such empirical theories other than satisfying his or her intellectual curiosity, although many will seek to make their work “policy relevant” (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Ethnic Conflict Theory
Ethnic conflicts are old. It is violence for state recognition, autonomy or to join a neighboring state. Such conflicts received serious attention by scholars in the aftermath of the Cold War and with the demise of the former Yugoslavia and USSR into several independent states. Ethnic conflict studies can be a source for understanding international relations bearing in mind that no single book, concept or theory can expect to capture such a complex phenomena in its entirety. Political scientists use concepts and theories of sociologists such as Evans (1993), Giddens (1993), Smith (1986), Rex (1986), Hurd (1986) and Laitin (1986) to explain endemic ethnic conflicts caused by alienation and deprivation of ethnic minority groups bonded by history, descent, language, religion and culture living in a defined territory. This group perceives itself as ‘me-you,’ ‘we-they,’ ‘insiders-outsiders,’ and ‘minority-majority.’ Three contending ethnic conflict theories: a) Primordialists stress the importance of instinctive behavior of belonging; b) Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists cite compelling socio-economic-political factors; and c) Constructivists point to the social nature of ethnic groups. For ethnic conflict management models of political ‘accommodation’ or ‘arrangements’ see Walker, C. 1994, Ethnocentrism: The Quest for Understanding (Chapters 6 & 8), Princeton University Press; McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (eds), 1993, The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Resolution: Case Studies of Protracted Ethnic Conflicts (Chapter 1), Routledge; and Lijphart, A. 1997, Democracy in Plural Societies (Chapters 1 & 2), Yale University Press. For further perspectives, see Toft, M. 2003, The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibilty of Territory, Princeton University Press; Anderson, B. 1991, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso; and Huntington, P. 1996, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster.

Evolutionary World Politics
A sub-field of the study of International Relations that poses the question: what explains structural change in world politics, in the past millennium in particular? It rests on two core premises: that political change at the global level is the product of evolutionary processes, and that such processes might be best understood through the application of evolutionary concepts such as selection or learning, without yet embracing biological determinism. Focussing on longer-term, institutional, change it contrasts with, and complements, rational choice approaches that illuminate shorter-term, ends-means decision-making. Components of it might be recognized both in the realist, and the liberal schools of international relations. Structural change may be studied at three levels: at the actor level, by looking at long cycles of global politics; at the level of global political formation, by inquiring into world empire, the nation-state system with global leadership, and global organization, as alternative forms of coping with global problems; and at the of human species evolution, by asking about the emergence of basic world institutions. Global political change co-evolves with cognate processes in the world economy, and is nested in the longer-term developments in democratization, and changes in world opinion. For recent research, reports and bibliography see The Evolutionary World Politics Home Page.

Feminism
A branch of Critical Social Theory (see above) that seeks to explore how we think, or do not think, or avoid thinking about gender in international relations (IR). Feminists argue that traditional IR thinking has avoided thinking of men and women in the capacity of embodied and socially constituted subject categories by subsuming them in other categories (e.g. statesmen, soldiers, refugees), too readily accepting that women are located inside the typically separate sphere of domestic life, and retreating to abstractions (i.e. the state) that mask a masculine identity. Gender-minded analysts therefore seek to move from suspicion of officially ungendered IR texts to their subversion and to replacement theories. Some recent gender-attentive research streams include: critique and reappropriation of stories told about the proper scope of the field of IR; revisions of war and peace narratives; reevaluations of women and development in the international system and its parts; feminist interpretations of human rights; and feminist understandings of international political economy and globalisation. (These notes are an adaptation of a piece by Christine Sylvester: ‘Feminist Theory and Gender Studies in International Relations’.)

Fourth World Theory
A theoretical framework, based on the distinction between nations and states, examining how colonial empires and modern states invaded and now encapsulate most of the world’s enduring peoples. The term Fourth World refers to nations forcefully incorporated into states which maintain a distinct political culture but are internationally unrecognized (Griggs, R. 1992. ‘The Meaning of ‘Nation’ and ‘State’ in the Fourth World’, Center for World Indigenous Studies). Fourth World analyses, writings and maps aim to rectify the distorting and obscuring of indigenous nations’ identities, geographies and histories and expose the usually hidden ‘other side’ of invasions and occupations that generate most of the world’s wars, refugees, genocide, human rights violations and environmental destruction. The distinction between political terms such as nation, state, nation-state, a people and ethnic group – which are commonly used interchangeably in both popular and academic literature despite the fact that each has a unique connotation – provides a geopolitical perspective from which one can paint a ‘ground-up’ portrait of the significance and centrality of people in most world issues, problems and solutions. Fourth World Theory was fashioned by a diverse assortment of people, including activists, human rights lawyers, academics and leaders of indigenous nations. Similar to World Systems Analysis (see below) scholars, proponents of Fourth World Theory seek to change the world, not just describe or explain it.

Frustration-Aggression Theory
A theory that argues that collective behavior is an aggressive response to feelings of frustration.

Functionalism
A focus on purposes or tasks, particularly those performed by organisations. Some theorists have explained the growth of organisations, particularly international organisations, as a response to an increase in the number of purposes or tasks demanding attention. Neofunctionalism as a theory of regional integration emphasizes the political calculation and pay-off to elites who agree to collaborate in the performance of certain tasks (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Game Theory
A decision-making approach based on the assumption of actor rationality in a situation of competition. Each actor tries to maximize gains or minimize losses under conditions of uncertainty and incomplete information, which requires each actor to rank order preferences, estimate probabilities, and try to discern what the other actor is going to do. In a two-person zero-sum game, what one actor wins the other loses; if A wins, 5, B loses 5, and the sum is zero. In a two-person non-zero or variable sum game, gains and losses are not necessarily equal; it is possible that both sides may gain. This is sometimes referred to as a positive-sum game. In some games, both parties can lose, and by different amounts or to a different degree. So-called n-person games include more than two actors or sides. Game theory has contributed to the development of models of deterrence and arms race spirals, but it is also the basis for work concerning the question of how collaboration among competitive states in an anarchic world can be achieved: The central problem is that the rational decision for an individual actor such as a state may be to “defect” and go it alone as opposed to taking a chance on collaboration with another state actor. Dealing with this problem is a central concern of much of the literature on international regimes, regional integration, and conflict resolution (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Globalisation
Globalisation, as a theory, argues that states and societies are increasingly being ‘disciplined’ to behave as if they were private markets operating in a global territory. ‘Disciplinary’ forces affecting states and societies are attributed to the global capital market, transnational corporations (TNCs), and structural adjustment policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which are all driven by neo-liberal economic ideology. Some scholars, such as Stephen Gill, see these agents as representing an emerging system of global economic governance (‘disciplinary neo-liberalism’) based on a quasi-constitutional framework for the reconstitution of the legal rights, prerogatives, and freedom of movement for capital on a world scale (‘new constitutionalism’). See Gill, S. ‘New Constitutionalism, Democratisation and Global Political Economy’, in Pacifica Review 10, 1, 1998.

Globalism
An image of politics different from realism and pluralism. Globalism focuses on the importance of economy, especially capitalist relations of dominance or exploitation, to understanding world politics. The globalist image is influenced by Marxist analyses of exploitative relations, although not all globalists are Marxists. Dependency theory, whether understood in Marxist or non-Marxist terms, is categorised here as part of the globalist image. Also included is the view that international relations are best understood if one sees them as occurring within a world-capitalist system (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention
Thomas Friedman’s theory that no two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald’s. More specifically, Friedman articulates it thus: ‘when a country reached the level of economic development where it had a middle class big enough to support a McDonald’s network, it became a McDonald’s country. And people in McDonald’s countries didn’t like to fight wars anymore, they preferred to wait in line for burgers’. (See Chapter 12 in Thomas L. Friedman, (2000), The Lexus and The Olive Tree, Harper Collins Publishers, London.)

Gramscianism
Hegemonic Stability Theory
The central idea of this theory is that the stability of the international system requires a single dominant state to articulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the most important members of the system. For a state to be a hegemon, it must have three attributes: the capability to enforce the rules of the system, the will to do so, and a commitment to a system which is perceived as mutually beneficial to the major states. A hegemon’s capability rests upon the likes of a large, growing economy, dominance in a leading technological or economic sector, and political power backed up by projective military power. An unstable system will result if economic, technological, and other changes erode the international hierarchy and undermine the position of the dominant state. Pretenders to hegemonic control will emerge if the benefits of the system are viewed as unacceptably unfair. (Extract from lecture notes on the theory of hegemonic stability by Vincent Ferraro, Ruth C. Lawson Professor of International Politics at Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts.)

Historical Internationalism

Historical Materialism

Historical Sociology

Idealism
Idealism is so widely defined that only certain basic tenets can be described. Idealists believe strongly in the affective power of ideas, in that it is possible to base a political system primarily on morality, and that the baser and more selfish impulses of humans can be muted in order to build national and international norms of behavior that foment peace, prosperity, cooperation, and justice. Idealism then is not only heavily reformist, but the tradition has often attracted those who feel that idealistic principles are the “next-step” in the evolution of the human character. One of the first and foremost pieces of the “old world” and “old thinking” to be tossed on the trash heap of history by idealism is that destructive human institution of war. War, in the idealistic view, is now no longer considered by either elites or the populace of the great powers as being a plausible way of achieving goals, as the costs of war, even for the victor, exceed the benefits. As John Mueller says in his book Quiet Cataclysm, war is passing into that consciousness stage where slavery and dueling reside – it can fade away without any adverse effect, and with no need for replacement.

Imperialism
Hans J. Morgenthau defines imperialism as a national foreign policy aimed at acquiring more power than the state actually has, through a reversal of existing power relations, in other words, a favorable change in power status. Imperialism as a national foreign policy is in contrast to ‘status quo’ foreign policy and a foreign policy of ‘prestige.’ The policy of imperialism assumes the classical realist theory perspective of analysis at the unit level in international relations. Furthermore, imperialism is based on a ‘balance-of-power’ construct in international relations. The three types of imperialism as outlined by Morgenthau are: Marxist theory of imperialism which rests on the foundation that all political phenomena are the reflection of economic forces; the Liberal theory of imperialism which results because of maladjustments in the global capitalist system (e.g., surplus of goods and capital which seek outlets in foreign markets); and finally, the ‘devil’ theory of imperialism which posits that manufacturers and bankers plan wars in order to enrich themselves. From Morgenthau, Hans J. 1948. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. McGraw-Hill, Boston. (Chapter 5, The Struggle for Power: Imperialism).

Incrementalism

Integration Theory

Intergovernmentalism
In its most basic form, intergovernmentalism explains interstate cooperation and especially regional integration (e.g. EU) as a function of the alignment of state interests and preferences coupled with power. That is, contrary to the expectations of functionalism and neofunctionalism, integration and cooperation are actually caused by rational self-interested states bargaining with one another. Moreover, as would be expected, those states with more ‘power’ likely will have more of their interests fulfilled. For example, with regard to the EU, it is not surprising, according to proponents of this theory, that many of the agreed-upon institutional arrangements are in line with the preferences of France and Germany, the so-called ‘Franco-German core.’ Andrew Moravcsik is probably the most well-known proponent of intergovernmentalism right now. (See for example: Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach,’ Journal of Common Market Studies, December, 1993.)

International Order Theory

International Political Economy
A method of analysis concerning the social, political and economic arrangements affecting the global systems of production, exchange and distribution, and the mix of values reflected therein (Strange, S. 1988. States and Markets. Pinter Publishers, London. p18). As an analytical method, political economy is based on the assumption that what occurs in the economy reflects, and affects, social power relations.

International Regime Theory
A perspective that focuses on cooperation among actors in a given area of international relations. An international regime is viewed as a set of implicit and explicit principles, norms, rules, and procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a particular issue-area. An issue-area comprises interactions in such diverse areas as nuclear nonproliferation, telecommunications, human rights, or environmental problems. A basic idea behind international regimes is that they provide for transparent state behaviour and a degree of stability under conditions of anarchy in the international system. International regime analysis has been offering a meeting ground for debate between the various schools of thought in IR theory. See Krasner, S. 1983. International Regimes. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Just War Theory
Normative theory referring to conditions under which (1) states rightfully go to war (jus ad bellum) with just cause, as in self-defense in response to aggression, when the decision to go to war is made by legitimate authority in the state, as a last resort after exhausting peaceful remedies, and with some reasonable hope of achieving legitimate objectives; (2) states exercise right conduct in war (jus in bello) when the means employed are proportional to the ends sought, when noncombatants are spared, when weapons or other means that are immoral in themselves are not used (typically those that are indiscriminate or cause needless suffering), and when actions are taken with a right intention to accomplish legitimate military objectives and to minimize collateral death and destruction. Many of these principles of just war are part of the body of international law and thus are legally binding on states and their agents (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Legal Positivism
A legal theory that identifies international law with positive acts of state consent. Herein, states are the only official ‘subjects’ or ‘persons’ of international law because they have the capacity to enter into legal relations and to have legal rights and duties. Indeed, they are the only entities with full, original and universal legal personality; the only proper actors bound by international law. As far as non-state entities (such as individuals, corporations, and international organisations) are concerned, their ability to assert legal personality is only derivative of and conditional upon state personality and state consent. This predominant ideology originated in the nineteenth century when legal positivism took the eighteenth century law of nations, a law common to individuals and states, and transformed it into public and private international law, with the former being deemed to apply to states and the latter to individuals. Thus, only states enjoy full international legal personality, which can be defined as the capacity to bring claims arising from the violation of international law, to conclude valid international agreements, and to enjoy privileges and immunities from national jurisdiction. (Edited text taken from Cutler, C. 2000. ‘Globalization, Law and Transnational Corporations: a Deepening of Market Discipline’, in Cohn, T., S. McBride and J. Wiseman (eds.). Power in the Global Era. Macmillan Press Ltd.).

Liberalism (Liberal Internationalism)
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual. It favours civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. In IR liberalism covers a fairly broad perspective ranging from Wilsonian Idealism through to contemporary neo-liberal theories and the democratic peace thesis. Here states are but one actor in world politics, and even states can cooperate together through institutional mechanisms and bargaining that undermine the propensity to base interests simply in military terms. States are interdependent and other actors such as Transnational Corporations, the IMF and the United Nations play a role.

Marxism
A body of thought inspired by Karl Marx. It emphasises the dialectical unfolding of historical stages, the importance of economic and material forces and class analysis. It predicts that contradictions inherent in each historical epoch eventually lead to the rise of a new dominant class. The era of capitalism, according to Marx, is dominated by the bourgeoisie and will give way to a proletarian, or working class, revolution and an era of socialism in which workers own the means of production and move toward a classless, communist society in which the state, historically a tool of the dominant class, will wither away. A number of contemporary theorists have drawn on Marxian insights and categories of analysis – an influence most evident in work on dependency and the world capitalist system (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Materialism
Modernisation Theory
A theory presuming that all countries had similiar starting points and follow similar paths to ‘development’ along the lines of contemporary ‘first-world’ societies.

Neoclassical Realism

Neoconservatism

Neoliberal Institutionalism
Encompasses those theories which argue that international institutions play an important role in coordinating international cooperation. Proponents begin with the same assumptions used by realists, except for the following: where realists assume that states focus on relative gains and the potential for conflict, neoliberal institutionalists assume that states concentrate on absolute gains and the prospects for cooperation. Neoliberal institutionalists believe that the potential for conflict is overstated by realists and suggest that there are countervailing forces, such as repeated interactions, that propel states toward cooperation. They regard cheating as the greatest threat to cooperation and anarchy as the lack of organisation to enforce rules against cheating. Institutions are described by neoliberals as ‘persistent and connected sets of rules (formal or informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations’ (Keohane, R. ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, in International Studies Quarterly 32, 1988). Robert Keohane is the scholar most closely identified with neoliberal institutionalism.

Neoliberalism
Neo-marxism
Neorealism
A theory developed by Kenneth Waltz in which states seek to survive within an anarchical system. Although states may seek survival through power balancing, balancing is not the aim of that behaviour. Balancing is a product of the aim to survive. And because the international system is regarded as anarchic and based on self-help, the most powerful units set the scene of action for others as well as themselves. These major powers are referred to as poles; hence the international system (or a regional subsystem), at a particular point in time, may be characterised as unipolar, bipolar or multipolar.

Neotraditionalism
New War Theory
Mary Kaldor’s new war theory argues that contemporary types of warfare are distinct from the classic modern forms of warfare based on nation-states. New wars are part of a globalised war economy underpinned by transnational ethnicities, globalised arms markets and internationalised Western-global interventions. The new type of warfare is a predatory social condition which damages the economies of neighbouring regions as well as the zone of conflict itself, spreading refugees, identity-based politics and illegal trade. It is also characterised by new forms of violence (the systematic murder of ‘others’, forced population expulsion and rendering areas uninhabitable) carried out by new militaries (the decaying remnants of state armies, paramilitary groups, self-defence units, mercenaries and international troops) funded by remittances, diaspora fund-raising, external government assistance and the diversion of international humanitarian aid. Whereas 80 per cent of war victims early last century were military personnel, it is estimated that 80 per cent of victims in contemporary wars are civilians. According to Kaldor, this new form of warfare is a political rather than a military challenge, involving the breakdown of legitimacy and the need for a new cosmopolitan politics to reconstruct affected communities and societies. See Kaldor, Mary. 1999. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Polity, Cambridge.

Normative Theory
Normative theory deals precisely with values and value preferences. Unlike empirical theory, however, propositions in normative theory are not subject to empirical test as a means of establishing their truth or falsehood. Normative theory deals not with what is, the domain of empirical theory. Rather, normative theory deals explicitly with what ought to be – the way the world should be ordered and the value choices decision makers should make (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Nuclear Utilisation Theory
Offensive Realism
Offensive realism is a covering term for several theories of international politics and foreign policy that give analytical primacy to the hostile and unforgiving nature of the international system as the cause of conflict. Like defensive realism, some variants of offensive realism build upon and depart from Waltz’s neorealism. Offensive realism holds that anarchy (the absence of a worldwide government or universal sovereign) provides strong incentives for expansion. All states strive to maximize their relative power because only the strongest states can guarantee their survival. They pursue expansionist policies when and where the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. States face the ever-present threat that other states will use force to harm or conquer them. This compels them to improve their relative power positions through arms build-ups, unilateral diplomacy, mercantile (or even autarkic) foreign economic policies, and opportunistic expansion. Ultimately every state in the international system strives to become a regional hegemon – a state that enjoys a preponderance of military, economic, and potential power in its part of the globe. Offensive realists however, disagree over the historical prevalence of hegemonic regional systems and the likely responses of weaker states to would-be regional hegemons (e.g., balancing, buck-passing, or bandwagoning). In particular, there is a sharp disagreement between proponents of the balance-of-power tradition (John Mearsheimer, Eric Labs, Fareed Zakaria, Kier Lieber, and Christopher Layne) and proponents of the security variant of hegemonic stability theory (Robert Gilpin, William Wohlforth, and Stephen Brooks). (Sources: Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, ‘Security-Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Reconsidered,’ International Security, 25, 3, Winter 2000/2001: 152-86; and John J. Mearsheimer, (2002), Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton, New York).

Parallelism Theory
Based on a fusion of Weberian and Freudian concepts, Parallelism argues that, at the macro level, states fall into two general categories, paternal and fraternal, and that the struggle between the two types characterizes international relations. In the ancient world, paternal systems were predominant because they were militarily superior, but since the rise of the nation-state, fraternal states have become predominant. The engine of historical change is the revolution-hegemonic war cycle, which brings paternal and fraternal systems into conflict with one another. There are at least four examples of this type of hegemonic conflict occurring in documented history: 1) the rise of Macedonia and Alexander the Great’s war with Persia; 2) the rise of Mongolia and Gheghis Khan’s war of expansion; 3) the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars; and 4) Weimar Germany and World War II. There are other types of hegemonic conflicts (e.g., WW I, Seven Years War), but these four represent parallel events. Victory in revolutionary and hegemonic conflict has determined the direction of the world system, towards paternalism or fraternalism. For more information, refer to the Center for the Study of Political Parallelism.

Peripheral Realism
A foreign policy theory arising from the special perspective of (Latin American) peripheral states and represented by the work of Carlos Escude, for example. This view of international relations regards the international system as having an incipient hierarchical structure based on perceived differences between states: those that give orders, those that obey, and those that rebel. The peripheral approach introduces a different way of understanding the international system: that is, from the unique viewpoint of states that do not impose ‘rules of the game’ and which suffer high costs when they confront them. Thus, the foreign policies of peripheral states are typically framed and implemented in such a way that the national interest is defined in terms of development, confrontation with great powers is avoided, and autonomy is not understood as freedom of action but rather in terms of the costs of using that freedom.

Pluralism
A tradition in international relations that argued that politics, and hence policy, was the product of a myriad of competing interests, hence depriving the state of any independent status. Pluralism can be seen to derive principally from a liberal tradition, rooted in Locke’s ‘Second Treatise of Government’, and to pose an anti-realist vision of the centrality of the state in world politics. Pluralists make four key assumptions about international relations. Primarily, non-state actors are important entities in world politics. Secondly, the State is not looked upon as a unified actor, rather, competition, coalition building, and compromise between various interest groups including multinational enterprises will eventually culminate into a ‘decision’ announced in the name of the state. Thirdly, pluralists challenge the realist assumption of the state as a rational actor, and this derives from the second assumption where the clash of competing interests may not always provide for a rational decision making process. Finally, the fourth assumption revolves around the nature of the international agenda, where it is deemed extensive by the pluralists and includes issues of national security as well as economic, social and environmental issues. Hence, pluralists reject the ‘high politics’ ‘low politics’ divide characteristic of realism. They also contend with the predominance of a physical conception of power inherent in realism.

Policy-Relevant Theory
Policy-relevant theories may have explicit purposes that stem from the value preferences of the theorist, such as reducing the likelihood of war or curbing the arms race. Acting on such theories, of course, is the domain of the policy maker, a task separate from that of the empirical theorist. Theorists who become policy makers may well make choices informed by what theories say will be the likely outcomes of implementing one or another alternative. Their choices may be informed by empirical theory or understanding of world events, but the decisions they make are still based on value preferences (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making
Poliheuristic theory suggests that leaders simplify their choice problems according to a two-stage decision process. During the first stage, the set of possible options and outcomes is reduced by application of a ‘noncompensatory principle’ to eliminate any alternative with an unacceptable return on a critical, typically political, decision dimension (Mintz 1993). Once the choice set has been reduced to alternatives that are acceptable to the decision maker, the process moves to a second stage ‘during which the decision maker can either use a more analytic, expected utility-like strategy or switch to a lexicographic decision strategy.’ (Mintz 1997; Mintz et al. 1997; Mintz and Geva 1997; Mintz and Astorino-Courtois 2001). In setting out a pivotal preliminary stage to expected utility decision making, the poliheuristic theory bridges the gap between research in cognitive psychology (Taber and Steenbergen 1995) and the considerable insights provided by rational analyses of decision making (e.g., Bueno de Mesquita 1981; Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman 1992; Morrow 1997). From Mintz, A. 2003. Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Positivism
Postbehaviouralism
Postinternationalism
Unlike many other theories, post-international theory is organized around the premise that our time is marked by profound and continuous transformations and turbulence. It seeks to account for the dynamics of change and anticipate where they might be leading the world. Its prime focus is on the transformation of three basic parameters: one at the micro level of individuals, another at the micro-macro level where individuals and their collectivities interact, and the third is at the macro level of collectivities and their global structures. The central concept at the micro level involves a skill revolution, whereas at the micro-macro level it involves the pervasiveness of authority crises experienced by all kinds of collectivities; and at the macro level it posits a bifurcation of global structures into the state-centric world of sovereignty-bound actors and the multi-centric world of sovereignty-free actors. This formulation is theoretical in the sense that it anticipates the conditions under which continual turbulence and transformation are likely to sustain world affairs. Examples of transformations at each level include the increasingly manifest readiness of individuals to engage in collective action (micro level), the ‘battle of Seattle’ (micro-macro level), and the pattern – indeed, institutionalization – whereby the NGO and state-centric worlds converge around common interests (macro level). See James Rosenau’s (1990) Turbulence in World Politics and Heidi Hobbs’ (ed.) (2000) Pondering Postinternationalism.

Postmodernism
A more extreme branch of Critical Social Theory (see above) that can be identified in terms of its critical stance toward (western) modernity and the unambiguous narratives of reason, truth and progress. Whereas the dominant narrative of modernity upholds reason as the foundation of objective truth and the source of progress, postmodernism emphasises the interplay of a plurality of discursive practices, ways of knowing, social identities and possible worlds.
Post-positvism
Poststructuralism
Power Transition Theory
Created by A.F.K. Organski and originally published in his textbook, World Politics (1958), power transition theory today describes international politics as a hierarchy with (1) a “dominant” state, the one with the largest proportion of power resources (population, productivity, and political capacity meaning coherence and stability); (2) “great powers,” a collection of potential rivals to the dominant state and who share in the tasks of maintaining the system and controlling the allocation of power resources; (3) “middle powers” of regional significance similar to the dominant state, but unable to challenge the dominant state or the system structure, and (4) “small powers,” the rest. The principle predictive power of the theory is in the likelihood of war and the stability of alliances. War is most likely, of longest duration, and greatest magnitude, when a challenger to the dominant power enters into approximate parity with the dominant state and is dissatisfied with the existing system. Similarly, alliances are most stable when the parties to the alliance are satisfied with the system structure. There are further nuances to the theory: for instance, the sources of power transition vary in their volitility, population change being the least volatile and political capacity (defined as the ability of the government to control resources internal to the country) the most volatile. (Best single text and the source of the above description: Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century, by Ronald L. Tammen et al., published by Seven Bridges Press, 2000.)

Pragmatic Idealism
Pragmatic Idealism was first developed as a conceptual and axiological clarification of ‘Canadian internationalism’ in Costas Melakopides’ Pragmatic Idealism: Canadian Foreign Policy 19945-1995 (McGill-Queens Úniversity Press, 1998). It argued that Canada, along with such ‘like-minded middle powers’ as Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden, had adopted during the Cold War a self-conscious departure from classic Realpolitik, through foreign policies that cultivated moderation, mediation, legal and diplomatic solutions to international conflicts, and authentic commitment to peacekeeping, peace-making, human rights, foreign aid, and ecological rationality. Today, Pragmatic Idealism can be said to characterize any foreign policy – including the international role of the European Union – that embraces the aforementioned principles and values.

Prisoner’s Dilemma
Cooperation is usually analysed in game theory by means of a non-zero-sum game called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” (Axelrod, 1984). The two players in the game can choose between two moves, either “cooperate” or “defect”. The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose (or gain very little) but not as much as the “cheated” cooperator whose cooperation is not returned. The problem with the prisoner’s dilemma is that if both decision-makers were purely rational, they would never cooperate. Indeed, rational decision-making means that you make the decision which is best for you whatever the other actor chooses. Suppose the other one would defect, then it is rational to defect yourself: you won’t gain anything, but if you do not defect you will be stuck with a loss. Suppose the other one would cooperate, then you will gain anyway, but you will gain more if you do not cooperate, so here too the rational choice is to defect. The problem is that if both actors are rational, both will decide to defect, and none of them will gain anything. However, if both would “irrationally” decide to cooperate, both would gain.

Prospect Theory
Prospect theory is a psychological theory of decision-making under conditions of risk and derives its name from the tenet that the notion of risk involves some prospect of loss. Thus prospect theory posits loss-aversion, rather than risk-aversion (as claimed by rational choice theorists) and takes into account the psychological primacy of relative positioning. The theory states that there are two phases affecting decision-making: 1) framing, where perception or presentation of the situation in which decisions must be made affect the disposition towards some alternatives over others; and 2) evaluation, where the decision-maker assesses gains and losses relative to a movable reference point depending on the perspective of the decision-maker. It helps focus on how utilities are formed rather than how they are maximised. Prospect theory originally was called ‘value theory’ by its founders Kahneman and Tversky in the late 1970s. (Edited passages from McDermott, R. (ed.). (2004). Political Psychology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford).

Psycho-Cultural Theory
Rationalism
A theoretical qualification to the pessimism of realism and the idealism of liberal internationalism. Rationalists view states as comprising an international society, not merely an international system. States come to be a part of an international society by accepting that various principles and institutions govern the way in which they conduct their foreign relations. In doing so, it can be argued, states also display a commitment to the idea that it is inappropriate to promote the national interest without any regard for international law and morality.

Realism
A particular view of the world, or paradigm, defined by the following assumptions: the international realm is anarchic and consists of independent political units called states; states are the primary actors and inherently possess some offensive military capability or power which makes them potentially dangerous to each other; states can never be sure about the intentions of other states; the basic motive driving states is survival or the maintenance of sovereignty; states are instrumentally rational and think strategically about how to survive.

Reflectionism
Regime Theory
See International Regime Theory above.
Schema Theory
Security Dilemma
A security dilemma refers to a situation wherein two or more states are drawn into conflict, possibly even war, over security concerns, even though none of the states actually desire conflict. Essentially, the security dilemma occurs when two or more states each feel insecure in relation to other states. None of the states involved want relations to deteriorate, let alone for war to be declared, but as each state acts militarily or diplomatically to make itself more secure, the other states interpret its actions as threatening. An ironic cycle of unintended provocations emerges, resulting in an escalation of the conflict which may eventually lead to open warfare. (Kanji, O. 2003. ‘Security’ in Burgess, G. and H. Burgess (eds.). Beyond Intractability. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado).

Social Constructivism
Social constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life. As such, constructivism rests on an irreducibly intersubjective dimension of human action: the capacity and will of people to take a deliberate attitude towards the world and to lend it significance. This capacity gives rise to social facts, or facts that depend on human agreement that they exist and typically require human institutions for their existence (money, property rights, sovereignty, marriage and Valentine’s Day, for example). Constructivists contend that not only are identities and interests of actors socially constructed, but also that they must share the stage with a whole host of other ideational factors emanating from people as cultural beings. No general theory of the social construction of reality is available to be borrowed from other fields and international relations constructivists have not as yet managed to formulate a fully fledged theory of their own. As a result, constructivism remains more of a philosophically and theoretically informed perspective on and approach to the empirical study of international relations. (Edited passage from Ruggie, J. ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organization 52, 4, Autumn 1998).

Structural Idealism
Structuralism
Supranationalism
Traditionalism
An approach to international relations that emphasises the studying of such disciplines as diplomatic history, international law, and philosophy in an attempt to develop better insights. Traditionalists tend to be skeptical of behavioralist approaches that are confined to strict scientific standards that include formal hypothesis testing and, usually, the use of statistical analysis (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Transnational Historical Materialism
Transnational historical materialism falls within the Marxist tradition. This contemporary Marxism takes its inspiration from Antonio Gramsci and gives greater significance to the role of culture and ideas, along with focussing on economic aspects of order and change. It is seen as a corrective to the economism of classical Marxism.

Transnationalism
Interactions and coalitions across state boundaries that involve such diverse nongovernmental actors as multinational corporations and banks, church groups, and terrorist networks. In some usages, transnationalism includes both nongovernmental as well as transgovernmental links. The term transnational is used both to label the actor (for example, a transnational actor) or a pattern of behavior (for example, an international organisation that acts transnationally – operates across state borders). Theorists focusing on transnationalism often de-emphasise the state as primary and unitary actor (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Two-World Order
Virtual Theory
World Capitalist System
An approach to international relations that emphasises the impact of the world wide spread of capitalism. It focuses on class and economic relations and the division of the world into a dominant centre or core of industrialised countries, a subordinate periphery of less developed countries and a semi-periphery of countries that occupy an intermediate position between core and periphery (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

World-Systems Analysis
World-systems analysis is not a theory or mode of theorizing, but a perspective and a critique of other perspectives within social science. Its social origins were located in the geopolitical emergence of the Third World in the late 1960s and the manifest insufficiencies of modernization theory to account for what was happening. The unit of analysis is the world-system rather than a state or society, with particular emphases on the long-term history and totality of the system. The notion of totality (globality, unidisciplinary and holism) distinguishes world-systems analysis from similar approaches such as global or international political economy which look at the relationships between the two segregated streams of politics and economics. Proponents of world-systems analysis also regard it as an intellectual movement, capable of transforming social science into a vehicle for world-wide social change.

Causes & Origin of Cold War

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

1. Immediate Causes

Opposing Ideologies: Once common Enemies defeated (Germany); tension escalate.

The Soviets sought to introduce their brand of communism to nations and territories that they occupied as a result of the war.

The United States and the other Western European nations viewed communism and one‐party rule in a very negative light; as a direct threat to individual freedom and democracy

East–West ideological differences soon manifested themselves in Germany, which was split into western and eastern occupation zones in 1945.

The Atomic Bomb:

SU upset that their allies had tried to keep the technology a secret;

American atomic monopoly might create a serious security problem along their western border.

Strategic Imperatives and Power Vacuums; As the number of newly independent states proliferated in the postwar world as the result of decolonization, the US and Soviet Union competed for influence over these new states.

US adopted the policy of checking the Soviet expansion.

Economics: The Soviets held out the promise that communism would bring an end to economic deprivation and inequality.

The United States convince Europeans that democratic capitalism offered the only acceptable way of achieving economic success and freedom.

Leadership and Personalities: In April 1945, just a month before the defeat of Germany, President Franklin D. Roosevelt died, and Vice President Harry S. Truman became the new leader of the United States.

Roosevelt’s style of wartime diplomacy with Stalin had been very personal and informal; compromise and postponed making difficult postwar decisions.

Truman’s leadership style was far more forceful and direct than was Roosevelt’s.

2. Intermediate Causes:

Foreign Policies of the 1930s: Hitler annexed Austria in March 1938, the French, British, and Soviets entered into negotiations to form an alliance or mutual defense pact.

negotiations broke down by mid‐1939 because of mutual suspicions and misunderstandings.

Just as the Munich Agreement 1938, angered the Soviets, the August 1939 Nazi‐Soviet Non‐Aggression Pact outraged the West.

The Soviets stayed out of the war until they were attacked by Germany in June 1941.

The World War II alliance of the allies was based not on long‐term trust or even long‐term mutual interests. It was based only on the will to defeat a common enemy.

War Damage and the Soviet Union

Stalin and his successors believed that their country would have suffered much less damage and far fewer deaths had its allies dedicated more resources to the World War II effort in Europe.

mutual distrust soon replaced mutual cooperation after the Axis nations were defeated.

After the war was over, Stalin felt entitled to control Eastern Europe

He believed that the great suffering and sacrifices made by the Soviets had earned him the right to establish pro‐Soviet regimes from Yugoslavia all the way to the Polish‐Soviet border.

He sought dominance there for ideological as well as security reasons. mistrust developed with the way Allied Conduct of World War II.

3. Long‐term Causes

Western Interference in the Russian/ Bolshevik Revolution (1918–1921)

In January–February 1918, Great Britain, the United States, and France decided to intervene in the Russian Revolution of November 1917. The revolution led ultimately to a civil war.

Britain, America, France, Japan, and several other Western nations sent troops to Russia to stop the Bolsheviks. By 1921, the Bolsheviks had consolidated their power and the West ended its intervention and blockade.

The deeply resented the West’s intervention in what was clearly an internal affair. This history weighed heavily on East–West relations.

Soviet Security Concerns: history of Invasion;

Stalin’s desire to establish a defensive perimeter in Eastern Europe contributed to the eventual clash with the West.

Introduction and Development of International Relations

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

History of the Discipline of IR:

IR in practice and as an academic vocation is both ancient and modern. It is relatively a juvenile discipline of social science. It achieved departmental status by setting up a Chair on IR at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth in 1919. A simple examination of the classics of political science and political thought signifies to its ancient status in theory and practice. The activities beyond one’s border in order to maintain and accumulate power at home and sustain ambitions and interests abroad provide the very stuff of IR in ancient context is made of as much as they do in the New Century. The past always acts as an acknowledged guide to the present and the future.

IR is integrally related to the First World War. Before that tumultuous and tragic event IR was not taught as a separate subject but in the US universities it was organized on lectures under History and Economics faculties. After the creation of the League of Nations, the League sponsored a series of International Studies conference through its Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. The Geneva Institute of International Studies served as an intermediary between the League and the growing subject of IR on the level of universities. In the aftermath of another Great War the UNESCO, a specialized agency of UN provided an additional stimulus to the development of study of IR. UNESCO sponsored conference of representatives of universities in 1948 calling to establish chair or department for systematic teaching, study and research of IR. The decolonization during that era expanded the scope of IR in new states. IR no longer remained the exclusive preserve of America and Europe. Though there was horizontal expansion of IR in all new countries it did not reach our mountainous country till 1960s.[1] Now we have access to the resources as well as learning it under the syllabus of an American university in the age of democracy.

The Development of IR Thinking

The stages of development of IR had its genesis in the first half of the 20th century. It achieved its maturity in the post-War world passing through several trends and stages.[2]

The first stage of IR ran up to the end of the First Great War. During that period IR was taught by diplomatic historians concerned with history than politics and contemporary events. They were interested in description of past events rather than critical analysis of the present and prediction of the future. This historical approach precluded a development of theories on IR. It could not prevent the Great War from occurring and after that international catastrophe the study focused on only current affairs. This second stage was perpetuation of also bias as it gave importance to the present without reference to the past. Therefore both stages were encumbered by ineffectual partial approaches. The third stage existed throughout inter-war years and then after the new scholarship was adopted which was an essentially moralist-legalistic approach renouncing war. There were votaries of peace, just world and internationalism. They were quite euphoric in reposing unstinted trust in international organizations to prevent wars and conflicts. They pursued lofty ideals of the rule of international law and civilized norms and values. The statesmen like Woodrow Wilson who put forth 14 Points Charter to chalk out liberal internationalism to be an elixir of the contemporary world. The great faith in the newly established League of Nations and creation of legal institutions and organizational devices had fizzled out with the rumblings of war machines in 1939. Continental Europe attracted magnetic involvement of the West as it soon was embroiled in a quagmire of wars and conflict. Therefore emphasis on utopianism/liberalism/idealism ignored the hard realities of international life and did not comprehend well the nature of IR.

After the Second Great War the fourth stage succeeded on the backdrop of the devastation which had shaken the moral foundations and faith in international organizations and law as instrument of peace. The emphasis now was shifted to making a scientific analysis of the developments in IR including causes of war and ways to avert it. The determinants and roots of foreign policies, techniques of the conduct of IR, the mode of conflict resolution, crisis management, forces and influences which mould and condition the behaviour of states became the cardinal concern of the study. The objective of studying IR was not to exalt or criticize international issues and problems rather to understand them comprehensively. Realism occupied a position of the prevalent school developed by thinkers like E.H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, Kenneth W. Thompson, Reinhold Niebuhr, George F. Kennan, and Henry A. Kissinger. They conveyed what IR and international behaviour of states is as on contrary to what idealists espoused. Power according to them is the currency of international politics. It is a means as well as ends. International politics in the gist is the struggle for power. Every state seeks more of it to use and to fulfill and satisfy national interests. Some partial theories or more importantly approaches on the sidelines of application of realist doctrine were developed. The growth of deterrence theory in the 1950s and 1960s alongside new methodology of game theory came into existence.

On the shadow of hostile ideological camps, orthodox Marxism interpreted IR in its own tenets and tenor. It stressed on transnational class solidarities coupled with a liquidation of transnational class struggle. The thrust in the subject matter of IR was altered with the subsequent development in science and technology, decolonization, the emergence of universal values, spread of nuclear technology, arms race, growth of international and transnational actors. Its desire sought for theoretical contemplation and philosophy of IR.

The fifth stage was marked from mid 1960s to 1970s wherein structurally inter-paradigm debate figured prominently taking a cue from The Scientific Revolutions, a text by Thomas Kuhn. It was the post-realist paradigm which was aptly labeled the behavioural approach to the study of IR followed the paradigm shift. It was thorough and heated exchange of theses over the principles and procedure most suitable for delving into international phenomena. The emphasis on law-like generalizations purported to patterns and regularities presumed to be constant across space and time. The quantitative study of IR was made. To some extent nation-state as a unit of analysis lost the appeal and luster and attempts were made to ascertain real forces of IR. The more relevant unit of analysis – individuals, group think, transnational organizations and bureaucracies were examined. Non-state actors with international reach and scope became the subject matter of this study. The transnational perspective responded with the dynamics of IR and global circumstances.

Neoliberalism or transnationalism in 1970s reflected the ongoing international economic exchange. It formulated complex interdependence in IR introducing transnational relations, economic interdependence, security communities, international organizations and the broader concept of international regimes. A critique of such positive interdependence responded with fine tuning radicalism from Marxist perspective in the form of the world-system, dependency and underdevelopment postulates. It was well received both in Latin America and the US in the late 1960s and 1970s due to American intervention to contain ideologically hostile regimes in the non-Western world.

The North-South disparities were widening the gulf between the affluent and the impoverished societies. The conflicts about unequal dividends of global economy demanded New International Economic Order by the countries of the South. The concepts such as neo-imperialism, neo-colonialism, structural violence, international political economy, peace and other alternative movements became a subject of discourse and analysis of IR. Peace research was started which one of the manifestations of a resurgence of neoliberal theorizing. It appeared at a time when the Cold War lost the chill to détente. It was developed by heavy funding within Western Europe and Scandinavia. Then functionalists, neo-functionalists, world federalists and integration theorists discussed the issues of regionalism, global stability, global order and global peace. Ethically concerned futurologists motivated the people to mull different and alternative worlds for the secure future of the posterity. These trends are known as the post-behavioural era.

The sixth stage from late 1970s to the first half of 1980s the study of IR was influenced by variables such as economic issues, ecological and environment challenges. It became the concern of international community. In 1980s realism was transformed into neorealism with both neoliberalism and radicalism faded.

The conscious or subconscious rationalization involved in contemporary theorizing by the Western scholars was challenged by the intellectuals of the South. The Western theories in many cases were considered irrelevant and inapplicable to the countries of the South. Its inadequacies led to the growth of non-Western perspectives on IR. It came to fore as the demand for a more credible effort on the part of the capitalist West to establish an egalitarian global economy was raised. During the heyday of Cold War most of these countries to note chose nonalignment and peaceful co-existence despite some regional powers courted either superpowers – the US and Soviet Union. The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 ushered the triumph of liberal democracy and “the end of history.” the disintegration of Soviet Union was the resultant product of its own inherent flaws in political and economic system. The great debates were also not squarely debated instead the theories were refined within the respective schools of thought. By the end of 1980s the theoretical contestation was reduced to relatively narrow discord.

The mainstream of controversial theories was replaced by rationalists and reflectivists camps. The post-modern debate ensued in the seventh stage. In contrast to neo-realists and neo-liberals shared belief in rational (scientific) methods, reflectivists are characterized by emphasizing interpretation (hermeneutics), the reflections of actors and agents central to institutions. Norms and regimes seen as inter-subjective phenomena are to be studied by non-positivist methods. Four main undercurrents of post-positivism in 1980s were critical theory, post-Marxism, post-modernism and post-modern feminism.

The eight stage had salient feature of unipolar moment with a lonely superpower the US on the landscape of IR. However there were concerted efforts by European countries and other major powers of regions to create a multipolar world order. The post-Cold War era traits comprised of the process and move toward democratizing IR. A thesis on power diffusion has become vogue as the great powers in contemporary IR are constrained to use traditional attributes and resources to achieve their objectives than in the past.

A comparatively new discipline IR has passed through different stages as mentioned above in ordeal atmosphere since its inception in the early 20th century. The study of IR is thus neither well-organized nor fully scientific nor having comprehensive conceptual framework. Yet it has developed itself as an autonomous discipline under the branch of political science apart of which draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies.

The “Great Debates”/ Inter-paradigm debate

First Major Debate: Utopian Liberalism/Idealism vs. Realism (1930s & 1940s)

Second Major Debate: Traditional Approaches vs. behaviouralism (late 1950s & 1960s)

Third Major Debate: Neorealism/neoliberalism vs. Neo-Marxism (late 1960s & early 1970s)

Fourth Major Debate (the early stages): Established traditions vs. post-positivist methodologies (late 1980s & 1990s)

Earlier the inter-paradigm debates was confined and subsumed easily in a conventional tripartite superstructure designated aptly by three waves. There are new debates and there are cutting edges across approaches to IR but we can still discern no new dominant paradigm.

The modern world-system has its origin since a half millennia approximately 1500. Immanuel Wallerstein sees it essentially as a world economy without a world empire. George Modelski concentrates on political leadership in a society although it has anarchical elements is still nevertheless a society. So contemporary world system of the last half millennium is rooted in economic or political relationships. Realism, world society and structural approaches were evident in 19th century theory and practice in concert system (realism), in the growth of international civil society organizations (world society approaches) and in the structuralist Marxist and geopolitical traditions.

The modern state system emerged and got inured n the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the subsequent treaty. Hobbes and Machiavelli were considered realists. Callières outlined a Treatise on Diplomacy and Hugo Grotius was regarded as the father of international law. The Duc de Sully and Kant sought to create conditions for a permanent and working peace system. Friedrich Gentz became the father of modern diplomacy. De Tocqueville envisaged the outlines of mid-20th century international relations. Carl von Clausewitz said war was the continuation of politics by other means. The geopoliticians flourished and the Marxist tradition was germinated.

There was briefly in the 1920s a consensus in theory and practice on the practice of precepts of Wilson’s liberal internationalism. The Anglo-American tradition of idealism or utopianism came under scathing attack from by the European continental scholars who had the first hand experience of ultra-nationalist war mongering regimes in those countries. Those scholars were steeped into prudential realism and axiomatic power politics. Morgenthau put forth well known six principles of realism. In Europe as liberal democracies were at the margins and isolation. The Second great consensus was therefore on realism. The discipline of IR had been founded on the notion that international politics were in essence state-centric and that the dominant mode of relations between states was power politics. It is beginning to crack.

The Study of IR in Japan, China and India: A Concise Glance at the State of the Art Discipline in Three Asian Powers

International Relations as a disciplinary study in Japan can not be found as a separate departmental specialization except in the Graduate Schools of Area Studies, International Cultural Studies, Political Science and Law faculty. From 1868 (the Meiji restoration) till at present there are four traditions governing the principles of Japanese IR which are Staatslehre or statecraft principles, Marxism, historicism and American political science.[3] In brief Staatslehre tradition significantly influenced the study of pre-war military and colonial period and after 1945 also it was forcefully appeared in the academic scene. From 1920 to 1960 Marxism was put forth to criticize the government of the day and in 1920 the word Shakai Kagaku or social science came into prominence. Historicism did not care about relevance of policy and it included in its matter pre 1945 events and personalities. In pre 1945 in Japan there was an influence of European social science and after the war American social science dominated. Prof. Inoguchi has remarked that the salient feature of Japanese political science and IR is diversity without integrated discipline or without institutional integration. During Cold war between 1960 and 1970 Japanese academics were in dilemma to choose either realism or idealism which is not solved even today regarding partial peace with the West and total peace with friendly powers. The post-Vietnam war displaced the Japanese realism about running the world by post-realism and post-idealism.[4]

There are three stages of IR development institutionally in China. The first stage since 1953 catered the needs of civil servants of the Foreign Ministry and new talents in the field of national and public security. The second stage from 1964 to 1979 established three departments of international politics at Peking, Remin and Fudan universities studying the national liberation movements in the Third World, communist movements in the world and IR in the Western world respectively. The third stage from 1980 to the present there are 36 schools of IR within universities, and 54 bachelor or master degree programs, and 29 doctoral degree programs in IR. In China IR is developed and explained within the Marxist thought. Of late Chinese IR scholars are involved in brain storming of non-Marxian theories in Chinese context.[5]

With respect to India liberal-idealism of Nehru’s doctrine in Indian foreign policy is under duress from intellectuals and think tanks to overhaul it.[6] They emphasize the Indian establishment to profess and pursue realist principles while conducting IR especially after 1990 which heralded New World Order. They are cognizance of the fact that the new nuclear nation is a major power to reckon with in the 21st century. There are four universities at four corners in India at the departmental status for imparting specialization in the discipline of IR. Indian analysts and thinkers are imbued with Western paradigms on IR and they indulge in appraising them in their context.[7] Recently they are reclaiming the post-colonial space of discourse due to development of the post-colonialism as a distinct strand of theory. Despite analyzing the workings of the post-colonial state in contemporary settings of IR, authorities on it are based in Euro-American academics employing a textual language of the Occident.

[1] Sridhar Khatri, “Teaching International Relations in Nepal,” Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, July 2001, pp. 139-154.

[2] Heavily referred to Vinay Kumar Malhotra, International Relations, (New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., Reprint 2006), pp. 1-13.

[3] Takashi Inoguchi and Paul Bacon, “The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 1, 2001, pp. 1-20.

[4] Takashi Inoguchi, “The Sociology of a Not-So-Integrated Discipline: The Development of International Relations in Japan,” Journal of East Asian Studies, February, 2001, Vol.2, No.1, p.119.

[5] Qin Yaqing, “Why is there no Chinese international relations theory?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 313-340.

[6] C. Raja Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India’s New Foreign Policy, (New Delhi: Penguin Books/Viking, 2003).

[7] Kanti Bajpai and Siddarth Mallavarapu (eds.), International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2005); Kanti Bajpai and Siddarth Mallavarapu (eds.), International Relations in India: Theorizing the Region and Nation, (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2005).

Meaning, nature and scope of IR

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The definition of International Relations (IR) varies from a layperson to scholars. It means one thing to individuals inhabiting at the power centers of the World (the West) and means other thing to the impoverished peoples of the South. It is a complex tapestry of conceptions that is palatable to one and vulgar to the others. The definitions are also either narrow or broad. It is either state-centric, or society-centric or anthropocentric in connotations. It is defined in a way that suits those who govern and those who are governed. A striking balance is therefore required to satisfy the interpreters of IR especially for the people who dislike inevitability of power politics qua realpolitik.

IR encompasses or covers all facets and dimensions of relations amongst nations. It includes political, economic, social, cultural and ideological spheres of a state which interface that with the others. Specific to the influences on the state and its citizens we can say that IR is the study of respective spheres of (inter)actions at different levels – either above or below a state and with different actors – either state or non-state. However a universal acceptance of a definition is still elusive. It suggests that there is no single viewpoint on understanding and explaining IR.

The traditional scope of IR is associated much either with state-centric notions of our existence or with forces international in nature that shape our private lives. Whereas today it is identified more with job prospects and career in IR. We sometimes pursue our study according to the conditions of job markets or scope of the subject in securing employment. The important aspect of after education is to explore avenues on your own to expand the scope of the received knowledge in a society. Without internship or voluntarism in non-government sectors one can not augment experiences of real world situations. It also emphasize on interpersonal and communication skills as well as working on a multicultural environment in diverse situations. MNCs play a prominent role in current international relations and international business diplomacy is one area where management students would be suitable to undertake the profession.

Some put forward a limited list and others exhaustive list but it can not be forthrightly said that scope is fully decided because the international environment as well as this discipline is in a state of flux. Even then its scope and main areas of study have been distinctly demarcated viz. study of the state system, relations in conflict and cooperation, general and diplomatic history, power, international law, international organizations, international systems, integration and community approach, geopolitics, conflict management and conflict resolution, war and peace, ideologies, nationalism, colonialism and imperialism, foreign policy, national interest, policy-making, national character, psychological factors, military-strategic factors, alliances and groupings, arms control and disarmament, demographic factors, economic factors and area and regional studies.

Purpose and Importance of IR

IR is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate foreign policy. Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields making it cross and inter-disciplinary study. It involves a diverse range of issues, from globalization and its impacts on societies and state sovereignty to ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, terrorism, organized crime, human security and human rights.

The course on IR will attract interest from young students all over the country and abroad as Nepal is at the centre of Asia touching two giant countries – India and China. It is to realize the importance of this country and its people in bridging between two vast economies by becoming a transit state and, in total, maintaining harmony among them for the development, solidarity and unity of Asia. Therefore it is felt that there is a need for an academic discipline of this type in Nepal at the threshold of 21st century and in the context of globalized world.

To fulfill the desires and aspirations of men and women who would like to pursue academic life in International Relations. To open avenue to critically examine at every level of analysis – individual, local, national, regional and global which would illuminate and enlighten in understanding and analyzing complexities of today’s world. The demands of budding talents of Nepal in this regard, it has become extremely necessary to introduce this inter-disciplinary course.

The aims of this course is to familiarize students with the central concerns of IR – foreign policy analysis, international organization, strategic studies, diplomacy, globalization, international political economy (IPE), international law and IR theory. It will provide students with tools for the critical interpretation of both secondary and primary texts, equip them with an in depth knowledge of international history and politics during the mid 20th century to the present, equip students with the skills and opportunity to conduct autonomous supervised research projects including assignments, seminars, a long essay and dissertation and develop their competency at communicating their ideas.

It therefore aims to cater students wishing to develop their specialist knowledge in international affairs/politics and diplomacy. It prepares students for exciting careers in the diplomatic service, inter-governmental agencies, national and international non-governmental organizations and international media. Also they will go on to high-caliber jobs and will be accepted into prestigious university programmes and secure research positions around the world. The purpose is to lure the best and brightest students of Nepal to do an inter-disciplinary academic exercise.

By the time one finishes studies in IR, he/she will have developed high levels of initiative, self-discipline and creativity. It will enhance employment prospects and will give them a tremendous sense of personal achievement. The course is stimulating, challenging and ultimately rewarding – intellectually, and in whichever direction students choose their careers their horizon will expand and worlds of possibility will open up as a result of advanced course in IR.

IR has both theoretical and practical utility. It can be adapted for use in general education in each community and each country with their worldview and various interpretations giving to its generalizations.

Its practical importance can not be negated with regard to practical assignment of individuals when conduction IR. They include national or international officials, statesmen, politicians, international jurists, international financiers, international propagandists, educators, journalists and activists. It aids in their practical activity to discern situations on the ground reality to be addressed, to obtain relevant information, to frame goals and to make decisions initiating action. IR can be investigated further for research purpose to answer innumerable questions about the future of international relations as well as to find shortcomings in the existing theoretical and political knowledge of the world. Some scholars point out that it teaches the formula to be pursued for human survival and progress, understanding and controlling human problems of global repercussion such as war and conflicts, aims at objectivity, balance and perspective. To others the value and purpose of IR is about understanding the role of subjectivity (meaning nation’s viewpoint and even authors), fostering internationalism along with nationalism and establishing a better world.

Individual and the World
Americans are unconcerned about world event s and issues. Minority of well-educated Americans follow foreign news and most of them have little information about global politics. As we are not mere spectators on the theatre of global drama which is played over and over we are all caught up in the tidal ebb and flow of global happenings. The importance of studying IR is to make one knowledgeable about the world and to try to mould it according to one’s liking as international politics does matter. It does affect one’s economic life, habitat and substantially one’s existence.

Economic condition
As international industrial and financial structures become interestingly intertwined the impact of international economics on an individual continues to expand (ex. job losses in developed countries and petro-states can have effect on remittances of Nepal). The term intermestic symbolizes the merger of international and domestic concerns. The ubiquitous connections briefly explore three aspects of that relationship. How international trade, the flow of international capital, and defense spending all affect finances of individuals we need to deeply understand.

– International trade and your finances

The global flow of goods (tangible items) and services (intangible items such as revenues from tourism, insurance and banking) are important to your financial circumstances. International trade and your job are interrelated. Exports create jobs and jobs are also lost due to rising imports.

– The flow of international capital and your finances

Investment capital whereby foreign investors provide jobs for domestic workers and the product and marketing decisions that they make have a wide impact. The infusion of foreign capital save the companies facing crisis and provide jobs as well. The inflow of foreign investment capital had deeper impacts on economies of India and China.

International financial capital markets allow people to own individual shares, stocks, bonds of mutual fund shares. It has gone up in Nepal as well as in the developed countries. It is not the concern of the rich. Financial aid and tuition waiver at foreign universities and higher education sector provide relief to needy foreign students.

– Defense spending and your finances

Americans paid taxes to buttress America’s involvement in world affairs. In F/Y 2001 the US government spent $ 1.9 trillion foreign aid accounting 1% of the budget. The defense spending was considerably 16.1% which equals about $ 1,100 per American for national defense. Israel has the highest per capita spending on military. With 5% of the world’s populations, the US accounts for 37% of the world’s military spending and make military-industrial complex lucrative.

Habitable world – environmental sustainability of development
There are demographic pressures, ageing population, teeming youth force in Nepal. High population growth rate also affects the pattern of consumption of food, energy creating ecological calamity, environmental disaster and global warming due to emission of green house gases. High food prices in international market with food deficit can result in famine and malnourishment in remote corners of the country.

Interconnected life with a corporeal world
Human resources are utilized in the country and the abroad as human insecurity looms large. Under skilled and knowledgeable work force look greener pasture of the developed countries for job prospects and academic career. They even do menial jobs which are dirty, dangerous and difficult (3Ds). Around thousands leave TIA the only international airport in the country and it is an irony that on average three dead bodies of Nepalese arrives home.

Can we make a difference?

Yes, we can. There are multiple ways but to name a few. Direct voting or referendum on international questions as Danish, Irish, Polish and Czech voted for the Lisbon Treaty. The Swiss are well known for practicing this process. We can vote for suitable candidates who can deliver much on foreign policy fronts especially abrogating the 1950 treaty with India, harnessing of water resources for our benefits. We can also demand from the leaders on the accountability of the use of international aid. We can involve in direct action at local and national level by influencing global relations through activism and entrepreneurial activities.

Conceptualising the World into theories

Every statement that is intended to describe or explain anything that happens in IR is a theoretical statement. It is naïve and superficial to try to discuss IR solely on the basis of ‘the facts’. This is because whatever facts are selected – any at all – are literally abstract. The serious student of IR needs to consider afresh the problem of how to picture IR as a whole. The problem of theorist is to simplify the complexity without distorting it. That task, in turn, requires attention to the procedures of theory-building.

Theory-building

‘Theory’ is not a static body of knowledge rather it is a ‘tool on the road to knowledge’ in the same way that ‘facts are not knowledge but only the raw materials’ that have to be transformed via ‘theorising activity’ into propositions that can be ‘tested in the process of empirical research.’

Theory consists of both analysis and synthesis. To analyse is to unravel, to separate the strands, or to take to pieces. To synthesize is to reassemble, to piece together the parts in such a way as to compose a whole that makes sense.

According to Robert Cox, “Theory is always for someone for some purpose”.

As a development of Marxist thought, critical theory seeks to unmask the global domination of the rich North over the South. It views knowledge as inherently political; social scientists and social science as instruments of power.

Generally speaking IR scholars derive three schools of thought on it viz. realism, liberalism and Marxism. They should be strictly designated as ‘paradigms’ but they are also more casually termed perspectives, approaches, world views, frameworks or general theories. The voices from the margins as called by advocates of critical theory and post-modernism are making presence felt in the current discourse of IR. Infact IR is impervious to a growing awareness of feminist approaches to it. The political has become the personal. Gender issues, ethnicity and more traditional concepts of nation-states, nationalism, culture and religion reflect new emphasis in IR on identity studies.

There are five basic values of state system – security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. Each of them is generalized respectively by realist theories, liberal theories, International Society theories, International Political Economy (IPE) theories of IR.

For realists, IR is a system of ‘billiard-ball’ states in intermittent collisions. For pluralists, it is a ‘cobweb’, a network of numerous crisscrossing relationships. For structuralists, it is a ‘multi-headed octopus’, with powerful tentacles constantly sucking wealth from the weakened peripheries towards the powerful centers.

Popular schools of thought – realism and idealism
At least for five centuries or more we have followed a path that has been characterized by self-interested states struggling to secure their self-interests in a largely anarchistic international system. The alternative path not undertaken argued that states need to abandon the pursuit of short-term self-interest and take a more cooperative globalist approach. They favour a decline in the central role played by states in the international system, a rise of global institutions such as the UN and regional supranational organizations like EU. The world needs to find a new way to govern itself from the perspective of the advent of nuclear weapons, the deterioration of the global environment and other looming problems.

Two approaches are not an ‘either-or’ choice. Realism, realpolitik, balance of power, nationalist, conservative and state-centred (state-centric, state-based) on the one hand and the other idealism (idealist), globalism, (new) world order, liberal, liberal institutionalism and internationalist. Besides these there are number of related orientations – feminism, political economy and constructivism. Realists are pessimists and idealists are optimists about the existing world.

Politics according to the doctrine of realism and idealism
Both disagree over the nature of Homo Politicus (political humankind) and their respective views govern their approaches to domestic as well as to international politics. Realists portray politics in somber hues and believe that political struggle among humans is probably inevitable because people have an inherent dark side. Some scholars trace their intellectual roots all the way back to Thucydides, the chronicler of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides argued that the casus belli between the Athenians and the Spartans around 420 BC was an increase in Athenian military power and the security dilemma it posed to Melians of the Spartan League. He is said to have begun one of the main traditions of thinking about international relations. Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Max Weber are also regarded as seminal thinkers without getting designation of being realists. The realist doctrines may have germinated in the writings of these early thinkers but its recent formulations as a theoretical approach to the study of IR began in the later 1930s and early 1940s.

E.H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau are pioneers in that development. They were among the first scholars to use the term ‘realism’ and to elaborate its fundamental assumptions by contrast with the allegedly idealistic study of IR that prevailed during the interwar period. They claimed to delineate hard realities of international life and unmasked the reality of politics challenging romanticism and utopianism. Idealists with its belief in peace and emphasis on free trade in effect were blind to accumulation of power by states and the perpetuation of status quo. There are three basic tenets of realist philosophy derived from Machiavelli:

History is a sequence of cause and effect – a synchronization involving hard power (political or military) or high politics of security and survival. It outweighs rationality, an intellectual effort over “imagination”, a utopian believe.
Theory does not as utopians assume create practice but practice makes theory.
Politics are not as utopians pretend a function of ethics but ethics of politics. Morality is the product of power.

Thomas Hobbes envisaged anarchical society wherein humans possess an inherent urge to dominate, animus dominandi.

Morgenthau extrapolates relations between individuals on a wider scale in not essentially different in relations amongst nations. He said “politics is governed by objective laws which have their roots in human nature”. It is reflected in a rational theory of politics and international relations. He mentioned about six principles of realism wherein human nature and ethics of state are dealt with.

Therefore with negative view of human actions and desires liberal thinkers profoundly misread the facts of history and misunderstood the nature of international relations. There are profound conflicts of interest both between countries and between people according to Carr. Thus IR is far more about conflict than about cooperation. Morgenthau was preoccupied with human nature at the base of international relations no less than any other human relations. And humans were self-interested and power seeking and that culminates easily in aggression. The second major element of the realist view concerns the nature of international relations – an international anarchy. The third component is a cyclical view of history. In contrast to the liberal view that qualitative change for the better is possible, realism stresses continuity and repetition. They hold a notion of power politics between states which exist in an international anarchy.

A relatively more recent variation on realism is neorealism which focuses on the anarchic nature of a world system based on competition among sovereign states while classical realists stress human nature as decisive in shaping world politics. They both doubt that there is an escape from conflict. Anarchy/hierarchy is the nature of the international system based on sovereign actors (states). They answer to no higher authority, overarching authority providing security and order. It is a self-help system with each state relies on its resources to survive and prosper. Classical realists believe human nature is immutable and neorealists are skeptical about utility of international organizations or the ability of interdependent nature of relations to promote cooperation. National policy of a state is formulated on national interests.

Idealism and the Nature of Politics:

Idealism refute that all or most humans are inherently political predators. They believe in over of cooperation and less conflictual relations. Basic liberal assumptions are: 1. a positive view of human nature, 2. a conviction of cooperative rather than conflictual state of international relations, 3. a belief in progress. They believe in human reason applying rational principles in international affairs. The human reason can triumph over human fear and the lust for power. The core concern of idealism is the happiness and contentment of individual human beings. The classical realism focused on freedom, cooperation, peace, progress.

Early thinkers are John Locke (constitutional states and toleration), Jeremy Bentham (international law and reciprocity) and Kant (progress and perpetual peace). The basic tenets of liberalism are intertwining of human progress, human reason and cooperation which results in the process of modernization towards the development of the modern state. Idealists trace their intellectual lineage to Jean-Jacques Rousseau who understood the human potential to come together to build a cooperative and peaceful global society.

Utopian liberalism as the early study of IR has traits of Wilsonial idealism. It is the conviction that through a rationally and intelligently designed international organization. It should be possible to put an end to war and to achieve more or less permanent peace. Norman Angell, a contemporary liberal of Wilson, is a forerunner of later liberal thinking about modernization and economic interdependence. It involves a process of change and progress which renders war and the use of force increasingly obsolete.

Idealists as critics say are out of tough with current thinking; they put moral principles before practical or prudential considerations and are naïve about the world around them. They are futurists who seek a perfect world. The self-proclaimed realists had coined the term to describe liberal internationalism of the interwar years and such a labeling deserves debatable. Recent research indicates that the idealist thinkers of the period were not as ‘other worldly’ as many realists suggested. Idealism surfaced in reaction to the carnage of the 1st World War. Most intellectuals and policymakers of the day pointed the blame on the Realpolitik of the European great powers and resolved the task of abolishing war as an instrument of statecraft. Philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie, Ford and Rockfeller devoted some portion of their wealth to educate people about benefits of developing internationalist orientation. Indeed the birth of IR as a separate discipline coincided with these developments. Wilson’s 14 Point at the Versailles Peace Conference in December 1918 not only provided an outline for the settlement of the 1st World War but also served as the basis for the establishment of the League of Nations. Idealists shared a belief in progress and were of the view that deliberations under the rule of law and the procedures of parliamentary democracy could be firmly established in international diplomacy. That’s why they placed so much importance on the League of Nations and on strengthening international law.

A fundamental belief of idealism is that what unites human beings is more important than what divides them. The idealists rejected communitarian and realist arguments that the state is itself a source of moral value for human beings. Instead, they defended a cosmopolitan ethics and sought to educate individuals about the need to reform the international system. Interwar idealism was as much a political movement as an intellectual one.

The idealism is a sort of a passé paving the way for mutation into neoidealism (often called neoliberalism) school of thought. Neoidealists subscribe like neorealists much of the world conflict to the anarchic world system based on competition among sovereign states. Like all idealists, neoidealists believe that humans can cooperate in order to achieve mutual benefits. Since the anarchical system hinders cooperation, it is building through effective international organisation can the best path to cooperation achieve. That’s why their prescription and emphasis on institutions make them liberal institutionalists.

Power of Power politics and norms and values of Justice
They are poles apart in describing the two facets of governance, the power and justice. Both as standards of international conduct disagree over their roles. Realists maxim holds that the “might is right” whilst idealists contend that “right makes right”.

Realism and Power Politics

It is an undisputable belief on power that leads state exercise to secure their frequently conflicting interests. This is a salient feature of the main action at international arena. They hold that objectives of politics internationally are to augment power, to keep or retain it or to exhibit it. It is not a novel thought as Indian seer Kautilya had expressed these mantra two millennia ago.

The essence of politics is the struggle for power and foreing policy is based on the tenets for a strategy of survival and struggle for existence. So in an international climate of anarchy of a state ignores or do not follow this dictum then it barely fits in those strategy. Thus the national interest takes into account of enhancing or preserving the state’s security, its influence and its power- military and economic. The sutra of success for a state in international politics lies in the mightiness of these elements. Therefore it is unconscionable or irrational to follow policy based only on ethics or morality. So the morality of the state is national survival but that does not imply realists are amoral. The moral duty of the state in its highest form is to do good for its citizens. More moderately realists prescribe that morality should be weighed prudently against national interests .

Idealism and norms and values

Competition and cooperation – dynamic views
Positivism or what is of reality – an appraisal of divergent theories

Methodology of studying world politics
Some of the most important IR questions are methodological in nature. Such issues became prominent with the ‘behavioural revolution’ in the 1950s and 1960s. Since the end of the Cold War, methodological issues have returned to center stage in a debate between positivist and post-positivist methodologies. In most academic disciplines, including IR, there are two fundamental kinds of controversy. One kind debate involves over substantive issues i.e. questions of fact. The other controversy involves over methodological issues i.e. conceptual and philosophical questions that are involved in the way that we carry out our research.

Political Scientists and world politics – analytical orientations, descriptive (empirical) or prescriptive (normative) – goals and research methods

The concepts of war, order and peace, justice and injustice, anarchy and sovereignty as an intellectual concern were occupied prominent place in a long history of international relations. Political scientists study world politics in order to formulate theories – generalizations – about politics. Thus they would like to unravel the phenomena and patterns that are constant at spatio-temporal realm. There are many methodologies and approaches to arrive at understanding of IR. Nonetheless a political scientist main concern is with theory. Keeping this in mind IR scholars has three subsidiary goals: description, prediction and prescription.

Description is the oldest and most fundamental of these three goals. It focuses on patterns. When researcher studies a single event or case studies or a series of events across time or space the object is not to just describe the event(s). Instead the goal is to relate them to a pattern of other events for e.g. democratic peace, multipolarity, anarchy is what states make of it, etc.

Prediction is even more difficult than description because of complexity of unpredictable human nature. Forecasting is fallible and inaccurate when no one predicted the end of the Cold War except the dissidents and litterateurs. Moreover the rise of Great power can fall in certain period as the history of Roman and British Empires are of any guide.

Prescription is a third goal. Some scholars go beyond their objective studies and come to normative or moral philosophy of IR i.e. what ought to be. They enter into direct policy-making field whereas those who can not make influence indirectly through working in think-tanks, as columnist and public author of influencing books.

Political scientists conduct research or gather evidence to support their hypothesis through three basic methodologies – logic, traditional observation and quantitative analysis. Logic involves applying it in deducing or deriving specific reasoning for particular political observation such as deterrence theory, negotiations or game theory in decision making, foreign policy analysis etc. Traditional observation uses varied techniques to study political phenomena. One method is historical approach – personal interviews, archives and participant observation. History can be prelude to the current problems and underlying conflict can be traced to the past. Quantitative analysis use mathematical modeling for measurable phenomena such as cross border trade, human migrations,

Level of Analysis (international system, state or individual) There are three levels of analysis form which world politics can be investigated. They are system-level analysis, state-level analysis and individual-level analysis and are not mutually exclusive.

Weimar Republic

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Introduction:

Weimar, city in central Germany, in Thüringen, on the Ilm River. Weimar is a railroad junction, and factories in the city manufacture textiles, paper, machinery, automobiles, musical instruments, electrical equipment, glass, and shoes. Weimar projects a medieval quality, with its many narrow streets and old, gabled houses, and it is the site of numerous architectural landmarks. In 1919, following World War I, the German National Assembly meeting in Weimar, established the German Republic, known also as the Weimar Republic, and drafted a democratic constitution. Weimar became the capital of the newly created state of Thüringen in 1920.

The period of German history from 1919 to 1933 is known as the Weimar Republic. It was persisted from 1919 until 1933, when Nazi party leader Adolf Hitler suspended the constitution and assumed power. It is named after the city of Weimar, Germany, where a national assembly convened to produce a new constitution after Germany’s defeat in World War I. Weimar Republic, term used to describe the German republic The republic was established after workers and troops in the German empire shocked in early 1918 against the government’s refusal to end World War I (1914-1918). On November 9, Emperor William II run away from the country and a provisional coalition government was formed between the moderate Social Democrats under Friedrich Ebert and the more radical Independent Social Democrats, who were hoping for a more fundamental socialist revolution. The new National Assembly met in Weimar, Thüringen, in February 1919 and wrote a constitution that established Germany as a democratic federal republic and provided for two houses of parliament, the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. Ebert was elected president of the new republic.

This first attempt at establishing a liberal democracy as Weimar Republic, in Germany was a time of great tension and inner conflict and, ultimately, failed with the ascent of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933. Although technically, the 1919 constitution was never entirely invalidated until after World War II, the legal measures taken by the Nazi government in 1933 that are commonly known as Gleichschaltung in fact destroyed all mechanisms provided for by a typical democratic system, so it is common to mark 1933 as the end of the Weimar Republic.

Post-War Problems:

World War I had left Germany with many economic, social, and political problems. In addition to enduring high inflation and a large national debt, Germans were deeply embittered by the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, signed in June 1919, which formally ended the war. Among other things, the treaty called for German disarmament and huge reparation payments to the Allies. Unable to meet the payments, Germany’s currency collapsed and the German people suffered large financial losses. In January 1923 French and Belgian forces occupied Germany’s main industrial region, the Ruhr, claiming that Germany had defaulted on reparation deliveries.

Statesman Gustav Stresemann took over the German government as the head of a broadly based coalition on August 13, 1923, and helped stabilize the country. In 1924 the Allies made it easier for Germany to pay reparation through the Dawes Plan, which established a milder payment schedule. In 1925 Stresemann signed the Treaties of Locarno, which secured Germany against further incursions on its western frontiers. The allies withdrew their occupation forces and in the following year Germany was elected to the League of Nations, an international alliance for the preservation of peace. A new currency, the Reichsmarkí, was established with much tighter monetary control, and an impressive economic recovery began. However, the economy was dependent on foreign loans, and government expenditure was dangerously high with businesses suffering from low profit margins. In 1925 Paul von Hindenburg was elected the second president of the republic.

Collapse of Weimar Republic:

A worldwide economic depression began in 1929, casting the republic into crisis. In March 1930 Chancellor Heinrich Brüning took over, supported by the emergency powers available to the president. Brüning cut government spending and secured an agreement in Lausanne, Switzerland, that effectively ended reparations payments. But Brüning’s deflationary policies were widely unpopular, and he was dismissed. Taking advantage of the disorder caused by the economic crisis were the Communist party, which was dedicated to disrupting the parliamentary republic, and the Nazis in Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ party, who were extremely nationalistic and anti-Semitic. Reichstag elections held in September 1930 made the Nazis the second largest party, their support growing as the depression deepened. In the elections of July 1932, the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag. Hindenburg was persuaded to bring Hitler into the government, with conservative politicians believing they could control the inexperienced Hitler in a coalition government. Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933. Hitler soon abolished the office of president and declared himself Führer (leader) of the Third ReichH, thus ending the Weimar Republic.

It can be argued that the Weimar Republic never actually had a real chance of survival from the start. It had a particularly unfortunate amount of problems but nevertheless it succeeds in defeat them. It was pure bad luck that in 1929 not only was Weimar confronted with more economic adversity but also Stresemann died at this crucial time. The Nazis were in the right place at the right time in order to exploit this misfortune. If it had not been for these fateful circumstances, it is believe that the Weimar Republic would have survived longer.

In the end it was the actions of the people at the top that reinforced the collapse of popular confidence in the democracy. Together with an initially weak political system, an economy in slump and the not too distant memories of the war and Versailles, it was easy for the Nazis to advertise the benefits of authoritarian government. Even though there was a short period of relative stability, the beginning of depression brought hidden defect to the surface again once more. Democracy was in unreliable hands and the Nazis could offer competence, certainty and an all-important sense of confidence, something the Weimar Republic lacked during all of its years.

Failure of the Weimar Republic:

The failure of the Weimar Republic was besides other factors, due to these inherent ideological abnormalities. The German Republic under Weimar Constitution started life in the most discouraging condition. It was faced everywhere with disorder, disorganisation and destitute. Its first task was to rectify the Versailles Treaty and its name was thus associated in German minds with a national disgrace. Hence, the German people raised their strong slogan of “End with Versailles”, and the Weimar constitution could not succeed though the main object of the Weimar Republic was to provide a respectable place to Germany in the comity of nations, but the German leaders were sharply divided on the issue whether Germany should join hands with Soviet Russia or with France and Britain. But, when France captured Rhur region in 1923 and damaged the economic power of Germany. Germany looked towards west for strengthening her position. When Gustav Stressman came in leadership, he stressed on the policy of fulfilment and reconciliation. It was his attempt that the Dawes plan was implemented and even Great Britain joined hands with Germany. The year 1927 witnessed a conspicuous event in the political life of Germany when it became one of the members of the League of Nations and acquired a place in the comity of nations under the regime of Stressman. Germany was given a seat on the Permanent Mandate Commission. He requested France to withdraw her forces from the Rhine region and he became successful in this respect. In spite of this marked success achieved by Stressman, the German people were not satisfied and they became more restive due to the economic depression and growing unemployment and a strong wave of aggressive nationalism grew up in Germany. Fascist elements also gained grounds; demand for militarism became the order of the day; and all restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles were condemned by the majority of German leaders ultimately the Nazi Party became very popular and its leaders helped Hitler to come to power.

Since striking workers also had to be paid by the state, additional currency was printed, which fuelled a period of hyperinflation. The value of the Mark declined from 4.2 per US dollar to 1,000,000 per dollar by August 1923 and 4,200,000,000,000 per dollar on November 20. On December 1, a new currency was established at the rate of 1,000,000,000,000 old marks for 1 new mark, the Reichsmark.

System Theory

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Morton Kaplan after 1955 explain the theory in more systematic manner

In simpler words, a system refers to a set of elements interacting with each other.

This theory assumes that there is a system in international relations and the states are its components. In the international system, states interact with one another, and are dependent on one another.

States are involved in constant interaction with ‘the whole’ or the international environment which is in the form of world politics.

The system is used as a tool of analysis and focus is upon arrangement of actors, interaction of actors or recurring pattern of the behavior of the actors.

International system is a pattern of relations between the basic units of world politics which is characterized by the scope of the objectives pursued by these units and of the tasks performed among them.

A system is an integrated one where all elements work to make the system survive. In the international system, the nation‐states,
knowingly or unknowingly, help the system to survive and progress.

Despite crises, the international system has survived and progressed. Systems theory of IR strongly sends the message that by adapting itself to changes, the international system would become an efficient system where the nations‐states would be more engaged in cooperation and mutual development.

Nations or states are the main actors in the international politics and the role of the state changes with the change of international system.

In the study of International Relations the System Theory is the established as one of the important theory. First the scholar David Easton developed this theory in the field of national politics and scholar Morton A. Kaplan in the field of international politics and relation. Beside that among those who developed the System theory for analyzing international relations, the contributions of Karl Deutsch, Raymond Aron as well as scholar Charles McClelland are significant.

A system is a group of parts that interact according to some kind of process. Systems are often visualized or modeled as blocks of different component with some kind of drawn connections. In the study of IR a “system” is a collection of events or effect which has relationships among all the actors of international Relations. Of course all three: things and relationships and the whole system have to be imagined by us, and tested against ‘reality’, to serve our purposes to understand the international Relation.

All systems have the same common characteristics. These common characteristics are summarized below:

All systems have some basic structure.
All systems are generalizations of reality.
They all function in the same way.
There are functional as well as structural relationships between the units of a system.
Function implies the flow and transfer of some material (events or Effect in IR). Systems exchange data and matter internally and with their surrounding environment through various processes of input and output.
Function requires the presence of some driving force, i.e. World Politics in IR.
All systems show some degree of incorporation between its parts as a whole.

The systems approach distinguishes itself from the more traditional analytic approach by emphasizing the interactions and connectedness of the different components of a system. Although the systems approach in principle considers all types of systems, it in practices focuses on the more complex, adaptive, self-regulating systems

System theory can also be define as, a set of concepts and models which can be used to understand relationships and moreover, simultaneous, transient and shifting relationships.

System is particular method of the data obtaining, measuring, analyzing and taking feedback from the environment of world politics. System is the concept that refers both to a complex of interdependencies between states, government and their relation, that involves distinct regularities and to a similar type of interdependency between such a complex and its surrounding environments.

System theory allow us to focus upon the actions of nation as the components of the system; upon the structure and functioning of the system which results from the interaction of nations; or upon the environmental factors which stipulate both actions of nations and operational environment of the system.

Under this theory the nations of the world (politics) are consider to be in contact and association in a complicated framework of relationship, which is formed through the process of interaction. As per the scholar Richard Little, the system theory is definitely particular design of relationships which can found in the international relations. It is assumed that, despite the complexity and confusion displayed by the mixture of interactions of the actors (state, organization etc) of the international relation, there are a set of structures which, describe the international system and explain the behaviour of the individual states or other actors.

Prof. Morton Kaplan presented a number of real and hypothetical models of global political organization. His six well known models were (i) balance of power system, (ii) loose bipolar system, (iii) tight bipolar system, (iv)universal actor system, (v) hierarchical system/’Unipolar World Model’., and (vi) unit veto system. The first two are historical realities; the remaining four are hypothetical models.

a) Balance of Power system -:- Within this system the nation will act as a international actors. As per this system the country makes balance of power between them and avoid the possibility of war to maintain the world peace. This system has six different rules for the balance of power:

Every nation actors has to gain power from negotiation and diplomatic relation, but not from the war.
First of all nation actors responsible to protect their interest and if there is no other way to protect their interest they have to go through risk of war to protect their interest.
To end the war is respectable, than to end other nation actor.
Nation actor has to make voice against building alliance of nations, which may cause supremacy of power among actors.
Nation actor has to prevent other actors to achieve supremacy in power relationship.
Nation actor has to give opportunity for the war-losing actor to interact in the international system as an actor friend in relation.

b. Loose bipolar system :- In a situation where too many actors influence intentional relations, it becomes difficult to strike a perfect balance of power position and loose bipolar system develops. This is a system where the two superpowers are in balance because of the relationship of surrounding nation actors. These surrounding actors may be neutral state or small states alliance. It affect not only the policy of the superpower also make affect on the arms conflict of superpowers.

c. Tight bipolar System :- Tight bipolar system, deals with only the two superpower and other neutral and alliance nation actors have no role to do in international relations. Two superpowers direct involved maintaining their relations and politics. And because of absence of the fair third party supranational actor the tight bipolar system maintain the international relations.

d. Universal actor system :- The universal international system grows when the universal actor, like the UN, take over many of functions of powerful units in a loose bipolar system. In such a system the universal actor becomes powerful enough to prevent war among nations, but national actors retain their individuality.

e. Hierarchical system :- In the hierarchical international system, the universal actor becomes too powerful and the international community becomes a pattern of world-state. Nation actors interact on non-directive way with the most and powerful role of universal actor (United Nation), which makes hierarchical system in international relations.

f. Unit Veto system :- The veto system is a result of weapons develop-capacity, they create a system of one-level actors, each of whom possesses assort of veto power by high merit of his destructive capacity. In a loose bipolar system, a few nations possess such destructive weapons; in a tight bipolar system only two nations possess such destructive weapons combined with extensive economic power. The non-aligned nations virtually vanish in such a situation.

Criticism
The System theory has its weaknesses. For instance, it makes the things too mechanistic by using the terms ‘input’, ‘output’, ‘feedback’, ‘environment’ and like. Scholar Stanley Hoffman has criticized the System theory effectively. What is worse in that their approach is selective as only those problems relevant to the systems are considered and others are ignored? Most of the model situations only exist in theory. The System theory dose not predict what will actually happen, but it only forecasts what would happen if certain conditions develop, which rarely, if ever develop exactly as imagined.

Nuremberg Laws

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

On September 15, 1935, the Reichstag met in Nuremberg and passed two laws, known as the Nuremberg Laws.
The first, the Reich Citizenship Law, declared that only individuals of “German blood” could be citizens of the German Reich (state), thus depriving German Jews of their citizenship.

The second, the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, formalized barriers between Jews and Germans, forbidding marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans.”

Nazis deprived German Jews of all civil rights and social and cultural life.
Jewish property with a view to compelling Jews to emigrate from Germany.
After Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, all the same anti‐Semitic measures were implemented there, year later in Czechoslovakia. By 1938 two‐thirds of German Jews had left the country, and 60 percent of those who stayed had lost their livelihood.

Evacuating the Jews from Germany, the Nazis created compulsory “Jewish Quarters” in most Polish cities and towns known as ghettos. Jews in Poland were forced to move into ghettos.
During the Holocaust, ghettos were small and, in most cases, poor areas in cities and towns, to which the Jews were confined.

Many ghettos were surrounded by walls or fences in order to help enforce the Jews’ isolation and separation from their neighbors and the outside world.
The ghettos were meant to serve as temporary, tightly controlled collection points, where the Jews’ labor potential would be exploited until a future German policy led to their removal.

Ghettos became transition areas, used as collection points for deportation to concentration & death camps.

Beginning of Extermination

In the so‐called euthanasia program, which had begun in the fall of 1939, Nazi doctors killed Germans with mental or physical disabilities.
Following the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, mobile killing units and, later, militarized battalions of Order Police officials, moved behind German lines to carry out mass murder operations against Jews, Roma, and
Soviet state and Communist Party officials.

Between 1941 and 1944, Nazi German authorities deported millions of Jews from Germany, from occupied territories, and from the countries of many of its Axis allies to ghettos and to killing centers, often called
extermination camps, where they were murdered in specially developed gassing facilities.

By 1945, the Germans and their collaborators killed nearly two out of every three European Jews as part of the “Final Solution,” the Nazi policy to murder the Jews of Europe.

Introduction to Peace Keeping Works of UN

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Peacekeeping is one among a range of activities undertaken by the United Nations to maintain international peace and security throughout the world.

UN Peacekeepers provide security and the political and peace‐building support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace. The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Council can establish a UN peacekeeping operation. UN peacekeeping operations are deployed on the basis of mandates from the United Nations Security Council. United Nations Peacekeeping began in 1948. So far, 67 peacekeeping operations have been deployed by the UN. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel, as well as tens of thousands of UN police and other civilians from more than 120 countries have participated in UN peacekeeping operations. More than 3,000 UN peacekeepers from some 120 countries have died while serving under the UN flag. There are currently 17 UN peace operations deployed on four continents.

Function of diplomats

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

A diplomat has to organized series of function that includes observed, report, and deal with issues in their respective areas. Most functions contain for political affairs, economic and commercial affairs, information and cultural affairs, consular affairs, and administrative matters. In addition, within the functions of a diplomat usually includes a number of attachés from other government departments. Military, air, and naval attachés have traditionally been assigned to foreign missions, but agricultural, commercial, labor, and cultural attachés are becoming increasingly common as a new trend.

The activities of diplomats are extremely mixed. They range from such serious tasks as negotiating issues of great political significance and reporting and commenting on important events in the foreign country to meeting with foreign students, arranging itineraries of exhibits about life in the home country, and issuing visas. These are some of the majors’ functions of Diplomats:

Representation of State
(1) Legal Representation

A diplomat is a legal representative of his/her state in another state or international organization like the UN, the UNESCO etc. In his/her capacity as a legal representative of his/her state, s/he conducts negotiations with the government in the accredited state or participates in the deliberations and voting of UN organs in which his/her country is represented. Unless otherwise indicated, s/he signs the agreements on behalf of his/her state.

(2) Symbolic Representation

Diplomacy is very often subtle and symbolic; the more it is so, the more impressive it becomes. When the head of a state or government visits another country, the Ambassador posted in that country normally holds a reception at his/her Embassy which is attended by his/her counterparts and other senior officials belonging to the host country

(3) Political Representation

Diplomat’s job is to watch the politics of that country. What are political policies and like projection and what are the political parties at play and what is going to be the future leaders and politics of that country. The most important function of a diplomat is to assess the real nature of the policy and power of the country in which s/he is stationed and report it back to his/her External Affairs Ministry. The Ambassador and his supporting staff supply the raw material with the help of which the External Affairs Ministry formulates foreign policy. In the words of Professor Morgenthau: “As the foreign office is the nerve centre of foreign policy, so are the diplomatic representatives its outlying fibers maintaining the two-way traffic between the centre and the outside world”.

The diplomat, with the help of his/her military, economic and other attaches, assesses the real military strength of the country of his/her posting, stability of its government and its policy towards his/her own country. The function of the military and economic attaché’s is to collect military and economic information through wide reading and social contacts and to help Ambassador draft his/her reports to the External Affairs Ministry. The diplomat must not only help his/her foreign office in the formulation of the country’s policy, but must also possess the art of ‘selling’ his/her country’s policy to the government and people of the country in which s/he functions. His/her is a two-way dealing: with his/her own government at home and with the government of the country from where s/he functions.

Negotiations
Diplomacy is synonymous with negotiations and the diplomat must be an experienced negotiator. Many delegations from the diplomat’s country visit foreign countries to conduct negotiations on trade, political and military affairs. The team that negotiates with the foreign government normally includes the Ambassador of the country concerned, who is an on-the-spot assistant and informer. The execution of numerous trade and cultural agreements involves negotiations with the host country for the selection of institutions, persons, items etc.

When matters of great political importance are discussed and negotiated, the Prime Minister or the External Affairs Minister visits the concerned country and negotiates directly with the foreign government. The diplomat has to do the spade-work for such negotiations and thereby assist his superiors. The direct participation of the External Affairs Minister or high ranking officials from the Ministry does diminish the importance of the Ambassador in negotiations; nevertheless, his assistance and assessment are of great help. Thus, no negotiation between the two countries can be accomplished without the assistance and involvement of their Ambassadors to some extent.

The diplomats negotiate on four ways:

Official negotiation
Unofficial negotiations
Facilitative negotiations
Technical negotiations

Informal Function:
Press function: Diplomats has to read newspapers of concern foreign country because all politicians may not be honest and that is if diplomats even have access to them. He/She must read all papers to get a better color of what the media in the country is saying about their internal mechanisms. Diplomats need to make the best presentation of their country. Diplomats will try to get favorable eyes for his/her own country.

Commercial function: Commercial relations are not just political or media, but based on the trade between the countries. The better trade means the better relationship between the two states. They are good diplomats, who will able to distinguish the clarity of decision-making to expedite the trade and commerce.

Administrative function: Diplomatic mission are extension of the home government abroad. Thus, each diplomatic mission contains two key elements: A diplomatic element, whose chief functions are political (negotiation, information, etc.), and consular elements, whose chief functions are administrative. Administrative function includes:

Representation of home citizens and home institutions in the host state
Management of the affairs of citizens of the home state in the host state (e.g., facilitation of economic ties, handling legal problems of home citizens etc.)
Immigration policy and other support to their national

Responsible Person of the Diplomatic Mission

Ambassador:

Ambassador is chef official of diplomatic mission at foreign state. The ambassador is the highest-ranking official of diplomatic service with full responsibility. Unlike a minister and a chargé d’affaires, an ambassador is supposed to represent, in theory, the person of his or her sovereign. Although this theory has little significance now that monarchies are uncommon, it was because of this theory that the United States did not appoint diplomatic of ambassadorial rank until 1893. Today most republics appoint ambassadors in order to conduct relations on an equal basis with other nations. In recent years a majority of the heads of diplomatic missions representing the United States have also held the rank of ambassador.

The embassy abroad, or foreign mission, is headed by an ambassador assisted by a career diplomat who serves as deputy or first secretary. The deputy secretary oversees and coordinates the work of the staff and assumes the responsibilities of the mission as chargé d’affaires whenever the ambassador is away or incapacitated or is between ambassadorial assignments.

Diplomatic missions are staffed largely by Foreign Service officers, with the exception of the attachés who are drawn from their respective agencies back home. The secretaries and secretarial staff come from a separate civil service corps. Citizens of the host country may be hired as translators or for non sensitive jobs.

Consular:

Counselor is a diplomat ranking below an ambassador in foreign mission. Counselor is responsible to take care the problems of own citizens in concern state. He/she is also responsible for issuing Passports for native citizen, Visa, people in jail that need proper legal assistance in that country. In the foreign state this kind of assistance cannot be denied. Because of that Consular will be appointed as a government official living in a foreign state to promote the commerce of the official’s own state and protect its citizens in the concern state.

Consular operations are concerned with the economic and commercial relations between nations. Originally, diplomatic and consular responsibilities were kept strictly separate because early theorists felt that national interests should not be “contaminated” by private commercial matters. Thus, two separate services—diplomatic and consular—usually existed. Today all major countries have combined these two services, and a single corps of professional civil servants serves in both areas.

Consular work involves a variety of activities. Consuls issue birth, death, and marriage certificates to citizens residing or traveling in the foreign country. Consular officers also regulate shipping, aid their country’s citizens when they travel on business or as tourists, and report on economic and business conditions abroad. Activities are often carried out in consulates located in major trading and commercial cities as well as in the capital city.