TyroCity: International Relations

Communication Theory

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

What is Communication?

Transactional, symbolic process which allows people to establish contact, exchange information, reinforces attitudes and behaviors and change attitudes and behaviors.

The core communication model Source – who, Message – says what, Channel – through what channel and Receiver – to whom [with what effect]

Communication is important in our daily lives, but it is not something that we think about very frequently. We use communication to carry on relationships, work in groups and organizations, and understand and affect the world around us. Because communication is so important to us, it is useful to understand something about it.

Communication is a difficult concept to define. Most people do not think about communication much unless they have a problem with it and sometimes not even then. Though we may think we know what communication is, it is difficult to explain. Even people who study this subject disagree about exactly how to define it. Perhaps it is simplest and most useful to discuss communication by identifying its characteristics and what it is used for.

Characteristics of Communication

Process

One characteristic of communication is that it is a process. If you have a conversation with your friend, you might think that it begins when you start talking with your friend and ends when you say good-by. However, this is not really accurate. Communication is influenced by the state of your relationship before the conversation. If, for some reason, you were angry with your friend before the conversation started, this will have an influence on the conversation. Many different aspects of the past can influence a communication event. Your past experiences in a relationship with a person may tell you whether you can believe what that person says, whether you can trust him/her to keep a secret, what topics you can discuss, how much you need to explain.

The type of relationship before the conversation also has an effect on the way people communicate. A conversation with a stranger is very different from a conversation with a close friend. Two friends have common memories and experiences, and this affects the way they communicate. For example, you can say to your friend, “Remember the time we went ice skating?” and your friend would understand what you meant. Speaking to a stranger, much more explanation would be necessary. In some cases, close friends even invent words or uses for words, which they use as part of their private language.

In addition, your relationship after the conversation may change as a result of that very conversation. For example, if your friend apologizes for having made you angry, and you accept the apology, this will influence your future relationship. If you catch your friend in a lie, if he/she keeps a secret or is especially sympathetic over a death in your family, all of these will influence the future of your relationship. Therefore, communication even as simple as a conversation between two friends is influenced by the past and has an influence on the future, and so communication is a process.

The environment in which the communication takes place also influences the process. If you are in a noisy restaurant, you cannot have a serious, private conversation. At certain occasions, there are certain expressions that you should use. For example, at a wedding, you express congratulations and wish the couple happiness.

Two-way process

Another characteristic of communication is that it is a two-way process. For simplicity, people sometimes talk about a “sender” and a “receiver” in communication. However, a sender receives messages as well as sending them, and a receiver sends messages, too. As the sender speaks, he/she adjusts the message, based on the receiver’s reaction. For example, if you are explaining something and your listener looks confused, you will probably try to explain again in a different way or at least ask, “Do you understand?” If you are trying to convince your listener of something and your listener starts nodding, this will influence what you say, because you will assume that now your listener agrees with you. If your listener does not look convinced, you will continue to try to convince him/her, perhaps by giving another reason. Even a situation like public speaking or a television broadcast is, in some sense, two-way communication. If the public speaker senses that the audience is becoming restless, he/she might speak faster or go on to a new point. Though television and radio do not involve an immediate response from the listener, there are responses through letters from listeners and through ratings. As a result of the two-way nature of communication, both the speaker and the listener are responsible for the success of the communication. The listener must indicate whether he/she understands, and the speaker must adjust the message according to the listener’s reactions.

Symbolic

A third characteristic of communication is that it is symbolic. This means that in communication, we use one thing to stand for or represent another. Words are symbols. The word “nuclear bomb” is not the nuclear bomb itself; it is a symbol which represents the nuclear bomb and its position in world politics. Nonverbal communication can also involve symbols. The symbolic nature of communication is very important. If we could not use symbols, we could not talk about objects or people that were not present. We could not talk about events that took place in the past or that would take place in the future. We could not talk about abstract concepts. Therefore, we use symbols to stand for all of these things.

Purposes of Communication

In a general sense, we use communication to achieve our goals. In order to achieve these goals, we use communication for three main purposes.

Human contact is one purpose of communication. It is important for all human beings to have contact with others. Without communication with other people, we can be very lonely.

Controlling our environment is another purpose of communication. We try to get people to do what we want (within limits) or arrange our situation the way we want it (balancing it with the desires of other people in the situation) by communicating. If you are unhappy with something another person is doing, you might complain to that person about that behavior, and you hope to control your environment that way. If you like something another person is doing, you might say so, which encourages the person to repeat or continue the behavior.

A third purpose of communication is exchanging information. Most human activities require us either to give information to others or to get information ourselves. Communication allows us to do this.

As you can see from these three functions, communication is crucial to our daily lives.

Aspects of Communication Study

In the study of communication, the subject is sometimes considered according to the number of people involved in the communication event and the type of communication. There is, for example, interpersonal communication, small group communication, public speaking, organizational communication, and communication through the mass media. Communication can also be considered according to its purpose or method. For example, some specialists study persuasion, compliance gaining, deception detection, nonverbal communication, and interviewing.

Communication Theory

Communication theory, mathematically formulated principally by the American scientist Claude E. Shannon to explain aspects and problems of information and communication. While the theory is not specific in all respects, it proves the existence of optimum programming schemes without showing how to find them. For example, it succeeds remarkably in outlining the engineering requirements of communication systems and the limitations of such systems.

Communication theory attempts to explain all forms of verbal and nonverbal communication between two organisms. A complex model follows: Sender (Government or nation) -> Message -> noise (Reaction of third party in IR) -> channel (Diplomatic mission) -> noise (Reaction) -> receiver (Another actors of IR)-> interpretation -> response (As message) and back to the beginning. There are three general approaches to communication theory:

The meaning of a message is determined by the sender.
The meaning of a message is determined by the receiver.
The meaning of a message is determined by both sender and receiver.

Communication Theory in IR

The Communication theory has been developed in IR mainly by Karl W. Deutsch for understanding the national prospect. It has been applied to international politics and international relation by Charles A. McClelland and others.

The Communication Theory reduces the importance of the concept of Power in politics/relation and highlights the importance of the flow of information in governmental decisions.

The Communication Theory attempts to give significance and meaning to the revolution in communications which has extremely changed the nature of human contacts and social relations, to a greater or lesser degree in all parts of the world. This is also being applicable to the world community as well as actors of the international relations; we can understand the situation of world politics by study of the communication strategy and condition. As per this theory the conflicts will arise as a result of breakdown the system of communication established by the state government.

Communication has indeed transformed human relations as well as relations between states to a much greater extent than any other development. The Communication System has undoubtedly increased interdependence of international community agency like the UN much easier.

This system lays stress on the point that if politics is visualize as a system, the control of the system will centered in communication and ability of a state to control is related to its ability to deal with information. As developed by scholar Norbert Wiener and others, the term “Communications” has come to include the concept of “Cybernetics”(steering). Cybernetics is fundamentally a body of theory and technique for the study of probabilities in different but related international relation as well as nation-state and the ways in which message transactions functions to control such relations.

An important concept in cybernetics is that of a mechanism which recognizes incentive, learns, adjust itself automatically upon receiving feedback about its performance, and moves through a determined number of possible circumstances.

Scholar W. Ross Ashby, who is regarded as the pioneer of this system, refers that, when applying the word “Cybernetics” to the international politics, the term is renamed “Political Cybernetics”.

According the scholar Karl Deutsch the system of political Communications offers a model that seems far more manipulable than most actual operations; it often seems to discount irrational, unintentional, or random behaviour, and above all, it does not deal adequately with the nuances of human thought process, the sub-societies of political leadership, and vague quality of many political relations.

International Communication:

The terms ‘international,’ ‘transnational’ and ‘global’ communication not only stand for different definitions of an expanding communication space but also reflect the history of worldwide communication as well as its diversity to maintain the relations between national actors. Global communication gives us an eyewitness view of events in remotest locations, we participate in political discourses of global, regional or even local relevance. These global processes, in which knowledge, values and ethics, natural things, lifestyles are exchanged, is becoming autonomous, a ‘third culture’, a ‘generative frame of unity within which diversity can take place (Featherstone, 1990:2). Such a ‘global world culture’ is shaped by – communication.

However, international communication has its own history. News have already been ‘inter-nationalized’ in the fifteenth century: the wheat traders of Venice, the silver traders of Antwerp, the merchants of Nuremberg and their trading partners shared economic newsletters and created common values and beliefs in the rights of capital (Stephens, 1988:77). The commercialization of mass print media (due to steam engine technology) has led to internationally operating news agencies (Reuters, Associated Press, AFP) in the nineteenth century. World wire and cable systems allowed international communication between France, Germany and Great Britain to their colonies in Africa and Asia. Transnational media organizations such as Intelsat, Eurovision, founded in the middle of the 20th century were the starting point for a new idea of international communication. It was the establishment of internationally operating media systems, such as CNN and MTV by individual companies which have finally inaugurated a new age of global communication by distributing the same program “around the world in thirty minutes” (as a CNN slogan states) – across nations and cultures.

It was idea of a ‘world society’ as a universe of nature and reasoning, a global arena for public debate during the Enlightenment which has inaugurated modernity. Postmodern thinkers replaced ‘reasoning’ by ‘simulation’ and Hegel’s term of ‘World Spirit’ by an idea of ‘instant’ truth, created by the media and conveying the image of a shrinking world. The idea of the ‘world’ seemed to have switched from a supernatural concept into a material reality a new relativity within a global whole and activated, in conjunction with new international political and economical alliances, a debate about the structuralisation of “Globalization.”

It can be argued that the public (and its opinion) is no longer a substantial element of the political system of a society but has turned into a more or less autonomous global public sphere which can be considered not as a space between the ‘public’ and the state but between the state and an extra-societal global community. It is a new global dialectic not in Hegel’s terms between private and public spheres, which gave shape to democracy concepts of the emerging middle classes in Europe in the 19th century, but between the societal and extra societal communication sphere, giving shape to the concept of ‘Being in the World’ of a world citizenship or – in its totality of a ‘global civil society’.

The influence of CNN which has internationally role of a global authority has been widely underestimated. The Internet, as an icon of a globalize media world, with around 200 million people globally ‘being online’ (whatever this means) seems to finally speed up this development.

In such an environment, ‘the international information order’ conventional patterns of international communication (of North/South, developing and developed, central and peripheral nations) are becoming obsolete. International communication theory, modeled in the age of modernization (mainly around push technologies) reveals the imbalance in global media images and description, analyses media imperialism of global accumulate of information, investigates cultural effects of ‘main-streaming’ through internationally transmitted media productions, analyses the varying role played by news media in times of international crisis. Only a few, very recent approaches in cultural studies and sociology, interpret global media flow by a new globalized perspective which interprets arising new communication segments within the global context of inter-relating communication structures and options, highlighting a new effects on a diversified global culture.

The strategy of international communication theory should be to develop a methodology for the understanding of ‘particular’ interpretations, meanings, relevance of the global public sphere, to detect the specifics of this communication space for different world regions – in times of peace and times of crisis.

One example of the global public sphere in a (mass) distribution satellite age of the late eighties, the Internet opens the view for new developments. The western view of a universal global sphere and of the Internet as a globalize medium is therefore a myth. For this reason, a closer analysis of the different world regions in their Internet use (and their idea of a global public sphere) is important. A global analysis of the global diversity of the relevance of the Internet in different media cultures is another example of attempting to understand the specific use of the global public sphere in various world regions. The determination of a specifc profile helps to understand different attitudes and perceptions of this global sphere and the medium of the Internet. I propose to characterize these environments in light of overall media structures in order to determine specific Internet profiles within the overall media setting. Based on this model, five environments can be identified:

Spillover Environment: this environment can be identified by a low level of technical infrastructure. It is located within or on the border of relay satellite footprints of major media environments. The term “spillover” relates to this relay function of major satellite, to ‘footprint’ a center and a spillover zone. Spillover zones are many African regions (spillover from European footprints), Asian and South American territories, also Yukon Territory in Alaska.
State-regulated limited access: countries where governments practice censorship over domestic news media, but minimal control over international (commercial) programming (Star TV case in India).
Post communist transition: Push-mass media (TV) are in these societies undergoing the transition from communism toward democracy. This environment can be characterized by an ill-defined legal situation, a still vivid history of socialist media policy and a commercial market in which international and domestic broadcasters exist alongside various unlicensed local and regional stations (Russia and former USSR states).
Pluralist Environment: Characterization of this environment are basic media regulation. Furthermore, media are regarded as commercial enterprises (USA).
Dualist Environment: This environment can be identified by a parallelism of public service and internationally operating commercial channels, a parallelism of media as cultural and commercial enterprises, where international channels are ‘localized’ by domestic programs (CNN and NTV, MTV and VIVA). Media and telecommunication are state regulated, expensive and therefore Internet development is slow.

State-regulated, limited international communication environment

Within this environment, an important issue is reciprocal communication. In such a restricted context, where access to communication infrastructure is extremely limited and closely monitored, web sites that allow true interactivity and information exchange have been set up outside the region. Because the Internet’s program flow is global, websites dealing with domestic Chinese issues (in Tibet) are located anywhere (mainly in the pluralist environment US). One of these sites, the Digital Freedom Network, publishes the writings of Chinese political prisoners and monitors human rights abuse not only in China but also in Burma and Bangladesh. Another type of reciprocal communication is the use of the Internt by political minorities or opposition groups within a restricted media environment (Singapore, Malaysia).

The meaning of globalization and of global communication is not similar, but different in various world regions. As system theorists assert, growing density and complexity of communication are the sign of a growing ‘world community.’ To understand the new global sphere, its autonomy, independency and ist ‘mediation’ will support the transition into a world community in the 21st century.

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.

Long‐term Consequences of Cold War

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

Proxy Wars: Vietnam War, African Decolonization Movements, and Afghan Crisis

Proxy wars were fought throughout the developing world

During 1961–1973, the United States gradually escalated its involvement in the Vietnam War.

Vietnam was divided into North and South regions after its decolonization in 1954. North Vietnam came under communist influence while US backed South

Gradually nationalistic forces from the North that aimed to unify Vietnam began to encroach into the South. The Americans saw it as a communist threat and began to provide military support to the south.

The U.S. government withdrew its military in the early 1970s. The U.S. effort to prevent a communist takeover in South Vietnam failed.

In other parts of the world, but most notably in Africa, post–World War II decolonization movements witnessed both the Americans and Soviets competing for influence.

This superpower rivalry either precipitated regional or civil wars or greatly prolonged conflicts already in progress. Such was the case in Congo (Zaire), Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya, among other African states.

Millions of people died in these wars mainly because of genocide, forced relocations, and starvation.

In late 1970s Afghanistan experienced a sort of revolution. A communist government was installed in power in Afghanistan

The US, USSR and China all had vested interests in Afghanistan due to its oil.

But anti‐communist force in collaboration with the religious fundamentalist forces opposed the new government. As a result Afghanistan plunged into a civil War.

In this civil war the USA supported the anticommunists and the fundamentalists (mujahedeen) via Pakistan. On the other hand, the communist government sought military and economic aid from the USSR.

The war was a disaster for the Soviet Union. USSR ultimately withdrew in 1990.

Features of Foreign policy of Nepal

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

Nepal has been mainly raising the following matters in the UNO, Non-Aligned conference, SAARC Summit and in the multilateral and bilateral forums:
1) Trust and values towards panchashil doctrines:
Nepal has adopted the foreign policy keeping trust and value in the following Five principles approved by Bandung Conference in 1955.
a)Non-interference
b) Non-invision
c) Respect to regional indivisibility, sovereignty and freedom of one country to another
d) To have equality and mutual well being
e) to maintain peaceful co-existence
2) To respect UN charter and make the UNO able and strong
3) To protect against casteism, color discrimination, colonialism and imperialism
4) To solve international conflict, misunderstanding and problems through peaceful means
5) Note to form and minitary part
6) keep trust in international law
7) maintain peace, unity, understanding and brotherhood in the world
8) to achieve sustainable peace by institutionalizing peace in Nepal
9) To emphasize on regional help
10) To emphasize on disarmament and protest armament
11) To secure and promote the genuine right of land locked countries
12) To initiate a new economic model in the world
13) To get help and support from friendly countries for economic prosperity
14) To protest any type of interference done by big nation
15) To advocate in favor of economic development and prosperity of very underdeveloped countries
16) Not interfere in the internal issues of the other countries
17) To adopt Non- alignment
18) To emphasize on protection and promotion of human right all over the world
19) To establish special and practical relationship with neighbouring countries, etc.

Policy provisions
Constitutional provision
Act 33. under the responsibility of the nation
Act 33 (dha) To implement the international treaties and agreements in favor of the nation effectively
Act 33 (na) using available water resources, natural means and resources for the well-being of the country
Act 33 (6) The international relationship of the nation will be directed in the direction of promoting national respect in the international arena yet maintaining sovereignty, indivisibility and freedom of the nation.
Act 35 under the state’s policy
Act 35(12) the state will adopt the policy of attracting foreign capital and technology in the country still giving priority to nation investment for nation development.
Act 35(21) Nepal will undertake its foreign policy on the basic of the norms of UN charter, non alignment, five principles doctrine’s, international law and world peace
Act 35(22) the state will adopt the policy that helps to institutionalize peace and order based on international norms and values with co-operative relationship along socio-economic as well as other different sectors based on equality with the neighbouring and friendly countries of the world.

Legal provisions
Existent acts

facility and freedom towards foreign stats and diplomatic representative act, 2027 2.continuity of foreign transaction act 2019
foreign investment act 2010
foreign investment and technique handover act 2049
passwort act 2024
labour act 2048
foreign employment act 2042
human trafficking control act 2064
treaty act 2047
non- inhabitant Nepalese act, 2064 Existent rules 1.passport regulation 2059
Labour regulation 2050 3.Hotel, lodge, restaurant, bar and guiding regulation 2038
Honorary consul general regulation 2039
Immigration regulation 2051
trekking and rafting regulation 2059
Mountaineering reguration 2041
regulation foreign exchange regulation 2020 9.Foreign investment tax regulation, 2020
Foreign empolyment regulation 2056

Verdict or orders of Supreme Court

the court cannot issue order on the mater which is of the nature to be solved by diplomatic effort.
Action plan record signed by two countries need not be confidential
Any written agreement between two countries will be regarded as treaty
No legal condition to use the land abandoned by Sugauli Treaty by annexing it in Nepal

Existent problems in Foreign policy and foreign relationship

Continuity of party partition in appointment of ambassadors without following diplomatic ability and efficiency
lack of professional competency with the ambassadors
The candidates having specialisation in industrial, commercial, employment and diplomatic sector are not selected to appoint ambassadors. 4.Weak condition of financial diplomacy 5.Lack of information and notice through well known international newspapers and magazines by publishing different articles about Nepal. 6.Lack of wide diversification in bilateral and multilateral business investment, technique handover and industrial promotion. 7.Lack of development of water resources through foreign policy and foreign relationship.
Lack of seeking investors and presenting proposals activities through foreign missions. 9.Lack of extension of potentials in tourism promotion through diplomatic missions. 10.Lack of efforts to promote export of nepalese goods in international market. 11.Lack of development and expansion of international gathering, exhibition and commercial representatives board. 12.Weak management of foreign assistance. 13.Adverse effect on foreign policy and foreign relationship due to political instability.

SUGGESTIONS TO SOLVE EXISTENT PROBLEMS IN FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN RELATIONSHIP
1.To appoint ambassadors on the basis of diplomatic ability and efficiency.
2.No political partition on appointing ambassadors.
3.To train the ambassador in financial diplomacy before sending to foreign mission.
4.To include subject matter related to knowledge and experience of industrial, financial, employment and diplomatic sectors in the public hearing for the appointment of ambassador.
5.To broadcast and publish information and notice about different sectors of Nepal through chief newspapers and broadcast mediums of the world.
6.Diplomatic agencies established in the foreign countries should pay special attention to run different activities for the development of tourism, trade, commerce and business of Nepal.
7.Foreign relationship should be strengthened through the medium of international fete exhibition and business representatives boards.
8.Special attention to be paid towards conducting Nepal’s foreign policy and foreign relationship for the multisector utilization of water resources.
9.To conduct foreign relationship and diplomatic activities considering bilateral and multilateral business, promotion, and expansion of investment and technique handover.
10.To make special effort to promote export through foreign policy.
11.To build up any treaty and agreement insuring the favor of national wellbeing and national interest.

Current activities and positions

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

Criticism of US policy

In recent years the US has become a target of the organization. The US invasion of Iraq and the War on Terrorism, its attempts tostifle Iran and North Korea’s nuclear plans, and its other actions have been denounced as human rights violations and attempts to run roughshod over the sovereignty of smaller nations. The movement’s leaders have also criticized the American control over the United Nations and other international structures. While the organization has rejected terrorism, it condemns the association of terrorism with a particular religion, nationality, or ethnicity, and recognizes the rights of those struggling against colonialism and foreign occupation.

Anti-Zionism

NAM’s Havana Declaration of 1979adopted anti-Zionism as part of the movement’s agenda. The movement has denounced Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It has called upon Israel to halt its settlement activities, open up border crossings, and cease the use of force and violence against civilians. The UN has also been asked to pressure Israel and to do more to prevent human rights abuses.

Sustainable development

The movement is publicly committed to the tenets of sustainable development and the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, but it believes that the international community has not created conditions conducive to development and has infringed upon the right to sovereign development by each member state. Issues such as globalization, the debt burden, unfair trade practices, the decline in foreign aid, donor conditionalities, and the lack of democracy in international financial decision-making are cited as factors inhibiting development.

Reforms of the UN

The Non-Aligned Movement has been quite outspoken in its criticism of current UN structures and power dynamics, mostly in how the organization has been utilized by powerful states in ways that violate the movement’s principles. It has made a number of recommendations that would strengthen the representation and power of ‘non-aligned’ states. The proposed reforms are also aimed at improving the transparency and democracy of UN decision-making. The UN Security Council is the element considered the most distorted, undemocratic, and in need of reshaping.

South-south cooperation

Lately the Non-Aligned Movement has collaborated with other organizations of the developing world, primarily the Group of 77, forming a number of joint committees and releasing statements and document representing the shared interests of both groups. This dialogue and cooperation can be taken as an effort to increase the global awareness about the organization and bolster its political clout.

Cultural diversity and human rights

The movement accepts the universality of human rights and social justice, but fiercely resists cultural homogenization. In line with its views on sovereignty, the organization appeals for the protection of cultural diversity, and the tolerance of the religious, socio-cultural, and historical particularities that define human rights in a specific region.

Working groups, task forces, committees

High-Level Working Group for the Restructuring of the United Nations
Working Group on Human Rights
Working Group on Peace-Keeping Operations
Working Group on Disarmament
Committee on Palestine
Task Force on Somalia
Non-Aligned Security Caucus
Standing Ministerial Committee for Economic Cooperation
Joint Coordinating Committee (chaired by Chairman of G-77 and Chairman of NAM)

Contemporary relevance
Since the end of the Cold War and the formal end of colonialism, the Non-aligned movement has been forced to redefine itself and reinvent its purpose in the current world system. A major question has been whether many of its foundational ideologies, principally national independence, territorial integrity, and the struggle against colonialism and imperialism, can be applied to contemporary issues. The movement has emphasized its principles of multilateralism, equality, and mutual non-aggression in attempting to become a stronger voice for the global South, and an instrument that can be utilized to promote the needs of member nations at the international level and strengthen their political leverage when negotiating with developed nations. In its efforts to advance Southern interests, the movement has stressed the importance of cooperation and unity amongst member states, but as in the past, cohesion remains a problem since the size of the organization and the divergence of agendas and allegiances present the ongoing potential for fragmentation. While agreement on basic principles has been smooth, taking definitive action vis-à-vis particular international issues has been rare, with the movement preferring to assert its criticism or support rather than pass hard-line resolutions. The movement continues to see a role for itself, as in its view, the world’s poorest nations remain exploited and marginalized, no longer by opposing superpowers, but rather in a uni-polar world, and it is Western hegemony and neo-colonialism that that the movement has really re-aligned itself against. It opposes foreign occupation, interference in internal affairs, and aggressive unilateral measures, but it has also shifted to focus on the socio-economic challenges facing member states, especially the inequalities manifested by globalization and the implications of neo-liberal policies. The non-aligned movement has identified economic underdevelopment, poverty, and social injustices as growing threats to peace and security.

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.

PEACE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA

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

Introduction
In ancient times, international relations operated very differently. The system of sovereign state that we have today has not always existed. For much of the world’s history, empires dominated relations between various actors. Between empires, there was little notion of independence and non-interference. A notable exception occurred in ancient Greece, where city‐states related to each other in much the same way that sovereign states relate to each other today. The modern state and the modern international system emerged after the Thirty Years’ War with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. With this agreement, the overarching authority of the pope was replaced by the notion of sovereign states. The notion of sovereignty arose in Europe in the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries and spread around the world through the processes of colonization and decolonization when Europeans explored and conquered much of the rest of the world. Prior to the invention of the territorial state, global politics had been dominated by a wide variety of political forms such as empires, tribes, and cities.

Thirty Years’ War in Europe
Thirty Years War is the name given to a series of bloody and devastating wars fought in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, and Belgium) particularly on German lands between 1618 and 1648. Though several complex causes and motivations fueled these wars, the conflict between Protestants and Catholics over the authority of the Catholic Church and the pope was a central issue. Until 1517, Christianity was synonymous with Catholicism. Protestantism was a movement against the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants eventually tried to free themselves from the authority of the pope and Catholic rulers. The Thirty Years’ War in Europe began as a conflict between Protestants and Catholics but eventually involved political issues. The Protestant churches were destroyed by Catholic bishop. In response, in Prague in 1618, Protestants attacked the Emperor’s palace and threw two of his ministers out of a window and forced out the Catholic King. The governments of Sweden and Denmark, while claiming to be fighting for the ideals of Protestantism, also saw the War as an opportunity to gain land. Protestant rulers within the Holy Roman Empire and beyond (France, Sweden, Denmark, England, and United Provinces) were on one side and the Holy Roman Emperor and the ruling Hapsburg family, the Catholic princes of Germany, and in the end, Spain were on the other side. In the Thirty Years’ War, two‐thirds of the total population had disappeared and five‐sixths of the villages in the empire had been destroyed.

Peace of Westphalia
The horrors of the Thirty Years’ War made it obvious that the Christian community of medieval Europe was fragile indeed and was in need of replacement. The replacement that came out of the Peace of Westphalia was the sovereign state. The European powers gathered in Westphalia (in what is today northwestern Germany) in 1648 to make peace. The term peace of Westphalia refer to the two peace treaties of Osnabruck and Munster signed on May 15 and October 24 of 1648 respectively which ended both the thirty years war in Germany and the eighty years war between Spain and the Netherlands. The treaty of the Pyrenees signed in 1659 that ended the war between France and Spain is often considered part of the overall accord. The Peace of Westphalia was comprised of separate treaties, as the Catholic and Protestant nations refused to meet with each other. The Catholic parties met in 1648 in Munster, a traditionally Catholic city, whereas the Protestants met in the Protestant city of Osnabruck. The chief participants in the negotiations were the allies of Sweden and France; their opponents, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire; and the various parts of the empire. (which had been riven by the war) together with the newly independent Netherlands. England, Poland, Muscovy, and Turkey were the only European powers that were not represented at the two assemblies. Ultimately, 176 representatives of 196 rulers attended the peace negotiations. France wanted to destroy the emperor’s influence by strengthening the autonomy of the individual princes and by replacing the existing imperial institutions with a French‐led federation. However, these plans were unpopular with the German princes, who preferred an emperor with limited authority than the dominance of France and Sweden. Likewise, France wanted Spanish territory and also did not want to see Sweden become too powerful. After the treaty of Westphalia the Holy Roman Empire remained a loosely knit federation. The emperor had to share the power with the
princes. The United Provinces of the Netherlands (Dutch Republic) were declared independent of both Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. Switzerland was also acknowledged as independent of the empire. France and Sweden gained additional territory.

Significance of Peace of Westphalia
The 1648 Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia embraced the notion of sovereignty and almost all small states in central Europe attained sovereignty. The German states (about 250) were recognized as sovereign. The Peace of Westphalia established the principle that all sovereign states are equal. Interference by one state in the internal affairs of another was considered as the violation of sovereignty by the Peace of Westphalia. The system of sovereign states gradually expanded to the non‐Western world when Europeans explored and conquered much of the rest of the world. After the Treaty, the leaders sought to establish their own permanent national militaries. ‘National interest’ gained superiority over religious motives in a long term. The power and authority of the Holy Roman Empire was drastically curtailed by the Peace of Westphalia and the religious authority in Europe was replaced by Secular authority. It made Roman Catholics and Protestants equal and allowed the state to establish the religion of their people. Treaty of Westphalia established a core group of states that dominated the world until the beginning of the nineteenth century: Austria, Russia, Prussia, England, France, and the United Provinces (the area now comprising the Netherlands and Belgium). Following the Peace of Westphalia, in the eighteenth century, European states operated on the balance‐of‐power principle. The principles imply that it is dangerous for all states to allow any other state to become too powerful. The Westphalian state system contributed to the evolution of diplomatic methods and the growth of international law. The peace of Westphalia resulted from the first pan‐European peace congress and it established the practice of multilateral negotiation for resolving conflicts. The Treaty of the Peace of Westphalia recognized peace as the highest goal of the community of states.

Conflicting Perspectives regarding Peace of Westphalia

It is argued that two main treaties that comprise the Peace of Westphalia, make no mention of sovereignty. Some scholars argue that the Peace of Westphalia did not intend to redefine international relations since the treaties had no other purposes than ending the war. While each German principality had its own legal system, the final Courts of Appeal applied to the whole of the Holy Roman Empire hence they were not sovereign. It is also argued that the Peace of Westphalia simply took a pre‐existing set of concepts and established them between nations. Since the three
chief participants (France, Sweden and Holy Roman Empire) were all already sovereign, there was no need to clarify this situation. In any case, the princes of Germany remained subordinate to the Holy Roman emperor as per the constitution. In addition, each treaty contained clauses that allowed Sweden and France to intervene should the Holy Roman Empire break the Peace. This directly violates the concept of individual sovereignty, as it allows external actors to interfere with state affairs. Many scholars at present believe that with the rise of globalization, nation‐states are becoming less and less Westphalian as international organizations such as the European Union, the
United Nations, and the International Criminal Court gain legal power to intervene in countries.

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).

Diplomatic Mission

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

A diplomatic mission is a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization (such as the United Nations) present in another state to represent the sending state/organization in the receiving state. In practice, a diplomatic mission usually denotes the permanent mission, namely the office of a country’s diplomatic representatives in the capital city of another country.

Naming
A permanent diplomatic mission is usually known as an embassy, and the person in charge of the mission is known as an ambassador. Missions between Commonwealth countries are known as High Commissions and their heads are High Commissioners.

All missions to the United Nations are known simply as Permanent Missions, and the head of such a mission is typically both a Permanent Representative and an ambassador. Some countries have more particular naming for their missions and staff: a Vatican mission is headed by a Nuncio and consequently known as an Apostolic Nunciature, while Libya’s missions were for a long time known as People’s Bureaus and the head of the mission was a Secretary. (Libya has since switched back to standard nomenclature.)

In the past a diplomatic mission headed by a lower ranking official (an envoy or minister resident) was known as a legation. Since the ranks of envoy and minister resident are effectively obsolete, the designation of legation is no longer used today. (See diplomatic rank.)

In cases of dispute, it is common for a country to recall its head of mission as a sign of its displeasure. This is less drastic than cutting diplomatic relations completely, and the mission will still continue operating more or less normally, but it will now be headed by a chargé d’affaires who may have limited powers. Note that for the period of succession between two heads of missions, a chargé d’affaires ad interim may be appointed as caretaker; this does not imply any hostility to the host country.

A Consulate is similar to (but not the same as) a diplomatic office, but with focus on dealing with individual persons and businesses, as defined by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. A Consulate or Consulate-General is generally a representative of the Embassy in locales outside of the capital city. For instance, The British Embassy to the United States is in Washington, D.C., and there are British Consulates in Los Angeles, New York City, Houston, and so on.

The term “embassy” is often used to refer to the building or compound housing an ambassador’s offices and staff. Technically, “embassy” refers to the diplomatic delegation itself, while the office building in which they work is known as a chancery, but this distinction is rarely used in practice. Ambassadors reside in ambassadorial residences, which enjoy the same rights as missions.

Extraterritoriality
Under international law, diplomatic missions enjoy an extraterritorial status and thus, although remaining part of the host country’s territory, they are exempt from local law and in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country. They are also only required to pay taxes equal to their respective countries’ guidelines.

As the host country may not enter the representing country’s embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country. For example, North Korean nationals, who would be arrested and deported from China upon discovery, have sought sanctuary at various third-country embassies in China. Once inside the embassy, diplomatic channels can be used to solve the issue and send the refugees to another country. Notable violations of embassy extraterritoriality include the Iran hostage crisis (1979–1981), the Japanese embassy hostage crisis (1996) in Lima, Peru, 2006 embassy burnings in Iran, Lebanon and Syria of Danish, Norwegian and Chilean embassies.

Role
The role of such a mission is to protect in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; negotiating with the Government of the receiving State as directed by the sending State; ascertaining by lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.

Between members of the Commonwealth of Nations there are no embassies, but High Commissions, as Commonwealth nations share a special diplomatic relationship. It is generally expected that an embassy of a Commonwealth country in a non-Commonwealth country will do its best to provide diplomatic services to citizens from other Commonwealth countries if the citizen’s country does not have an embassy in that country. Canadian and Australian nationals enjoy even greater cooperation between their respective consular services, as outlined in Canada/Australian Consular Services Sharing Agreement. The same kind of procedure is also followed multilaterally by the member states of the European Union (EU). European citizens in need of consular help in a country without diplomatic or consular representation of their own country may turn to any consular or diplomatic mission of another EU member state.

The rights and immunities (such as diplomatic immunity) of diplomatic missions are codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Nations that are not recognized have legations overseas but these are not recognized as having official diplomatic status as defined by the Vienna Convention. These de facto embassies are usually referred to as Representative Offices. Some examples of these types of missions: the Representative Office of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in Washington, D.C.; Somaliland’s representatives in London, Addis Ababa, Rome, and Washington, D.C.; the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh has a representative office in Washington, D.C.; the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Washington, D.C. (representing the Republic of China); and the American Institute in Taiwan (representing the United States in the Republic of China). Under United States law, such offices are regarded by the State Department officially as “information centers” and the persons working in them do not have diplomatic visas, nor are credentials from their chiefs of mission accepted.

Countries that are not sovereign states may set up offices abroad, as in the case of Hong Kong, which government has set up Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in various locations. Such offices assume some of the non-diplomatic functions of diplomatic posts, such as promoting trade interests and providing assistance to its citizens and residents. They are nevertheless not diplomatic missions, their personnels are not diplomats and do not have diplomatic visas.

Some cities may host more than one mission from the same country. An example is Rome, where many states maintain missions to Italy, another to the Holy See and even another to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. It is not customary for these missions to share premises nor diplomatic personnel. Presently only the Iraqi missions to Italy and the Holy See share premises; however, two ambassadors are appointed, one to each country. Geneva, a Swiss city hosting many international organizations, also has many missions.

Structure
The structure of a diplomatic mission varies according to its size and purpose. The executive office usually consists of a Head of Mission, Deputy Chief of Mission, and is supported by sections including but not limited to:

Consular Section
Consular sections are responsible for assisting and protecting overseas citizens in distress, processing visa applications, and issuing and renewing passports.

Political/Economic Section
Political/Economic sections provide reporting and analysis on political and economic issues, usually by producing cables for their home government.

Public Affairs Section
Public Affairs sections serve as both press offices (handling official spokesman duties and liaising with local press) and cultural offices (supporting home government outreach programs/performances, managing cultural and academic exchange programs such as the Fulbright Program).

Management/Administrative Section
Management/Administrative sections handle the day to day operations of the mission with responsibilities over maintenance, payroll, human resources, etc.

Foreign Aid Offices
Foreign aid offices such as USAID (at American posts) and DFID (at British posts) oversee the disbursement and implementation of foreign assistance.

Office of Defense Attachée
Defense Attaché’s offices handle the official military-to-military contact for governments, support home government military visits, and produce reporting on military and battlefield intelligence.

Other Offices
Other attachée offices usually exist in larger missions handling issues such as agriculture, commerce, science, military sales and health.

Diplomatic rank
The system of diplomatic rank has over time been formalised on an international basis.

Traditional diplomacy
Until the early 19th century, each European nation had its own system of diplomatic rank. The relative ranks of diplomats from different nations had been a source of considerable dispute, made more so by the insistence of major nations to have their diplomats ranked higher than those of minor nations, to be reflected in such things as table seatings.

In an attempt to resolve the problem, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 formally established an international system of diplomatic ranks. The four ranks within the system were:

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, or simply Ambassador, who is a representative of the head of state. Equivalent, and in some traditions primus inter pares, is the Papal nuncio. Amongst Commonwealth countries, the equivalent title High Commissioner (who represents the government rather than the head of state) is normally used instead.
A diplomatic mission headed by an ambassador would be known as an Embassy; one headed by a High Commissioner is called a High Commission. Ambassadors and high commissioners are entitled to use the title “His/Her Excellency” from the government and the people of the country they are appointed to.

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. Usually just referred to as a Minister, an envoy is a diplomatic representative with plenipotentiary powers (i.e. full authority to represent the head of state), but ranking below an Ambassador. Where Embassies are headed by Ambassadors, Legations are headed by Ministers.
Minister Resident or Resident Minister, or simply Minister, is the, now extremely rare, lowest rank of full diplomatic mission chief, only above Chargé d’affaires (who is considered an extraordinary substitute).

Note that both the Minister Plenipotentiary and the Minister Resident are diplomatic ministers, which are not the same thing as government ministers or religious ministers. A diplomatic mission headed by either type of Minister would be called a Legation. As they formally represent the head of state, they are entitled to use the title “His/Her Excellency”, which originally was reserved for Ambassadors.

Chargé d’affaires, or simply Chargé. As the French title suggests, a chargé d’affaires would be in charge of an embassy’s or a legation’s affairs in the (usually temporary) absence of a more senior diplomat. A Chargé d’affaires ad interim or simply “a.i.” is generally serving as head of mission during the temporary absence of the head of mission, while the Chargé d’affaires e.p. or en pied maintains the same functions and duties as an ambassador, and is accredited not to the head of state but to the minister of foreign relations of the receiving state.
As it turned out, this system of diplomatic rank did nothing to solve the problem of the nations’ precedence. The appropriate diplomatic ranks used would be determined by the precedence among the nations; thus the exchanges of ambassadors (the highest diplomatic rank) would be reserved among major nations, or close allies and related monarchies. In contrast, a major nation would probably send just an envoy to a minor nation, who in return would send an envoy to the major nation. As a result, the United States did not use the rank of ambassador until their emergence as a major world power at the end of the 19th century. Indeed, until the mid-20th century, the majority of diplomats in the world were of the rank of minister plenipotentiary.

In diplomatic parlance, all the diplomats that are assigned to a nation are known collectively as the diplomatic corps; one of these diplomats is recognized as the primus inter pares—in practice rather a protocolar honor—who acts as the spokesperson for all, known as the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps or as Marshal of Diplomacy (generally based on the date of arrival in country or presentation of credentials to the head of state, although in some Catholic nations it is held automatically by the Papal Nuncio).

After World War II, it was no longer considered acceptable to treat some nations as inferior to others given the United Nations doctrine of equality of sovereign states; therefore most legations were upgraded to embassies, and the use of the rank of Minister for diplomatic missions’ highest-ranking officials gradually ceased. The last U.S. Legation, in Sofia, Bulgaria, was upgraded to an Embassy on November 28, 1966. Where those ranks still exist, their incumbents usually act as embassy section chiefs or Deputy Chief of Mission (deputy to the Ambassador).

Modern diplomats
Bilateral diplomacy
The distinction between managers and officers is not necessarily as apparent. Senior officers (such as first and second secretaries) often manage junior diplomats and locally-hired staff.

In modern diplomatic practice there are a number of diplomatic ranks below Ambassador. Since most missions are now headed by an Ambassador, these ranks now rarely indicate a mission’s (or its host nation’s) relative importance, but rather reflect the diplomat’s individual seniority within their own nation’s diplomatic career path and in the diplomatic corps in the host nation:

Ambassador (or High-Commissioner in Commonwealth missions)
Minister
Minister-Counselor
Counselor
First Secretary
Second Secretary
Third Secretary
Attaché
Assistant Attaché
Chargé d’affaires and Chargé d’affaires, ad interim (or simply i.) is a separate title used when an Ambassador (or other head of mission) is not present, has not been appointed, or is otherwise not able to discharge duties in a specific location. Generally, the ad interim (temporary) “chargé” (as they are often referred to) is another staff member (usually the second-most senior officer) accredited in the host country for the head of mission’s temporary absences. In such cases, the diplomatic mission advises the local government (usually the foreign ministry) by means of a diplomatic note that a specific individual has been appointed chargé for a specific or indefinite period of time. In contrast to an Ambassador, the specific agreement of the host government is not required.
In certain cases, a Chargé d’affaires may be appointed for long periods, when a mission is headed by a non-resident Ambassador, when countries have established diplomatic relations but not exchanged Ambassadors, or when they have recalled their Ambassadors for a period of time (to express displeasure or serious disagreement) but not yet taken the extremely serious step of breaking diplomatic relations. It is not unheard of for Chargé d’affaires to remain in place for an indefinite period. Since a Chargé d’affaires does not need to present letters of credence to the host head of state, appointing a chargé may avoid a politically sensitive meeting or implying some form of approval or recognition of that head of state or government. Equally, the receiving country may express displeasure by declining to receive an Ambassador, but maintain diplomatic relations by accepting a Chargé.

The term Attaché is used for any diplomatic agent who does not fit in the standard diplomatic ranks, often because they are not (or were not traditionally) members of the sending country’s diplomatic service or foreign ministry, and were therefore only “attached” to the diplomatic mission. The most frequent use is for military attachés, but the diplomatic title may be used for any specific individual or position as required. Since administrative and technical staff benefit from only limited diplomatic immunity, some countries may routinely appoint support staff as attachés. Attaché does not, therefore, connote any rank or position. Note that many traditional functionary roles, such as Press Attaché or Cultural Attaché, are not formal titles in diplomatic practice, although they may be used as a matter of custom.

Usage worldwide
Most countries worldwide have some form of internal rank, roughly parallel to the diplomatic ranks, which are used in their foreign service or civil service in general. The correspondence is not exact, however, for various reasons, including the fact that according to diplomatic usage, all Ambassadors are of equal rank, but clearly Ambassadors of more senior rank are sent to more important postings. Some countries may make specific links or comparisons to military ranks.

Multilateral diplomacy
Furthermore, outside this traditional pattern of bilateral diplomacy, as a rule on a permanent residency basis (though sometimes doubling elsewhere), certain ranks and positions were created specifically for multilateral diplomacy:

A permanent representative is the equivalent of an ambassador, normally of that rank, but accredited to an international body (mainly by member—and possibly observer states), not to a head of state.
A resident representative (or sometimes simply representative) is the equivalent — in rank and privileges — of an ambassador, but accredited by an international organization (generally a United Nations agency, or a Bretton Woods institution) to a country’s government. The resident representative typically heads the country office of that international organization within that country.
A special ambassador is a government’s specialist diplomat in a particular field, not posted in residence, but often traveling around the globe.
The S. Trade Representative is a diplomat of cabinet rank, in charge of U.S. delegations in multilateral trade negotiations (since 1962).
The UN Secretary General personally mandates Special Envoys for a particular field, e.g. Africa’s long-term AIDS problem, climate change negotiations, or ad hoc as for a (civil) war zone; states, especially (regional) superpowers, may do the same, e.g.:
To help with the Northern Ireland peace process, the United States has appointed a Special Envoy to Northern Ireland with the diplomatic rank of Ambassador. As of 2006, the position was occupied by Mitchell Reiss.
During the 2006 democracy movement in Nepal, India sent on April 18 Karan Singh, who is related to royalty in both predominantly Hindu countries, as Special Envoy to neighbouring Nepal where increasingly violent opposition started its successful challenge of the king’s autocratic rule.
In 2005, Belgium created a former cabinet member, Pierre Chevalier Special Envoy of the OSCE presidency—in fact ahead of its 2006 turn as rotatory Chairman-in-Office of the organisation; the post was never formally created—to mediate in the Gazprom natural gas-pipeline crisis involving Russia, Ukraine and the EU.
The EU appoints various Special Representatives (some regional, some thematic); e.g. in 2005—as a response to events in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan—the Council of the EU appointed Jan Kubis as its “Special Representative for Central Asia”.
A case sui generis is the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Consular counterpart
Formally the consular career (ranking in descending order: Consul-General, Consul, Vice-Consul, Consular Agent; equivalents without diplomatic immunity include Honorary Consul-General, Honorary Consul, and Honorary Vice-Consul) forms a separate hierarchy. Many countries do not internally have a separate consular path or stream, and the meaning of “consular” responsibilities and functions will differ from country to country. Other titles, including “Vice Consul-General”, have existed in the past. Consular titles may be used concurrently with diplomatic titles if the individual is assigned to an embassy. Diplomatic immunity is more limited for consular officials without other diplomatic accreditation, and broadly limited to immunity with respect to their official duties.

At a separate consular post, the official will have only a consular title. Officials at consular posts may therefore have consular titles, but not be involved in traditional consular activities, and actually be responsible for trade, cultural, or other matters.

Consular officers, being nominally more distant from the politically sensitive aspects of diplomacy, can more easily render a wide range of services to private citizens, enterprises, et cetera. They may be more numerous since diplomatic missions are posted only in a nation’s capital, while consular officials are stationed in various other cities as well. However, it is not uncommon for individuals to be transferred from one hierarchy to the other, and for consular officials to serve in a capital carrying out strictly consular duties within the ‘consular section’ of a diplomatic post, e.g. within an embassy. Some countries routinely provide their Embassy officials with consular commissions, including those without formal consular responsibilities, since a consular commission allows the individual to legalize documents, sign certain documents, and undertake certain other necessary functions.

Depending on the practice of the individual country, “consular services” may be limited to services provided for citizens or residents of the sending country, or extended to include, for example, visa services for nationals of the host country.

What’s the difference between an embassy and a consulate?
A consulate is like a junior embassy. It’s generally located in a busy tourist city, and takes care of minor diplomatic tasks such as issuing visas. The word consulate literally means office of the consul, who is a diplomat appointed to foster trade and take care of expatriates. You can read some pointed essays about the role of the modern day consulate at the American Foreign Service site.

Embassies are much bigger deals. The word embassy comes from the French ambassade, or office of the ambassador. Ambassadors are high-ranking diplomatic representatives who serve as spokespersons for their national governments. If one country recognizes the sovereignty of another, they generally establish an embassy there. Embassies take care of the same administrative duties as consulates, but they also represent their governments abroad.

This can be tricky business. For instance, the United States doesn’t maintain an embassy in Taiwan (in order to maintain diplomatic relations with China), but it does operates a consulate there to take care of its overseas citizens. For an interesting online look at another prickly diplomatic relation, check out the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia, which features a reaction statement to the recent incarceration of Malaysia’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim.

You may recall the famous photograph from 1975 of American citizens ostensibly fleeing the American embassy in Saigon. The building was in fact an apartment complex across the street, but the message was clear: once the embassy leaves, the country symbolically leaves.

Peace treaty of versailles

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

The Treaty of Versailles is a peace document signed at the end of World War I by the Allied and Associated Powers and by Germany in the Palace of Versailles, France, on June 28, 1919; it took force on January 10, 1920.

Background of First World War
Major Causes of World War I
Growth in German power and ambition: Although Germany did not become a unified country until 1871, it prospered and used its growing wealth to create military power. Britain was concerned that the growth in German power would threaten its dominance on the sea. Hence, it established formal ties with France and Russia. Since the European powers started to gang up against Germany, it sought more armaments and closer relations with Austria‐Hungary.
Arms races and nationalism: Germany expanded its naval weapon which seemed to threaten Britain’s dominance of the seas so essential for maintaining the British Empire. The alliance system and the tensions generated by the arms races fueled nationalism all over Europe, which in turn intensified tensions and mutual suspicions. German nationalism focused on achieving a world empire to match the country’s growing economic and military might. France, Russia, and Austria‐ Hungary also had their own agenda influenced by the ideology of nationalism. Slavic nationalism threatened Austria‐Hungary; Russian nationalism placed pressure on Russia to aid Serbia because
many Serbians and Russians shared common ethnicity; French nationalism demanded the return of its lost provinces of Alsace‐Lorraine.
Colonial rivalries: For many centuries, European nations built empires. Colonies supplied European nations with raw materials and provided markets for manufactured goods. As Germany industrialized it competed directly with France and Britain to gain colonies. Major European countries also competed for land in Africa.

Formation of peacetime alliances: By 1907 there were two major defense alliances in Europe. The Triple Entente, later known as the Allies, consisted of France, Britain, and Russia. The Triple Alliance, later known as the Central Powers, consisted of Germany, Austria‐Hungary, and Italy (Soon joined by the Ottoman Empire). Once Russia acted in response to Austria’s attack on Serbia, alliance commitments pulled one European great power after another into the war.

World War I – Major Events
World War I took place for four years and three months between 1914 and 1918. The war killed more than 18 million people and the total cost was nearly $333 billion. The Great War began as a local collision between Serbia and Austria‐Hungary. Bosnia was controlled by Austria‐Hungary and a Serbian group was fighting to free Bosnia from Austria‐Hungary and make it a part of Serbian kingdom. The war was triggered when Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg throne of Austria, was assassinated in Sarajevo (Bosnia), by a Serbian terrorist organization that wanted Bosnia to be free of Austria‐Hungary and to become part of a large Serbian kingdom. Bosnia had been thesite of numerous plots against Austria‐Hungary’s Hapsburg rulers, especially after 1908 when Bosnia Herzegovina was annexed by Austria‐Hungary. Austria‐Hungary placed the blame for the assassination directly on Serbia. Austria‐Hungary also saw the crisis as an opportunity to deal with Serbia once and for all.

Austrian leaders wanted to attack Serbia but feared Russian intervention on Serbia’s behalf since Russia (having a large Slavic population) had public pressure to defend fellow Slavs in Serbia and elsewhere from Austria‐Hungary’s threats. Hence, Austria‐Hungary wanted German assistance with a hope that the German commitment would prevent Russia from entering the conflict. Some historians argue that at least some of Germany’s leaders did not hope to deter Russia, but they actually hoped that war would begin so that Germany could defeat Russia before Russia’s growing military power made it a serious threat to Germany. On July 25th, 1914, Austria‐Hungary mobilized
its army, and three days later declared war on Serbia. Russia decided to support Serbia and Germany declared for Austria‐Hungary. Russia was also upset with Austria‐Hungary for its failure to perform the deal they had made in 1908 in which Russia would not raise any voice against the annexation of Bosnia‐Herzegovina by Austria‐Hungary and Austria‐Hungary would support Russia’s efforts to secure free passage to Russian warships into the Mediterranean. Germany’s agreement to support Austria‐Hungary is often cited when holding Germany responsible
for World War I. When Austria‐Hungary declared war against Serbia, Russia did decide to come to the defense of Serbia. Fulfilling its promise to back Austria‐Hungary, Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st and then on Russia’s ally, France on August 3rd. Germany planned to swing through neutral Belgium to attack France from the north where its defenses were the weakest. Great Britain also joined the contest on August 4 because of its moral obligation, especially to France with which it had made secret but informal military arrangements. The trigger for British entry in the war was the German invasion of neutral Belgium. The limited war in the Balkans spread across all of Europe because of the alliance system. In 1915, Italy joined the Triple Entente, thereby betraying its earlier obligations as a member of the Triple Alliance in return for territorial promises made in the secret Treaty of London. In 1917, the United States, which had been neutral, also tilted in favor of Britain because of a shared ancestry
and language. American had stronger economic interests with the Allies (Triple Entente). US had a major reason to be involved in World War I since American public opinion turned against Germany and Central Powers after Germany sank a British passenger ship on May 7, 1915 killing all passengers including 128 American tourists. Eventually, 32 countries on six continents became enmeshed in the conflict. The entry of the United States into the war in 1917 gave the Allies a much‐needed psychological boost, along with fresh forces and material. On the other hand, the Central Powers had no hope of getting fresh supplies. On November 3, 1918, Austria‐Hungary surrendered to the Allies. On November 11, 1918, Germany signed a truce ending the Great War.

Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles
The Paris Peace Conference, held at the Palace of Versailles, opened on January 12, 1919, and was attended by the political leaders of 32 countries representing three‐quarters of the world’s population. America’s President Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924), Prime Minister David Lloyd George of Great Britain (1863–1945), Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau of France (1841–1929), and Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando of Italy (1860–1952) were the victorious war leaders that dominated the conference and each had his own objectives. Britain sought to recreate a workable balance of power and safeguard its empire. France sought to dismember Germany and create security for itself in
Europe. Italy sought the territories it had been promised during the war. Wilson sought a forgiving and generous peace with America’s defeated enemies. Wilson sought a liberal world that reflected his Fourteen Points on the basis of which Germany surrendered.

Wilson’s Fourteen Points:
Geopolitical Issues:

Russia should be allowed to operate whatever government it wanted.
Belgium should be evacuated and restored to the situation before the war.
France should have Alsace‐Lorraine and any lands taken away during the war.
The Italian border should be readjusted according to nationality.
The national groups in Europe should be given their independence.
Romania, Montenegro and Serbia should be evacuated and Serbia should have an outlet to the sea.
The people of Turkey should have a say in their future.
Poland should become an independent state with an outlet to the sea.

General Ideology:

Ensuring freedom of the seas
Ending secret treaties and negotiations
Establishing equal and free trade
Reducing arms
Granting self‐governments to the peoples in Central Europe
Establishing League of Nations

However, America’s allies wanted to impose a harsh peace on Germany that would prevent any revival of German military power that might again endanger their security. Britain considered the freedom of the seas as a danger to the British Empire and wanted to make the Germans pay for the war. In the end, Wilson gave over his principles one after the other in order to get the last of them, a league of nations. Wilson’s League of Nations was written into the peace treaty with Germany as the first of 440 articles. The U.S. Senate opposed the treaty, instead signing the Treaty of Berlin with Germany in August 1921. Germany was not invited to attend the peace conference. Germany and the other defeated powers were forced to sign treaties that provided a very different peace than they had anticipated. The finalpeace settlement of Paris consisted of five separate treaties with the defeated nations ‐ Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey. In addition to signing the Versailles Treaty with Germany, the victors and the defeated Central Powers signed four other treaties during the meetings: the treaties of St. Germain (with Austria), Trianon (with Hungary), Neuilly (with Bulgaria), and Sevres (with Turkey). The Treaty of Versailles with Germany, signed at Versailles near Paris, on June 28, 1919, was by far the most important. The Treaty of Versailles contained 440 articles. It dealt comprehensively with the territorial, military and war guilt of the Central Powers and the economic, political and other related aspects of the peace settlement. Germany had to accept the blame for starting the War. Germany was asked to surrender nearly 40,000 square kilometers of territory with more than seven million people. Germany was told to pay huge reparations, which after prolonged negotiations were fixed at $33,000 million. German colonies were taken away and were described as ‘Mandated territories of the League’ which France, Britain, and Japan distributed among themselves. Germany and Austria were barred form uniting. Germany had to reduce its army to a hundred thousand men, cut back its navy, and eliminate its air force. Alsace and Lorraine, taken by the Germans from France in 1871, were returned. Sections of eastern Germany were awarded to a new Polish state. German land along both sides of the Rhine was made a demilitarized zone and stripped of all weapons and fortifications. The conference created the League of Nations, the predecessor of today’s United Nations and the organization that gave voice to the idea of collective security. The conference also established the Permanent Court of
International Justice and the International Labour Organisation. The principle of national self‐determination was the most important and durable outcome of the peace conference. As the consequence of World War I and the peace conference, three empires—the Austrian‐ Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman (Turkish) collapsed, and in their place the independent states of Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Hungary were born. The Ottoman Empire was divided into several political entities, including Iraq, Syria, and Palestine, each of which consisted of peoples of different ethnic, religious, and tribal groups. The Treaty also established Yugoslavia, another artificial nation‐state, from remnants of the Austro‐Hungarian Empire.

Negative Arguments regarding the Treaty of Versailles
None of the defeated nations had any say in shaping the treaty. Germany was shocked at the severity of the contradictions between the assurances made when the truce was negotiated and the actual treaty. The desire to punish and permanently weaken Germany gained priority over the quest for a just peace. The Treaty was not based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points as the Germans had been promised it would. The loss of territory and population angered most Germans who believed that the losses were too severe. Germans thought the Treaty was a dictated peace. They had not been invited to the peace conference at Versailles and when the Treaty was presented to them they were threatened with war if they did not sign it. The Germans considered the Treaty of Versailles a harsh
peace. They were especially unhappy with Article 231, the so‐called War Guilt Clause, which declared that Germany (and Austria) were responsible for starting the war. The harsh treatment of Germany prevented the Treaty from creating a lasting peace in Europe. It created anger among Germans who regarded it as unfair. This determination provided the climate for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and in the end, to World War II. Hence, some scholars claim that the ‘Peace Treaty of Versailles was an imposed Peace’ and the ‘Second World War was started immediately after the settlement of First World War’. The First World War was supposed to be the war to end all war. However, the Treaty of Versailles is often criticized as the ‘Peace to end all Peace’. Germany was imposed to pay $33 billion in reparations that it was not capable of paying. Although economists at the time declared that such a huge sum could never be collected without upsetting international finances, the Allies insisted that Germany be made to pay, and the treaty permitted them to take punitive actions if Germany fell behind in its payments. The rise of fascism in Italy
under Mussolini in 1922 is linked to the fact that Italy was deprived of territories that were promised through a number of secret treaties before the War. The Paris Peace Conference was supposedly guided by the principle of self‐determination. However, the mixtures of peoples in Eastern Europe made it impossible to draw boundaries along neat ethnic lines and compromises had to be made. As a result of compromises, almost every eastern European state was left with ethnic minorities. The problem of ethnic minorities within nations would lead to later conflicts.

Realism

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

Realism is perhaps the most widely‐used theory in International Relations.

Realism (sometimes called ‘political realism’) claims to offer an account of world affairs that is ‘realistic’, in the sense that it is hard‐headed and (as realists sees it) devoid of wishful thinking and deluded moralizing.
Realists of all schools trace their intellectual heritage back to Thucydides, Hobbes.
Realism was the dominant way leaders in Europe in the seventeenth through early twentieth centuries understood international relations.
After World War II, scholars of international relations embraced realism as the dominant perspective for explaining global politics.
The chief advocate of the realist theory of international politics was Hans J. Morgenthau, considered the father of modern realist thought. His classic text, Politics among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, was first published shortly after World War II and carefully defined the realist theoretical perspective that most scholars would then adopt.
Because of this dominant position, in many ways, all of the other theoretical perspectives for understanding
global politics are reactions to and criticisms of realism.

Realism emphasizes that the international politics is anarchic: lack of authority in the international system, states have to look for self-help/Survival.
Realism views power as a defining feature of international politics that state face. –power link to military force/capability. The realism answers the question, why do states act the way they do in international politics? It is the maximization of power that is in a state’s interest.
Realism envisions states as essentially unitary actors, disregards other domestic actors. For realists, it is these states, and not their leaders, their citizens, business corporations, or international organizations, that are the key actors and determine what happens in the world.
Realism sees states as rational actors, making rational decision making Rationality does not mean that states always make the best or the “right” decisions, but rather that states “have consistent, ordered preferences, and that they calculate the costs and benefits of all alternative policies in order to maximize their utility.”
Realism analysis opposing states: states assess each other in terms of their power and capabilities, not in terms variations that exists within states like regime type.
Realism tend to see states as the key actors in the international system. Realists argue that international institution play a less important role than states. Hardcore realist believes that IO is established to manipulate great power interest in international relation.
Realism associate with its bottom line states exist in an international system that is characterized by competition and war and conflict is inevitable.

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.